User talk:Jusdafax/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

re: Thank You for the Welcome!
No worries. Cirt (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome
 Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for January has been published.  February's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

re Brian Wilson
I am sorry I am really not sure what is wrong or how to fix that. You may wish to try New contributors' help page. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wich Stand
Thanks for your reply. I'm surprised it hasn't gotten released somehow. I was hoping to hear it. :) The significance of an unreleased song isn't nearly as great as one that I can listen to. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jon Stebbins
Hi Jusdafax, my initial reaction is sometimes less is more. I think the sections are a little much given the small amount of text in each section. More references would help as well. If he has a website, how about adding a link to it? I'll make a couple of changes as a start. BTW - not a bad start. Hang in there... ttonyb1 (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How about adding any references to reviews about the books. Do you have any info about the BBC shows? ttonyb1 (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, if I can be of any more help, feel free to let me know. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Great Welcome, so after contemplation.... a Barnstar!
Many thanks. :) Cirt (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

David Marks
Jusdafax, give me a day or two to get to it. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is my pleasure. Reading about the Beach Boys takes me back to my youth. 8-)  ttonyb1 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I have read the article and agree it is beyond Stub-class. I notice you have requested an assessment of the article, they can provide a better assessment than I can and as such I will let them reset the article class.  It should happen soon and I look forward to seeing how they rate it.  BTW - one thing they may note is the article is based on very few references.
 * I look forward to reading your other additions and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia - it is very appreciated. ttonyb1 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks re: Ford Greene
Hi, as the one who started Ford Greene, I just wanted to thank you for the great work you did. I couldn't have done it better myself. --Tilman (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
– xeno  ( talk ) 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

re David Miscavige edits
I agree with your assessment - particularly the removal of a sourced paragraph of material. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the update. You appear not to have email enabled in Special:Preferences? Cirt (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Karl Rove
Hello Jusdafax:

Before you prejudge me, perhaps you should bother to contact me. I've left several messages on the Karl Rove talk page indicating where I have found problems with the article which is obviously slanted against Rove. You claim I must be pro-Rove, but that just tells me you're not interested in neutrality. This article attempts to only wrap this man in scandal and thus it diminishes the spirit of Wikipedia which is neutrality. I see lots of criticism and I see my work being randomly reverted, but I don't see anyone else attempting to neutralize this article. So please let's all know where you and the others stand on this. Is the agenda to smear Rove or is it to give the article neutrality. Please keep in mind the people who will come to Wikipedia to research this and any other topic. The first reaction would not be pleasant and for anyone who is only mildly well read, it will be obvious that the slant is against Rove.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize that it was THAT bad... I'd be willing to put my edits back and hold off on anything else until an admin looks at this if it will make life easier. Soxwon (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you two talking. I am not an admin, but I have a lot of experience with BLP cleanups. I did not see a problem with Soxwon's edits, and commented thusly on the BLP noticeboard. Try not to jump to conclusions about editors and an agenda you may perceive them to have. You may find it a lot easier to work productively with someone you disagree with than you expected. You might want to review WP:AGF as well. - Crockspot (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That is quite enough
If you have a problem with me being up front with how I stand then discuss it with me, don't go following me about trying to frame me as some sort of right-wing demagogue. You have concerns about the environment and San Fran on your userpage, yet you don't see me going around calling you a hippie Californian Green peace nutjob now do you? Soxwon (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jusdafax, you need to calm down, as a few people have told you. You appear to be looking for fights. Soxwon has done nothing untoward on Karl Rove, and has been entirely co-operative in his/her dealings. Where people have disagreed with his edits, s/he has listened, and tried to reach consensus. Repeatedly trying to bring disputes from other pages onto that one is simply not appropriate.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA
There is a section regarding you at the wikiquette board. Soxwon (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

WP:FILM September Election Voting
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Rfa
Thanks for your input, but I would like to politely ask precisely how a administrator actually needs experience writing articles? What would a admin do with that particular knowledge due to the fact that there are no admin tools which really require that type of experience. However, if you can think of some I would be very open to hearing about them. Again, I really am not trying to be confrontational, I just wanted to challenge the usual assertion that admins need content editing experience since I have not really seen any evidence of why they would. Thanks!

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 21:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Rfa
I closed my Rfa about an hour ago and left a strongly worded closing statement. I wanted to make sure that you know that I did not mean it in reference to you. Your remarks were kind and supportive and I am very appreciative. I, for the most part, left the message that I did because I felt that I offered a legitimate suggestion to be taken into consideration for future Rfa's that was dismissed because I was power-hungry, an accusation that I am deeply resent. In any case, I hope to see you around the encyclopedia.

Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 19:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Your rollback request
Hello Jusdafax, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert anything else (by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with) can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin. For practice, you may wish to see New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 23:31, 28 September 2009

UFC 108
Hi Jusdafax! While Huggling, I noticed that you were trying to fix some vandalism at UFC 108. However, in those instances, by just using Rollback, it wasn’t catching all the vandalism. It was reverting one instance of vandalism while putting back other instances of vandalism. If you scroll through the diffs on the page history you’ll see what I mean. In those instances, it is sometimes best to find the last clean version of the article and use Popups to revert to that version, which can be done regardless of the number of intervening editors. As regards UFC 108, an anonymous editor has fixed it for us. (P.S. If there is any response, please respond here to keep the thread together. I will have your page watchlisted for a few days. Thanks!) —  SpikeToronto  05:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (At your request I have copied and pasted my response from your talkpage to mine.)
 * Thanks for the advice. As you may have noticed, this is my first major use of Huggle, and this case was indeed good for my learning curve. Thanks again! Jusda  fax  05:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppets on Physician
Thank you for reverting these edits.

