![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
|
I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 06:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Thank'ee. -- Jeske Couriano 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Nlu ( talk) 06:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yessir. - Jeske ( SHOUT!) 12:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you know how to properly report his vandalism? Some things I am reading imply a third party might be necessary to set an official fact regarding the image, and if he refuses the cooperate, only then it counts as vandalism. Either way, something needs to be reported. Just wondering if you know about this stuff or if I should try to get something done myself. -- ArrEmmDee 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
i would like to see an official site that has the artwork for this Rampard image, and site it sent me to had some other images that are clearly fake too.
I had a gripe with the image as well, but when I edited it, it was replaced and stated as having been on such-and-such website which stated they came from the official www.pokemon.co.jp website, which means it is not necessarily bound to be in the "official" art style, implying it may come from other sources such as their card game, which while not in the standard style, is still official. Unless someone were to remove the license for the image with sufficient proof or by proving a lack of sufficient proof that it is in an acceptable art piece, unless some Wikipedia admin orders me otherwise, I will treat removal of the image as vandalism and continue to revert to it until the official official art is released in a decent size-- I actually have seen the official art DSDark seems to have such a great preference to, they're actually fairly similar in art and pose. If any of that seems entirely unreasonable, that is fine. I'm not up for confrontation, but I'm not up for removal of a sufficient art substitute in the meanwhile.-- ArrEmmDee 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
wait you've seen the real official art for rampard? and if so where–– DSDark 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you thought my addition was vandalism, and, in looking at it, I could have chosen a better word choices. But as a Dungeon & Dragons player from way back and having followed the controversies for many years, the Monster Manual from 1977 had topless drawings and it was a point of concern among those critical of D&D. I've tried to restate the information in a form that is more tasteful. Bbagot 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The monk class did come from The Destroyer novels, as those of us who were playing the game in the '70s know well. I have added the citation. You can always use the {fact} tag rather than just deleting information that you haven't heard of, you know. Truly Trivial 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your message. TheBlazikenMaster 08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought I might split up the sections in the video game part of the article to tell what games eeve appears in, what games it doens't and it's statistics. I was wondering, how is that a game guide, and can I still at least have the statistics mini-section? ~VNinja ~ 01:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize. I won't bother you again.
You can watch individual users? How?
So, you CAN'T watch individual users.
Interesting. An IP block would mean that many people would be affected. Are you a haxor?
That is wack. It's funny how Wikipedia claims to be a "serious" encyclopedia, when it's generally considered by many institutions to not be a valid source of information.
Easily edited...thus invalidating its credibility. Anyway, excited for Diamond/Pearl, or did you import? I'm going to guess you didn't since you don't speak Japanese.
I figure if you spoke Japanese, you'd have made a userbox about it. ;-)
Though I must half-heartedly agree with policy, if these names end up being confirmed, I request that you rerevert (is that a word?) bak to my edits.-- Tempest115 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Jibacoil's been hit again with Magnezone, of course, it hasn't been moved to it, but I don't want to revert the page for obvious reasons. - Sukecchi 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There is official confirmation that Togepi is a baby pokemon, go on to Pokemon-games.com and click on the Pokedex and go down to togepi and it says Baby: Togepi Basic Togetic. DSDark 19:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Look at PokemonElite2000.com the cards confirm Monferno, Infernape, Prinplup, Grotle, Torterra, Magnezone, and Riolu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DSDark ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello Jeske. I saw the comment you left on Talk:Neorant regarding the rumors and their place in the mainspace article. In your opinion, do you think that stating the rumors violates WP:NOT#CBALL or that they should be left in the article? Ksy92003 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you won't stop removing the small notes I have been placing in the D/P Pokemon articles, I will ask you why... And is Bulbapedia a reliable source, since Wikipedia obviously is, and there are basically the same thing?
Also, what is wrong with reporting news about the reported English names? It's not speculation, as you suggest, as I am not the one making it up... And second, if several sites on the internet leaked the names out and said outright that they didn't do it all at once because Nintendo would be mad, and Nintendo came back by telling people on their forums not to use the English names due to spoilers about the English versions of the games, isn't that verifiable enough? Oraclelink 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
H3y jeske, just letting you know that j milburn is unfair can u tell him that Jimmyr6 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
For all the reverts of my talk and user page. I have reported the user after continued vandalism after a final warning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J Milburn ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Chiming in to convey my thanks as well. I can't help but appreciate his sense of humour, however. — Dorvaq ( talk) 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking about the name "Jake", but there is no common name that will help me remember the name as "Jeske", perhaps you can help me remember? What's the best way to remember that e in your name? TheBlazikenMaster 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.77.242.26 ( talk) 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
I understand! You are far better than Urutapu!
personally... after seeing how many vandalizing edits this guy made, i would be done warning and go ahead and request a block. It's not justified that he's able to vandalize 5 pages at once and only get one warning, especially when he's already been warned and it's blatant. but that's just me, that anon has only one more shot. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
oh no... please don't take it negatively... i just saw what he was doing and got angry. my statement that "ur too nice" was just meant in a playful manner... damned internet for not being able to convey nuance. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for being a jerk back there, but it just really annoyed me that some opinions were welcomed and others weren't. But it looks like it is all fine now. And so I don't piss off anyone even more, I'll let you make the call. Do you really think Bidoof looks like a cow? ( 68.164.13.17 06:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC))
You told me that Wikipedia doesn't blocked language/porn. Why is that? So anyone can just go cussing everybody off a talk page? I had to delete a piece on the sandbox because it was so bad. Wikipedia, being known for its good articles, should have some sort of policy. Like an Administrator could edit it or something. Sincerely, Kevin 20 5 23 26 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
yeah... i saw that.... sigh.... guess my wikibreak is over (last one i took ended up losing two maintenance categories) - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
While I do agree with your edits to the page, I do believe that what Missing Oreo was refering to with his refs were the dex entries.-- Tempest115 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hair chr m 02:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
On the mawile talk page someone was talking about how it is usefull and i said that "i dont know if it helps but mawile is my second best pokemon and that faint attack is very usefull" and it says you reverted it and said that it was spam, i was not spamming! i was trying to help the person out by saying some other things about it being useful!- hotspot
If you don't know Spanish, that means "I'm sorry." When I said "leader," I only meant that you were one of thoe three who makes nearly all the edits to the Pokemon articles along with Urutapu and Mcy. I wasn't judging based on your actual edits. Sorry for confusion. A trivial matter, as far as I'm concerned. -- Ksy92003 ( talk) 05:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as notifying the relevant WikiProject, that's not up to me, that was up to the nominator. I was merely the closing administrator. ^ demon [omg plz] 02:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You're fast. I just went to Talk:Mudkip to tell you that I had already put in the request. But when I clicked to edit the section, I saw that it was removed. And apparently in that span of 5 seconds, you noticed that I put the request through to WP:RFPP and removed the section. You're pretty fast, mate. Caught me off-guard :) Ksy92003 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did most of the pokemon articles get changed to "List of pokemon ____ to _____" when they all had there own articles before. I mean when each of them had there own article it was WAY more informative and useful.
Just wanted to tell you that I replied on my talk page... or will momentarily. Ksy92003 (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The list article was denied semi-protection, at least until it starts getting vandalized.-- ZXCVBNM 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the comment I left you. I was just wondering if you knew if Charizard was going to be kept as its own article instead of being merged. Ksy92003 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I never knew that. Aw well thanks for the update. TheUltimate3 09:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please retract this comment. If you actually read the change I made to WP:NOT, which is unrelated to the nomination, you will see that it was readily accepted. As, of course, I already pointed out on my talk page. Mudslinging is unacceptable. -- Eyrian 16:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I knew to revert, so no problem. :) Oh, and I've included your Mudkipz userbox to my own userbox subpage if that's okay with you. :) - WarthogDemon 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
.. for your timely intervention :) - Alison ☺ 08:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
What is a cluetrout? Regards, Navou banter 03:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Bigglove talk 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report at
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and
all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only
block users if they have received a recent final
warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you.
Jmlk
1
7
23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh, my bad. I meant to move it back chronlogically. Didn't look like it would delete content otherwise I would've moved it manually. Sorry about that mess up. - Warthog Demon 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried that (in fact, it still says that) but it is not showing up on CAT:CSD because it wants some deletion rationale (since it is a talk page) so I did this instead. MfD - Rjd0060 23:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks
it is important though to tagg the article under dipsute Bold textwhich can not be removed by the editors if no consensus is reached. thanks again. -- Sm565 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I received a message from you regarding vandalism. If you have anything valid to say to me regarding the accusation, I want to do so through arbitration. 65.188.22.40 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops! WP:RFAA told me to go there for "some other reason" and that's why I did that. Sorry!!! jonathan ( talk — contribs) 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the 'heads up' on this. For some bizarre reason the Category:Fictional universe stubs was included in the recursive list (a 'daughter' of) the Category:Comics stubs. As there was only one subcategory therein that could be strictly considered as a 'comics' related fictional universe, I have removed the link and the fict universe stubs won't be included in lists of comics stubs any more. Sometimes it's these 'goofs' that help fix things that aren't looked at too often (I would never have thought that fict universes would be considered as 'comics' by someone)! I'll go back on the bot tags and remove any that clearly fall into those other fict universes categories. SkierRMH 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you've been pretty active in removing Mudkip related nonsense from the Pokemon and mudskipper articles, so wonder if you'd mind watching Axolotl as well. It gets the same rubbish periodically, not helped by a page on Encyclopaedia Dramatica encouraging people to revert to a version full of silliness. I can't link to the Encyclopaedia Dramatica page as it's on the spam blacklist - suggest you Google it and go to the mudkip page if you haven't seen it already. I'm watching it myself, but will be away for the next week so would be good to have another pair of eyes on it. Regards Iain99 Balderdash and piffle 14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
u
Every correction I made was formatting errors, or spelling. If you look at the reversion you reverted it back to, it looks ridiculous. I don't care who's edits they are. Spelling was wrong, and headers weren't capitalized. You asked for me not to correct other users edits? Who's would I correct then? Carter | Talk to me 05:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I just noticed your comment on the request for protection, and realized I wasn't terribly clear on what I meant. But the correct page got protected so its all good, sorry for any confusion, Ill try and be more clear next time. :-) Good luck editing.
