User talk:Rjd0060/Archive 2

AGNPH and links to ED
Hi there... here's ArbCom request regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica. Bullet #1 under "remedies" provides the justification for any/all links to ED to be removed. If you don't mind letting the user who puts the link back know about this information, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! -- Kinu t /c  23:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings
I appear to under some attack and seek your assistance in order to build an editing contribution. The information I have entered is correct. Perhaps my problem is adding to sites in a way I should'nt have. My apologies. However all statements are correct and should be given life on Wikipedia. Cheers Christopher Wingate —Preceding unsigned comment added by WingateChristopher (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

warhawk
thanks--Playstationdude 00:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I am not a vandal. Vandals are people who blank pages, add nonsense, etc. that you dont like the ED website doesnt mean that my intent is to harm wikipedia. AGNPH 00:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see here Jeeny (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also may be a WP:COI as the user name is the same as an article. Pfft. Jeeny (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Merle Terlesky
This is the version that needs to be sourced. If you look at it, it may change your mind on the AFD. What has happened here is that Merle (and/or someone sympathetic to him) is trying to cover up some of the dumber things he has done in the past. --Mista-X 05:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Transcend T.sonic
Hey mate, can you tell me what I need to do about the "notabilty", and how to "wikify" my artcle? Transcend T.sonic? --Rsrikanth05 14:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Justification? Did the article about the iPod, or Zen, or Zune ever need any justification? --Rsrikanth05 08:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC) Yes, but as I requested, please give me a few more days and I will do my best to make this article notable, I have found a lot of links on Engadget, CNET, and other review sites for this page. Also, I will add more info on all of Transcend's Products on its main page. --Rsrikanth05 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Alert!!

