User talk:Shell Kinney/Archive 3

Like your style of writing. How do I contact you when someone puts up the wrong type of material?

Hey Jereth we need to add this for claification: In regards to noni and Hepatoxicity: Details which should have included what harmful amounts of pesticides may have been used or any other harmful ingredients, impurities are missing from the report. Also a lack of details regarding the preparation of the specific analysis or the product and the care and storage of the product was not included. Most important was the lack of data regarding whether it is noni juice or extracts made from the roots or leaves that may contain anthraquinones. Therefore the case lacks sufficient data to conclude noni was a direct connection for creating hepatoxicity in the patients and requires further investigation. Not sure how to communicate this to you other than this suggested talk page. Also I appreciate your edits. Sorry that so many people try to eid the page. I am all for showing the truth here and both sides of the story not a negative one sided view which news media and other not open minded people want to present.

Alexander Article
Oh my, I am terribly sorry, I see the box that you are talking about now. I thought you had deleted the top box. I agree the new one is terrible, and you should go ahead and remove it again. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. xxpor ( Talk |  Contribs ) 01:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jareth thanks for your post on my usertalk page. It would be great if you could help out with the royal line boxes. Thanks for your offer, and it would be a good learning opportunity for me. James5555 07:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your words of advice
Jareth, thank you for your words of advice regarding dispute resolution. It's true that I need to pursue those avenues further. As I imagine you're aware of now User:Rgulerdem's edits happen to have an impact on many editors who've previously tried to work out given issues with him in altering such edits. His block log is nearly all of the proof that one needs to see this is the case. Thanks again, Netscott 04:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your admin style
Jareth: Putting in blocks for 30 days is out-of-line with other admins. Look at the illustrous Gustafson: he only blocks for 24 hours. You really should pay more attention to what you fellow admins are doing and try to fit in better. I encourage you to discuss the matter with Mr. Gus. and see if you cannot come to more consistent behavior for yourself and your fellow admins, so that you may all more evenly punish anyone who actually follows your "be bold" advice. -- 71.141.13.128 16:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you didn't mention what block you were referring to, its difficult for me to comment on the particular situation. However, in general I block for that length of time after the account has been blocked repeatedly for the same actions and shows little interest in Wikipedia other than the problem edits. You're welcome to discuss the block with other admins if you feel it was unwarranted, or leave me a bit more information so I can research the block.  Thanks. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikification on monobook.js file
Hello, Jareth. Could you please modify this page so that it does not show up in Category:Articles that need to be wikified. Thanks, Kjkolb 08:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that, Jareth. If you don't know already, Brossow fixed the code at WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Quick wikify, so you can update it instead of removing it. Thanks, Kjkolb 14:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Voice of San Diego
There isn't any real point in restoring it; all are blank/copyvio  Sceptr e  ( Talk  ) 13:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof
Thanks for your interest in VandalProof! You've been added to the list of authorized users, and feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page if you have any questions. AmiDaniel (Talk) 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Just questions from a new guy
Hey, Jareth... yeah you get the questions because you responded to my IAV re: Brandubh Blathmac. 1) What's an RfAR? and 2) as an Admin, what's the best way to address this particular type of... well, not vandalism (and some of his editing is useful), but, hate issues, I guess? CMacMillan 17:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