Gonzo fan2007
talk ♦
contribs
06:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
And to help Wikipedia of course. :D Now what should be done with User:UniversalHero? - Warthog Demon 06:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Regards this edit and comment, that particular user is a sock of User:Creepy Crawler who's actions usually consist solely of adding a link to the barefoot page and a collection of middling-useful categories; sometimes correct, sometimes spammy. I've been watching and correcting his/her additions for a while now, but it's a lot of work to revert and the 3rr is always close to being breached when he/she is actually online. All this to say, if you see similar actions in the future, I love to have help with corrections, warnings and blocks (I believe you will pass an RFA soon?) and this has been going on for months. I think myself alone I've tagged about 8 different socks with exactly the same contribution history.
Thanks,
WLU 14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for quickly reverting vandal-like deletion edits to my talk page by Dictator Bimbo Wales this morning. Jaraalbe 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeske, just want to alert you that there has been an Oppose vote at your RfA, citing an WP:Civil issue. I already added my comment to this, but I guess you would want to add a statement of your own, to. The issue is a bit, hmm, creepy... :-/ Gray62 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to explain why I reverted your well intentioned revert of personal attacks as found on User talk:Philippe. This is a very unique case were the personal attacks are actually the subject matter of the main topic, so reverting them has a negative impact on the topic itself. My assumption is that you acted solely based on normal Wikipedia standards and did not have any hidden agenda of protecting the one making the personal attacks. That individual has now been blocked for 48 hours. Just wanted you to know exactly what was going on and why I reverted your revert. There is no need to reply as this was a very unique situation. Thank you for your on going work in reverting vandalism where ever it occurs. Dbiel ( Talk) 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Given you're passing with flying colours so far, I can probably guess what your first admin action is when promoted (delete the Main Page! Yeah!) Will ( talk) 12:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! -- Deskana (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, congrats, I see you're getting your hands dirty at RFPP already! All the best :) ~ Riana ⁂ 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You were always one of the more useful and productive non-admins at RFPP. I think it's safe in your hands. – Steel 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RfA. If you have any questions, then you can also ask me. I'm not an admin here, but I am on another Wiki. So I am familiar with the tools. But finally: no more having to go to WP:RFPP; you can do it yourself! Ksy92003 (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the article; I was just about to ask. Acroterion (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I note that you were the first to remove a link to www.thefirmament.org placed on the Firmament page. User Megamile has since made multiple attempts to place this link on this and other pages, despite multiple reverts by others (including me). Now a new pattern is emerging: several new user accounts have been created with no apparent purpose except to debate the issue on the Talkpage ( MyCallonWiki, IMSirius, Stargate5), and one of these has just replaced the link (I reverted him). I suspect sockpuppetry (or maybe meatpuppetry). -- Robert Stevens 19:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
you just protected Grey's Anatomy, but this person continued to revert your protected page. [2], and deleted the "racial diversity" fact. you should check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.219.71 ( talk) 01:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your protection spell (and amusing reasoning)! May your contributions never be reverted and may your talk page henceforth be free of Mud. Elementals of the Interweb, I summon, stir and call ye up to guard this User and the pages they write - so mote it be! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 10:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that I brought up that there may be a possible trademark/copyright violation by including the image of the Nobel Prize medal in the article. See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Photo of Nobel Prize medal. I know that blocking admins don't block on a correct or incorrect version but wouldn't it have been in the best interest of Wikipedia to remove the image from the article until the legality of its use is determined? –panda 15:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
sorry i thought ppl redirected the arceus page for no reason. Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I can find the links I need to prove the claims in 5 minutes (I can find the two articles I named on that talk page in two, I have an archive site that hosts them in my favourites), I can give them to you, though, or you can find them by typing in google searches for "snopes criticism". What do you need? I don't have a good sense for this kinda thing, and I wanna make sure I do this right, yanno? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't the one asking for unprotection. Only thing I did was add the right template. Why are you telling me this? TheBlazikenMaster 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
But maybe it makes it a pterodacturd! -- But| seriously| folks 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, hope you don't mind, but I fixed a spelling error on your userpage [3], thanks, and happy editing! Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 02:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that you blocked Doggypoopy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for username. You may want to hardblock it because an account named Doggypoop ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (similar name) has also been blocked recently, so it's likely a vandal sock. Thanks.-- Avant Guard 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi... This article was vandalized by an anon-ip after you added the semi-protection tag -- maybe it didn't actually get protected? -- Rrburke( talk) 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jeske. I dont quite understand the reason for your answer. If the change of the username will not help remove the COI template on the page I have created , then what will? Because this is the only reason that I see for that template there, given that I have made the language of the article as neutral and informative as possible. What exactly is the COI? My apologies if I am not aware of some basic Wikipedia rule on the issue. 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Cerge-ei
Hello Jeske. That IP address who keeps referring to Jedi123456 on name change, has made more edits to the section, here. Any plans for what we could do? Rudget Contributions 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I outlined my reasons for thinking this at the discussion page before realizing I was meant to speak to you directly. As tedious as it is to continually revert acts of vandalism, I don't believe that protection is in the long-term interest of the project. - MBlume 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Are all my socks. There is no copycat. Please block this account. I am Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz! 03:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
In light of the many regs that have been thrown around at the discussion on Bulbsasaur, how do you tolerate the state Meowth is in?-- Barnyard animals 06:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for whacking that guy :) ~ Riana ⁂ 09:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You protected this article with the "Controversy" section removed, despite it having credible citations. Please revert the article back to include this information and then protect it. Thanks. Sidar 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please restore the previous version of the Steve Hoffman entry. The Controversy section should be included before being protected. It it both well-sourced and a key detail in this individual's career. Otherwise, I request that this entry is removed entirely. The people that are removing the Controversy section are trying to erase a key detail which makes for a very biased Wiki entry.
Huberman
20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman
I have added my opinion on this matter to the Talk section of the Steve Hoffman entry. I respectfully ask that you consider the details Jéské. Thanks 12.152.10.41 21:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman
Take it easy dude. I was just saying...comprende amigo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.10.41 ( talk) 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to a recent posting of yours in the discussion section. I would be grateful if you could read it and let me know your thoughts. I am new to this, so excuse any missteps on my part. Thanks -- Foultip 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've found that you've blocked the user, saying that if he is Al Gore, let the Wikimedia Foundation know. But how should a famous person like Al Gore who wish to join Wikipedia inform the Foundation? Didn't the username policy only said that the user must state in his/her/its userpage? -- Edmund the King of the Woods! 10:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You sprotected this. Please take a more careful look at the history here. There was one major vandaliser IP. Now that is blocked. There just so happened to be another today. But look further back. The 50th revision is all the way back in March. It was just a freak coincidence. I urge you to reconsider. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Five days has been long enough for a non-issue. Further protection needs justification. Turtlescrubber 13:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The anon editor has not engaged in discussion on the Talk Page and so there seems to be no way to resolve the content dispute. Please unprotect the page. -- Richard 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Been busy at RFPP, huh? Apparently your RfA was successful :) I was so used to seeing you over there I did a double take (hang on, he's using the template?) Congratulations, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You protected a page leaving a potential copyright/trademark violation in the infobox Nobel Prize (the image); see Talk:Nobel Prize and my recent comments in various reports pages. The image placed there is in dispute. Until the dispute is resolved, the image needs to be removed by administrator(s) who are currently the only ones able to edit the page. [As a new administrator, perhaps you didn't realize that.] You protected a page leaving an image whose validity is disputed. When such questions arise about an image, Wikipedia's policy is to remove it until the questions are properly resolved. This is a legal matter. Please see WP:3RR violations page and links to the fair use violations and non-free content issues provided throughout that report. Thank you. -- NYScholar 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [In part due to the disputed image, the article has failed a "good article" review; there are several other reasons too for its failing the "good article" review, but removing the image will be an improvement to the article; moreover, it is required by the terms of the good article review. As an administrator, you (or another administrator) can remove the image while the review of the validity of its license is being reviewed. It also lacks a necessary detailed fair-use rationale, as the image includes the currently-registered trademark for Nobel Foundation (organization/company), which is WP:Non-free content and subject to WP:Fair use guidelines, as well as the copyright and trademark notice restrictions on nobelprize.org cited in my comments elsewhere about this problem. See WP:AN/3RR violations report page [4]. I hope that you will correct this problem. Thank you. -- NYScholar 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I request you re-instate this image, per your original inclination. Per the discussion on the copyright-specialist forum at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Image:DSCN0732.JPG, there appears to be no problem with this image, because the underlying design was known in the U.S. before 1923.
