User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 2

Hey jackass
I did not use copyrighted material. Prove me wrong. If memory serves me right, I actually created that article from knowledge and scratch.--Cyberman 07:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Block
Hi Jareth, just saw your 3rr block on Yuber. The user who was reverting against him was the sockpuppet of a user who was blocked recently for a 3rr, user:Mistress Selina Kyle and they are both likely sockpuppets of a banned user. Can you unblock until sockcheck is complete? Thanks. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jareth. Can you watch the Islamophobia page, the reverting user has returned. Please revert edits and protect if possible. Thanks.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I meant, are a revert of edits by a likely sockpuppet possible because of conditions that they are violating 3rr? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 21:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR dispute: User:Huaiwei
While I appreciate the need for evenhandedness in handling disputes, I would have thought that my responding to user:Huaiwei's violation by reporting it in accordance with guidelines, and limiting my subsequent edits to relevant talk pages, should be sufficient to demonstrate my intention to comply with the applicable policy. Given his sanctioning by arbcom barely two weeks ago for similar behavior in another area, I don't think your response is appropriate. user:Huaiwei has taken a garden-variety verifiability question and, without provocation, turned it into a full-blown, personalized dispute, and is edit warring to preserve a set of unsourced, moderately dubious claims. He has conspicuously violated applicable civility and personal attack policies and guidelines. He denies an overt, intentional 3RR violation. It is, I believe, irresponsible to tacitly encourage him to continue in such behavior, as your response has done. Monicasdude 22:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your statement that I "concluded that your disputed edits didn't merit discussion" is entirely inaccurate; I made about a half dozen posts on the FAC page, including an explanation of the disputed edit and my reasons for deleting the supposedly "sourced" sentence, before this dispute broke out. That's been the general practice with regard to FACs, followed by almost all users, for as long as I've been commenting on FACs. Note that, for example, both User:Tony1 and user:Natalinasmpf made more extensive changes to the article than I did, commenting only on the FAC page. I've subsequently discussed the changes in even more detail in various places.
 * And if you really see "no lack of courtesy" from User:Huaiwei, I would ask you to explain to me why you believe that statements like "from someone who appear to be placing ego above the good of wikipedia," "So you want to play the 3RR game now. I said before you are in no position to comment on the behavior of others," "So you condider it ethical to use FACs to enforce your personal POVs in articles, since contributors have not much leeway and must "bend to your demands" before they get accepted? Whats worse, you engage in revert warring if it fails to go your way in an attempt to further shoot down the article's FAC nomination?" and "his reverts were devoid of reasoning" don't meet exactly the definition of incivility in the applicable guideline, "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress."
 * There is too much territorial behavior in Wikipedia, too much substitution of personally directed comments for substantive discussion, and too little attention paid to verifiability and NPOV policies. Comments and actions like yours in this case encourage the continuing deterioration of the editing environment. Monicasdude 01:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Monicasdude, I think you are being very very very very very unfair to Huaiwei. You are being selfish. Are you trying to bring the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) down. Say so. I feel you are only trying to find fault with SGpedians'. I suggest you should just stay away from this page. --Terence Ong |Talk 05:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, as Monicasdude wrote the wrong facts. Huaiwei just simply reverted his edits. However, he took this as abusing the 3RR and reported him. This is being very unfair to Huaiwei as he was just trying to correct the wrong facts. A block on him is being unfair. Dude, Huaiwei was merely correcting facts by reverting your edits, and you think is 3RR. This is ridiculous! --Terence Ong |Talk 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for giving me a message. Is Monicasdude a he or a she? Now I know the whole case clearly. :P --Terence Ong |Talk 14:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Jareth, I would "sincerely appreciate it" if you corrected your plainly inaccurate, inappropriate comments about my editing practices. You wrote that I "concluded that your disputed edits didn't merit discussion" even though I'd discussed them extensively on the FAC candidacy page. I think it borders on the uncivil for you to make such comments and refuse to make a substantive response when I point out your error.  I think it would have been less civil for me to involve others without allowing you an opportunity to correct what was plain error on your part.  As for User:Huaiwei stopping his reverts, that's a fairly silly comment. User:Huaiwei deliberately broke the 3RR rule, I followed it. Because I followed Wikipedia policy, there's nothing for him to revert. Monicasdude 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you should take another look at the FAC page, because the objections came after I made the edit, not before. I also think you should review WP:Verifiability, an official policy which cannot be overridden by consensus. From the Consensus guideline page:  "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). . . . a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing." The underlying dispute is a simple verifiability issue -- in several places, the text of the article is inconsistent with -- sometimes nearly contradictory to -- the references it cites, and needs to be corrected. Monicasdude 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Misspelling
There's a misspelling on the Islamophobia page you protected: "It is mostly used to negatively characterize criticism directed at Islam whether legimate or not." 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 17:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Auguste Toubeau
Thanks for the translation. I was going to participate, but I wasn't able to get to it in time. (Right now I'm on wikibreak and am only online a little bit each day). One thing I noticed: Frameries is the name of a place in Belgium, not a type of organisation. The third section will probably need to be revised to reflect this. I can do this myself, but not until after New Year's. Again, thanks for the translation; I'll move the page's entry on WP:PNT into the "done/needs cleanup" area. Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's a section for translated stuff that still needs cleanup (as this does, to deal with the Frameries issue), or just needs another set of eyes to proofread. With stuff I've translated, I tend to put a cleanup-translation tag on the article, and move it to the "done/cneeds cleanup" section for a several days.  (Or longer if there was something in the translation I wasn't confident about.)  Then once I'm satisfied that the article is good and no errors were found in my translation, I delete the entry and remove the cleanup tag.  Others follow different practice, some delete the entry right away, without moving to "done/cleanup"... and others have left their articles in "done/cleanup" for a _very_ long time.    Jamie (talk/contribs) 21:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello Jareth, I am rather new to this all....so please bear with me....you recently reverted something by 130.76.32.23 which -I think- was a rude comment about speedy deletion. Well--thank you---but I'm not exactly sure what was done and I would like to learn and be able to keep track of those who are systematically harassing me. I would appreciate it greatly if you would explain it to me. I also saw what you put on that users talk page---so again, Thank You!! Braaad 23:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC) aka 68.112.201.90