cleaning out copyvios
Hi Jareth, i've been cleaning out the copyvio backlog at Copyright problems and have a question. When i finish a day, do i simply remove it? the advice for admins says something about adding it the log after you remove it from WP:CP, but everything already seems to be at the log, and no one seems to have added anything there, according to the history. So as i'm new at this i figured i'd ask you and make sure i'm going about this correctly, even though it appears all i have to do is remove the entry from CP. cheers --He:ah? 05:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A Download Is Now Available
I just wanted to let you know that a download of VandalProof has recently been made available. AmiDaniel (Talk) 09:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question about Image:Greenvale.jpg
Hi Jareth, you have removed the copyvio notice on Image:Greenvale.jpg, and restored the previous copyright tag. I just wanted to ask you about your reasoning (I am the one who tagged the image as copyvio in the first place). The image is now tagged as "fair use as image of copyrighted software". However, this does not look correct to me (and did not look correct when I originally tagged this image as copyvio). The main problem is that the article is not used to illustrate Google Earth, but only to illustrate the Greenvale, Victoria article &mdash; as such, the current fair use rationale does not apply. Moreover, I don't think the image can ever be used to illustrate Google Earth (since it does not show anything else than the photo, in particular we can not see the software's interface, etc): it looks like it has been uploaded only because it is a picture of Greenvale, and I don't think any of the fair use rationale can be used. Schutz 14:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am quite impressed by the fact that you checked if the image could potentially be PD. I was thinking that some of these images could be PD (US government maybe), but did not think that this information would be easy to find. Anyway, I'll tell the uploader that the image got deleted. Cheers, Schutz 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A KISS Rfa Thanks
Thank you for your comments, I've been promoted. psch e  mp  |  talk  01:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 00:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your recent comment is slightly wide of the mark. Monicasdude's comment about a foolheaded nomination was directed at the nominator Montco who did not claim to be a newbie (and isn't). The comments in the AfD about being a new editor were from, who was the author of the nominated article and indeed a newbie.  (the discussion is not "properly" indented to show this)   So while "foolheaded" was certainly an uncivil thing to say to Montco, it was not directed at a newbie. You might want to revise your comment. Thatcher131 11:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely think the deletion process is hard on new editors, and there is a systematic bias against unfamiliar topics (like historically black churches). But I agree that biting everyone but the newbies must be ok is not much of a solution, and I was frankly appalled to read his comment to you. Thatcher131 21:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Chat
Hi Jareth, would you like to come on IRC or MSN (if you have the time) to discuss something (regarding some issues)? Please come asap but before 1500 (UTC) as I go to bed after that. Cheers. --Ter e nce Ong 08:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

VandalProof 1.1 is Now Available For Download
Happy Easter to all of you, and I hope that this version may fix your current problems and perhaps provide you with a few useful new tools. You can download version 1.1 at User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof. Let me warn you, however, to please be extremely careful when using the new Rollback All Contributions feature, as, aside from the excessive server lag it would cause if everyone began using it at once, it could seriously aggitate several editors to have their contributions reverted. If you would like to experiment with it, though, I'd be more than happy to use my many sockpuppets to create some "vandalism" for you to revert. If you have any problems downloading, installing, or otherwise, please tell me about them at User:AmiDaniel/VP/Bugs and I will do my best to help you. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop posting lies about me
Your track record for posting false statements and rallying your buddies to support your attacks is conspicuous. User:Montco is an experienced editor, not a newbie. He (or she) made transparently false allegations in an AfD discussion, sorting his way through hundreds of Google links to pull out a reference to an unauthorized, not-at-all-relevant link on a spam page while denying the existence of several dozen pages which clearly documented the article whose accuracy he or she challenged. The peculiar fervor that editors like User:Montco have shown for attempting to cleanse Wikipedia of subjects relating to African-American matters and, more broadly, subjects and individuals which fall outside common Anglo-American and western European circles is reprehensible, but somehow you're more interested in censoring criticism of that behavior. You want to roll around in a pigpen, fine, but keep your accumulation of mud to yourself; you're far to eager to sling it. Monicasdude 13:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Pots and kettles. You have a long track record for posting things that aren't true about me (and about other users who disagree with you); and your response when called out about your misinformation is to insist that pointing out your misbehavior is always worse than the misbehavior itself. And if I had any doubts about the lack of good faith behind your repeated inaccuracies, you've just dispelled them with the fabricated claim you posted on the RfaR -- that I've alleged a conspiracy among racist editors, when I said no such thing. Monicasdude 00:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide any kind of evidence for these claims or stop making them. And also, please see above, I copied your statement verbatim. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Gracias
Thanks for your support. The final tally was 52-14-10. PAZ, --Rockero 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for supporting me in the AC elections. I Lov  E Plankton 02:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And may I ask why did you vote for me? I don't belive we have talked to eachother on WIkipedia before or have we? I  Lov  E Plankton 16:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well thank you very much. I  Lov  E Plankton 17:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Hivemind
Do you hate me, or do you hate copyright law? --Daniel Brandt 68.91.255.70 15:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither actually and I have a difficult time understanding what you might even be referring to. However, given your past behavior I'm not sure I care to find out. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably Ohio and a clipped rotated version of the picture I posted? Is that really the best you can do?  My you didn't spend much time on that.  I see you did take the time to make false allegations though. No wonder you don't want to be called a privacy advocate. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

KarNagosThi
OK, you're on it. I'll leave that one to you. I just checked it as an RC item. --John Nagle 18:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for getting me unblocked finally. J-mart 19:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)J-mart

I could use some help/advice from an admin
I noticed you posted a comment on User:Cardiff's talk page.