I don't know why NYScholar has got such a bee in his bonnet about this image, but he has repeatedly failed, when requested, to respond to this point, which is basic for any claim to a U.S. copyright. Jheald 00:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I find that the previous user (User:Jheald) has been uncivil (in the fair use concerns pages, where I reported this problem) and is repeatedly stating misleading and false information (with no basis in fact). The designs of all the Nobel medals are currently (still) the property of the Nobel Foundation which features their images, describes the designs, and explains their history, featuring "Registered trademark of The Nobel Foundation" with each image/design of each medal. The designers of the medals never owned the copyrights to the designs, as they were done as work for hire for the Nobel Foundation (or its predecessor/organization). The design was work for hire commissioned by the Nobel Foundation (or its predecessor organization/s) and the "use" of images of the Nobel Prize Medals (all of them, including the Nobel Peace Prize Medal) is subject to current notices of current trademarks and copyrights posted clearly on the Nobel Foundation's feature of each medal image. [edit conflict] The date of the design (and the Peace medal was based on a design by another designer) has nothing to do with the designs and images of the medals all currently being registered properties of the Nobel Foundation (the design of the Nobel Peace Prize Medal is the same now as it was in 1933, and the design of the medal and the copyrighted images of the medal are all identified as a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation organization). Wikipedia cannot violate the terms and conditions of these registered trademarks and copyrights. I've made this very clear; the user just ignores what I've said and refuses to acknowledge that s/he has no basis in fact for claims otherwise. The medal designs/images of the medals are the trademark of the Nobel Foundation and subject to U.S. and international laws as well as Wikipedia's own stated policies and guidelines pertaining to Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Trademarks and WP:Copyright. I see no evidence to the contrary. [I see no evidence that user jheald is a "specialist" in copyright and trademark laws or Wikipedia policies and guidelines pertaining to fair use; s/he is not an intellectual property lawyer as far as I can tell or acknowledged as an expert pertaining to intellectual and artistic property law. There is too much left unclear in the lack of a detailed fair-use rationale for this image in question.] -- NYScholar 00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [Updated in brackets. -- NYScholar 01:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Jéské, that's ok, you deserve the Nobel Prize for having the courage to step into the middle of this one . . . -- But| seriously| folks 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone cares, I received a reply from the Nobel Foundation (already!). They responded:
So my guess is that whatever the people here at WP decide is fine for now. If anyone still cares later on, I can try contacting them again in January or February when everything is more calm for them. Where else should this be cross-posted to? –panda 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you please unprotect this article? A person name Eve Torres (I don't know if it's the same as the deleted article) just won the 2007 WWE Diva Search, and I would like to move her article from Eve Marie Torres to Eve Torres. TJ Spyke 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You have acted with undue haste in protecting the Hot House article. The article is completely unsourced, and as the rules state, unsourced content can be removed at any time. If editors would simply take the time to source the article, then other editors would not have to take the desperate action of removing the unsourced material, over and over, until proper sourcing is made. Why is an article allowed to stand, that has never been sourced? In the absence of sourcing, the material can be considered OR, and can be seen as free advertising for the studio it discusses. Is it only coincidental that the studio employs "Sister Roma," the subject of another article that has had attention brought to it for lack of sourcing? There is a pro-porn agenda among the editors working on this article (and the Sister Roma and Sister Boom-Boom articles). They ignore the rules on sourcing, and your protection of the Hot House article enables their improper activity further.
72.68.30.122 10:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
72.68.30.122 11:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Please scroll up to User talk:Jéské Couriano#Problem and see links there. Thank you. -- NYScholar 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Please explain your removing four references from Sister Roma? Each was asserting the notability of the events for which they were citing per WP:REF to avoid WP:OR. Benjiboi 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't disagree with your decision to lock the page. I would like some advice on what I should do about primarily user:Sesshomaru and secondarily user:DBZROCKS. They have both gone around and removed almost all information from several character pages, and Sesh has even nominated one for deletion TWICE because of his perceived lack of sources. Even though all of the pages he editted cite the anime/manga as a source, he has ignored this and the policies regarding the matter. They also go and revert any changes made to the articles. They claim that the edits are "controversial" or "unsourced". But even when an explanation is provided they completely ignore it. What do you think should be done?-- Marhawkman 00:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I question the validity of fully protecting the article Civil Air Patrol, given that the "edit warring" you gave as rationale was other editors attempting to combat either vandalism or someone completely unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy (which is about the same thing). The IP User:72.148.190.9 has been warned multiple times both in edit summaries and on his/her talk page, yet continues in their effort unabated to add a specific bit of material which is not supported by any present source. I would suggest that the more appropriate action would be a semi-protection of the article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:Battle of Lesnaya and unlock the article. Thanks. Voyevoda 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Re. the ANI report, I've blocked that IP address. Threats of taking a shotgun to anyone breaks a number of rules here so I went ahead and blocked them. Sorry for going against your comment / warning but I felt the seriousness of that kind of attack warranted an immediate block. Hope you don't mind - Alison ❤ 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove my request for protection on that article? If you want to reject it, then reject it. DO NOT REMOVE IT WITHOUT EXPLANATION. Understand? Iaberis 17:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please take another look at the debate on the Fred Thompson talk page and make some sort of suggestion as to what it would take to unprotect the page? The regular media might pick up the story on the suppresion of numerous cited articles claiming notability of the age difference, the way they did before with Thompson's talk page. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
OOOOHHHHH. New admin throws a jab. Continues to overreact. A small amount of power still corrupts. Have fun on your two inch high pedestal. Turtlescrubber 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have been waiting for an edit for over a week now. Can you please add it?
Jeremy221 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
user:sesshomaru is still at it. He still completely ignores everything anyone says about what he's doing. His rantings have, so far, devolved to pointing at policies and some article about a guy named DL Hughley. And he reverts all attempts at fixing the damage he's done.-- Marhawkman 11:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. What issue needs to be ironed out before you can remove the protection from the Fred Thompson article? And who needs to iron it out? Remember 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jéské, The notice is not only for Canadians or those who observe Remembrance Day, but to remind people about the wars (doesn't really matter which one or which side) and the people who fought in them, who live through them, and who suffered because of them....I am trying to be as ambiguous as possible with this notices, which means that anyone could see it differently...some people might see it as a reminder of how Canada "became" a nation in WWI, or of how many people died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or of the attack at Pearl Harbor, or of the Holocaust, or of the killings in Darfur, or of the Rwandan Genocide, or of the Nanking Massacre....its up to those who receive the message to define what it is a reminder of...but if you choose to have it removed from your user talk page thats fine with me. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And I'm very impressed by your Dhammapada quote! Bravo for your swift and judicious action. Thanks so much! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to push this, but the vandalism overwhelms the real contributions and I didn't see anywhere that said it had to be every single day..., at least a week or two, to discourage the kids doing it, pleeeeeeeease -- Tallard 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Jeske! I am not exactly sure why the image on the Nobel Prize page has been commented out and orphaned. I think it has been established in about 5 different discussion pages that the image is completely usable. In fact, you yourself have said, "It's becoming clear to me that NYS doesn't have a case for wanting this removed, under law or policy". It, therefore, seems somewhat wrong to remove it because one OCD user is still writing pages and pages of nonsense over this issue and can't move on. I don't wanted to touch your edit but I hope that you can restore this based on what has been reached by overwhelming consensus. But, then again, I might be wrong??? Thanks. aNubiSIII ( T / C) 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry man, just wondered where you moved my question about the Pokemon articles too. regards -- Tefalstar 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jeske. This edit shows that the IP-hopping vandal is back at Red Flag (band), less than 24 hours after your three weeks of article semi-protection expired. What do you recommend we do? EdJohnston 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeske,
Thanks for stopping by the Super Mario Galaxy article in response to my page protection request. I noticed you remarked about the high level of IP vandalism here, but the log says you actually unprotected the already unprotected page. Since the next edit has you adding the {{ pp-semiprotected}} template, I just wanted to stop by and check to see if you actually intended to protect it after all.
Sorry if this seems rude; I not an admin and don't know enough about how the actual page protection interface works, so for all I know it could be the first salvo in a brilliant, sweeping protection strategy :) Thanks for your help! -- jonny-mt( t)( c) Tell me what you think! 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to make character pages for the show "Weeds" but I donno how to make a copyright tag for the images. I asked for help on the Weeds discussion page as well (or someone who knows how to help me provide it), but I don't understand what it's asking for- can you clear it up, since I don't understand the articles on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Admin, you blocked 86.155.215.165 from editing for a week on 11th November, after the little exchange [ [13]], having said that if he shows up again under a different IP, you might consider semi-protecting the page. If you look at Talk:Hakka, you'll see he's back again, as 81.157.100.12, same old tactics, same old abuses. I leave the entire matter in your hands! InfernoXV 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm new here, so I'm not entirely sure how you go about this, but I'd like to request unprotection for No. 18. The reason for the dispute was whether or not 18 had actually married Krillin. I was able to find a verifiable, primary source that confirmed the marriage, and it was enough to convince those who were previously unconvinced that Krillin is indeed her husband. The dispute can be found here. With the dispute settled, I'd like this page unprotected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K9feline ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey there - I would like to unprotect Image:DSCN0732.JPG to correct the templates. I am stopping by here first since you protected it. With all due respect to the volumes of discussion about the image, the image needs to be tagged with a copyright template and have a proper fair use rationale. Anything otherwise is a violation of our image policy so it's not really a "consensus" issue. Nobel is still using the medal and they have clearly claimed copyright on it as recently as this year. These photographs are absolutely not derivative works. -- Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you unprotect Fred Thompson? It looks like we've finally gotten consensus on the wording of the age difference between Fred Thompson and his second wife.See the bottom of this section. [14] Thanks! -- Bobblehead (rants) 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny what you did here. ;) - Go od sh op ed 23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Same thing on the PeeWee, but with California State University IPs. - Go od sh op ed 18:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello there Jéské. I feel the need to inform you that the user V-Dash has apparently circumvented the block you placed on him only nine days ago. At least he is touting that he has broken his own block.