 * Your welcome and I guess I'll see you at the RC :D AngelOfSadness  talk  17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No problemo. Any time :D AngelOfSadness  talk  19:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected page
Why did you have to protect my talk page ? look right>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well done 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to create a new account if i've been blocked ? look right>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well done 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Suspected sock puppets/Wiki's Most Wanted. What's the point of a block, if you can just make a new account and still be disruptive? - Rjd0060 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, i'm making good edits now - look right>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well done 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Fugitive (talk • contribs)
 * This edit and this one are not considered good edits. Nice try. - Rjd0060 20:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, those ones aren't, but i have made some good ones look right>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well done 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki Fugitive (talk • contribs)
 * Why did you redirect Ambitionz Az a Ridah‎ to All Eyez on Me ? look right>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>well done 20:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was either that or nominate it for deletion. There was no context on that page.  And FYI, per policy, all edits that you make while you are blocked can be undone without question. - Rjd0060 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just being pedantic here, but it isn't while he's blocked, but banned. Besides, it's better to leave the good edits, for obvious reasons... · AndonicO Talk 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Found the page. · AndonicO Talk 14:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. :) · AndonicO Talk 14:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Don't be down-hearted. All the best admins fail at least one :) . Seriously all the neutrals and opposers believe you will be admin material in the future - give it two / three months with some article work to prove your knwoledge of policy, and I look forward to a support next time round!! Pedro : Chat  14:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the best admins Pedro? ;) · AndonicO Talk 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I don't understand this one.  Is it some kind of joke that Is going over my head? - Rjd0060 14:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooof. Don't I feel like a moron.  At least I figured it out on my own!  So what if it took a few minutes. - Rjd0060 14:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it took me a few minutes to come up with that. I mean, not even our very best admins go running about saying they're the best... we can't have that coming from the very worst. No offense intended. ;) · AndonicO Talk 14:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I got it. I guess I'm just having a slow morning. - Rjd0060 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You've done a lot of good work so far, so keep at it. Try again in 2 more months. Bearian 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also wanted to chim in that I would support your next RFA in a couple months. Just get some more article writing experience, and I'd be satisfied.  Don't get discouraged about failing your first RFA, I've failed two.  Useight 18:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To expand upon my statement of "more article writing experience", I'd like to first to call your attention to your wannabe_kate edit count. At the moment of this writing, you have 904 mainspace edits out of a total edit count of 4028.  It may be the epitome of editcountitis, but I prefer a ratio of around 50%, yours is only 22.4%.  I'm biased, since mine is 59.9%, but let's just say that 22% is too low for my taste.  In order to improve (at least my definition of improve) this, you'd have to work on articles, instead of spending time placing warnings on user talk pages and commenting on AFDs.  While those are both good things, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I think we should spend about half our time on the frontend (the actual encyclopedia) and the other half cleaning up the backend.  I recommend joining some WikiProjects, a list of them can be found here.  I am a member of four WikiProjects, such as WikiProject and WikiProject NFL.  Just find some stuff you're really interested in, join those WikiProjects and help improve articles.  Fix spelling, grammar, add sources and wikilinks.  That's a lot of rambling, but that's the kind of editing I think you need to become a more effective editor.  I do believe you'd make a great admin, but being a great editor comes first.  Useight 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. -- That kind of editing will slow down your edit rate, but racking up a high score isn't the only thing that makes a great editor. Useight 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects
Thanks for letting me know. I think I've done it right this time. I'm redirecting large numbers of the nearly empty tour and season reviews into consolidated articles and I must have gone through that Zimbabwe batch without using paste! All the best. BlackJack | talk page 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sunny Sassoon
Removed comments by Handicapper, who is not abiding by the behavioral guideline AGF. Feel free to go through the history to see the comments. - Rjd0060 15:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks/Carmenelectra
Thanks - Malcolm just unblocked her, so she should be able to make the change now. Best wishes, DuncanHill 00:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've been trying to help her with her edits - she seems to have hit the ground running, referencing her articles (which took me ages to get the hang of!). I nearly left Wikipedia yesterday because of the way some admins behave, so Irishguy's actions here really got my goat! DuncanHill 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw! DuncanHill 00:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I made the heinous mistake of using a level 1 warning template on an experienced user who made a personal attack, and was shot down in flames for 1) using a template on an experienced editor (there's an obscure essay that says it's a bad thing), and 2) asking at WP:ANI if I had done the right thing. Apparently when an admin calls accuses me of "mindless policy wonkery" for trying to stop personal attacks it's OK. So, I don't bother with ANI anymore, as obviously ordinary editors aren't welcome there. DuncanHill 00:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The admin who accused me of mindless policy wonkery hasn't made any edits since I told him I couldn't see any point in continuing the conversation. I must say that there are some very good admins, and some said kind things to me after the incident, but I don't really have much confidence in the system. The lack of an effective recall or review system for existing admins, and the apparent unwillingness of admins to police each other, are real weaknesses. I just looked at your RfA - do try again sometime, you seem to have your head screwed on and your heart in the right place. DuncanHill 01:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Chelmer Valley High School
Hi, I wonder if you would revisist Articles for deletion/Chelmer Valley High School, please? The article has been rewritten showing the school has been independently judged to be Outstanding with a world record breaking gymnastics team. TerriersFan 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Crowlees Junior and Infant School
Sorry to approach you again so soon but I have just expanded and sourced up this article on which you correctly gave a delete view, on the article as it then stood, at Articles for deletion/Crowlees Junior and Infant School. TerriersFan 02:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Imaginationland
Thanks for the help on the article. However, it's become increasingly clear that no matter how many legitimate arguments I bring up showing why the material does not merit inclusion, there will always be others there to bring up touching stories about how the material reconnected them to their material. This has reminded me why I stopped helping with the material in the first place. Because of that, I'm going to just go back to vandalism patrol. It's easier, and I don't have to worry about dealing with people who are arguing with foregone conclusions in mind. However, none of this is your fault, so I'd like to again thank you for taking the time to help me. Dlong 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1985 (disambiguation)
I reverted your edit because the Manual of Style says each item in a disambiguation should have exactly one live link. The link to Dyalos will have to go as soon as there's an article about the novel. -- Orange Mike 20:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Article for review
As asked for on the Help Desk: Abney_Park_(band). Thanks FACT50 23:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:UAA
I have responded on my talk page. Thanks Tbo 157   (talk)   (review)  00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Jequebskeet
Hey please don't delete this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCoolOne2 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert Edit
OOPS. Sorry. I didn't mean to. I guess I didn't read it carefully enough. MJW212

Mar Kuriakose Dayara
I have taken a stab at re-writing the article that under AfD now. I have added references & re-written... It does seem to be a notable local church and somewhat of a regional shrine, but I was getting a headache trying to read through the Indian church sources. Please take a gander and if you think it's salvageable, jot a note here. SkierRMH 05:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding your comment on this AfD: In cases where specific notability guidelines are lacking, the general guidelines apply. They read "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All of the article's current sources are affiliated with the church in some way, so they are not independent of the subject. Nick Graves 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
You are most welcome! &mdash;Salmar (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr RJD
Hey there, I completely understand the 3RR & am well aware of my edit war. I am wondering if you could assist me or guide me in this matter.