After checking this users contribs, their appears to be a systematic pattern of non-NPOV edits to a number of prominent Welsh articles, including Prince of Wales and Saint David's Day. This pattern includes this user, plus some anonymnous edits. This includes removing the Welsh-born princes from the list of princes on Prince of Wales.

There is also a pattern of blanking talk page commentary, 86.112.237.131 just re-reverted Cardiff and removed relevant discussion from Talk:Cardiff.

86.112.253.144 is another IP address being used.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you, Econrad 19:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice; it's much appreciated! Econrad 19:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from altering the entry concerning Tim Lucas until you establish the facts. A simple fact check would have shown you that your entry was false and misleading.

rfa thanks
Jareth, thanks for your initial support, and later on neutral vote. I appreciate both your support and constructive criticism. I hope to gain more experience in the upcoming months and be a much better candidate in the future. Holler at me if you ever need anything. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  01:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Advice requested
Jareth, I've stumbled into a topic that is a battleground between two editors. It is a proxy for a decades-long legal dispute over a trademark which is also a person's name. I think that there is virtually zero chance that these two will find any consensus betwen them, but I don't want the articles to become long citations of previous legal motions. I think that taking a stern line as an admin by removing all contentious, non-consensus material will serve to discourage their attempts to use Wikipedia as boxing ring. Do you have any suggestions for keeping this from becoming a Wikipedia problem. If you're interested in seeing them, the articles are Bill Lawrence (trademark) and Bill Lawrence (guitar maker). I admire the work you did at Shiloh Shepherd, but want to avoid this article requiring so much mediation. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, which confirms what I'd thought. Actually I'd split out the "trademark:" article because the legal issues about the trademark were swamping the article about the person. If the involved editors behave it may be appropriate to re-merge them. Feel free to get involved. Cheers, -Will Beback 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet another block request on one of your oldies
Could you please block 69.95.86.73 again, as you have many times in past? This guy is at his vandalism again, this time on the Doc Holliday page. This guy never seems to learn. I suspect he has Tourette's.Sbharris 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: newcomer help
Actually, that was my first attempt at linking directly to a new section. I was sitting here thinking "here's a guy/gal who seems to just need a nudge in the right direction", and figured such a link would be the easiest way to give the person a chance to leave me a message. It seemed to work - he replied immediately! Thanks for noticing! --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

reverting talk page
your last revert has now introduced duplicate messages in the archive and in the live page, so you clearly didnt check the archive before reverting. i will now cleanup the mess. this means removing the anon vandal user's inappropriate message, and the disputee who is angry an argument didnt go his way's inappropriate message. the removal of those then brought further warnings about those removals, as they all stem back to those it is justified to remove them all. nevertheless as a token i have kept the most sensible ones in the archive. Zzzzz 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude closed
This arbitration case is closed.

Monicasdude is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. Monicasdude is banned from making edits related to the deletion process (excepting obvious vandalism and copyright problems) for one year. This is to be interpreted broadly, and includes, but is not limited to, commenting on articles for deletion nominations and removals of nominations for proposed deletion and speedy deletion. He may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Should Monicasdude violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Monicasdude.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney talk 08:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I completly disagree with your decision
I completly disagree with your decision not to block Phil. There is obviously different standards for different people. Phil clearly broke the 3RR rule, which he admitted to me himself. He was very uncivil to me, and he ignored my inuse tag. The guy appears to walk around here with impunity, and worse yet he is an admin! I am shocked at such behavior from an admin. Your actions today have showed me clearly that anyone can get away with any uncivil behavior here, and as long as that person apologizes afterwards, they can get away with it.Travb 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jareth, the only reason the disruption stopped is I had the good sense to stop it. It is unfair that I stop the edit war, and because of I was willing to back down, Phil gets off scot free, despite is very uncivil behavior toward me.