Thank you for the details. I would like to point something out to you that you may find interesting. A few days before the -speedy deletion- thing happened I received a -repeat vandalism- warning box on my page from 130.76.32.15. You may notice that this IP number is very close to 130.76.32.23. I'm not exactly an expertbut---I'm thinking they may be near each other say at a library or school. I believe that McNeight is the instigator of this recent harassment and you may have more tools available to you to check. I find the whole thing rather humorous and enjoy commenting on those interesting warning boxes.....I know I offended a few people when I first started using Wikipedia but this type of vandalism seems like the type of thing that foolish, childish, people are doing to get some sort of revenge. Thank you very much for your time. Braaad 19:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC) aka 68.112.201.90

Christmas
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I just like to wish people. :D --Terence Ong Talk 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You obviously know nothing about the subject and you have no business repeatedly vandalizing this article. Sam Sloan 05:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about me? I didn't blank any page. --Terence Ong Talk 17:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't worry Terence, he/she's not referring to you. - Mailer Diablo 23:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wishes
I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. --Bhadani 17:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment, Monicasdude
Monicasdude has been removing my comments on his/ her talk page. His removes include (in choronogical order). I don't know what is up with him. His criticisms to the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)'s FAC sub-page is not constructive and trying to prevent the article to be promoted to FA status. I find his comments annoying, and trying to bring it down after a long effort. I wanted to bring it to an administrator's attention. --Terence Ong Talk 17:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Your inappropriate comments regarding me on user:Terenceong1992's talk page
It's really not appropriate to suggest that a user who posts inappropriate graffiti on my talk page invoke dispute resolution when I delete them. Do you even bother to check out the complaints you respond to? Monicasdude 22:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not appropriate for you to make false accusations of stalking, or making false references to my "constantly labeling things vandalism." It's just too bad that you don't like accurate criticism over your poorly-thought-out actions and comments, but you'd be far better advised to take more care in your own behavior than to make inaccurate criticisms of others'. Monicasdude 23:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's too bad you feel criticizing inappropriate behavior is uncivil. But, as you ought to recall, you posted a string of grossly inaccurate comments regarding an editing dispute and refused to correct them, instead choosing to make comments regarding me that bordered on violations of the personal attack standards. And you're repeating that behavior again. Monicasdude 23:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Why don't you do that? I'd particularly like explanations of why you declared that I had "concluded that [my] disputed edits didn't merit discussion" even though I'd discussed them at length on the article's FAC page, as has been the practice regarding FACs; why you said that I'd insisted on "making the changes even after three other editors diagreed" even though the disagreements came after the changes; why you thought that Huaiwei's comments above showed "no lack of courtesy"; and why you suggested I subordinate verifiability/NPOV disputes to consensus even though Wikipedia policy is precisely the opposite. As somebody else here pointed out in response to poorly advised comments, not unlike yours, regarding supposed incivility, "I was occupied with the idea that we had an encyclopedia to write, and ranked the function of Wikipedia as a discussion forum second to that function." Monicasdude 00:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Was it a crime to post a comment there? I didn't write a personal attack on you. --Terence Ong Talk 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)
Monicasdude claims that this featured article contains weasel words and the factual accurancy of the article is disputed. Could you please take a look to see whether there is any problem with it? --07:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

King Shark response
I got your message. If you'd like, you can put this summary in your own words. This message was from Rtkat3.

Shiloh Shepherd
Your efforts on that page have not gone unnoticed. I tried rewriting the article several times combining info from all sources and there was no making anyone happy. I just don't have the time & energy for that now. You're doing a great job. I hope something useful comes out of it. Elf | Talk 02:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (dog-breed project maven)

User:Boki 02
An indefinite block is possibly a bit excessive, given that that user hasn't made any contributions, copyright violations or otherwise, for a fortnight. Uncle G 21:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

"Copyright Guidelines" query
Hi,

Your reason for this edit (an presumably this one) was "atrributing image to comply with copyright standards". AFAIK, NASA only requests this attribution, the images are Public Domain, and the attribution "Courtesty NASA/JPL" can go on the image page anyway.