I don' know why, but this article attracts lots of anonymous editors who like to delete without any explanation. I have asked a sysop (User:Shii) to semiprotect the article -- he did this a month ago.

About 15 kilobytes (3/7 of the then total), including 2 large subsections, kept on being deleted by an apparent User:Nq0x77. One of the subsections (Other designations) has been in the article largely unchanged for well over a year; the wording here was earlier the subject of much discussion & editing because it concerned potentially controversial matters, but this was apparently resolved. When I tried Nq0x77's page to ask why, there was'nt one! No explanation of why the deletions are wise is shown on the Talk page. I've restored the article to the version left by User:Cubs197 earlier today, and you restored a further revert. The article has (or had)reached B class status, and is rated as top-importance, so I suggest major edits may merit at least some discussion, and I couldn't do this because User:Nq0x77 doesn't seem to be available.


 * User:Shii wrote to me: just blocked the sockpuppet instead. Shii (tock) 06:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC), and I have just replied: Thank you very much but, sadly, I think the same person is at it again, this time using a new and different sockpuppet (User: Pednursing ?), who has just made the same ~15kb deletion. Would semi-protect status stop this, or at least make it harder for him/her/it?

--DavidB 06:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

David I'll reply on my page, since it seems to be the thing to do. I'm not an admin, as you may know, was just on an anti-vandal patrol. That was a stubborn one! Agree that it smelled heavily of sock. Not sure what their problem is. I'll keep an eye on this page to help out. Jusda fax  07:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism
Your recent revert/warning of my edit to Antisemitism was incorrect, I was removing vandalism and you put it back in. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 03:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Our edits crossed. Thanks for your work! Jusda  fax  03:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I just didn't want you to think I was some neo-Nazi type. :) –Katerenka  (talk • contribs) 03:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bikram Yoga
Hi Jusdafax! I see you used Huggle to revert some edits to Bikram Yoga by a particular anonymous editor. However, for some reason, your Huggle did not place warnings on the anon’s talk page. Now there are some more edits by him/her that I want to revert only I would like them to escalate from yours. Hmmm … Maybe your Huggle needs a tune-up (i.e., re-configuration)! Thanks! —  SpikeToronto  05:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. If there’s a reponse, please respond here to keep the thread together. I will have your talk page watchlisted. Thanks! —  SpikeToronto  05:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's not consistent. Will check out your suggestion. Thanks! Jusda  fax  05:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your username, btw. It’s creative! —  SpikeToronto  06:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Careful!
Hi Jusdafax, careful with that there rollback! :) Doktor  Mandrake  03:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup yup. This is my third day or so now, and I'm getting better, but I have a lot to learn. That was an interesting case, looked like several of 'em, all going at once. Jusda  fax  03:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Impressive
Apparently you have .. uh, fans:  Toddst1 (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

 * Good stuff, keep it up. ;) Cirt (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My Talk Page Vandalism
Thanks for reverting that.

Much appriciated  Kira Chinmoku  ( Talk, My Contribs ) 16:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help! Jusda fax  16:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Olympic spirit
My edit adheres to the MoS, the prior version and thus your revert does not. --195.14.199.233 (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That may be. Go ahead and revert my version and see if it flies! Best wishes, Jusda  fax  18:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It will "fly" unless someone with no clue of the MoS reverts. --195.14.199.233 (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Slashinator X re: Libertarian Party (United States)
I dont know if this is where im suppose to talk to you but I was wondering what I did to the libertarian page that was bad?

I was just trying to make it more simple for people to read. Tell me which edits were bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlashinatorX (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears the specific edit I objected to is not the problem, so I withdraw my objection to that one. But I see I am not the only one who has had issues with your editing. It's borderline stuff that has to do with the style of an encylopedia. Read up on the links others gave you, study how good editing works, then try again. Best wishes,  Jusda  fax  21:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

SlashinatorX (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Hello this is my version of the Libertarian platform:

SlashinatorX (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC) The Libertarian views are a mixture of right wing economic policies & left wing social policies. Libertarians state that their platform follows from the consistent application of their guiding principle: mutual respect for rights. They are deeply supportive of the concept of individual liberty as a precondition for moral & stable societies. In their "Statement of Principles," they declare: "We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, & have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose." To this end, Libertarians want to reduce the size of government eliminating many of its current functions entirely. Libertarians reject the view of politics as a 1-dimensional spectrum, divided between Democrats & Liberals representing the left-wing or center-left & Republicans & Conservatives representing the right-wing or center right. To illustrate their view that the 1-dimensional view of politics is insufficient to describe the myriad political philosophies held by the public, Libertarians introduced the Nolan chart to communicate their belief that politics is at least 2-dimensional. A variation of the Nolan chart is enhanced by a 10-question poll (5 questions dealing with economic-freedom issues & 5 questions dealing with personal-freedom issues), which it bills as "The world's smallest political quiz," allowing respondents to classify their political leanings. Among outside political watchers, some consider Libertarians to be Conservative because of their support for the right to bear arms & opposition to gun control, their opposition to economic regulation & government intervention, opposition to entitlement programs in almost all forms, opposition to socialism & communism, their pro-military & non-pacifist views, & their views against high taxes, with strong support for the repeal of the 16th amendment & states' rights). Others consider them Liberal because of their beliefs of a non-interventionist foreign policy, the legalization of some drugs including restrictions on tobacco & alcohol, the elimination of laws that interfere with private consensual acts such as prostitution, gambling, & pornography, their beliefs that government should stay out of people's personal sexual affairs such as fornication & mixed age relationships, & their acceptance for people who are non-Christian & non-religious. Libertarians consider themselves neither Conservative or Liberal. Rather they believe they have a different view that is all their own. The party advocates limiting the government as much as possible within the confines of the American constitution. As in any political party there is some internal debate about the platform, & not all of the party's supporters advocate its complete or immediate implementation, but most think that America would benefit from most of its proposed changes.

Was that terrible? SlashinatorX (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The trouble with your post is I don't know what changes you have made to the original, so I can't compare it to the current version. No, it's not terrible. But you should know that one of the key foundations of Wikipedia is references and sourcing. You need to show where information... especially controversial or semi-controversial information... actually comes from.  If you progress into writing and editing here, you will need to learn the way to do this.


 * I'd say, post your version (after you preview it to make sure that it is an improvement over the original) and then see if you can learn the way to cite sources and references. One way to do this is to look at other people's edits, where they make references. This is called coding (you may already know this) and allows one to establish material as referenced.  The source should be reliable and notable, or it may be challenged.


 * There are many other things it is important to know in order to write a good Wikipedia article, or even just make decent edits. Remember to fill out the "Edit summary" before you post, this gives other editors a better idea of your thinking. Also, please put new material on talk pages at the bottom; this allows easy reading of new material (you will note I've moved this thread to where it should be.)


 * You seem sincere, just uninformed of the complexity that is Wikipedia. It's like anything else, if you work at it, you get better.  Some admins will "mentor" those who request help in learning the ropes. (I'm not an admin, as you probably know.) Best of luck  to you!  Jusda  fax  23:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So you don't think there is anything wrong with my article? Well other administrators have told me that the ampersand& isnt allowed on here. I think thats stupid. The ampersand& is shorter & more efficent. I also think instead of writing "two" people should write 2. I also added extra information about the Libertarian party views.SlashinatorX (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Strasburg, Virginia
Take a look again. Besides being overly spammy on unreferenced events, I restored the entire demographics section and removed a bit of derogatory vandalism. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. I was trying to revert the material on "Mrs. Ashley" and her dog. I'll zap it. Sorry 'bout that. May I suggest you start a Wikipedia identity? It's a sure way to be regarded with an extra level of consideration. Best to you, Jusda  fax  00:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, you beat me to it. Good work! Jusda fax  00:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bethlehem Central School District
Did you even review the Article guidelines for schools, which I referenced in my first edit summary? Unless the board members are notable, they shouldn't be included. And it's not vandalism, so you should take the time to remove the warnings from my talk page. Unlike the last inappropriate warning you left there. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just carefully read the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines... I think your confusion is in the area of the definition of the word 'administrators'. My understanding is that an elected school board member is not an administrator, but an elected official who has run a public campaign, was on a ballot, now is a seated official with a vote in how the school is actually run, and therefore is notable, particularly in reference to the school he or she is representing. Removing information of this type therefore becomes vandalism, or so it seems to me.