(slight edit) I just realized that the time difference would have made it ten days from his original block. However, it would seem that these changes have been in place for at least a day or two. Action22579 ( talk) 06:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I case you aren't still following the section, I'm pointing out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#David Howell (chess player). I hope you don't mind, but I've also used two of your blocks as examples in another thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Indefinite blocks. If you would prefer different examples be used, please let me know. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-ing those two pages -- but he's at at least one other so far now -- Kingdom of Armenia could you be so kind as to semi that as well? Thanks! Gscshoyru ( talk) 04:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
And thanks from me for the same on Mitt Romney. Should help. Tvoz | talk 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I've come across a stumbling block & ask your assistance. I'm attempting to block ScottMichaelMcDaniel/SurveyGizmo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - and yes, that's the name, with the "/" in it. When I try the block, it tells me the user doesn't exist. I've tried deleting it, restoring it (current state)... Suggestions? My guess is the / is screwing things up, but ain't got a clue how to bypass it. SkierRMH ( talk) 08:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Basically the use of "until now" in the Smash Bros. updates is throwing some editors into a frenzy given that the rest of the body of editors do not consider the statements made here to be confirmation of Ness' removal, especially given that if dismissed, he would be the first veteran fighter to be confirmed as not in Brawl. One of the lamest talk page debates ensued because of this disagreement. Given that the phrase has been used in several updates since then, and not in that context, we're trying to be sensitive and not use "up until now" as examples of confirmation or dismissal of characters. Hopefully that sheds some light; the talk page archives at Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series) have the full story. I posted here to let you know instead of on the page to avoid unearthing it all again.
By the way, thank you for your work on the 241-260 page. As much as I liek the Mudkip, I can't source it, and that's what matters :) Coreycubed ( talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You reverted my edit citing a lack of proof. Have fun reading this long story. User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#View_by_Certified.Gangsta then you would know what kind of turmoil I have been going through.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 07:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm under arbCom revert parole and my appeal is still pending. Would you mind if you revert for me? Thanks-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 09:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Copied from the COIN:
There are significant problems both with the determination of the admin here and the way by which he arrived at it. The admin has quoted "the article" -- he doesn't say which, but he quotes it to say: "...protests by church groups.." That they were church groups is not contentious here; describing the protesters as Christian protesters is contentious. Though all Christian houses of worship can be described as churches, not all churches are necessarily Christian. And it cannnot be extrapolated from either source used that all of the churches present at the protest were Christian. Similarly, it cannot be extrapolated from either source used that all the protesters were Christian -- it can only be said, reading the sources, that the protesters were from church groups. It is quite different to describe the protesters as Christian protesters than to say they are church group protesters. Neither source cited says the protesters were Christian; that interpolation is the product of the author's anti-Christian agenda. The admin finds that that use of the term "Reservations" and linking that term to the reservations page is unfortunate, when in effect, it is deliberate and designed to attract the reader to the reservations page.
The admin has made his determination referencing material in the article that was not raised in the COI concerns: he talks about the church groups being Christian groups, when it was the description of the protesters as Christian that is contentious. The admin assigns no weight to the author's choice to direct the reader to the reservations page (where they could make a purchase). The admin has ignored the very issues that form the basis of this COI notice.
It is my understanding that at WP we report the facts, not the author's interpolation or interpretation of facts as fact.
I am unable to give this matter any more attention at this time. Even this statement is incomplete but had to be made to respond to this ridiculous finding. Immediately following Chanukah I will seek additional intervention, including an inquiry into the capability of this admin and the veracity of his adminship.
This matter is far from resolved and it certainly is not over.--72.76.13.102 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sirkad
(Talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![]() |
Angel Heart Barnstar | |
For your dedication to dealing with some of the least fabulous aspects of the human condition including sorting out vandalistic (and likely homophobic) attackers often "behind the scenes" I award you the Angel Heart Barnstar. Your diligent work and compassionate service to those who appreciate the support for continuing their contributions to Wikipedia has hereby not gone unnoticed and in fact has very much eased distress and helped the Wikipedia community. Benjiboi 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC) |
Domo Arigato, Benjiboi! I made certain he won't be using COI/N as an attack route anytime soon as well, since he was beating a dead horse with the same stuff he had complained about (and gotten shot down on). - Jéské ( Blah v^_^v) 02:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page! cheers. Sirkad (Talk) 01:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Great Gratitude Barnstar |
This barnstar is awarded to Jéské Couriano for helping remove vandalism on Sirkad's Userpage. |
Hey Jéské, you reverted the IP's edit on leaked info. Just so you know, everytime you see an IP adding 'leaked' info to blogspot sites, it's likely a sockpuppet of all the socks in this report: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Europebound2007. So if you come across one again, you can probably block the IP immediately with no warings necessary. Spellcast 03:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Recently, you semi-protected the article Raiden Fighters 2 because of some IP hopper who makes infrequent, but persistent vandalism edits. Well, this person is back. Now he is vandalizing articles about the other games in the same series: Raiden Fighters and Raiden Fighters Jet. The IP hopper blatantly places the same misleading and incorrect information in these articles as he did in Raiden Fighters 2. I was going to put up a RFPP, but it would be pointless for articles that have been vandalized just once.
The IP range for the vandal belongs in the 206.170.103.* block. Judging by the latest actions, it is clear this IP hopper is here to cause trouble, seeing that this person added almost exactly the same misleading information in two other similar articles as in Raiden Fighters 2. I don't know if this is grounds for a block of the entire IP range, but trying to talk to this person directly will be fruitless due to the constantly changing dynamic IP address. Thank you very much for your time. JudgeSpear 10:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
He's back. Ran for RFA, failed, immediately ran again. Derekhunter 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
For your oustanding work on keeping V-Dash's interaction's with other members as peaceful as possible. Kudos! MelicansMatkin 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) |
I really have no problem with the user, but after the two very "vivid" emails, I figured RPP was needed, but I will keep an eye on the page. Take Care... NeutralHomer T: C 06:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please reconsider your semi-protections of Goodshoped35110s' subpages. This user is extremely problematic, and there is no real reason to protect the pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#My recent block of Goodshoped35110s for a quick idea of this user's behavior. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for going over this with me, Im going off line now, but your time was appreciated Fasach Nua ( talk) 23:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jéské, sorry to bother, but remember this? 86.155.215.165, who later turned up as 81.157.100.12, is now working on Cantonese people both as 77.44.49.36 and 81.154.205.12. His edits are unsourced and entirely POV, and he's doing the same old ad-hominems on Talk:Cantonese people. My reversions of his OR have elicted an accusation of vandalism. I'm hesitant to call his accusations 'civil discourse' as it really appears to be neither. A glance at my contributions will show that I edit a variety of articles, including some serious academic ones, and that I do not make frivolous POV edits. His edits, OTOH, seem to revolve largely around Hakka and Cantonese, and are not only unsourced and unreferenced, but controversial, heavy-handed and show clear bias. InfernoXV ( talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You broke 3RR there. As an admin, you should know that adding unsourced material to an article (even repeatedly) is not vandalism, so it's not an exception to 3RR. Not only did you revert 4 times today in your content dispute, you extended the edit war further by asking another editor to revert for you as a proxy. Also not good. As you can see, I didn't block you even though I did block the IP editor; ordinarily I would block both parties to an edit war, but in this case I thought it would be better to suggest you just take it upon yourself to step away from the article for a while and cool off. Kafziel Talk 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why you fully protected Virginia Tech massacre? An IP user - 67.52.70.242 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalized the article three times and Sfmammamia ( talk · contribs) reverted the vandalism. All three edits were unquestionably vandalism - (1) adding "butt head", (2) adding "Cho was one messed up person." and "bold text", and (3) blanking a section and replacing it with "i dont know what this feature is but isnt this all just cleint sided so why should i get introuble if it doesnt do anything". Though there is a mild discussion on the talk page about the inclusion of some questionable content, it has not resulted in an edit war on the article. -- B ( talk) 22:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought you didn't want anything to do with me? That topic was well within the guidelines. V-Dash ( talk) 03:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok.. Fine, I'll do that. You go your way and I go my way. V-Dash ( talk) 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"VoAoGoIoNoAo isDUMB" is not my "sock puppet" it was made in retaliation for an edit I made. Perhaps for my revision of Alla Pugacheva. "VoAoGoIoNoAo isDUMB" put a "last warning" vandalism notice on my page it's all there (in the history). (in fact it was just after that that my profile was blocked, due to the content of my previous user name)
Landcamera900 ( talk) 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks : ) Landcamera900 ( talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
the article "Land camera" is a thinly veiled image gallery, but every time I try to put a nomination for deletion up a editor called Cburnett removes it, and she has made it clear she has no intention of changing the article. what can I do? Landcamera900 ( talk) 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jéské, I know you're familiar with all the madness revolving around mudkips. That said, could you please provide some input on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 21#Image:CSPC-DONOTWANT-Mudkip.jpg? Thanks! east. 718 at 09:01, 10/21/2007
Keep an eye on the page, protection expired. Will ( talk) 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw that. Your just to quick! Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You may not be aware, but WP:USER was updated some time ago to allow editors to remove warnings from their own talk pages at will, and without archiving. Your reverts ( [15], [16], [17]) of LOLMAX ( talk · contribs) could be viewed ... unfavourably. Thank you for your time, -- Kralizec! ( talk) 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Marlith T/ C 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia isn't a social network. I was helping her edit and learn how to use certain tools and codes on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, please check out my contributions. ( I love entei ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC))
No offense, but just WTF do you think you're doing by protecting WP:COIN? It's a public noticeboard, for Christ's sake. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
<Just curious, but why did you go the route of a long protection on a public noticeboard instead of simply dealing with the anon? No offense, but this seems like a pretty dumb approach to the problem to me. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Why'd you delete my page? V-Dash ( talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