I feel that the main issue at stake in this instance is Loopla's attitude towards my edits. I simply made a cosmetic adjustment to an article. I am completely open to the fact that maybe alot of people disagree with me about the images size, in which case I will take on board others' opinions happily.

What hurt me, is that thes user Loopla could have easily said "i think it should be smaller than that", but instead crticized me of blatant vandalism! I am as much as you completely opposed to vandalsim, and I think that is completely inappropriate to make such judjements or suggest that I was making "test edits".

Thankyou - Designdonkey 09:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am aware of all that you said on my talk page, but i think that you are failing to understand that i was to no extent attempting to "vandalise" wikipedia in any way or form, i merely had an opinion on how something should look, but others disagreed with me and i am more than prepared to acept that. I just feel that numerous established wikipedians hold an unjustified prejudice against other users that they assume to be completely inexperienced. - Designdonkey 08:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting
Thank you for reverting and reporting the troll on my talk page! ... disco spinster   talk  15:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Expanding on bots
The bot I was talking about was Siebot, and its owner Siebrand. I caught them at the Rangpur District page; it had been vandalized by the bot. Seeing as this had been the third or fourth time this had happened, I'm wondering if the admins should step in. I don't think vandalism is funny either. Crad0010 22:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I seem to have made a mistake in identifying the vandal. I thought the bot was the one adding the Decpticon/random talk thing. An anonymous IP seems to have done it. Perhaps blocking the IP 210.50.234.88/210.50.234.88 will spare us some headaches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crad0010 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of line comment
RE: This edit on Articles for deletion/Jacob Apelbaum. (Rjd0060)

As much as I appreciate your other comments on this AfD, there is no reason not to link to relevant policies, even repeatedly. A discussion isn't a mainspace              article, and "redundant" linking helps editors discuss their points and refer to policies succinctly and precisely. The fact that you don't like that is your personal preference, but to call me a dick because of that is completely out of line. Since you assert that you're well aware of policies, I won't bother to link you to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, but you yourself linked to WP:DICK, which states: Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the          criticism about lightly. Linking to policy succinctly and appropriately is no reason to resort to what is essentially an unfounded personal attack. --Cheeser1 05:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice?
Are you messing with me? Sending me smoke signals....wha? Jeeny (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You keep reverting me
Stop reverting my edits. Only morons do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.178.222 (talk • contribs)
 * I dont even know who you are...Stop vandalizing then. - Rjd0060 19:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I'm sorry for laughing but only morons call others morons. lmao! I'm reliving my junior high-school years, and it's kinda fun. I was very shy and polite back then, and it wasn't very fun. Although I did get along with everyone. ;p ~Jeeny (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Exactly what I was thinking by that comment.  That user doesn't even have any contributions, so it must be somebody that I reported to AIV, and got blocked. - Rjd0060 00:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. lol. Oh, and I call people morons all the time, mostly in my head though. ;p ~Jeeny (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't call me a moron I don't care if you do! lol - Rjd0060 01:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never called you a name, believe it or not...even silently. Well... I did call you a name in that one email. lol. ~Jeeny (talk) 02:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I remember.... not really though . - Rjd0060 04:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This one, remember now? ~Jeeny (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Nope, but I'll take your word for it. - Rjd0060 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been reviewed!
Yes Big Brother (US) has been reviewed but it failed. You can read more about the review on the talk page of the article but the person who reviewed it said "good start needs several fixes". I think between me and you we can correct the article and fix it and then we can get it up to GA status. But it has finally been reviewed. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the hardest thing will be finding sources for the Live Internet Feeds and the Live Show. Especially about the information on when they blackout things from the feeds. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL
See this User_talk:Jeeny. He is my young wiki-friend (13 or 15) I forget. But, he's so funny without meaning to be sometimes. ~Jeeny (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Pulling a pickles
Could you please explain how Pulling a pickles is not an attack page? If somebody wrote a page called "Pulling a Rjd0060" and talked about how it means doing or saying something stupid, wouldn't you consider that an attack page? Corvus cornix 23:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I also don't appreciate your calling my edit vandalism. Corvus cornix 23:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. First, I wasn't talking about your edits as vandalism.  I was talking about the IP edits.  Secondly, It isn't an attack page.  Not that it matters, as it is going to be deleted anyways, but who is the subject that that page is  disparaging?  Pickles?  Does the article have a controversial tone?  No.  - Rjd0060 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the attack is the person in the image, whose name is clearly identified in the attack. Corvus cornix 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is his name in this? - Rjd0060 23:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean, besides the name of the image? And the link to Derek pickles? Corvus cornix 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The image titled "dpickles" and there is not link in the version I restore to to anybody. - Rjd0060 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The link to Derek P. is the "vandalism" from the IP that I removed. - Rjd0060 23:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no point in arguing this, but don't revert my edits and call me a vandal again, please. Corvus cornix 23:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not call YOU a vandal. I reverted the IP edits, along with yours, and stated I reverted vandalism and I stated that it wasnt an attack page.  We all have opinions, however before you accuse people of calling you a vandal, get the facts straight please. - Rjd0060 23:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You reverted my edit and said you were reverting vandalism in your edit summary. What else am I supposed to conclude? Corvus cornix 23:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. I restored the page to a version that was 3 edits back.  So doing that, reverted your edit, and two edits prior to yours which were from an IP.  That IP is the user who added the link to Derek Pickles and that is what I was referring to as vandalism.  - Rjd0060 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job
You deserve that barnstar; you are working quite hard! Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 00:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for redirecting the page for me.