 * Now, I may be wrong about how Wikipedia defines this. I'm not much of a wiki-lawyer, so I'm willing to look at any other Wikipedia guidelines, or other policies you may produce. It could be this falls between the cracks, so to speak. But so far I'm not convinced you have a case here.  With cordial concern,  Jusda  fax  03:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing members' names was in accord with WP:WPSCH/AG, and the user cited WP:WPSCH/AG when first removing it. That's not vandalism, it's following policy. The list of names is at the linked website, can be seen there by clicking the link, and needn't be maintained and updated here as well. Since you find the policy unclear on this point, view the article that policy gives as a good example: Dallas Independent School District, which likewise does not list Board members' names. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to respectfully disagree. These school board members have to run a public campaign for office.  It takes time, money and effort, the campaign is waged in public, etc. Since you cite a school district, I'll cite one as well... The Dixie School District. I think we have hit on an area that is not clearly defined to some. Again... is a school board member an "administrator", in the use of the word in 'What not to include'? This is the core of the issue. Happy to get it resolved one way or the other, as I have zero stake in it.  But I'm just not convinced you and the original deleter have a case here. Hoping for a resolution, with good intentions,  Jusda  fax  03:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference in the examples is, WP:WPSCH/AG gives Dallas Independent School District as "a fine example", and does not mention the little stub Dixie School District at all. Thank you for alerting me to the error at the latter page, though; that has now been corrected. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way, tagging it as vandalism and using Huggle to do so is inappropriate. I suggest you pause to review WP:VAND and WP:VAND. I'm unimpressed with your use of Huggle and rollback, it should only be used for reverting vandalism, not other user's edits with which you disagre. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Steven Zhang. If you find the policy unclear, or differ with 98.248.33.198 on its application, then you may have an argument about it — but not valid grounds to call 98.248.33.198 a "vandal" for following policy as he understands it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tuff
SORRY BOUT THAT, MAN, I WAS TRYIN. I COULDA SWORE IT WAS ULTRAMUFFIC LIKE AN ULTRAMUFF BUT YOU GOTTA KNOW YOUR TUFF, MAN, I RESPECT YOUR DEDICATION AND I LOVE YOU.--America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.80.116 (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not positive. And allow me to undo the warning you got. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  04:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Once again you revert and warn without looking at the actual edit. I was requesting protection to prevent the page from being created, as it's the target of a persistent vandal. This is at least the third time you've completely missed the mark with me. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. On the other hand, I saw you doing some good work today. And you will note I made amends. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  04:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just take a bit more time and look at what you're actually reverting, and reverting to, before hitting the save page button (or whatever it's called in HG). It will prevent a lot of problems. And be careful of anti-IP bias - there's quite a few long-time editors who choose not to have an account, and we know the policies, guidelines, MOS and essays quite well. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted. Anti-IP bias is a tough one to fight, but I'll work on it... easily 80% of vandals are IP users. On the other hand I helped ban a named one today, handle of 'Faxboy', whose name was depressingly similar to my own.  Jusda  fax  05:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Halil Altıntop
and again... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked to see if there was an edit summary. Seeing none, seeing a big chunk missing, having repaired three other articles that had chunks deleted, I assumed you were a vandal, but not being 100% positive, I just reverted, no warning. Soooo.... I'll hereby memorize your IP, if you will put even a couple words in the edit summary to clue fast workers like me in. Deal? Best, Jusda  fax  20:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, this really isn't good enough. What are you going to do to prevent this sort of incident from reoccuring. Please realize that there are a lot of vandal fighters, and if you don't revertvit, someone else will. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  21:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My request for an edit summary, even a brief one, isn't enough? Jusda  fax  21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As a rollbacker, the onus is on you to double check edits that don't have edit summaries. This includes IPs. RC patrol isn't a race, and IP editor + no edit summary does not automatically = vandalism. Misuse of rollback can lead to it's removal. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  21:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will make every effort to comply with your request. Jusda  fax  21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you forget to undo your edit once the editor informed you there was an issue? Look, the reason I'm making a big deal about this is because I'm concerned this will happen again. What will you do to prevent this from happening again? Taking and passing these two would satisfy my concerns. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you have since reverted my edit. I was not asked to do so by 98.248.33.198, but would have been happy to do so. I have now memorized 98.248.33.198's IP, and will be taking great care not to revert anything s/he does, as I am largely a fan of his/her work, though I could wish for even a short edit summary. I will also be sure to take greater care elsewhere. Also, I'll look into the links you have provided. Hope this addresses your concerns! Best wishes,  Jusda  fax  21:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

←I'm satisfied you feel apologetic about this incident. Always check what you reverted, especially if you get messages about them. You should take those lessons soon, they'd help you a lot. Post on my talk page when you're ready. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  21:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Memorizing my IP address isn't the answer because it's not just about me - your rollback practices have the potential to impact any IP editor. I wonder with great concern how many other valid edits you have reverted because you didn't get past the summary to look at the substance of the edit. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude!?
Watch your reverts but I assume this revert was somehow made in good faith as an electronic mixup because it says you reverted 2 of my revisions when in fact I made only one. Awickert (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that wasn't my intent. As you say, the message indicates a glitch. Sorry about how it worked out. Jusda  fax  17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nooo problem - thanks for all the vandalism-fighting. Awickert (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Since I started using huggle, it has astonished me how many people want to damage the project. Best to you, Jusda  fax  17:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For this. I also appreciate all your help on the recent changes page. Keep up the good work.  Tide  rolls  03:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an honor to help. Congrats on 'Wikipedian of the Day', by the way. Jusda fax  03:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks.  Tide  rolls  13:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

changes I made to National Pro Fastpitch
Hi - I see that you have already undone your undoing of my edit and have removed the message you left on my talk page. Lest you have any doubts about what I was trying to do with the National Pro Fastpitch article allow me to further explain that I merely tried to move the "See also" section up above the "References" and the "External links" sections, as recommended at WP:LAYOUT. It is true that I placed the single item list "Sources" into the "References" section, but I hope to work an in line citation for that source using ref tags at an appropriate spot (or I may simply cite Steve Dimitry's web site directly as a primary source). I hope that explains my intent adequately. I was not trying to remove material, merely trying to comply with the relevant section of the style guide. 69.119.24.98 (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What fooled me was a couple random letters left over at the start, which is often the mark of a fast-moving vandal. On review, the rest of the edit was fine, but my huggle screen froze so I manually reverted. Thanks for not reacting, and taking the time to explain. Happy editing! Jusda  fax  04:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for butting in...I wanted to let you know that the "Undo" feature on Huggle almost never works for me. For those times that I have reverted in error I have resorted to undoing the edit from the article edit page.  I'm thinking that you've already discovered this, but I wanted to let you know about the poor "Undo" function.  See ya 'round  Tide  rolls  13:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Huggle
Just so you know, with this revert, you reverted one edit to another vandalised edit. Regards, Daniel (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I often catch those, and trace 'em back to the last good version. Thanks for pointing out that one. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  04:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hey thanks. I'm not needy, but 14k+ edits in and my first barnstar! Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well-deserved and overdue, I assure you. Since I started heavy patrolling last week I see you all over the place! Jusda fax  06:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
for the barnstar. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your welcome... my pleasure, actually. You are doing great work. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  19:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sahara Edit
I reverted the vandalism made by 82.171.170.112 in my edit to Sahara. The edit summary also correctly summarised this. Please explain why this is unconstructive. Thanks. Liverpoolfan567 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. Your edit went in a half second before I clicked. You will note I undid both my edit and your warning. Happy editing! Jusda fax  19:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Hi Jusdafax! , thanks for reverting Vandalism on my user page Atif.t2 (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to help! Jusda  fax  23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice
Thanks but don't understand revert because added sections seems okay by wiki standards but if it's a hot page I'll quit it. (Li Cunxin ie and had edit summary too)