But it wasn't a troll.... V-Dash ( talk) 02:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Not it wasn't. V-Dash ( talk) 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check it 'buku! Your pal - Sukecchi ( talk) 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit on Talk:Dungeons & Dragons in which you reverted a comment. Sure, as you note, this isn't a forum. However, I don't believe we are supposed to be quite as strict in policing talk pages as articles proper. Reverting well intentioned, if inappropriate, talk comments seems overly harsh. Wouldn't it have been enough to reply with "This is not a forum. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for discussing the subjects of the articles."? — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Please only use the standard {{ CHU}} template with its paramters, it's much more thorough for easy reading for bureaucrats. That is the template clerks should use. Thanks :) Qst 21:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A new user, SPD has made the exact same edits to Pokemon Diamond and Pearl that V-Dash did back in November. By that I mean this new user keeps changing the genre from CRPG to RPG, and changing the number of species. I thought that I should bring this to your attention, given V-Dash's past history of trolling and sockpuppetry, as well as your experience in handling the situation with that user. It could be unrelated to V-Dash, but I certainly find it suspicious. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 22:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I imagine you already plopped what SPD V put on the talk page in a translator, but in case you didn't: "You are weak, stupid, etc. Why should you go against the word of the fact? Your article does not switch that the large N states. Your encrassent games with your nonsense". Looks like something he would say to me...although in French. - Sukecchi ( talk) 11:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hate to break the eggs, but I was sick with food poisoning during the holidays, so I believe you have the wrong guy. V-Dash ( talk) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah see, I'm enduring the pain and agony of a dip(for chips) my bro cooked, yet you wanted to accuse poor old me. Ah, but you at least apologized. Well Suke, you're up next. V-Dash ( talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Convenient your brother ws there to troll in exactly the same way you were, when you were away from you PC... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.214.72 ( talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I was explaining to DarkFierceDeityLink that if Sonic and Metal Gear properties had no cameos in previous SSB games, then it makes no sense that Mega Man doing the same should be used as an argument as to why he is or isn't in Brawl. Your reply to me about WHY Sonic and Metal Gear properties weren't in the previous games (besides being something I already knew and have had to explain to confused people on the Talk Page in the past) didn't have much bearing on the actual point I was making; I was basically trying to explain to him that his argument made little sense without actually saying it that way and insulting him or anything. Moot point in the long run since that convo got deleted, but anyways... Arrowned ( talk) 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Recently someone asked me for help in a dispute between two parties, where one has accused the other of wikistalking him. After looking at the situation, I recommended they just drop it and go edit articles. However, the one editor that accused the other disputant of wikistalking ( User:Ronz, if you'd like to know) has accused me of assuming bad faith. I fear this may be true, and I have a horrible feeling that I may have been biased towards another party. I hate to get involved, but what should I do now? Maser ( Talk!) 05:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent contributions to the Wikipedia article
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection are very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to review your contributions for spelling, grammatical, capitalization, and punctuation errors before you save. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting others must do on the article, and will help maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance of Wikipedia. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to encourage the best possible writing from our authors. Please take a look at the
Manual of Style and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Heh heh heh!--
12 Noon
2¢
01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
|
I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 06:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Understood. Thank'ee. -- Jeske Couriano 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Nlu ( talk) 06:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yessir. - Jeske ( SHOUT!) 12:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you know how to properly report his vandalism? Some things I am reading imply a third party might be necessary to set an official fact regarding the image, and if he refuses the cooperate, only then it counts as vandalism. Either way, something needs to be reported. Just wondering if you know about this stuff or if I should try to get something done myself. -- ArrEmmDee 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
i would like to see an official site that has the artwork for this Rampard image, and site it sent me to had some other images that are clearly fake too.
I had a gripe with the image as well, but when I edited it, it was replaced and stated as having been on such-and-such website which stated they came from the official www.pokemon.co.jp website, which means it is not necessarily bound to be in the "official" art style, implying it may come from other sources such as their card game, which while not in the standard style, is still official. Unless someone were to remove the license for the image with sufficient proof or by proving a lack of sufficient proof that it is in an acceptable art piece, unless some Wikipedia admin orders me otherwise, I will treat removal of the image as vandalism and continue to revert to it until the official official art is released in a decent size-- I actually have seen the official art DSDark seems to have such a great preference to, they're actually fairly similar in art and pose. If any of that seems entirely unreasonable, that is fine. I'm not up for confrontation, but I'm not up for removal of a sufficient art substitute in the meanwhile.-- ArrEmmDee 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
wait you've seen the real official art for rampard? and if so where–– DSDark 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you thought my addition was vandalism, and, in looking at it, I could have chosen a better word choices. But as a Dungeon & Dragons player from way back and having followed the controversies for many years, the Monster Manual from 1977 had topless drawings and it was a point of concern among those critical of D&D. I've tried to restate the information in a form that is more tasteful. Bbagot 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The monk class did come from The Destroyer novels, as those of us who were playing the game in the '70s know well. I have added the citation. You can always use the {fact} tag rather than just deleting information that you haven't heard of, you know. Truly Trivial 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your message. TheBlazikenMaster 08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought I might split up the sections in the video game part of the article to tell what games eeve appears in, what games it doens't and it's statistics. I was wondering, how is that a game guide, and can I still at least have the statistics mini-section? ~VNinja ~ 01:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I apologize. I won't bother you again.
You can watch individual users? How?
So, you CAN'T watch individual users.
Interesting. An IP block would mean that many people would be affected. Are you a haxor?
That is wack. It's funny how Wikipedia claims to be a "serious" encyclopedia, when it's generally considered by many institutions to not be a valid source of information.
Easily edited...thus invalidating its credibility. Anyway, excited for Diamond/Pearl, or did you import? I'm going to guess you didn't since you don't speak Japanese.
I figure if you spoke Japanese, you'd have made a userbox about it. ;-)
Though I must half-heartedly agree with policy, if these names end up being confirmed, I request that you rerevert (is that a word?) bak to my edits.-- Tempest115 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Jibacoil's been hit again with Magnezone, of course, it hasn't been moved to it, but I don't want to revert the page for obvious reasons. - Sukecchi 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
There is official confirmation that Togepi is a baby pokemon, go on to Pokemon-games.com and click on the Pokedex and go down to togepi and it says Baby: Togepi Basic Togetic. DSDark 19:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Look at PokemonElite2000.com the cards confirm Monferno, Infernape, Prinplup, Grotle, Torterra, Magnezone, and Riolu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DSDark ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
Hello Jeske. I saw the comment you left on Talk:Neorant regarding the rumors and their place in the mainspace article. In your opinion, do you think that stating the rumors violates WP:NOT#CBALL or that they should be left in the article? Ksy92003 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you won't stop removing the small notes I have been placing in the D/P Pokemon articles, I will ask you why... And is Bulbapedia a reliable source, since Wikipedia obviously is, and there are basically the same thing?
Also, what is wrong with reporting news about the reported English names? It's not speculation, as you suggest, as I am not the one making it up... And second, if several sites on the internet leaked the names out and said outright that they didn't do it all at once because Nintendo would be mad, and Nintendo came back by telling people on their forums not to use the English names due to spoilers about the English versions of the games, isn't that verifiable enough? Oraclelink 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
H3y jeske, just letting you know that j milburn is unfair can u tell him that Jimmyr6 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
For all the reverts of my talk and user page. I have reported the user after continued vandalism after a final warning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J Milburn ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Chiming in to convey my thanks as well. I can't help but appreciate his sense of humour, however. — Dorvaq ( talk) 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking about the name "Jake", but there is no common name that will help me remember the name as "Jeske", perhaps you can help me remember? What's the best way to remember that e in your name? TheBlazikenMaster 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.77.242.26 ( talk) 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
I understand! You are far better than Urutapu!
personally... after seeing how many vandalizing edits this guy made, i would be done warning and go ahead and request a block. It's not justified that he's able to vandalize 5 pages at once and only get one warning, especially when he's already been warned and it's blatant. but that's just me, that anon has only one more shot. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
oh no... please don't take it negatively... i just saw what he was doing and got angry. my statement that "ur too nice" was just meant in a playful manner... damned internet for not being able to convey nuance. - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for being a jerk back there, but it just really annoyed me that some opinions were welcomed and others weren't. But it looks like it is all fine now. And so I don't piss off anyone even more, I'll let you make the call. Do you really think Bidoof looks like a cow? ( 68.164.13.17 06:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC))
You told me that Wikipedia doesn't blocked language/porn. Why is that? So anyone can just go cussing everybody off a talk page? I had to delete a piece on the sandbox because it was so bad. Wikipedia, being known for its good articles, should have some sort of policy. Like an Administrator could edit it or something. Sincerely, Kevin 20 5 23 26 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
yeah... i saw that.... sigh.... guess my wikibreak is over (last one i took ended up losing two maintenance categories) - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
While I do agree with your edits to the page, I do believe that what Missing Oreo was refering to with his refs were the dex entries.-- Tempest115 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hair chr m 02:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
On the mawile talk page someone was talking about how it is usefull and i said that "i dont know if it helps but mawile is my second best pokemon and that faint attack is very usefull" and it says you reverted it and said that it was spam, i was not spamming! i was trying to help the person out by saying some other things about it being useful!- hotspot
If you don't know Spanish, that means "I'm sorry." When I said "leader," I only meant that you were one of thoe three who makes nearly all the edits to the Pokemon articles along with Urutapu and Mcy. I wasn't judging based on your actual edits. Sorry for confusion. A trivial matter, as far as I'm concerned. -- Ksy92003 ( talk) 05:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as notifying the relevant WikiProject, that's not up to me, that was up to the nominator. I was merely the closing administrator. ^ demon [omg plz] 02:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You're fast. I just went to Talk:Mudkip to tell you that I had already put in the request. But when I clicked to edit the section, I saw that it was removed. And apparently in that span of 5 seconds, you noticed that I put the request through to WP:RFPP and removed the section. You're pretty fast, mate. Caught me off-guard :) Ksy92003 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Why did most of the pokemon articles get changed to "List of pokemon ____ to _____" when they all had there own articles before. I mean when each of them had there own article it was WAY more informative and useful.