Are you referring to the NASA copyright guidelines, or are there Wikpedia guidelines I'm not aware of? JamesHoadley 00:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the reply, it seems JPL images are public domain with the stipulation that they contain the credit line "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech". IIRC, that hasn't been the case previously, they used to ask that you included that line if you wanted to. I think it could also be reduced to "NASA/JPL" or "Courtesy NASA/JPL". Maybe this needs more investigation.

"Wikipedia: Copyright problems/2005 December 13" Question
Hi Jareth,

On the webpage http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2005_December_13&action=history, you stated on 29 December that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_philosophers has been "moved to other section." Could you please elaborate on what that means, and more generally, let me know what the Wikipedia procedure is for dealing with the further disposition of this issue. Thanks. Jinfo 17:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Closing copyvios
Hi, I noticed that you have "closed" a number of copyvios by simply reverting the article to a pre-copyvio point. Acording to Copyright problems/Advice for admins that doesn't seem to be sufficient though, to quote: "If some of the revisions are clean, delete the article, then use the undelete function to restore the untainted edits". I'll do this at Paulo Jr., but I suggest you revisit any other copyvio cases you have closed without actualy removing the copyrighted material from the public edit history. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: "Wikipedia: Copyright problems/2005 December 13" Question
Jareth, your solution, viz., moving the discussion to a webpage where nobody can possibly find it, is not very satisfactory. Jinfo 03:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A Bar at the Folies-Bergère
It isnt copyvio since I wrote that essay, but I'll edit it down anyway Cfitzart 04:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

383je
Hola!--Daniel bg 11:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Image
Regarding the image removed from F-15I(F-15i), did you delete it? It is fair use as it is a press release from official IAF website. May I restore it?

Prodego talk  17:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the image qualifies as a press release since the image appears in a gallery. There's no text on the page that would indicate it was released in that manner and the copyright information specifies:


 * According to copyright laws, including the Israeli court as well as international treaties, the copyright of IAF publications, including all information published in this service belong to the Department of Security and Israeli Defense Force. These copyrights also apply to text, images, illustrations, maps, sound samples, video or audio bits, graphics, "Flash" applets and software applications ("The protected material").


 * All rights reserved to the state of Israel. Department of Security, 2003(C).


 * It would appear that they did not intend the website to be re-used. The page on publicity photos might help clarify. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is eligible under the Fair use in template? Prodego  talk  19:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't think so. There seem to be no fair use images for the F-15I anywhere, and the F-15I article needs one. Any ideas? Prodego  talk  19:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I found a new F-15I picture, but am not sure about the source or licence. Could you take a look? Thanks, Prodego  talk  18:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Matt Talbot
Why did you remove my bit on Matt Talbot? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.1.172.163 (talk &bull; contribs).

Geoffrey Stewart-Smith, British Member of Parliament
I write to ask that this article be restored. I understand you removed it apparently because you believed that it contravened Daily Telegraph copyright. I think it would help if you made absolutely sure this was the case before actually deleting other people's efforts.

I have just telephoned the Obituaries section of the ''Daily Telegraph]]. The gentleman to whom I spoke said they do not normally raise issues of copyright, especially if accreditation to the Daily Telegraph has been given (which it was). However, he added that copyright is strictly reserved on photographs.

In the case of Geoffrey Stewart-Smith, therefore, these seems to be no objection in principle from the Daily Telegraph, and the picture has not been used.

It is worth adding that a lot of the information in the obituary can be gleaned from other sources such as various news reports, the House of Commons library, the Conservative Monday Club archives, and from the inside of dust-jackets from his several books. Could you please treat this as a formal request for restoration. Robert I 11:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

DIVO Project & copyright
Hi Jareth, could you explain what happened / why the DIVO project article I created has been listed as a copyright infringement and what steps I should take to fix this? I created the project, as well as writing the article on NESTA which is identified as the copyright conflict. Many thanks. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.245.96.254 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Someone requested information on why the page DIVO Project was listed as a copyright violation. It appears to be a copy of this website.


 * In order to accept into Wikipedia content which is published on another website, we usually require a clear statement from the author of the content that the content is being licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (see GFDL, or GNU_Free_Documentation_License). This statement must come from an email address that we can clearly recognize as being from the operator of the website, or be in reply to a message sent to the operator of the website. In addition, we need to know exactly which article or articles contain the copyrighted material in question. This email should be sent to permissions at wikimedia dot org.  If you copy jareth at crimsonblade dot net on the email, I can remove the copyright violation notice at the same time.