I reverted it back. I looked carefully (after restoring 4-5 pages in a row), it looked like more content blanking, after the revert that no longer seemed clear, so I re-reverted. Jusda fax  23:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI
The edit on the Catherine de Medici article was actually removing an act of vandalism (someone had inserted a reference to either themselves or someone they know which did not belong). After viewing the preview of this removal and clicking "save page", someone had vandalised the page with obscenities in the mean time and therefore when I clicked "save" it appeared as though I endorsed the vandalism. Usually, when someone has modified a page while someone else had been editing, a message comes up indicating this but there was no such message this time. A glitch perhaps? Anyway, long story short, I do not wish to be labelled a vandal as I've done nothing wrong. It obviously was in error, but I simply wish to maintain my good name on Wikipedia. Cheers! Lucky Strike (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Lckystrke

Noted and Removed That was a fast-moving vandal war, and your version got caught in the middle. My apologies, and I have of course removed the notice on your talk page. Best to you, Jusda  fax  15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Lucky Strike (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Lckystrke

No, thank YOU, for doing good work and not overreacting to my mistake. Good fortunes, Lucky! Jusda fax  15:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Vandal Efforts
By the way, watch that guy. He vandalized that page again. --Delta1989 (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! And... I'll put the page on my watchlist. Best wishes always, Jusda  fax  00:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For this. They proclaimed it like it wasn't already well known :o\  Tide  rolls  03:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL! yeah, the life of an anti-vandal patroller is a lonely one, I find. Best always, Jusda  fax  03:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your message
Regarding your message, could you please take another look at my edit? I have merely removed promotional material that does not belong in an encyclopedia. Thank you for your guidance. 99.152.115.143 (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done Sorry for the mistake. Looked like content blanking. Jusda fax  04:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-p
I've semiprotected your user page due to recent spat of vandalism. Let me know if you want it unprotected. Vsmith (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had some discussions with IP-named contributors, so after several hours of thought I guess I'll ask you to put it back to unprotected. Thanks though, I appreciate the thought. Jusda fax  05:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Vsmith (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You're fast
You're fast at reverting vandalism =D. So much vandalism going on now. Cya! Netalarm  talk  21:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah it seems to be the thing to do if your team loses, for example, go vandalize the other team players' Wikipedia articles. Silly. Jusda fax  22:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

BMF Article
Are you a moderator? Could you please stop this "Strong01" Or "Goodman1387" from blanking out the same exact section that is more than thoroughly sourced? He's done this like 10 times and I've had to undo it every time or someone else has. jlcoving (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am merely a vandal-fighter who has been using the huggle rollback tool to stem the ever-growing vandal tide. The term you mean is "administrator"... and the place to complain about persistent vandism is Administrator intervention against vandalism. Read the intro carefully before adding a complaint. Good luck and best wishes. Jusda  fax  23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

vandalism
hi, where is the vandalism. i added the casualties of 51st division. the division participated in operation perch and the overall casualties are unknown... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.127.100 (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looked like content blanking. I'll remove the warning and undo my revert, assuming good faith on your part. Best, Jusda  fax  00:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the rescue operation!
Should get me a vandalism counter. Favonian (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they add to the humor. And you are quite welcome, people are saving my own page all the time. Best, Jusda  fax  08:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Halcyon days
Do you feel that;

a) this list has any value to the understanding of analysis of the subject, or

b) it could ever be integrated into a serious section rather than remain an ever-expanding, topic-derailing list of uselessness?

I felt that WP understood the harm these lists caused articles when their presence serves no purpose to the article themselves, and merely serve as an excuse for the adder to link to a favourite subject of their choice. To make clear that my edit was not vandalism, I included a rationale in the summary...

