User talk:Jw2034

Image tagging for Image:Klute nightclub.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Klute nightclub.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Scotland
I'm so sorry that I made wrong judgments when I edited the article. I always try to be careful, yet make stupid mistakes. Please forgive me. And thank you for pointing out my mistakes. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw my edit and knew that I didn't do anything wrong. Oda Mari (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My issue is with not only your edits but reapeated unjustified accusations of vandalism against myself and others. Please address this. --Jw2034

Re: last-minute goals
Yes, I was reordering them chronologically in the edit page and obviously didn't review it all that closely afterwards. Listing them in "order of importance", however, is point-of-view, especially when done by one person. For instance, why is the World Cup, the sport's biggest event, at the bottom? - Dudesleeper / Talk  13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Catagorised nowJw2034 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

About your edit at Liverpool
I won't revert it, but to clarify, what European Champion Clubs' Cup states, and the pdf from UEFA states, is that once a team has won it five times the team gets to keep the cup, and a new one is made in its place for next year. So Liverpool would have been allowed to keep it. ← chandler 23:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

They keep a full size replica Jw2034 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to like putting your orr in where it's not needed. Who are you to threaten people when I've given proper reasons for my edits? Are you just acting like a cunt or can you give a good reason?

Grow up son. Jw2034 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tiptoety talk 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong here. There is an active dispute regarding the article, and you jumped in and continued that edit war. WP:3RR clearly states that you do not have to actually make more than 3 reverts to be blocked for it, but instead be continualy making reverts in a manner that is disruptive or continues a edit war, which you reverts clearly did. I was simply leaving you a courtesy warning just in case you were unaware of the 3rr rule, so that you would not accidentally violate it, resulting in a block. I thank you for now taking your concerns to the talk page, where they belonged all along. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 00:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The active dispute has been resolved on the talk page, as of sometime yesterday. You are not only too late, your warnings are unconstructive. Please contribute to the arguement, rather than seeking technical issue. Again, i expected an administrator to note Revision history of Premier League 2007-08 and Talk:Premier League 2007-08 that this dispute has been resolved since 21:56, 20 May 2008 (quite some time before your unnecessary warning). please be more judicious in future. Jw2034 (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Contributing to the "argument" is not what a uninvolved administrator does, they try and stop a edit war not inflame it. And my opinion was to warn all the users involved in the edit war (which might I add is not a technical solution. Also, you clearly made a revert at 20:40 May 20th which was reverted later, and then you once again reverted that which then was reverted again. I simply came in after that and let you know that you may violate 3RR if you continue to revert, you were not blocked. I really am not seeing what the big deal is. Tiptoety  talk 00:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My issue is the last edit I made was at 21:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC). You placed the warning on my talk page at 14:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC), long long after the arguement was concluded (properly, on the article talk page) and no further edits were made. Further, 2 of the so called reverts you mention were minor edits by a user supporting my arguement - one wasnt a revert at all. You intervention was a bit unnecessary, blunt and over-officious and most importantly very late! please be a little more judicious in future before firing off threats of bans. thanks, and good night. Jw2034 (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was well aware that you had stopped reverting, I was simply informing you that if you continue there is a possibility of a block, nothing more. (I am not sure how many times I can say that). Also, it was not a threat, but a simple warning, the same warning every user receives when they are involved in a edit war. Tiptoety  talk 01:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Independence
Your edits to the Scottish Independence are welcomed, but the manner in which you are doing them is extremely disruptive. Please stop automatically reverting other's edits and discuss the changes before reverting. Edit wars are unproductive, and while you have currently avoided breaching the 3 reverts rule, you should keep in mind that edit warring can still get you blocked. Please use the talk pages. Thank you. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Is funny when the person you're edit warring with warns you on rules...revert,revert, revert...Jw2034 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop being so combative and try and reach consensus. The only revert I have did was on marking edits you have entered that required cites, something you refused at first to acknowledge. I see you have attempted to rectify this (with mixed success), thank you. However, your first 5 edits on the article today was to revert others edits and you have done 9 reverts today. If you would stop this headlong rush and try and discuss the edits, you'd see I have not so much as touched the article today. What you are doing is not how to improve the article and only causes frustration to everyone. Please stop this and use the talk page. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 23:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