 * Lets say if I continued the revert war which Phil started, what then? I would risk getting blocked too.  Instead, I had the good sense and good faith to trust the wikipedia admins judgement and submit my grievance to 3RR. Phils action were wreckless, uncivil, and he acted with impunity.


 * Your decision makes no sense because you punish the person who was affected by the revert war, who backed down first, and the instigator gets a free pass.


 * But everything I am writing simply does not matter. There is an unwritten rule on the internet that a person never backs down from a decision he makes--no matter what the evidence, so I might as well be talking to a brick wall. I have no dillusions that you will change your decision of blatant favoritism. And I know if I continue to push the subject, you will most probably threaten to block me, as other admins have when I have pushed the subject before in regards to copyright policy.  Travb 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in here—but did you want me blocked just so you could win that silly edit war? That says far more about you than about me, brother, especially since you just keep reverting and trying to raise a lynchmob against me instead of discussing the matter on the talk page. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 15:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's ok...
... I was just wondering if I dreamed of adding links at wikipedia, but then I read the history of that article and I noticed I did put a new link. :-) I also noticed that somebody had my same thought but he has been quicker than me. :-)

-- Kiam 18:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 15th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Need help
Phil is moving around my statments on the admin board, and he refuses to stop. Warn him, then Block him from using the board if he continues.Travb 20:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann Page
Jareth--please read the discussion on the Keith Olbermann discussion page. The listings of the boards that were there were the result of a compromise by Wiki members. One person had their fan forum listed and refused to have it edited out and kept reinserting it. While I and at least other Wikipedian believed that it should ber NO such message boards, he was so insistent on this point, that a compromise was reached by which those links were placed there in a sub-category to at least make it fair, "either all or none." And since this particular person refuse to have it be none, it was those five. Other Wipedians have weighed in with the opinion that this was in fact a very fair compromise.


 * Jareth -- I caught the response on Jeff Berg's page. I was the mediation cabal mediator for that.  I don't really want to argue the compromise right now.  Right now I'm trying to put an end to edit warring.  You are certainly not alone in believing that some of those links are bad, biased, garbage, not big enough, low quality....  They are coming off a 3 month edit war on the links issue.  Right now what I want to do is change the tone of that group, not find the best collection of links.  So with the full understand that you are absolutely correct and that the particular collection of links you want is superior to everyone else's collection and that you understand this issue better than a bunch of editors who are completely focused on Keith Olbermann related issues I'd ask you to accept that right now expressing your wisdom is not helpful to the page as a whole.  Further because of the unhealthy environment that has existed for the last 3 months edits on this issue, even though correct, are likely to be even destructive and not helpful.  So what I'd ask you to do is just hold on to your concern regarding their terrible choice of links for a month or two until after the links section has stabilized and then you can present your case to a bunch of people who can consider it rationally and will see its merits.  Fair enough?  jbolden1517Talk  01:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool glad to hear we are on the same page! Feel free to delete the above if you want.  BTW what does OTRS stand for?  jbolden1517Talk  02:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Good block
Hi, you've commented the review request while I was also trying to comment it, therefore I guess you haven't seen what I consider as evidence. If you feel that #1 was a reversion I'm lost to find any related "original" URL. --&#160;Omniplex 01:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Normally I'd guess that I'm save from any RR-blocks if (1) I just do what most help pages say (= feel free to copy the master help page at any time, in that case I added the new content to the master help page first), and (2) didn't start to revert - whoever starts an edit war loses under WP:3RR. Apparently you disagree with both premises. --&#160;Omniplex 02:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Kahuta Research Laboratories logo
Why did you delete the Kahuta Research Laboratories logo? Aren't logos valid for fair use copyright? --MarsRover 06:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 22nd.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