Just wanted to tell you that I replied on my talk page... or will momentarily. Ksy92003 (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The list article was denied semi-protection, at least until it starts getting vandalized.-- ZXCVBNM 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the comment I left you. I was just wondering if you knew if Charizard was going to be kept as its own article instead of being merged. Ksy92003 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I never knew that. Aw well thanks for the update. TheUltimate3 09:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please retract this comment. If you actually read the change I made to WP:NOT, which is unrelated to the nomination, you will see that it was readily accepted. As, of course, I already pointed out on my talk page. Mudslinging is unacceptable. -- Eyrian 16:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I knew to revert, so no problem. :) Oh, and I've included your Mudkipz userbox to my own userbox subpage if that's okay with you. :) - WarthogDemon 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
.. for your timely intervention :) - Alison ☺ 08:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
What is a cluetrout? Regards, Navou banter 03:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Bigglove talk 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report at
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and
all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only
block users if they have received a recent final
warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you.
Jmlk
1
7
23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh, my bad. I meant to move it back chronlogically. Didn't look like it would delete content otherwise I would've moved it manually. Sorry about that mess up. - Warthog Demon 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I tried that (in fact, it still says that) but it is not showing up on CAT:CSD because it wants some deletion rationale (since it is a talk page) so I did this instead. MfD - Rjd0060 23:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thanks
it is important though to tagg the article under dipsute Bold textwhich can not be removed by the editors if no consensus is reached. thanks again. -- Sm565 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I received a message from you regarding vandalism. If you have anything valid to say to me regarding the accusation, I want to do so through arbitration. 65.188.22.40 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops! WP:RFAA told me to go there for "some other reason" and that's why I did that. Sorry!!! jonathan ( talk — contribs) 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the 'heads up' on this. For some bizarre reason the Category:Fictional universe stubs was included in the recursive list (a 'daughter' of) the Category:Comics stubs. As there was only one subcategory therein that could be strictly considered as a 'comics' related fictional universe, I have removed the link and the fict universe stubs won't be included in lists of comics stubs any more. Sometimes it's these 'goofs' that help fix things that aren't looked at too often (I would never have thought that fict universes would be considered as 'comics' by someone)! I'll go back on the bot tags and remove any that clearly fall into those other fict universes categories. SkierRMH 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I see you've been pretty active in removing Mudkip related nonsense from the Pokemon and mudskipper articles, so wonder if you'd mind watching Axolotl as well. It gets the same rubbish periodically, not helped by a page on Encyclopaedia Dramatica encouraging people to revert to a version full of silliness. I can't link to the Encyclopaedia Dramatica page as it's on the spam blacklist - suggest you Google it and go to the mudkip page if you haven't seen it already. I'm watching it myself, but will be away for the next week so would be good to have another pair of eyes on it. Regards Iain99 Balderdash and piffle 14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
u
Every correction I made was formatting errors, or spelling. If you look at the reversion you reverted it back to, it looks ridiculous. I don't care who's edits they are. Spelling was wrong, and headers weren't capitalized. You asked for me not to correct other users edits? Who's would I correct then? Carter | Talk to me 05:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I just noticed your comment on the request for protection, and realized I wasn't terribly clear on what I meant. But the correct page got protected so its all good, sorry for any confusion, Ill try and be more clear next time. :-) Good luck editing.
Gonzo fan2007
talk ♦
contribs
06:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
And to help Wikipedia of course. :D Now what should be done with User:UniversalHero? - Warthog Demon 06:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Regards this edit and comment, that particular user is a sock of User:Creepy Crawler who's actions usually consist solely of adding a link to the barefoot page and a collection of middling-useful categories; sometimes correct, sometimes spammy. I've been watching and correcting his/her additions for a while now, but it's a lot of work to revert and the 3rr is always close to being breached when he/she is actually online. All this to say, if you see similar actions in the future, I love to have help with corrections, warnings and blocks (I believe you will pass an RFA soon?) and this has been going on for months. I think myself alone I've tagged about 8 different socks with exactly the same contribution history.
Thanks,
WLU 14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for quickly reverting vandal-like deletion edits to my talk page by Dictator Bimbo Wales this morning. Jaraalbe 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeske, just want to alert you that there has been an Oppose vote at your RfA, citing an WP:Civil issue. I already added my comment to this, but I guess you would want to add a statement of your own, to. The issue is a bit, hmm, creepy... :-/ Gray62 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to explain why I reverted your well intentioned revert of personal attacks as found on User talk:Philippe. This is a very unique case were the personal attacks are actually the subject matter of the main topic, so reverting them has a negative impact on the topic itself. My assumption is that you acted solely based on normal Wikipedia standards and did not have any hidden agenda of protecting the one making the personal attacks. That individual has now been blocked for 48 hours. Just wanted you to know exactly what was going on and why I reverted your revert. There is no need to reply as this was a very unique situation. Thank you for your on going work in reverting vandalism where ever it occurs. Dbiel ( Talk) 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Given you're passing with flying colours so far, I can probably guess what your first admin action is when promoted (delete the Main Page! Yeah!) Will ( talk) 12:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! -- Deskana (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, congrats, I see you're getting your hands dirty at RFPP already! All the best :) ~ Riana ⁂ 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
You were always one of the more useful and productive non-admins at RFPP. I think it's safe in your hands. – Steel 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RfA. If you have any questions, then you can also ask me. I'm not an admin here, but I am on another Wiki. So I am familiar with the tools. But finally: no more having to go to WP:RFPP; you can do it yourself! Ksy92003 (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the article; I was just about to ask. Acroterion (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I note that you were the first to remove a link to www.thefirmament.org placed on the Firmament page. User Megamile has since made multiple attempts to place this link on this and other pages, despite multiple reverts by others (including me). Now a new pattern is emerging: several new user accounts have been created with no apparent purpose except to debate the issue on the Talkpage ( MyCallonWiki, IMSirius, Stargate5), and one of these has just replaced the link (I reverted him). I suspect sockpuppetry (or maybe meatpuppetry). -- Robert Stevens 19:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
you just protected Grey's Anatomy, but this person continued to revert your protected page. [2], and deleted the "racial diversity" fact. you should check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.219.71 ( talk) 01:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your protection spell (and amusing reasoning)! May your contributions never be reverted and may your talk page henceforth be free of Mud. Elementals of the Interweb, I summon, stir and call ye up to guard this User and the pages they write - so mote it be! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 10:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that I brought up that there may be a possible trademark/copyright violation by including the image of the Nobel Prize medal in the article. See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Photo of Nobel Prize medal. I know that blocking admins don't block on a correct or incorrect version but wouldn't it have been in the best interest of Wikipedia to remove the image from the article until the legality of its use is determined? –panda 15:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
sorry i thought ppl redirected the arceus page for no reason. Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I can find the links I need to prove the claims in 5 minutes (I can find the two articles I named on that talk page in two, I have an archive site that hosts them in my favourites), I can give them to you, though, or you can find them by typing in google searches for "snopes criticism". What do you need? I don't have a good sense for this kinda thing, and I wanna make sure I do this right, yanno? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't the one asking for unprotection. Only thing I did was add the right template. Why are you telling me this? TheBlazikenMaster 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
But maybe it makes it a pterodacturd! -- But| seriously| folks 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, hope you don't mind, but I fixed a spelling error on your userpage [3], thanks, and happy editing! Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 02:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I just saw that you blocked Doggypoopy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for username. You may want to hardblock it because an account named Doggypoop ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (similar name) has also been blocked recently, so it's likely a vandal sock. Thanks.-- Avant Guard 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi... This article was vandalized by an anon-ip after you added the semi-protection tag -- maybe it didn't actually get protected? -- Rrburke( talk) 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jeske. I dont quite understand the reason for your answer. If the change of the username will not help remove the COI template on the page I have created , then what will? Because this is the only reason that I see for that template there, given that I have made the language of the article as neutral and informative as possible. What exactly is the COI? My apologies if I am not aware of some basic Wikipedia rule on the issue. 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Cerge-ei
Hello Jeske. That IP address who keeps referring to Jedi123456 on name change, has made more edits to the section, here. Any plans for what we could do? Rudget Contributions 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I outlined my reasons for thinking this at the discussion page before realizing I was meant to speak to you directly. As tedious as it is to continually revert acts of vandalism, I don't believe that protection is in the long-term interest of the project. - MBlume 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Are all my socks. There is no copycat. Please block this account. I am Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz! 03:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
In light of the many regs that have been thrown around at the discussion on Bulbsasaur, how do you tolerate the state Meowth is in?-- Barnyard animals 06:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Cheers for whacking that guy :) ~ Riana ⁂ 09:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You protected this article with the "Controversy" section removed, despite it having credible citations. Please revert the article back to include this information and then protect it. Thanks. Sidar 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please restore the previous version of the Steve Hoffman entry. The Controversy section should be included before being protected. It it both well-sourced and a key detail in this individual's career. Otherwise, I request that this entry is removed entirely. The people that are removing the Controversy section are trying to erase a key detail which makes for a very biased Wiki entry.