 * Also, you might want to consider creating an account. Please feel free to contact me again if this doesn't answer your questions. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio/deletion of Singapore gay equality movement
Hi, you have decided to delete the article due to copyvio purposes. Please note that PLU3 is an exact copy of the deleted article as well... Akikonomu 03:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Salvation Army
Hello perhaps my comment wasn't clear: It is just wrong to say that the Salvation Army has the same amount followers in the US as in the word ( and so it is written) Perhaps you should check this first. If you want to add the statistic about the US you may perhaps do this under US, but the numers should be correct and not just the numers of the world. Just by the way: It is possible to mention every leader by name but this gives an awful long list! You can answer on my talk page, if you like regards HAMUBA HAMUBA 16:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)ps I hope you will again correct it - thanks Hi - thanks for trying to correct it - although I like to ask you where you get the statistics from. They should be correct, not wrong neither in one nor the other direction regards HAMUBA 16:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Hello Jareth

you will probably find statistics on the Intern. Salvation Army homepage. But it is sometimes confusion how they list "members" mixed. E.g. a bandsman is a senior soldier and is listed as both. So it's a bit difficult to find out the clear numers. For the US (national) I haven't seen it on the webpage. regards HAMUBA 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jareth

thank you that you try to fix some things up in the article. Perhaps you can help me and I help you. I have the knowledge but I have the feeling, that my I am not a good writer....

in the Salvation Army Year Book 2006 (international statistics from all over the word)you will find for the US the following national statistic: Senior soldiers 85 148 Junior soldiers 28 377 Adherents 17 396 The Salvation Army of the US is split in 4 territories. In the same statistic (Year Book) it is amazing to see, that some really "unexpected countries" do have a lot of soldiers....

Only soldiers are allowed to wear the uniform as it is the soldier who signs the "articles of war" with all the statments what he believes and what he promises. Soldiers in the Salvation Army are also called salvationists. An adherent does belive the same and goes regularly to the corps but does not promise the same as the salvationist. Followers are one thing (go there to church or so ?) Members are soldiers and adherents. Soldiers just those who wear uniform. This is what makes, as already mentioned, these statistics so...... No, I am not paid by the Salvation Army. If you have questions, just ask on my user page... oh, by the way: In the article is also written about the uniform. This should also be fixed. In many countries, the salvos do not wear dark navy uniforms. You will find white, grey, dark navy and fawn (beige)uniforms. There are also worn saris! (e.g. India,Sri Lanka) It was always the intention to try to wear an uniform in a country which does go with the country itself. So it is not good to talk about an old style bonnet which is not loger used. Thank you so much for your help. regards HAMUBA 09:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jareth

thank you for helping in the Salvation Army article. Once again I ask for your help. I am not sure what to do: Someone has added a book list. This I would more or less appreciate but they all work as link directly to the seller. Is this ok? I almost feel it as spam because if someone wants to buy a book he can use google or so to search it. If adding a book list to it, then it would need to be more international and, so my personal feeling, it shouldn't have the seller directly linked. What do you think about?

I have read a bit in this statistic book called "Year Book". There are really countries with very different numbers of senior soldiers. But it is amazing to see, that perhaps most of the senior soldiers are found in countries from Africa (e.g. Kenya) or India etc. I was myself quiet amazed as I did look through this official Salvation Army statistic. Regards HAMUBA 09:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jareth

again a thank you for your edit. I am not (yet ?) accustomed to certain edits etc. therefore I appreciate your help.

The idea to mention other countries isn't bad. We would have one problem: The Salvation Army does have territories rather than countries - means: e.g. the USA is divided in 4 territories. Australia is divided in 2 territories. India is divided in 6 territories - But Hungary, Austria & Switzerland are one territory. This was one reason why I thought it is difficult to mention a country. Another question is whether it makes sense to list too many. The statistic will change every year - it's just a question of time. Perhaps some examples ? -- HAMUBA 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. to be honest: Sometimes I fear a so called edit-war. There are obviously people from the US who see their country as the most important. I have just seen that someone has again changed and put the US in. This time as example, but I would prefer, if not so often just the US would be the example. The Salvation Army works in 111 countries... why not take India as example? In this country, the statistic shows in the year book 2006, are more salvos than in many others. -- HAMUBA 16:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer - I have made the 4 ~ the last times and the name and date appears. But that's it. More doesn't come HAMUBA 17:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[HelpDesk-l]
Your input at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#[HelpDesk-l] would be appreciated. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-13t18:51z

Needle and Wheel.jpg
I was under the impression it had been uploaded by the photographer -- what did the licensing say?--SarekOfVulcan 20:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's evidence that the uploader (Zerocard) is the photographer.--SarekOfVulcan 20:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the image was listed as fully copyrighted on flickr, I didn't connect that the uploader was the same guy. Sorry about that!
 * No reason you should have, really -- "Zeropaid" doesn't look much like "csb". :-)--SarekOfVulcan 22:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you able to undelete that image, assuming you're satisfied with my evidence?--SarekOfVulcan 22:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dogs
You're doing a swell job with Shiloh Shepherd Dog. I don't want to interfere, but I'm ready to help in any way that I can. -Will Beback 20:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Permission
Hi, we received an Email with a permission from Andrew J. Lederer to use the content from his Homepage under the Terms of the GFDL.