Tovojolo 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for reverting vandalism. It appears that I've ticked off at least one ED troll (looong story). --Calton | Talk 16:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey!
"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

Committing blatant vandalism violates Wikipedia policy. If you find that another user has vandalized Wikipedia, you should revert the changes and warn the user (see below for specific instructions). Users who vandalize Wikipedia repeatedly, despite warnings to stop, should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and administrators may block them."

Read the rules next time, I am not vandalizing anything. I changed that wiki page for a reason, and it was irrelevant. All that is true of what I posted. I am changing it back to what it truly is. By hindering that your vandalizing the pager yourself. That is not my Point of View, thats the truth. All that I changed was truth, and stop reverting it. I am not vandalizing anything, when you change a page back like that your technically vandalizing the the page yourself. If you think that editing wikipedia is that big of a deal, then please, get out of your moms house and get a real life. I am editing that to fix the false information on that page. Stop hindering me for trying to fix a legitimate problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerciosmd (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel so stronly that you aren't doing anything wrong, even though I've warned you 3 times, than go ahead and do it again, but you can be blocked if you continue to vandalize. - Rjd0060 23:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi
You have a full mail box. ;p ~Jeeny (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As do you, ma'am. - Rjd0060 00:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Hey, feel free to comment at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-28 Jeeny! Thanks for your help with this disagreement. Tiptoety 04:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure, you do not need to be a "party involved", you can simply comment in the discussion section at the bottom of the page. Thank you! Tiptoety 05:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Tiptoety 05:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI Notice

 * Hey thanks for taking part in the discussion! I appreciate it and i think it turned out well. Tiptoety 06:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that part is not good, but the conflict has stopped instead of getting larger. Not all party's can have the outcome they want (un-fortnightly). I think that Jeeny will ultimately come back to the pedia. Tiptoety 06:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome, see you around the pedia! (When are you gonna do a WP:RFA?. Tiptoety 06:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good! Be sure to let me know when you try again! Tiptoety 06:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea i know..... ;)  I will keep my eye out for you! Tiptoety 06:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job catching that one, you passed your test, lol. Tiptoety —Preceding comment was added at 06:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou!
Thanks! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of marine parks with Orcas
Will you please take a look at my comment on this AfD and consider striking your !vote (and then perhaps adding your comment to the proper AfD)? Thanks, Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeeny
Jeeny has been unblocked, we should continue our attempts at emailing this user and let them know they can now edit. Tiptoety 18:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do hear from Jeeny, please let me know. This edit has concerned me. We had been emailing, but I haven't heard anything since shortly after that post. Email me if you'd like to discuss this further. I'd rather not post here about it. Thanks. Jeffpw 20:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, i have sent you an email regarding this situation. Tiptoety 22:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this this, and this Tiptoety 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep i will make a report! thanks for contacting a steward about this! Tiptoety 23:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

RE Your message to me
While I did leave a message on Jeeny talk page referring to him as an "annoying Vandel" I did realize my mistake as I reviewed what I had just put on his page. I did edit it out, so I believe you looked through the edit history. After I finish, I am heading to his page to leave an apology. Regards, Javascap 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, I read you reason for the revert and it is labeled "Jeeny has bene blocked and could not have made any edits" A quick revision of the edit history on my page would show that he did 2 edits. Just letting you know ;) Javascap 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!!!
The Special Barnstar


 * Welcome, i am happy about the outcome, see you around! Tiptoety 00:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help
Rjd0060, Thanks for adding the Fair-Use rationale to the image. Without your help that Image would be toast, keep up the good work. Max ╦╩ 14:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another Barnstar!