Huberman
20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman
I have added my opinion on this matter to the Talk section of the Steve Hoffman entry. I respectfully ask that you consider the details Jéské. Thanks 12.152.10.41 21:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman
Take it easy dude. I was just saying...comprende amigo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.10.41 ( talk) 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to a recent posting of yours in the discussion section. I would be grateful if you could read it and let me know your thoughts. I am new to this, so excuse any missteps on my part. Thanks -- Foultip 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've found that you've blocked the user, saying that if he is Al Gore, let the Wikimedia Foundation know. But how should a famous person like Al Gore who wish to join Wikipedia inform the Foundation? Didn't the username policy only said that the user must state in his/her/its userpage? -- Edmund the King of the Woods! 10:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You sprotected this. Please take a more careful look at the history here. There was one major vandaliser IP. Now that is blocked. There just so happened to be another today. But look further back. The 50th revision is all the way back in March. It was just a freak coincidence. I urge you to reconsider. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Five days has been long enough for a non-issue. Further protection needs justification. Turtlescrubber 13:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The anon editor has not engaged in discussion on the Talk Page and so there seems to be no way to resolve the content dispute. Please unprotect the page. -- Richard 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Been busy at RFPP, huh? Apparently your RfA was successful :) I was so used to seeing you over there I did a double take (hang on, he's using the template?) Congratulations, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You protected a page leaving a potential copyright/trademark violation in the infobox Nobel Prize (the image); see Talk:Nobel Prize and my recent comments in various reports pages. The image placed there is in dispute. Until the dispute is resolved, the image needs to be removed by administrator(s) who are currently the only ones able to edit the page. [As a new administrator, perhaps you didn't realize that.] You protected a page leaving an image whose validity is disputed. When such questions arise about an image, Wikipedia's policy is to remove it until the questions are properly resolved. This is a legal matter. Please see WP:3RR violations page and links to the fair use violations and non-free content issues provided throughout that report. Thank you. -- NYScholar 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [In part due to the disputed image, the article has failed a "good article" review; there are several other reasons too for its failing the "good article" review, but removing the image will be an improvement to the article; moreover, it is required by the terms of the good article review. As an administrator, you (or another administrator) can remove the image while the review of the validity of its license is being reviewed. It also lacks a necessary detailed fair-use rationale, as the image includes the currently-registered trademark for Nobel Foundation (organization/company), which is WP:Non-free content and subject to WP:Fair use guidelines, as well as the copyright and trademark notice restrictions on nobelprize.org cited in my comments elsewhere about this problem. See WP:AN/3RR violations report page [4]. I hope that you will correct this problem. Thank you. -- NYScholar 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Can I request you re-instate this image, per your original inclination. Per the discussion on the copyright-specialist forum at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Image:DSCN0732.JPG, there appears to be no problem with this image, because the underlying design was known in the U.S. before 1923.
I don't know why NYScholar has got such a bee in his bonnet about this image, but he has repeatedly failed, when requested, to respond to this point, which is basic for any claim to a U.S. copyright. Jheald 00:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I find that the previous user (User:Jheald) has been uncivil (in the fair use concerns pages, where I reported this problem) and is repeatedly stating misleading and false information (with no basis in fact). The designs of all the Nobel medals are currently (still) the property of the Nobel Foundation which features their images, describes the designs, and explains their history, featuring "Registered trademark of The Nobel Foundation" with each image/design of each medal. The designers of the medals never owned the copyrights to the designs, as they were done as work for hire for the Nobel Foundation (or its predecessor/organization). The design was work for hire commissioned by the Nobel Foundation (or its predecessor organization/s) and the "use" of images of the Nobel Prize Medals (all of them, including the Nobel Peace Prize Medal) is subject to current notices of current trademarks and copyrights posted clearly on the Nobel Foundation's feature of each medal image. [edit conflict] The date of the design (and the Peace medal was based on a design by another designer) has nothing to do with the designs and images of the medals all currently being registered properties of the Nobel Foundation (the design of the Nobel Peace Prize Medal is the same now as it was in 1933, and the design of the medal and the copyrighted images of the medal are all identified as a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation organization). Wikipedia cannot violate the terms and conditions of these registered trademarks and copyrights. I've made this very clear; the user just ignores what I've said and refuses to acknowledge that s/he has no basis in fact for claims otherwise. The medal designs/images of the medals are the trademark of the Nobel Foundation and subject to U.S. and international laws as well as Wikipedia's own stated policies and guidelines pertaining to Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Trademarks and WP:Copyright. I see no evidence to the contrary. [I see no evidence that user jheald is a "specialist" in copyright and trademark laws or Wikipedia policies and guidelines pertaining to fair use; s/he is not an intellectual property lawyer as far as I can tell or acknowledged as an expert pertaining to intellectual and artistic property law. There is too much left unclear in the lack of a detailed fair-use rationale for this image in question.] -- NYScholar 00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [Updated in brackets. -- NYScholar 01:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Jéské, that's ok, you deserve the Nobel Prize for having the courage to step into the middle of this one . . . -- But| seriously| folks 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone cares, I received a reply from the Nobel Foundation (already!). They responded:
So my guess is that whatever the people here at WP decide is fine for now. If anyone still cares later on, I can try contacting them again in January or February when everything is more calm for them. Where else should this be cross-posted to? –panda 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you please unprotect this article? A person name Eve Torres (I don't know if it's the same as the deleted article) just won the 2007 WWE Diva Search, and I would like to move her article from Eve Marie Torres to Eve Torres. TJ Spyke 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You have acted with undue haste in protecting the Hot House article. The article is completely unsourced, and as the rules state, unsourced content can be removed at any time. If editors would simply take the time to source the article, then other editors would not have to take the desperate action of removing the unsourced material, over and over, until proper sourcing is made. Why is an article allowed to stand, that has never been sourced? In the absence of sourcing, the material can be considered OR, and can be seen as free advertising for the studio it discusses. Is it only coincidental that the studio employs "Sister Roma," the subject of another article that has had attention brought to it for lack of sourcing? There is a pro-porn agenda among the editors working on this article (and the Sister Roma and Sister Boom-Boom articles). They ignore the rules on sourcing, and your protection of the Hot House article enables their improper activity further.
72.68.30.122 10:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
72.68.30.122 11:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Please scroll up to User talk:Jéské Couriano#Problem and see links there. Thank you. -- NYScholar 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Please explain your removing four references from Sister Roma? Each was asserting the notability of the events for which they were citing per WP:REF to avoid WP:OR. Benjiboi 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't disagree with your decision to lock the page. I would like some advice on what I should do about primarily user:Sesshomaru and secondarily user:DBZROCKS. They have both gone around and removed almost all information from several character pages, and Sesh has even nominated one for deletion TWICE because of his perceived lack of sources. Even though all of the pages he editted cite the anime/manga as a source, he has ignored this and the policies regarding the matter. They also go and revert any changes made to the articles. They claim that the edits are "controversial" or "unsourced". But even when an explanation is provided they completely ignore it. What do you think should be done?-- Marhawkman 00:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I question the validity of fully protecting the article Civil Air Patrol, given that the "edit warring" you gave as rationale was other editors attempting to combat either vandalism or someone completely unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy (which is about the same thing). The IP User:72.148.190.9 has been warned multiple times both in edit summaries and on his/her talk page, yet continues in their effort unabated to add a specific bit of material which is not supported by any present source. I would suggest that the more appropriate action would be a semi-protection of the article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 00:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:Battle of Lesnaya and unlock the article. Thanks. Voyevoda 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Re. the ANI report, I've blocked that IP address. Threats of taking a shotgun to anyone breaks a number of rules here so I went ahead and blocked them. Sorry for going against your comment / warning but I felt the seriousness of that kind of attack warranted an immediate block. Hope you don't mind - Alison ❤ 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove my request for protection on that article? If you want to reject it, then reject it. DO NOT REMOVE IT WITHOUT EXPLANATION. Understand? Iaberis 17:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you please take another look at the debate on the Fred Thompson talk page and make some sort of suggestion as to what it would take to unprotect the page? The regular media might pick up the story on the suppresion of numerous cited articles claiming notability of the age difference, the way they did before with Thompson's talk page. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
OOOOHHHHH. New admin throws a jab. Continues to overreact. A small amount of power still corrupts. Have fun on your two inch high pedestal. Turtlescrubber 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I have been waiting for an edit for over a week now. Can you please add it?