Best, 88.105.85.28 (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing warning, assuming good faith. To be frank, I'm not sure of this issue, but you do not seem to be a vandal. Try again, or if you want me to, I'll revert it back. Jusda  fax  20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why I have been notified. I'm guessing I reverted the article at some point while I was on anti-vandal patrol? Thanks, Jusda  fax  08:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Awesome job!
Great job at removing all that vandalism from the Rachel Maddow article!! (probably due to that heated interview that just aired). Great work! tommy talk2me  01:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are quite welcome. That was indeed a persistent attack. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!
Wow, I didn't realize my Page was getting Vandalized so much until I saw the history. Thanks so much for cleaning it up! --Vishnu2011 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine gets hit and saved by others all the time of late, so it's a pleasure to help a fellow vandal-fighter out. Good fortunes to you, Jusda  fax  05:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rrburke
Yeah, I know what I wrote, He doesn't seem to think that companies house is a valid source? I've already put a link to the [Companies House] Page for heaven's sake, And explained that a more direct link isn't practical. Andthere are other comments which indicate he has a "delete now, delete again, ask questions someday" attitude.

This is starting to look like "Not valid because we say so" which is an indication of being a childish jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.173.231 (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, your comment to the talk page in question was reverted by myself for obvious reasons, and most Wikipedians would agree it was in questionable taste, though not as bad as much of what I revert. As to the issues that prompted your comment, I'm in no position to judge, as I haven't followed them.  I am not an administrator, merely a vandal fighter, and for all I know you have a good case.  If right is on your side, and if you can control your temper (a tricky proposition for many of us), eventually you are likely to prevail. May what should be, shall be. Best wishes,  Jusda  fax  02:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For this restoration of my talk page. My laziness in getting here to say thanks doesn't reflect the value I place on your help. Keep up the good work  Tide  rolls  11:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You have no idea (well, perhaps you do) how pleased I am to be able to help. Thanks for the thanks! Jusda  fax  17:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA nonsense..
well said. You would think a Pope was being elected. Leaky Caldron  21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(Literally laughs out loud, not just types it.) Thanks. Yeah, it's getting to be too much, no matter what one's views are of Kww, the process, or even Wikipedia itself. We seem to be in a debate about having a consensus to talk about some kinda newfangled 'probationary admin'... yikes! Jusda fax  21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.
I just wanted to thank you for reverting those vandalizing edits to my userpages. :-) Daniel Benfield (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. One of the benefits of fightin' vandals is that you get to visit a lot of interesting pages. Yours is quite edifying! My best regards, Jusda  fax  15:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly a Hero around here!
Haha, thank you very much for reverting the disruptive vandalism to my page. Said IP address has been making non-constructive edits to the same pages (Delta Goodream, Project Runway (season 6)) frequently, and on numerous other IP identities (all Australian, I've discovered). I was unsure about labeling the user a vandal, but I think that's clear now =). Their edits to PR:S6 have been the exact same, inconsistent edits (unbolding names, uncapitalizing labels, randomly rearranging lists of team challenges, un-Wikilinking airdates, etc.)....Since I'm not accustomed to dealing with this, for now and the future, what's the next course of action to take? I'd appreciate any help you can give me in the matter. (I posted one warning, which I copied from another vandal's (of PR:S6) talk page, but I want to make sure I'm taking the right steps. Thanks in advance!--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt. 04:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help! As to reporting, just go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism Don't forget to read the messages on the reporting procedure before you hit send! Best wishes, Jusda  fax  04:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorceror (horse)
Please explain how this could be considered vandalism. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy to. Just go to the talk page of the now-blocked user YoyoMaJr. who put the now-reverted entry into the Sorceror (horse) page. See what this vandal's method has been? Happy to answer any further questions, but I'm sure you see what the situation is!
 * For ease, the page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:YoyoMaJr.
 * Best, Jusda  fax  05:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand the sitch - new editor trying to create articles, not providing references, removing deletion tags. I also don't see how that edit, which you reported as vandalism, could possibly be seen as vandalism. Changing a wikilink to point to the correct article is usually considered a good thing. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My initial google search failed to turn up the horse Time Limit, so I reasoned it was elaborate vandalism. I now see, after trying different wordings in google, that there is indeed such a horse and that the entry is valid. It therefore appears you are correct in your stated assessment of the situation, and although as you note, YoyoMaJr made some critical errors, he is not the hardcore vandal I figured him for.  I have gone to revert the edit; however I see you have already done so. For the record, Yoyo had already been reported to  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism at the time of my edit, my edit extended his report but was not the one that got him blocked.


 * Now, since in the last month you're far and away my most critical critic, if you will, I take you very seriously indeed. Despite several anti-vandal barnstars and various notes of thanks, I am well aware I have lots to learn. It is clear you are highly experienced, if also irascible, but I have gained a lot from your comments. Thanks for giving me a clue both now and in the past, and rest assured I take your observations as constructive.  Best wishes,  Jusda  fax  06:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit to your talk page
I have reason to believe that your talk page was edited by a roommate of mine who used my account (possibly while inebriated) for purposes of vandalism or harrassment. I foolishly failed to log myself out of Wikipedia before this occurred. Needless to say I have reverted these troubling and of-questionable-taste edits but I understand they are still visible in the history section of this article. Please accept my humblest apologies with the assurance that my username and password will be altered and greater security will prevail as regards my laptop!