 * lol, yea, you must be cause i just cant seem to revert anything! i may have to put you up for deletion as a bot! lol, keep up the good work! Tiptoety 05:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * lol, then maybe i can get some vandal reverting in! At this rate though if you call it a night all the vandals will win....lol Tiptoety 05:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that vandal was going to town! Good work! Tiptoety 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your recent comment
Perhaps you should take a look at the images being added to the article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Dwarf_Remastered&diff=168580800&oldid=168577306

Rawfully 20:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, was this more to your liking? Rawfully 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Big Brother US and UK Image Issues
Hey I just want to let you know that I fixed the images for Big Brother (US) and Big Brother (UK) so the image isn't on the main sidebar but the proper image is displayed in the proper article in the right spot on the template. Since other editors keep removing the images from the sidebars due to WP:NFCC this should solve the problem. And congrats on you many barnstars! What are barnstars for by the way if you don't mind me asking? ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Riley giles
It's a violation of WP:BLP. Corvus cornix 23:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, however how is it considered a "personal attack" which you gave the warning for. I understand, per BLP why you removed it, but to warn the user for making a "personal attack"? Wasn't that a bit excessive? - Rjd0060 23:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't think so. Corvus cornix 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please restore my Wikipedia talk page
Hello, Rjd0060, If you cannot help me with commons, Please restore my Wikipedia talk page. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to restore everything from the very beginning. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You sure you restored it? It looks absolutely the same and it should have a very, very big history. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I want my user page back the way it was. I wanted to restore my talk page only (not archive, just bring everything back). Thank you.--Mbz1 00:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know it could be done without archiving the current page because I would not like to archive this page now. If you cannot do it without archiving my current page, I guess I'll go without restoring my talk page. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just believed that all my messages could be added back without archiving or changig contest of my current page. I meant just to add my old messages at the beginning of my current page, but it looks like it is getting more complicated than I believed it would. That's why I'll leave it as is for now and will not delete any more messages from my talk page in the future. Thank you for your time and help.--Mbz1 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

External links/See also vs See also/External links
Hi, you stated "external links should be at the bottom, however there is an exception when there is a See Also section." I reviewed Guide to layout but am unable to find where this is stated and was wondering if you could clarify, I just want to make sure I understand. Most articles I've seen have External links below See also. For example, two articles listed on the Main_Page, Hurricane Noel (2007) and Dominican Republic have External links at the end below See also, should they be changed? Thanks much, -Bikinibomb 02:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. -Bikinibomb 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

jeeny
I think she's just ignoring her e-mail's. Only from us from wikipedia. I just got this feeling that she is. Do you have that feeling too? Seth71 17:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I sent you the e-mail Seth71 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You got the same thing as me. That there is a discussion about you. What is it about. Seth71 17:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It said it wasn't jeeny. It was some friend. Or maybe it was her. Why would someone give a "friend" there e-mail password. hmmmmm. What do you think. Same thing as me? Seth71 17:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If ya say so. We'll see in a little while I guess. Seth71 17:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail from jeeny. She just let me know she's doing better. Seth71 17:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: ThinkBlue
Hey just to let you know that my old username was "Zerorules677" and changed it to "ThinkBlue" and I was trying to softredirect it. Sorry if I caused a fuzz. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. You were just doing your job. Have a good night. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Drjcoby
I took another look at the time stamps. you're right: he had gotten a final warning—and an answer to his question at the help desk—before his last deletion. I've blocked him, but in such a way as to invite him to discuss the issue rather than push him away from Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess the difference is that I don't ascribe malice as a motive. I concede that there may be a conflict of interest at some level, but I think it's a severely misguided but reasonably-good-faith editor. That said, if he refuses to discuss the matter in good faith, then his edits cease to be good faith, and an indefinite block makes sense. —C.Fred (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:jaob70
Calm down buddy it isn't vandalism. I wasn't restoring vandalism. Those were two reverts I made to myself. I thought I accidentally revrted something that was a legitimate edit and then I tried to undo my mistake. I have been checking the recent changes page and yes I accidentally undid edits on two user talk pages. I didn't mean to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaob70 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism off of my talk page! You went so fast! Royal broil 05:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

DaBiggestOutcastOfRenton says:
How is dicktionary innapropriate? It's funny and I made up dat slang myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaBiggestOutcastOfRenton (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

DaBiggestOutcastOfRenton says:

What's yo problem man? All I want to do is get my own slang on da internet. LEAVE MY DEFINITIONS ALONE PLEASE!!!