Ticket#: 2006011710007092

--Ixitixel 11:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Epictetus
It's a great quote, isn't it? Really helps keep things in perspective. Cheers! Jayjg (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Monicasdude RfC
Hello Jareth. Care to address my question here? JDG 04:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jareth, I find it extraordinarily uncivil of you, and either remarkably dishonest or remarkably irresponsible, to post a notice on my talk page warning of consequences for my supposed failure to respond to your RfC on me, when I have in fact responded to it. I think your comments demonstrate the malice with which the RfC was brought and its general lack of substance. I can't help but notice that your posting followed closely on my filing of a 3RR violation notice against one of your cohorts on the RfC, and that, remarkably, the violation notice was dismissed, for reasons that aren't substantiated by the pertinent policy pages, by yet another endorser of the RfC using a different name in her signature. It seems rather clear that this dispute isn't about Wikipedia policies, but about personal spite from users who aren't all that interested in conforming to Wikipedia policies. Monicasdude 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't misrepresent what I said. I didn't say "the community is out to get me." I do believe that, after the repeated false statements you've made on my talk page, particularly the inaccurate and inappropriate statement you made this morning, and the bizarre statements in that spurious RfC, that your continuing actions are a vindictive response to my criticizing your encouraging user: Huaiwei in his incessant edit warring, with me and many others. It doesn't appear that you've even considered the possibility that your own actions might be inappropriate. Monicasdude 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bulter
Thanks for the merge- I was going to do it, but I don't really mind you doing it. --maru (talk) contribs 18:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

KOF images
Hello, I noticed you've been deleting King of Fighters images en' masse...I ask the next time you encounter one, replace the licensing with. I would have done so myself, but never got around to doing so. Thank you. -ZeroTalk 18:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I noticed you had deleted the Igniz image, which copyright info and sourcing I had fiixed earlier today. Please pay more attention when doing deletions in the future. -ZeroTalk 19:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems/2006 January 6
You closed this page down on the 26th of January, but one of the copyright images remains undeleted. Can you remove Image:Kingcrown.jpg, please? User:Noisy | Talk 13:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, there is no dispute: we are in copyright violation and the image must be removed. This should have been deleted first time around, and not re-listed.  User:Noisy | Talk 09:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Blanking AfD discussions
Uh, what's this about?

Well, no big deal, as the discussion is still visible from the history. But a similarly-described deletion a week or so ago (I forget which, or by whom) was an actual deletion, blanking the whole AfD debate, into which some people (including [cough!] myself) had invested some time and effort (as well as vitriol and stupidity).

Perhaps you can direct me to an URL that explains. Anyway, please reply here (I'll be watching) rather than my own discussion page. Thanks! -- Hoary 04:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Jimbo has recently stated (I don't have the link off-hand, it may have been on the mailing list) that as a courtesy, when the subject of an article that was AfD'd requests that we remove the information, instead of deleting it, we just blank it so that anyone who wants or needs to can access it -- it just won't show up in search engines prominently any longer. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish

Infoman page Hi You removed infoman and put a copyright notice. please email us at carlos@infomaninc.com to verify that we have given permission to use description from our website www.infomaninc.com. We will revert back the page to its original if we do not hear from you by March 25.

James Crotty page

Jaredt, I don't know why you have deleted James Crotty page. What is your reasoning and supporting arguments. As far as I know there was little discussion by you and others in the discussion page. I would suggest that you restore it and we work to perfect the article rather than deleting it. There were many useful articles for Wikipedia users on economy and free. I will wait explanation from you. Ramil --71.195.182.195 06:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

James Crotty article
Jareth, James Crotty article and none of his articles are copyrighted if you have paid attention. If you have done it because you don't like the way he does economics, that is discriminiation. I anyway wanted to improve the article, but you have deleted without discussion and without notification. Can you restore it and I will work on it. Let me know when you restore it, so that I work on it. Ramil--71.195.182.195 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh Shepherd Dog RfC Question
MilesD. posted a request for me to contact him confidentially about advocacy/mediation. I have not yet gotten the email back from him. However, I would guess that his concern is the Shiloh Shepherd Dog article and the user conduct RfC against one of its editors. I have endorsed the RfC because I agree that her conduct has been very troubling. I have two questions. First, are you the primary author of the RfC? Second, if so, it states that there were requests made for mediation. I can see that Tina M. Barber was notified via her talk page that mediation had been requested. I did not find the actual request for mediation either on the RfM page or on the MedCabal page. What I would like to know is which mediation forum mediation was requested in, and whether Tina M. Barber responded to or agreed to the mediation. Whether and how she responded is of course relevant to what should be done next. Robert McClenon 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In your opinion, would it be accurate to state that the mediation accomplished nothing because Tina M. Barber was inflexible about article content and was claiming article ownership? I see two possible ways to go from here.  The first would be one more go-around on article content.  It appears that her registry has issues about the dogs that are registered with other registries are authentic Shilohs.  The best approach would be to describe that controversy neutrally by stating both POVs as POV.  I will try suggesting that on the article talk page.  However, I am not optimistic.  The fact that she did not respond to the RfC is not a good sign.  The second approach would be to conclude that lesser methods of dispute resolution have failed due to her lack of cooperation.  If necessary, I am willing to act as advocate to write a concise Request for Arbitration.  Robert McClenon 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you help?
Hello Jareth it's again me :-) Could you please tell me what I can do, to help people rather create an special article about the Salvation Army in the US than to add just everything to the main article? What could be done? I have seen that for Western Territory (USA) an article was started. Can now parts of the main article be transfered to this? Or how should this be done? regards HAMUBA 10:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC) ps sorry for again bothering you