My RfA
I was wondering if you could provide me with some creative criticism on my Requests for adminship/Computerjoe 3. This way, I can at least improve. Computerjoe 's talk 18:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to. Offhand, did you know that Esperanza has an admin coaching division?  There's lots of people who would enjoy working with you.  I think most of the responses on your RfA fell into a few categories.  First was the CJ undercurrent; it appears a lot of editors felt that its purpose was counterproductive to the Wikipedia community and felt that your considerable involvement in it reflected poorly on your understanding of the way Wikipedia works.  Dispute resolution and general policies knowledge were mentioned as things people felt you were lacking based on your interaction at CJ.  A good way to resolve those types of concerns is to become involved in answering article RfCs, help out at the Mediation Cabal and work on other community projects.  Second was a concern about a lack of civility; the internet is a difficult place to be - without contextual cues from body language and tone, sometimes things just don't come off the way we meant them.  I've seen a number of fantastic people who were thought of as rude because they frequently attempted to be humerous or use sarcasm in their posts; things that often depend on your tone of voice just sound horrible to others in print sometimes.  Perhaps you can look back through some of the interactions that were mentioned and try to determine why others felt you were being incivil.  You may have had no intentions at all of being incivil, but sometimes things just come across poorly in print.  Finally, there were also mentions that you're now on your third RfA in only 5 months; I would suggest waiting quite some time before applying for adminship again.  You may make considerable progress in only a few weeks or a month, but unfortunately repeated requests for RfA are often looked upon poorly as someone far too interested in gaining the tools.


 * If there's anything I can explain further or anything else I can help with, just drop me a line. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing PUI tags
I understand there's quite a bit of dispute over certain paintings and images of US Government employees, however, the proper method is to allow the discussion to complete and then the tag can be removed. Please do not remove the tag from images currently undergoing discussion. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Jareth - I understand that people get upset when I remove the tag from the images in dispute. However, this discussion is now not about the truth, it’s about Jiang and stevenj feeling like they have won the argument.


 * This discussion started with a dispute over one image and has now been escalated by Jiang and stevenj to a whole class of images. I have a big problem with that we have been not been able to get a copyright attorney to weigh in on the matter. I recently went as far as to call the curator at the White House to ask for clarification (which supported my opinion).


 * If Jiang and stevenj had been acting in good faith and trying to get at the truth, they would have actively sought out an expert opinion - that hasn't happened. Instead they have attempted to broaden the dispute and have listed many images that should never have been listed.


 * I believe the images are PD, I have consulted with an outside expert. I recently went as far as to call the curator at the White House to ask for clarification (which supported my opinion). No one else has done that. The images were all correctly tagged to begin with and the instructions at the top of the PUI says that PD images can be removed from the discussion.


 * Instead of waging some sort of edit war and dragging a bunch of images into the dispute, I think it would be helpful if Jiang and stevenj would hold off until an expert weighs in, after all, it’s not as if the images are going anywhere. --evrik 19:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the images aren't going anywhere, so conversely, there's no reason to continue to edit war over the tag, no? Find ways to reach a larger audience, coherently argue your points and the research you've done and the problem should resolve itself.  If it doesn't, there's always RfC, but edit warring hasn't ever been one of the dispute resolution mechanisms. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This may be edit warring, but it is also trying to protect images that are fairly loaded. I just got done posting all the images that are tagged similarly at the commons. If they are good enough for the comms, why not en? --evrik
 * I completely understand your point and you may be absolutely correct. I'm not familiar enough with the situation to make that judgement, however, whether or not your are ultimately correct doesn't make edit warring over the tags correct.  Just let it run its course -- besides, that'll give you more time to move things to commons :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * :-D --evrik 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments here --evrik 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just on my way to point that out to you :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, tagging these images is not important, because whether they are kept or deleted will not depend on whether they are properly tagged at this moment. However, from a procedural standpoint, I believe I am in the right. It is for the benefit of the community that tags be placed at the images under dispute as a means to invite community input and discussion. I tried to reason with Evrik, but he will not stop. He ignored your advice too, and proceeded to remove the tags once more. I really don't know what I can do about this... --Jiang 19:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you could look at my comments and the research Evrik has done and see if you now agree that the images are, in fact, public domain. As I tried to explain, this isn't really a community decision, this is about copyright law and not subject to consensus.  Several of the tags he removed were correct; you had untagged images that were old enough to be in the public domain by that rule as well.  Please try engaging in the discussion. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I responded on that page...reply if you will and continue the discussion there. I'm not aware of tagging any pre-1923 images with PUI. --Jiang 19:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