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaBiggestOutcastOfRenton (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Lacco Ameno
I deleted your message from the page because you were wrong. My edit summary said "pop" because I was updating the population figure. - The Immaculate 06:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Writers Guild of America
Adding discussion to reach consensus on content problems with this page. DirectRevelation 06:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)DirectRevelation

What?
What are you talking about? Did you actually read the section I removed from Talk:Race debate? I suspect not, it was a rambling essay soapboxing the personal theories of an editor why has consistently made personal attacks against other editors and racist comments on talk pages. I was merely following the rule that wikipedia is not a soapbox. For doing this I get warned by you? I'm just really angry now, possibly your warn was not a mistake and you knew exactly what you were doing? You think personal attacks and soapboxing on talk pages are OK? Alun 06:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Alun, Wikipedia is supposed to be non-ideological. For instance, a crime is a crime, hate or no hate.  A rule violation is simply, a rule violation.  To approach it otherwise, would create a cabal of friends in high places (admins) and lobbyists in low places (editors).  Besides, you are a hypocrite for attacking this neutral person.  WP:Assume good faith.  Savignac 06:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, which is why I removed the soapboxing. Alun 06:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

But it does you no good, when the vast majority of edit disputes you yourself commit to, involve your own attitude expressions, such as getting in Rjd0060's face. He's disinterested and you come off like a fanatic. Savignac 06:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

'''You are not bringing this argument here. No thanks''' - Rjd0060 06:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help
Thank you for reverting the vandalism of my user page done in retaliation for enforcing Wikipedia policies. Your efforts resulted in the permanent ban of the offender. I appreciate it. Bsherr 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at this

 * "All tourists should be wary that a well-respected and time-weathered stereotype of malodorous Gringos and Europeans has its trappings in reality. Hygiene is a vital part of social integration and manners in Costa Rica, and uncouth, unclean persons will be treated with some trepidation by Costa Ricans" lol ~Jeeny (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Hi again. Judging by your user page, it looks like the vandal is on a dynamic IP (or at least have access to more than one static IP), so the indef blocking discussion is moot anyway. I will keep an eye on your user page too. Cheers TigerShark 00:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I just noticed that. So what happens now? How can that happen? It was still the username, not an IP that made that last vandalism on Rjd's user page, during a block? ~Jeeny (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, nevermind it wasn't the "same" username, but a variation of the last one (yet the same person). So, indef blocks don't work? That pretty much sucks in this case. Oh well. And people like me, who is an angel has to sit out a block for the whole time. lol ~Jeeny (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the underlying IP is only auto-blocked for 24 hours. The auto-block will be refreshed every time the blocked account try to edit, but if a new account is created the auto-block will not be refreshed. In this case the user must have a dynamic IP, as they were able to edit within the first 24 hours. Cheers TigerShark 00:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the amazingly speedy response to my query - and for the reassuring comment! Sensei48 05:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ooops!
...those are CDs....(I have DVDs listed elsewhere) Sensei48 05:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd Thanks and Image
The second image is same site, different page -

http://www.mailordercentral.com/rediscovermusic/images/ktr1477d2.jpg

Thanks for the fix - I will study it since I have tried in vain to make sense out of the Wiki instructions 9for this and for other procedures). Sensei48 05:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks very much for the barnstar. It always feels nice to get some encouragement. I tend to think we don't do it enough as a community. All the best. Alun 07:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Skull Valley Elementary School District
Thanks for your note, your suggestion on the above makes perfect sense. I'll follow that line in furture. RegardsPaste 09:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar
For all your hard work following BetacommandBot around and fixing image rationales, helping others, your work on AfDs, and reverting vandalism, I award you the Working Man's Barnstar. Thank you for all your hard work! See your user page ~Jeeny (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Logo Fix
Thanks for the help. I am very new to all tis and appreciate the help. ~Acarooster1977 7 Nov 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 23:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Another RfA Spaming
 Thank you for supporting me in my recent RFA which did not pass at (18/27/10). I will be sure to improve my editing skills and wait until someone nominates me next time. Thank you for you comments! Tiptoety 00:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, no worries, i have learned a great deal from it! Thanks for your support! Tiptoety 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

FO
Yes your right. --Kevin Murray 06:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes your right. --Kevin Murray 06:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AAGF, and have a splendid evening, morning, or day, depending upon where you live. --Kevin Murray 06:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

thanx for the image deletion effort
Thanx for getting back so quickly. Cheers, t Pterantula 19:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Zhan Li USC Survey
Hi there,

if you would like to, please can you comment on my response to concerns about my survey attempt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Message_from_Zhan_Li_regarding_Survey