Embarrasedly, Texas Longhorn Cow Patrol (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Best, Jusda  fax  08:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kww's RfA

 * From user talk:Ikip

Now that it is (virtually) all over, allow me to express my admiration for your brave standup in the Kww RfA... Your courage was inspiring, and gave me the strong feeling I had to join you. A lonely moment when it was 10-2! Also your charts were excellent, as well. I've offered an olive branch to Kww; his unflappability was noteworthy. See you down the road, with regards, Jusda  fax  10:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is very touching. One thing I did not mention at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion‎, but could have, is part of the reason there may have been no opposes before me:
 * The Kww RFA 3 went live at 23:40, 9 October 2009.
 * Tanthalas39 (supporter #4) removed the hidden notice in the RFA for the support section at 00:06, 10 October 2009.:
 * ...but didn't remove the same notice in the oppose section.
 * By the time I commented at RFA Kww 3 at 07:05, 10 October 2009, there were already 14 supports,
 * At 07:26, 10 October 2009, I removed the same confusing notice in the oppose section:
 * Anyway, thought I would share that with someone. Thanks for your kind words and support. Your comments were inspiring and intellegent. We should keep in touch. Ikip (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, thought I would share that with someone. Thanks for your kind words and support. Your comments were inspiring and intellegent. We should keep in touch. Ikip (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, thought I would share that with someone. Thanks for your kind words and support. Your comments were inspiring and intellegent. We should keep in touch. Ikip (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ikip, I'm actually highly humbled by your Barnstar, and will try to live up to it in future discussion. This is an honor, and highly appreciated. I look forward to future interaction with you, please contact me anytime. Best, Jusda  fax  18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

71.250.218.210 is a school IP address.
The IP address 71.250.218.210 belongs to a high school, and should be blocked or restricted from making edits. Thank you. 71.250.218.210 (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are under the impression I am an administrator; I'm merely an editor with the rollback tool. My understanding is that high schools cannot be blocked per se, but I could well be wrong. I suggest taking particular issues/reports you may have to this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism and be sure to read the info carefully on how to report your complaint. Best wishes to you! Jusda fax  18:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your Message
Did you bother to read the talk page when you reverted me? BluefieldWV (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, no. I saw a referenced section being blanked, but my intent was not to get into a discussion on the section's merits but to undo what seemed to be vandalism. I'll undo, remove your warning at your request, and let others sort this matter out. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  17:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
...for reverting vandalism on my user page. Have a cookie! 

BlazerKnight has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

BlazerKnight (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Hey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.223.191 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits
I rereverted back that piece, it is important to state Dublin's effect on Ireland being defined as a primate city. I added refs and edit comments --87.232.123.231 (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, had not heard the term primate city before. See message on your talk page. (I partly suspect I'm being put on, but am assuming good faith.) Best wishes, Jusda  fax  01:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

See: http://geography.about.com/od/geographyglossaryp/g/ggprimatecity.htm it's a geographical term and http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pr/primate_city.htm which should leave you in no doubt. It's on the Irish Curriculum study of Geography in Ireland to discuss urbanisation/population in Dublin. --87.232.123.231 (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Francesco Totti
I do not think you caught all the vandalism of Francesco Totti. See this. The vandalism seems to be ongoing. -- allen四names 01:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Done - I got it just before you posted. Thanks! The page is on my watchlist now. 01:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. -- allen四names 01:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit
Regarding this, I'm not sure we really need to warn authors for blanking their own pages. While I normally would agree that removing a speedy tag is bad, a blanking is just equivalent to asking for a db-blank (which I had already stuck on, but have since left as a G12, since you reverted his blanking). Anyway, no big deal, but wanted to let you know. -- B figura  (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted, fooled by the difference in the lettering of Andy Chun and Andychun. Thanks for the note, always striving to better. Jusda fax  05:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Huggle
Thank you.  Zoo Fari  01:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help! Jusda fax  01:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

hey
Do not revert my edits. Thanks --Whatsup90 (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC) If your edits are vandalism, they will be reverted. Why not step into the light and help build an encyclopedia? Jusda fax  16:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No porblem dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.111.86 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

re third hand smoke
Hi there,

Rather than keep this back and forth revision on this section, perhaps a little negotiation/discussion might solve the problem.

I am a researcher who has studied this particular issue of third hand smoke and the relevant articles. It is not so much an interest as it was my job. The main problem is that the science has been lost in the politicalization of the issue.

Though third hand smoke itself describes something, no one has ever determined any actual health effects arising from it. Its not a matter of debate; you can measure it but it no effect has been found. What is more important it that the second article was (and please just read the article (it is freely accessible on the web)), a phone survey along the lines of telling people about third hand smoke and then essentially "if this was true, would you be worried about it?". And of course, any right thinking parent would be concerned..IF it was true. That then was promoted as evidence for the effects of 3rd hand smoke.

This spread like wildfire through print media and the web. Anti-smoking activists other than ASH-US were rightly concerned that this fiction would undermine their good work to date. As witness the comments to those articles, most people found the concept absurd.

As I said, there is no scientific evidence by anyone anywhere supporting health effects of 3rd hand smoke, nor is there a reasonable expectation that such small amounts could cause anything.

Thank you,

Pbergen1 (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)pbergen


 * Thanks for your post. I'm not prepared to dispute you with citations, which is why I reverted with no vandalism warnings. Since I have no idea what the final truth of the matter is, put your cited information back up and let the Wikipedia community discuss the merits of the case. Yours in hopes that "the truth will out", Jusda  fax  17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean by my cited information. (Looks like you have left my final version...thank you).All my information is contained within or is derived from the already cited materials. The first study presents measurments but without any health effects, the second study presents an opinion survey and no actual evidence, and since no studies exist that prove any effects of this phenomenon, I cannot cite them. Not being difficult, just trying to understand.