Hi Jareth, thanks for your prompt answer. I've done so and after leaving a message on the discussion pages I hope everybody will accept. thanks again :-) HAMUBA 17:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jareth, the people did not accept and did move everything back to the international article. :-(          - HAMUBA 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Jareth , I had a small addtion to the Shiloh Shepherd page that appears to have been removed, I would like to know what I did wrong and why it was removed so I don't do it again. Saginaw 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Overzealous deletion
It has just come to my attention that you deleted RIAA equalization. According to the log, it was for a copyvio. However, earlier versions of this article were perfectly valid, and many people worked to make this a decent article. As its original creator, I'm particularly peeved. Later versions may have included copyvio information, but earlier ones most certainly did not. The correct action would have been to revert to an earlier version, or ask someone to review the article. As it is, the entire back history and text of the article has now gone, meaning that it now has to be recreated from scratch, which is a substantial amount of work. Please refrain from deleting stuff in this manner in the future, it is unhelpful. Where a suspected copyvio has taken place, please flag that on the article's talk page so that those who have an interest in tending the article have a chance to do something about it. What you have done here amounts to little better than vandalism. Graham 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Duh. It's a word-for-word copy because THAT article got its text from Wikipedia! You may like to check that you haven't inadvertently made the same mistake on all the other articles you have deleted. Many sites use text from Wikipedia, so just doing a search for the same text is bound to find matches. As far as this one goes, I know for a fact that it's not a copyvio, I wrote that text myself straight off the top of my head. Unfortunately, without the history, there's no way to go back and check any of it. As far as being listed since Jan 4 is concerned, I didn't notice it until now (and only because it got recreated), so the process is faulty if this sort of thing is allowed to happen, when in fact the article was actually perfectly legitimate. The point of deletion is to get rid of bad or "illegal" articles, so if a good one gets binned, the process needs revising. Graham 02:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this straightened out. I apologise for jumping to (false) conclusions. Graham 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Shiloh Shepherd Dog Arbitration
I see that you have filed an arbitration on the Shiloh article. You listed me as an editor that you are filing against yet did not post on my talk page. In the links of those say you have notified, you have Windsong, but you have not listed her. So my question, is the arbitration against me or not?ShenandoahShilohs 20:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hoppers crossing cricket club
I was wondering if you heard back from them or not. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation of your withdrawal from Shiloh Shepherd discussion
I'm afraid that I'm no longer going to be able to condense everyone's suggestions and continue assisting in developing a history for the article. To everyone that has sent in suggestions or corrections since I posted these drafts, I apologize; please still make the changes, especially those that fixed my errors. I know many of you preferred using private email and other avenues for discussion because of the tense environment here, but it leaves me little room to defend myself since I agreed to keep those private. I have recently been accused of taking ownership of the article, plotting in private forums and intentionally causing problems; since I don't want to cause any further issues, I will be removing myself from the situation. I really enjoyed working with you and I couldn't tell you how impressed I am with the many of you who took the time to learn about things here and help work on the article despite the problems. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC []S Scott 08:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)S Scott

Requests for arbitration/Shiloh
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Shiloh. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Shiloh/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 16:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

User 165.138.28.195
This is to inform you that this user vandalised the Bob Dylan page at 19:34, as you issued a last warning, I thought you should be aware of this. Best wishes,Lion King 19:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks. Lion King 19:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
Do you still require help with mediation in this case? --Fasten 10:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems/2006 February 4
Greetings. You deleted a lot of content from Copyright problems/2006 February 4, saying "please delete the entry when you finish something". But as I understand it, the items should be left as a record of why they were deleted. When you finish a day, simply remove it from Copyright problems, but don't delete the listing. (All of the items for that day have been dealt with already, by the way.) Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not clearcut. The page actually says "Remove it from the listing on WP:CP." But the listings weren't on WP:CP anymore; they were on a subpage that was no longer included. By removing Copyright problems/2006 February 4 from the CP page, the listing was removed, so there's no need to delete it.
 * But now that I think of it, it's all in the history anyway, so I don't guess it matters much one way or the other. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing my user page
Why did you delete a template I had on my user page? I just restored it after someone else deleted it! — Nicholas (reply) @ 01:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean by 'T1'. It's just a funny box, I'm sure it's not going to 'inflame' anyone :) — Nicholas (reply) @ 14:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for confirmation emails
We at N3P.org have not received the requests related to Business process interoperability, Information silo and Neutral Third Party. We want you to verify that inclusion in Wikipedia does not violate any copyrights. Please send the emails at your earliest convenience. Thanks. - Norm


 * N3P has added the GFDL to its copyright and we've notified Wikipedia. I appreciate your help. Norm

Apparent Copyright Infringement of Troitsky Bridge Building Competition
Yeah, Hi. People keep putting this copyright thing on the page that I created. What are the steps I need to take to show you that I am indeed the author of the content as I am the webmaster of the site that it's coming from http://csce.eca.concordia.ca/ ? I am also the Vice-President of Internal Affairs for that particular student association. I have sufficient authority to use what is on essentially my web-site. I appreciate your concern about copyright violations, but this is indeed content that we at the association have created. Kurt C. Feb 28, 2006.