I am contacting you as you were part of the original discussion.

thank you very much Zhan Li Zhanliusc 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon Muncaster
You may be right that it does assert notability, and maybe i was to quick to tag it, but i almost think it would have been deleted. I am pretty sure it is a hoax as there is no sources on google, and i can not find much about him. Tiptoety 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh no, i know that CSD A7 does not apply to hoaxes, but i do think it is speedy delete criteria, and if not like you said AfD, or PROD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoety (talk • contribs) 00:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha, we are confusing each other, i am agreeing with you that i should not have tagged it for CSD A7, and was agreeing with your tagging. Tiptoety 00:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries, i should have read the article more, it was just written so badly that only after the 3rd time reading it did i get that it says he created some internet thing. Anyways, thanks for your help. Tiptoety 00:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked for a third party opinion and he turned down the speedy, i have placed a PROD tag on the page. Tiptoety 00:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, i feel an AFD coming too, thats fine. I added more to the PROD tag. Tiptoety 00:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also if you look at the user page of the user that created the article, it states that he/she is Jon Muncaster, which makes me think it is even more of a hoax. Tiptoety 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. Tiptoety 00:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Chet jobert
Strange, i just had the most odd edit conflict with you, i tagged this article for A7, and it said i had tagged it, then after it said i had tagged it wikipedia said that i had an edit conflict. Usually TW stops tagging before WP can say theres an edit conflict, we seem to be the tagging team, i keep getting in edit conflicts with you! Tiptoety 01:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Work permit
Oh, I get it, so any edits which you don't agree with can't be modified? Take a look back at the original material and then what is being posted. The US embassy references contain NOTHING relevant to what is being footnoted. If people are so sensitive about links, then they should come up with their own material instead of modifying material which was placed there by someone else (even with commercial intent). So, take out the commercial reference and the resulting material and come up with something else. Would seem to me that the other content would be copyrighted. VivaBelgivaBE 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are a little misguided here. You cannot just delete legitimate content from pages.  You need to discuss these changes on the articles' talk page, before doing it.  - Rjd0060 02:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you are misguided. This was already done on the discussion pages and no one responded. Hence, my original question remains, and I will be in touch with the copyright owner about removal of said content. Life is not about cutting and pasting. If you don't like it, then come up with something on your own. Alas, for some folks it is much easier to comment and hide behind lists of rules than it is to come up with something original. VivaBelgicaBE 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, the supplied links have nothing in relation to the original information. Ergo, unless someone can find info to substitute for the original citation (i.e. the commercial link), then the entire thing should be removed. Leaving someone else's info (whatever the source) and lazily substituting a non-related site that doesn't contain remotely relevant (i.e. special work permits for highly talented people) is intelectually lazy and dishonest. So, remove it all. Otherwise, leave the footnote. Furthermore, the site does give away some info on spouse work permits and for Poland and Slovakia (I looked), so the claim by the person who substituted the US embassy pages is just plain wrong. VivaBelgicaBE 10 November 2007 (UTC)

...then I will put the original footnote back in and not blank the info. VivaBelgicaBE 10 November 2007 (UTC)

... well, what can I say, I'm Belgian. We're always quite earnest and serious... VivaBelgicaBE 10 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:AFD of David Barnard - Pianist
I just wanted to let you know that I was careful in my search. There were plenty of names that matched but none that matched the description in our Wiki article. Thanks for making sure though, its always good to be clear on these things. Good luck editing! Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

