User talk:SooperJoo

User TalentRock bye bye
Klaas, I just wanted to let you know that Jefferson9235 is not me. However, this person is an employee of Trans Trans Continental or Talent Rock (as you might have noticed the ip address). I am personally done with Lou's Wikipedia page. Our legal team is finally on the case, so now I can move onto other projects that I have been putting off. From one nerd to another... For what it's worth it has been fun battling with you over the last few months. TalentRock 17:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

point taken.
the page does need some work done, but is not worthy of deletion. i had failed to spot the vandalism, and had thought that it was part of the original text. very sorry about that, had a shocker. thanks for pointing it out. Jmac 20:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC) No problem, are you going to rewrite the 'background' section? if you are, then tell me when you have finished and i will gladly have a look at it. If not, then i am happy to rewrite the section myself. ...

Rewrite
OK, i will rewrite the article on Sunday(22nd October) as that is the soonest i can do it. I will tell you when it is finished.

User:70.124.241.113
Blocked. - RoyBoy 800 23:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved message of 2007-02-08T04:17:33 by 24.110.54.195 from my user page to this page
I'm very computer literate but find this site difficult. I appreciate your 'fixing' my misplaced links and such. Thank you!

Here is one from 2/7 that needs to be placed:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-pearlman0707feb07,0,5575155.story

$317M in investor claims could rival state record for Florida

I will, when time permits, become versed in the Wiki ethos. In the mean time, once again Thank you and FUCK LOU ;-)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SooperJoo"

Sorry
Sorry about the vandal warning, I pressed the wrong button on the script I was using, sorry for the inconvenience Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Boys
Yeah, I guess the boy-band thing is silly from our perspective, but I just felt the heading needed to be a bit more... Wikipedic? ... disco spinster   talk  13:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines about writing on living persons.
I notice you are working hard on the page of Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi. However, I would like to point you to WP:BLP, the relevant guideline for biografies of living people. In short, it asks not to make any claims that are not verifiable by reliable sources. I also tagged the article for notability, so you might want to look into that aswell. Happy editing, Martijn Hoekstra 09:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lou Cleanup
Thanks :). I got an urge; it needed wikified.  I dont care for Lou; but I do care that people seeking info on him get it. --Thegingerone 20:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi
I've added a request on the BLP Noticeboard for guidance on the inclusion of links to material sourced solely on easybackgroundcheck and the use of that material as a sole source to support allegations of criminal actions. You may wish to comment in that discussion. (this note also added in the article talk) DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted easybackgroundcheck. I quote from WP:BLP "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)." easybackgroundcheck is an anonymous campaign group type website and has no verifiability. If you can not cite a more authoritative source, the material must stay out until such time as easybackgroundcheck is held to meet the WP:Verifiability standards. In addition, people often lie in court proceedings, even under oath. A deposition has little weight, especially if made by the accuser. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, having read the deposition I have two major issues with it. Firstly it is a lot of what is legally hearsay, i.e. the mother reporting what the child said. Secondly, and this is a big problem for me, is the mother's statement that when she reported a scalding injury of the child to the Sherriff's department, they wouldn't allow her to seek medical aid for the child for over 4 hours while they took statements, and that there was then a further 5 hours or more delay at the hospital while Sherriff's officers were present before the child was first examined. I find it very hard to believe that law officers, who I would expect to have basic first aid training, would first deliberately delay medical treatment of scald injuries for 4 hours, and then sit and wait passively through a further 5 hour delay - anyone who has first aid training knows that burn / scald injuries are something you need to treat fast and that the initial treatment is to cool the affected areas (usually with cold running water) to reduce the heat that has built up in the affected area and so prevent or minimise further damage to body tissue. I simply can't believe that law enforcement officers would ignore this basic first aid. This affects the credibility with which I view the whole deposition, which is a separate issue to the verifiability of the website that it's sourced from. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"people often lie in court proceedings, even under oath.". True. That's why it is so unfortunate (even suspect) that El-Difrawi managed to have the use of the little boys deposition prohibited and at the same time was allowed to have a private - apparently unrecorded - chat with the judge. Be assured the mother spoke the truth and the criminal lied his way out of it. A dreadfull shame it is. --SooperJoo 15:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have credibility issues (outlined above) with the deposition. However, whether the deposition is true or not is irrelevant to the verifiability of where it's being sourced. If you can source the deposition direct from court records then it's fine. Incidentally, your comments are beginning to suggest to me that you do not have NPOV on this. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My POV is writing true facts, following wiki rules. I don't think the court has the record online. I think, whether the deposition is true or not is the only relevant thing really. This should be verifiable with that court. Also, if it were a forgery I assume Wikipedia would possibly get a letter from an offended party, asking with sound legal reasons to take the link down. Until then I'd say, just keep it there. --SooperJoo 20:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edits are obviously "anti pearlman et al" and thus fail WP:NPOV. You are repeatedly publishing WP:OR based on poor sources Wp:blp#Sources. Please take more care with your editing. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 10:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer naming my edits on Pearlman at all "pro truth". My contributions on the subject do not fail WP:NPOV. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". As you may have noticed I do my very best to expose the truth while writing NPOV. If the plain facts cause people to conclude it is a gang of crooks, well, then they can't be helped. --SooperJoo 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've taken to editing the El-Difrawi page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shritwod/Ayman_Ahmed_El-Difrawi_%28draft%29 I will do my best to make the Notability clear, and to get the page into Wiki shape so that it can be re-included into Wikipedia proper.

AfD nomination of Les Henderson
An article that you have been involved in editing, Les Henderson, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Les Henderson (2nd nomination). Thank you. --WeatherFug (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Lou_Pearlman_mugshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lou_Pearlman_mugshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Lou_Pearlman_mugshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lou_Pearlman_mugshot.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)