You know it would be a heck of a lot easier if you then sent an e-mail to the address listed on the website. It should be csce@eca.concordia.ca  And I can respond quickly to it to settle matter. Kurt C. Mar. 1, 2006.

Ok, so I sent it back. Let me know if it's alright. Kurt C. Mar. 1, 2006.

Inappropriate comments regarding Shiloh arbitration
Your most recent comments regarding the Shiloh arbitration are extraordinarily inappropriate, and you should retract them expeditiously. I removed an unlicensed image from the article. User:MilesD. had uploaded the image with a GFDL release. Since the uploader was not the copyright owner or the copyright owner's representative, the GFDL release was invalid. There was, therefore, no valid claim of use for the image in the article. So I removed it from the article, leaving the appropriate note on the image's talk page. This is a clear-cut case; the image was not suitable for a "fair use" claim. The subsequent comments by various editors make it clear that the uploader believed that physical ownership of the photograph in question entailed ownership of the copyright/reproduction rights; this is, of course, utterly incorrect. There was no need for you to inflame this already out-of-control dispute with irresponsible, personally directed comments like those. Monicasdude 03:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should reread the statements from the involved parties. User:MilesD. claimed to be the owner of the copyright in the photo based on physical ownership, and that claim was incorrect; the uploader at no time claimed to be acting as anyone's agent.  There was, therefore, no valid justification for including the photo in the article.  No other photo was uploaded with the same tag/justification for use.  Images like this one  are validly tagged for use. I reviewed the other images after noticing the problem with the image I removed from the article.  All the others were validly tagged. I think you should consider your own motivations in leaping to an inappropriate conclusion. Monicasdude 04:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am being overly exacting, but I think that either the copyright owner should place the GFDL tag on the image page, or that the tag should be used, as with the other images. I don't believe it's appropriate for anyone other than the copyright owner to perform the initial GFDL release. Monicasdude 05:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Image Sir Harley
I changed the tag to one that correctly states the GFDL release; you mentioned on the RfAR though that you released for all use, which might be a different template. Let me know if you want that changed. Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Never mind, you already got it :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I figured it out, but a lot of good it does now. Yet again Barber does the attacking and we get punished. What a great systemShenandoahShilohs 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Re :Image:HcCollageKidsWeb4 03.jpg
Hi, sorry about that, it's just that those free use licenses require an explicit statement from the copyright holder confirming that they do in fact release all rights to an image. The copyright free use tag is depreciated in favour of the more verbose tag since a lot of people misunderstood the full implications of the minimalistic "free for any purpose" tag. That's not why I changed it though, the reason I changed it to fair use was because it just said we had permission to use it (permission to use is not enough to consider it a free image, it must allow commercial re-use, modification etc also). If the copyright holder does indeed allow free unrestricted use of the image for any purpose by anyone then please put the tag on it along with some kind of "proof" explaining that all rights to the image have indeed been released. Idealy follow the process outlined at Confirmation of permission, but even something like "this is copyrighted by so-and-so, they have agreed to allow anyone to use it freely for any purpose" would be better than "we have permission to use", because it can be confused with wich as you can see is not ideal. --Sherool (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

recover deleted article...
How do I get a copy of the text and discussion from a deleted article?

The article was listed for deletion on Feb. 26th. It is called "COEBA" It was apparently deleted today.

I would like to get a copy of the article contents as it was when it was deleted and the article discussion tab/page contents.

Thanks! --Ben 17:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Only sysops can see deleted content; I'll put it in your userspace -- see your talk page, thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