multiple AFDs
Hey, I actually did find the group AFD section and have been setting up a bulk afd for all the really obvious deletes (I'll post seperate ones for the articles that at least try to establish notability), but thanks for the heads-up... it's a daunting task for my fingers Epthorn 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, yes I plan to. I am not finished tagging them all quite yet- as soon as I do, I will create the page, which will be so that people don't start before I actually have everything collated there. Some seem to have been tagged by other people, and some seem to still be prod...ed(?) but I should be done with the rest soon. Epthorn 06:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I correctly posted everything on the AFD page. Hopefully I won't have to deal with all of them again soon...Epthorn 07:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my mess. I guess after the 20th afd I started twitching. Glad I didn't manage to accidentally delete any of your pages.Epthorn 15:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... next time I guess I'll make sure to create smaller clusters of deletions, to avoid controversy and the secondary/primary split which I was not aware of. I guess people are more protective of their high schools than elementary schools. Live and learn... Epthorn 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Carlossuarez46 22:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
I think you might be mistaken about 74.244.11.122 being involved as a sockpuppet/puppeteer in this instance of Legacy7. 74.244.11.122 has only made one edit, which was reverted, and it seems that they haven't been involved since. However Legacy7/70.46.67.98 (note the different IP address) started out trying to add information about the Wreck Parade that wasn't appropriate for the article and got into an edit war with the article's main contributors using those two accounts. He hasn't tried to obfuscate that he's the same person editing from two different accounts. I think that 74.244.11.122 just was so unfortunate to have made a good faith, but unsourced edit that was also reverted within the span of this edit war, and now Legacy7/70.46.67.98 is using it as another means of disruption by reverting back to it to make some kind of point (as evidenced by his edit summary on the edit that you reverted). Does that make sense? LaMenta3 18:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * :74.244.11.122 added this, which was removed. It was then re-added by 70.46.67.98 here which was removed and re-added again by Legacy7 here.  All accounts became active within a couple days of eachother, and all edits on all 3 are to related subjects.  I think they are all the same.  - Rjd0060 18:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but 74.244.11.122, if you look at his contribs, all of his edits pertained to Lyman Hall. He actually put the same content on that article, which was reverted, and no one has put it back since. I would think that if he were the same as Legacy7/70.46.67.98 an edit war would be going on there, as well. Particularly since 74.244.11.122 seemed to be more focused on Lyman Hall than the traditions aspect of things. If nothing else, though, if you are right, I think you've got the puppeteer/puppet order mixed up anyway. 70.46.67.98 was the first to make any contentious edits, but generally, the registered account is considered to be the puppeteer of any suspicious IPs, which would be Legacy7. LaMenta3 19:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're explaining yourself just fine, I just have a different take on things. However, if you run a WHOIS on each IP, it's physically unlikely that they're related. 70.46.67.98 is an IP owned by Florida Digital, located in Maitland, FL. 74.244.11.122 is owned by Bellsouth, located in Atlanta, GA. There is the off-chance that one is a meatpuppet, though generally those don't crop up in simple cases like this. LaMenta3 19:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think since you're the person who made the report, you can change it up as you see necessary given the new information you now have. Just make a comment to that effect on the suspected socks page. I'm pretty sure there's no problem with that. LaMenta3 05:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm...Well, still make a comment about that, then try to flag down a currently active admin, preferably one who usually deals with the sock page. Barring that, try flagging down any admin. They should be able to help. LaMenta3 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, but as you're the one who had the "initial" suspicions, it might be good to clarify that you see what I mean and that the suspicion should be -X-. Now that I think about it, I think that you could probably move the page to the correct sockpuppeteer name, unless only admins can move pages in Wikipedia space. I forget. LaMenta3 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect deletion
Done. Academic Challenger 01:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I didn't mean to offend you just give you a friendly heads up. Sorry for anything that might of offended you. See ya soon. --J-doggerz 04:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh...
I wasn't trying to indirectly comment on your point, or imply that being confused as an admin is not a legitimate concern. Looking at this from their (J-doggerz) perspective; they may have just been trying to be funny by making obviously false claims. Since there are people who may have actually made that many, it's not a stretch to imagine J-doggerz getting flak from other editors or regarding other user boxes. Anynobody 05:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. I just saw the opportunity to explain further so that he completely understands the problem. - Rjd0060 05:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Atmosphere International (trade Show)
This page has been speedily deleted earlier today, after a number of warning to about 4 anon editors. It's now back and the article creator is being tenacious in blanking warning from his/her user page and in removing all tags from the article page. Are you an admin? Can you get this under control? Regards&mdash;G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 06:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Babyrok on corset article
Babyrok re-added the sections you removed per WP:NOT. --83.131.30.73 11:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:2007-2008 NBA Western Conference Pacific Division standings
Thanks for the feedback. At the time I added the PROD, it wasn't a template, just an article 2007-2008 NBA Western Conference Pacific Division standings. According to the history page User:Sonoran dweller moved it to a template shortly after I added the PROD, probably in response to the message I left on the user talk page. My justification for the PROD, which was on the article's discussion page, apparently got lost in the move. My basic reasoning remains: the information in the template is duplicated in 2007-08 NBA season, and I was trying to eliminate the duplicity and the need to maintain two articles for what will be daily changes. It's also interesting that there's a template for the NBA Pacific Division but not for the other divisions. Should I just drop this or do you think it is worth pursuing? Truthanado 14:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Following is FYI. Feel free to comment and weigh in on the discussion.


 * TfD nomination of Template:2007-2008 NBA Western Conference Pacific Division standings
 * Template:2007-2008 NBA Western Conference Pacific Division standings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Truthanado 22:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)