...Be Bold!Jw2034 (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Echoes (Pink Floyd song)
Hi. If I take the time and trouble to rip this track from the CD, hoick it into CoolEdit, grab the screen image and upload it here, complete with a Fair-Use rationale, I would at least expect the courtesy of being believed. Why would you not think it was Echoes? I've replaced it, obviously. -- Rodhull andemu  11:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no need to be snarky. The point of the image is to represent the dynamic variation exhibited across the various sections of the piece, as has been done in some other musical articles; to explain this in words would not be reasonably possible. I argue that it is a fair use since it in no way compromises the rights of the copyright owner since it would be impossible to reconstruct the recording from the image. As for ripping tracks from CDs, where do you think most of our fair-use audio samples come from? It is asserted that it is a representation of the track in question; verification requires that to be checkable. In the same way that if I take and upload a photograph of a shopping centre anyone who wanted to verify this could simply go there and see it for themselves, verification of the "Echoes" image is obtainable by repeating the work that I did. An audio clip to show that would definitely not be fair use since it would have to be all of the piece, and indefensible. However, have your own way. I don't care. I've had enough of my work here destroyed for it not to matter any more. -- Rodhull andemu  12:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, i'd disagree with most of that but the points that it addded nothing and was meaningless stand. Perhaps if you're having many of your edits reverted you should reread How to edit a page? thanks.Jw2034 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I keenly appreciate satire, as an editor here for nearly 14 months with nearly 25000 edits, three WP:GAs, several WP:DYKs, and an Admin, er, I do know how to edit a page, thanks. -- Rodhull andemu  13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

i appreciate your distinguised wikipedia career, but perhaps after all that time a re-read is in order? Jw2034 (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern, but it's unnecessary. Now, you've got what you want; please stay off my talk page unless you're going to offer constructive input. I've got another ten hours work to do here today, and it tends to go better without pointless interruptions. -- Rodhull andemu  13:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

well, i admire your dedication - you must be one of the few people who consider wikipedia a job. if i may offer some constructive advice perhaps you should consider the opinions of others to be at least as valid as your own, stop editing and re-read. 'pointless interruptions' certainly could be interpreted as a display of arrogance. i shall be taking a keen interest in your next '10 hours' of edits, lest any other mistakes be made. bye. Jw2034 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Treble
Was there any need for that? To win the treble means to win three trophies. 2-1! Zacitty (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

look it up mate.

I'd be careful if i was you. you could be done for vandalism. Zacitty (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Zacitty (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Zacitty (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of "treble" in quotes implies that this is not the traditional treble. Zacitty (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built upon the principle of representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Always explain your changes, especially when you want other people to agree with you. Zacitty (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit war has been concluded. Zacitty (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages
Just so you know, Zacitty is allowed to remove info from his/her own talk page. The only two things that can't be removed are templates and  templates where the sock is proven. Removal is considered tacit acknowledgement. Toddst1 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii
This edit you made makes absolutely no sense, and I'm reverting it as a result. Viriditas (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you continue to troll articles and make personal attacks in edit summaries and on user talk pages (like a similar account that I know of) I will request that your account is blocked. Please take this as an official warning. Viriditas (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are banned from my talk page. Do not post there again. Viriditas (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * won't feed the trolls...Jw2034 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: 62.30.249.131
If you had bothered to check the block log, the IP's talk page and the block message, "genius", you would have seen that I was not the original blocking admin on neither IP and that this block was in accordance with the administrator noticeboard discussion at that time. So yes, I am aware of the consequences of my actions, and contrary to you I did my homework. But I guess it takes less brain power to rant on someone's talk page than to actually consider the bigger picture, right? -- lucasbfr  [[User talk:Lucasbfr|talk ]] 07:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The 8 December block is not my decision alone. We need to think of the children encyclopedia. There a point where we can't ask volunteers to monitor all the changes made by that IP, checkusers to check autoblocks every 5 minutes and readers to sit through the massive vandalism. I suggest you visit the Administrator's noticeboard where this has been discussed. -- lucasbfr  [[User talk:Lucasbfr|talk ]] 08:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tagging of Internet Watch Foundation
Don't be silly. Do that again and you're blocked. fish &amp;karate 15:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have undone this edit to the same article. You may wish to re-read the neutral point of view policy; if you continue to make your feelings known by adding your own non-neutral commentary, you will be blocked as above. haz (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Shields
why did you revert

the article is poorly written and makes no sense

it's a disgrace to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.73.251 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Klute (Nightclub) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Klute (Nightclub) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Klute (Nightclub) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Klute (Nightclub)


A tag has been placed on Klute (Nightclub), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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". 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 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. SmartSE (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)