--Ben 18:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Ben 18:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are still there... Can you restore the text from the discussion page and exclude the "whois" info.  I am looking to copy out some text I wrote back in November.  It was about 5 to 10 paragraphs I think.
 * OK... so I copied all the article and text out. How do I delete my talk page.  I never had one before this so I don't guess I need to keep this one now.  (Thanks again) --Ben 18:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean User:Strbenjr/COEBA? If so, I can delete that for you. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes Ma'am, Thank you for your time! --Ben 18:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Logo
Template:Logo 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. --Esprit15d 19:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Changing the background of a page
Huzzah, that worked! Thanks! Now I just have to experiment with placement and such, and which colors I like. :) I don't use any stylesheets, by the way.  User:Zoe|(talk) 19:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist Financing
Hi Jareth. When you create an article from an WP:AFC submission, remember to credit the original submitter in your edit summary to satisfy the GFDL. At this point, it's probably OK just to make a note about the original author in a subsequent edit summary. Then again, if this submission is anything like the one that came in the day before, then the submitter didn't write any of it, and just pasted-together a few paragraphs from different U.S. gov't reports (which I don't think are copyrighted), and there isn't really much credit to be had by anybody. ×Meegs 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On WP:AFC, the section is called "Fulfilling requests", and is located right below "Recently created articles". The layout of the page is definitely oriented towards the submitters, but we're still working on it, so if you have any suggestions ... ×Meegs 16:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?
Hello, Jareth. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 22:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyvio
Hi, I just spotted your addition of a possible image copyvio marker on a page I work on and was wondering, what's the procedure for justifying the use of the image, and/or removing it from the list of copyvio problems? Thanks. >Gamemaker 15:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response - there's certainly a lot to consider when using images such as these, I've trawled through those pages in the past as part of my time updating the style guide at WikiProject Final Fantasy =) Without wanting to get drawn into minutiae, the image in question Ff8-selphie.jpg already has the template, which I think is the closest match to its nature. You marked it due to the copyright statement at the site from which it was obtained, but I'd contend that the image is not content produced by that site, therefore the following statement from the site also applies: All other content featured on this site that doesn't belong to Creative Uncut is property of its respective owner(s). Shouldn't this place the image back in the domain of Fair Use: Promotional? Thanks for your time =) >Gamemaker 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that; I will. >Gamemaker 16:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject C++
The WikiProject C++ aims to increase the quality of C++-related articles on Wikipedia, and has discovered that you have participated in the editing of them! So don't hesitate, join us! -- De ryc k C.  15:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza's Admin Coaching
Hey! Thanks for signing up in Esperanza's Admin coaching program. Since you've volunteered to help train a user, I've assigned Terence Ong to you and to your partner, NSLE. Please make sure to be kind and helpful to your coachee. If you have any questions, let me know. Thanks again! Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA Withdrawal :(
Hello Jareth, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your vote in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appreciate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Ter e nce Ong 15:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

198.111.237.8
Looks like we both blocked 198.111.237.8 at the same time, I for 3 months and you for one. I unblocked and reblocked for 3 months in order effectuate my block, but if you prefer yours, feel free to unblock and reblock for your time. I have no problem with that. I just wanted to let you know.Gator (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio deletion - does it remove stuff from my contributions list?
Hi there. You are down as deleting the article World Cup 96 Semi Final that I tagged as copyright violation. Thanks for dealing with that. I hope you might be able to answer a question I have about this. My question is whether the deletion removes entries from my contributions list relating to that article (specifically my act of tagging it)? I was recently reviewing my contributions list in an attempt to see what stuff I might want to go back and look at (I prefer this to over-using my watchlist - but I now suspect that using the watchlist would have alerted me when you deleted it), but I saw that the only entry left related to this issue was the entry I made on the copyvio alert page. I then had to go into the history to find the red link to the deleted page, and thence to the deletion log here. After all that, two questions: (1) Is it standard practice to remove the copyvios from the original listing as you deal with them? It would have been helpful for me to see the list on the original date page rather than in the history, but I can understand if Wikipedia decide to leave the only record of this in the history (but a bit pointless really). (2) I am rather unhappy that the original record of me tagging the article as copyvio is no longer in my contributions list. Is my act of listing it at the alert page meant to be the only remaining entry in my contributions list? If so, it seems stange that when I click on it I get a "cleaned up page" and have to dig around in the history. Sorry if this all seems a bit beside the point, but I was rather shocked to find things dropping off my contributions list. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Much appreciated. Carcharoth 07:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Block request
Hi, you blocked user:212.2.183.115.

User:87.192.255.44 seems to be the same person, or in league with this person (check contribution histories). If they are a sockpuppet (or accomplice), it seems there is sufficient reason to block them without the usual test/test2/test3/test4 (since they have been warned elsewhere and/or know what they're doing). Fourohfour 17:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * IPs both come from Ireland and the contribs are eerily similar. I've blocked 87.192.255.44 as well. Thanks for pointing that out! .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem, much appreciated, thanks. Fourohfour 18:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

194.83.172.81
There seems to be nothing but vandalism from this IP. As you mentioned, there hasn't been any vandalism in the last few hours, however his/her history does show that the user will return and will vandalize again, damaging multiple pages in each "session". Isn't that grounds enough for another ban - a longer one this time? I'm still fairly new here, so correct me if i'm wrong... --AbsolutDan 17:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. Thanks for handling this! --AbsolutDan 20:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violation on Freemasonry
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem, to have misunderstood the three-revert rule. As I understand it, it relates to more than three rv's of a given content, not more than 3 rv's on a given page. Fyodor Dos 03:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The internet troll User:Fyodor Dos should be blocked permanently. Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Fyodor_Dos shows that this account was created for edit war and rumor against freemasonry only. 84.61.5.97 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jareth- Re: Veronica Lueken
...Not knowing that someone had done a previous Veronica Lueken article, I did my own version. I hope you'll agree that it is an improvement on the reported copyright violation that the earlier apparently manifested. Also, I'm a cat slave as well. Can we have an update photo of Moe, please?

User Calibanu 17:09, 16 May 2006

Deletion of URL's in SLM Corporation article
Jareth, I noticed that you deleted the URL's that I added in the SLM Corporation article. I was in the process of adding the subsidiaries of SLM Corporation to the Wikipedia article page, as well as the URL's for the companies. If this is against the policies of Wikipedia, I will refrain from adding them.

Thank you, Chemnitz