thank you
Hi Jareth - regarding user talk:Anwar saadat, thanks! Rama&#39;s Arrow 22:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why you removed the archive pages as well though...is it alright if I restore the archives?  Noble eagle  (Talk)  23:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If I removed the archives at the same time, I certainly didn't mean to. I only meant to remove the section where he was labelling others comments as whining and moaning. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * With reference to the above, your edit was reverted by another user - I engaged in a discussion with him here. --Gurubrahma 09:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Re : Welcome back :)
Thank you, my friend! Yes, I'm much more refreshed now given it's school break (at least). - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Real Social Dynamics page
I am not violating copyright laws because i represent the company, Real Social Dynamics. The user secondsight works for our competitor Mystery Method and they created the Real Social Dynamics page on wikipedia to slaner our company. Not only that they are violating copyright laws by creating a page about our company and violating the policy of wikipedia by creating a non-mutual website by having it protected from editing. I would like the page to either be deleted or my information kept in there and fully protected from anyone but an administrator to edit it18:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)hattricksdk


 * Nice try, but I don't work for the Mystery Method (my editing record will show that I have deleted lots of spam links to Mystery's website); that claim is just a convenient way for hattricksdk to try to justify his vandalism. If hattricksdk was the one who added the criticism section to the Mystery Method page, I removed it because it was uncited speculation, and explained why on the talk page.  I did not create the Real Social Dynamics article; I helped save it from speedy deletion.  As for trying to "slander" RSD, that is also blatantly false; I wasn't even the one who made the edits which were critical of the company.  I also reverted at least one edit that was overly negative towards it, as I mentioned on hattricksdk's talk page.  If RSD has image problems, that is not my problem. I think the best solution here is to leave the page the way it is, which is pretty neutral (at least, in my opinion).  If hattricksdk still isn't happy with it, I have invited him to provide positive reviews of RSD published in reliable secondary sources.  --SecondSight 20:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Real Social Dynamics Page
Jareth, please just delete the page and get this all over with. The user secondsight is violating copyright laws by creating the page real social dynamics on wikipedia. Thank you.21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)~hattricksdk


 * I wouldn't necessarily oppose deletion. I actually suggested it earlier on the talk page of the article after the vandalism began, but other users wanted to keep it.  The only problem is that someone else might recreate the page again later, and we would be back to square one.  (P.S.  And for the last time, I did NOT create that page.  Check the history: it was created by User:WoodenBuddha.) --SecondSight 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching
Hi Jareth, our admin coaching has been inactive for quite sometime, about a month or so. Could we restart the coaching as soon as possible? Hope to start admin coaching sooner or later in order to improve my admin knowledge of Wikipedia. --Ter e nce Ong 16:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 29th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)
Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. &mdash; WCityMike (talk &bull; contribs) 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Military All-Stars
Greetings! Based on the edit history of U.S. Military All-Stars, you indicated that the work is not copyrightable because it is a product of the U.S. Government. Do you have evidence to corroborate that military personnel wrote the page? According to Work of the United States Government, "works produced by contractors under government contracts (or submitted in anticipation of such contracts) are protected under U.S. Copyright Law." Given that the source website disclaims itself as not a military site, I also question whether it was developed in the course of an officer's/enlistedman's duties. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There's an OTRS ticket from the gentleman who administers the site, I'll have to go look up the number, stating that he was U.S. Military. Also on the site, The U.S. Military All-Stars, (Est. in 1990)  formally known as the U.S. Navy Baseball Club currently in their 17th season is an organization of active duty and reserve personnel who comprise the only "Joint" armed forces elite-level baseball program in the world.  Its possible that this would not be considered an official duty and may not fall under the general copyright provisions for work product of the U.S. government.  Since there seems to be some concern about the copyright status of the article, it would be best to get an official statement from the webmaster releasing the text under the GFDL or releasing all rights and have that sent to permissions at wikimedia dot org. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)