The last citation (Roni) is a good example of media spreading information without examining the origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.181.31 (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Question
how was my edits innapprpriate82.25.201.246 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed my warning, it appears I was error. Jusda  fax  18:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Your warning on the IP editor
I thought you were correct. I rolled back his change (which he has since re-added) adding the article subject to the gay politicians category. That's not in the article Ray Collins (trade unionist).

Leaky Caldron  18:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a reference to what appeared to be a gay political news source. My original edit was based on the fact that virtually all edits with the word gay in them are vandalism. You may well be right. Jusda fax  18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That was Pinknews which I hadn't spotted when I did the initial rollback. It doesn't say anything about the subject. I think it was a bit of mischief judging by his previous edit to Peter Mandleson.  ;)  Cheers.  Leaky  Caldron  19:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Penis
Damn! You reverted that before I could!

You are too fast!!

Varlaam (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oaks and Homophobia
I provided a full citation that proves Oaks' homophobia. How the fuck is that vandalism?


 * Re: the Dallin H. Oaks article, calling or (if you are correct) naming someone not only a homophobe but a racist is serious stuff on Wikipedia. You are citing a book that, of course, I do not have access to. I will not revert you again, since I am supposed to assume good faith, but I urge you to reconsider your edit. Take the material you have to the Oaks talk page, let editors know what you propose, and let it get discussed. This will be controversial.


 * Remember, if you are wrong about this, the potential exists for Wikipedia to be impacted harshly. I'm putting this page on my watchlist (I see another editor has already reverted it, no doubt with the same concerns I have) and will await further developments. May right prevail. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  17:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * UPDATE I see you and User:Favonian are discussing this on his talk page. May I suggest you review RS which may help you to understand how Wikipedia works? Thanks,  Jusda  fax  18:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Second Update Going to User:Henrik's page and attacking him isn't helping your cause. Had you been willing to discuss this, you would not be blocked. Jusda  fax  18:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Blanking pages
In this edit you used Huggle to warn User:Katied111 not to blank pages. However, in this case the page blanked was an article which Katied111 had created, and which was tagged for a prod. My understanding is that in this situation it is considered acceptable for a user to blank the article, provided there is no substantial contribution from any other editor, and this is taken as an acceptance that the article can be deleted, per WP:CSD G7. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed warning. Thanks for letting me know of this. Of late some vandals will make a series of edits, then blank the page. This editor has warnings from other sources on other topics, so I reasoned that documenting a warning was reasonable. I've removed the warning with an apology. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  13:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning to IP
If you are placing a warning on the page of another could you please make sure that they are in order you placed a level 1 warning here after a level 4 warning had been given a minute previous, thanks. BigDunc 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice Huggle sometimes glitches. This is a new one. Sorry about that. Let me know if I han help in this matter in any way. Jusda  fax  17:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Funky House IS popular with the gays
All my gay friends love Funky House. Why you being so homophobic? 92.11.207.12 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit.
Hi those edits were made in the context of an intended (and requested) move from Who Framed Roger Rabbit (video game) to Who Framed Roger Rabbit (disambiguation), per WP:D. Please could you consider reverting the edits and making the move for me? Many thanks, --MegaSloth (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't quite get what this is about. You are not an established editor, so you have no track record on which I can judge your intent. I will assume good faith to this extent: Suggest you go ahead and do the work, I will stand by on further action and see how it develops. Thanks, Jusda  fax  15:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. The changes are now complete as intended. --MegaSloth (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've monitored your changes. Sorry I doubted you. Will remove the warning from your talk page. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ramon Fernandez
In what way am I "vandalizing" the Mon Fernandez entry exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.227.192.191 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To be frank, I often revert overblown, unsourced claims that someone is "widely considered" to be the "best" at a particular sport or other field. The multiple edits made it look like you originated the phrase; I see now I was wrong and that the phrase has been in the article for some time. I'll assume good faith on your part, revert my revert and remove your warning, and let others with better knowledge of this matter be the judge. A cautionary word... I suspect the current wording, if continued unsourced, will be challenged sooner or later. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  17:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Block me!
Please could you block me until Janurary 1st 2010?--Bloccati (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are serious, you would need an administrator for that. I am not an admin. Jusda  fax  18:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks-ish type message
Thankyou for reverting vandalism on my talk page. I did undo it, but that's because I'm going to try a new approach with vandals. But I still appreciate it, so thanks. :-) Lord Spongefrog,  (I am the Czar of all Russias!)  21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. - Have you ever though about archiving your paaage?? It's getting a bit long, Lord Spongefrog,  (I am the Czar of all Russias!)  21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the backup. I've found a works to get the vandals off you.  Burner 0718  JibbaJabba!  19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In good faith
I did minor edit to alpha 1 antitrypsin deficiency in good faith but was reverted as it was considered vandalism. I didnt expected that.User:Adnan saqib —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC).


 * I may be in error, so I reverted my edit and removed your warning, and left a message on your talk page to that effect. Best wishes, Jusda  fax  17:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)