Jeremy221 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
user:sesshomaru is still at it. He still completely ignores everything anyone says about what he's doing. His rantings have, so far, devolved to pointing at policies and some article about a guy named DL Hughley. And he reverts all attempts at fixing the damage he's done.-- Marhawkman 11:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. What issue needs to be ironed out before you can remove the protection from the Fred Thompson article? And who needs to iron it out? Remember 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jéské, The notice is not only for Canadians or those who observe Remembrance Day, but to remind people about the wars (doesn't really matter which one or which side) and the people who fought in them, who live through them, and who suffered because of them....I am trying to be as ambiguous as possible with this notices, which means that anyone could see it differently...some people might see it as a reminder of how Canada "became" a nation in WWI, or of how many people died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or of the attack at Pearl Harbor, or of the Holocaust, or of the killings in Darfur, or of the Rwandan Genocide, or of the Nanking Massacre....its up to those who receive the message to define what it is a reminder of...but if you choose to have it removed from your user talk page thats fine with me. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And I'm very impressed by your Dhammapada quote! Bravo for your swift and judicious action. Thanks so much! Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to push this, but the vandalism overwhelms the real contributions and I didn't see anywhere that said it had to be every single day..., at least a week or two, to discourage the kids doing it, pleeeeeeeease -- Tallard 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there Jeske! I am not exactly sure why the image on the Nobel Prize page has been commented out and orphaned. I think it has been established in about 5 different discussion pages that the image is completely usable. In fact, you yourself have said, "It's becoming clear to me that NYS doesn't have a case for wanting this removed, under law or policy". It, therefore, seems somewhat wrong to remove it because one OCD user is still writing pages and pages of nonsense over this issue and can't move on. I don't wanted to touch your edit but I hope that you can restore this based on what has been reached by overwhelming consensus. But, then again, I might be wrong??? Thanks. aNubiSIII ( T / C) 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry man, just wondered where you moved my question about the Pokemon articles too. regards -- Tefalstar 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jeske. This edit shows that the IP-hopping vandal is back at Red Flag (band), less than 24 hours after your three weeks of article semi-protection expired. What do you recommend we do? EdJohnston 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeske,
Thanks for stopping by the Super Mario Galaxy article in response to my page protection request. I noticed you remarked about the high level of IP vandalism here, but the log says you actually unprotected the already unprotected page. Since the next edit has you adding the {{ pp-semiprotected}} template, I just wanted to stop by and check to see if you actually intended to protect it after all.
Sorry if this seems rude; I not an admin and don't know enough about how the actual page protection interface works, so for all I know it could be the first salvo in a brilliant, sweeping protection strategy :) Thanks for your help! -- jonny-mt( t)( c) Tell me what you think! 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to make character pages for the show "Weeds" but I donno how to make a copyright tag for the images. I asked for help on the Weeds discussion page as well (or someone who knows how to help me provide it), but I don't understand what it's asking for- can you clear it up, since I don't understand the articles on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher ( talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Admin, you blocked 86.155.215.165 from editing for a week on 11th November, after the little exchange [ [13]], having said that if he shows up again under a different IP, you might consider semi-protecting the page. If you look at Talk:Hakka, you'll see he's back again, as 81.157.100.12, same old tactics, same old abuses. I leave the entire matter in your hands! InfernoXV 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm new here, so I'm not entirely sure how you go about this, but I'd like to request unprotection for No. 18. The reason for the dispute was whether or not 18 had actually married Krillin. I was able to find a verifiable, primary source that confirmed the marriage, and it was enough to convince those who were previously unconvinced that Krillin is indeed her husband. The dispute can be found here. With the dispute settled, I'd like this page unprotected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K9feline ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey there - I would like to unprotect Image:DSCN0732.JPG to correct the templates. I am stopping by here first since you protected it. With all due respect to the volumes of discussion about the image, the image needs to be tagged with a copyright template and have a proper fair use rationale. Anything otherwise is a violation of our image policy so it's not really a "consensus" issue. Nobel is still using the medal and they have clearly claimed copyright on it as recently as this year. These photographs are absolutely not derivative works. -- Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you unprotect Fred Thompson? It looks like we've finally gotten consensus on the wording of the age difference between Fred Thompson and his second wife.See the bottom of this section. [14] Thanks! -- Bobblehead (rants) 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Funny what you did here. ;) - Go od sh op ed 23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(undent) Same thing on the PeeWee, but with California State University IPs. - Go od sh op ed 18:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello there Jéské. I feel the need to inform you that the user V-Dash has apparently circumvented the block you placed on him only nine days ago. At least he is touting that he has broken his own block.
(slight edit) I just realized that the time difference would have made it ten days from his original block. However, it would seem that these changes have been in place for at least a day or two. Action22579 ( talk) 06:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I case you aren't still following the section, I'm pointing out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#David Howell (chess player). I hope you don't mind, but I've also used two of your blocks as examples in another thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Indefinite blocks. If you would prefer different examples be used, please let me know. Carcharoth ( talk) 05:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-ing those two pages -- but he's at at least one other so far now -- Kingdom of Armenia could you be so kind as to semi that as well? Thanks! Gscshoyru ( talk) 04:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
And thanks from me for the same on Mitt Romney. Should help. Tvoz | talk 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I've come across a stumbling block & ask your assistance. I'm attempting to block ScottMichaelMcDaniel/SurveyGizmo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - and yes, that's the name, with the "/" in it. When I try the block, it tells me the user doesn't exist. I've tried deleting it, restoring it (current state)... Suggestions? My guess is the / is screwing things up, but ain't got a clue how to bypass it. SkierRMH ( talk) 08:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Basically the use of "until now" in the Smash Bros. updates is throwing some editors into a frenzy given that the rest of the body of editors do not consider the statements made here to be confirmation of Ness' removal, especially given that if dismissed, he would be the first veteran fighter to be confirmed as not in Brawl. One of the lamest talk page debates ensued because of this disagreement. Given that the phrase has been used in several updates since then, and not in that context, we're trying to be sensitive and not use "up until now" as examples of confirmation or dismissal of characters. Hopefully that sheds some light; the talk page archives at Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series) have the full story. I posted here to let you know instead of on the page to avoid unearthing it all again.
By the way, thank you for your work on the 241-260 page. As much as I liek the Mudkip, I can't source it, and that's what matters :) Coreycubed ( talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
You reverted my edit citing a lack of proof. Have fun reading this long story. User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#View_by_Certified.Gangsta then you would know what kind of turmoil I have been going through.-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 07:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm under arbCom revert parole and my appeal is still pending. Would you mind if you revert for me? Thanks-- Certified.Gangsta ( talk) 09:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Copied from the COIN:
There are significant problems both with the determination of the admin here and the way by which he arrived at it. The admin has quoted "the article" -- he doesn't say which, but he quotes it to say: "...protests by church groups.." That they were church groups is not contentious here; describing the protesters as Christian protesters is contentious. Though all Christian houses of worship can be described as churches, not all churches are necessarily Christian. And it cannnot be extrapolated from either source used that all of the churches present at the protest were Christian. Similarly, it cannot be extrapolated from either source used that all the protesters were Christian -- it can only be said, reading the sources, that the protesters were from church groups. It is quite different to describe the protesters as Christian protesters than to say they are church group protesters. Neither source cited says the protesters were Christian; that interpolation is the product of the author's anti-Christian agenda. The admin finds that that use of the term "Reservations" and linking that term to the reservations page is unfortunate, when in effect, it is deliberate and designed to attract the reader to the reservations page.
The admin has made his determination referencing material in the article that was not raised in the COI concerns: he talks about the church groups being Christian groups, when it was the description of the protesters as Christian that is contentious. The admin assigns no weight to the author's choice to direct the reader to the reservations page (where they could make a purchase). The admin has ignored the very issues that form the basis of this COI notice.
It is my understanding that at WP we report the facts, not the author's interpolation or interpretation of facts as fact.
I am unable to give this matter any more attention at this time. Even this statement is incomplete but had to be made to respond to this ridiculous finding. Immediately following Chanukah I will seek additional intervention, including an inquiry into the capability of this admin and the veracity of his adminship.
This matter is far from resolved and it certainly is not over.--72.76.13.102 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Sirkad
(Talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
![]() |
Angel Heart Barnstar | |
For your dedication to dealing with some of the least fabulous aspects of the human condition including sorting out vandalistic (and likely homophobic) attackers often "behind the scenes" I award you the Angel Heart Barnstar. Your diligent work and compassionate service to those who appreciate the support for continuing their contributions to Wikipedia has hereby not gone unnoticed and in fact has very much eased distress and helped the Wikipedia community. Benjiboi 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC) |
Domo Arigato, Benjiboi! I made certain he won't be using COI/N as an attack route anytime soon as well, since he was beating a dead horse with the same stuff he had complained about (and gotten shot down on). - Jéské ( Blah v^_^v) 02:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page! cheers. Sirkad (Talk) 01:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Great Gratitude Barnstar |
This barnstar is awarded to Jéské Couriano for helping remove vandalism on Sirkad's Userpage. |
Hey Jéské, you reverted the IP's edit on leaked info. Just so you know, everytime you see an IP adding 'leaked' info to blogspot sites, it's likely a sockpuppet of all the socks in this report: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Europebound2007. So if you come across one again, you can probably block the IP immediately with no warings necessary. Spellcast 03:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Recently, you semi-protected the article Raiden Fighters 2 because of some IP hopper who makes infrequent, but persistent vandalism edits. Well, this person is back. Now he is vandalizing articles about the other games in the same series: Raiden Fighters and Raiden Fighters Jet. The IP hopper blatantly places the same misleading and incorrect information in these articles as he did in Raiden Fighters 2. I was going to put up a RFPP, but it would be pointless for articles that have been vandalized just once.
The IP range for the vandal belongs in the 206.170.103.* block. Judging by the latest actions, it is clear this IP hopper is here to cause trouble, seeing that this person added almost exactly the same misleading information in two other similar articles as in Raiden Fighters 2. I don't know if this is grounds for a block of the entire IP range, but trying to talk to this person directly will be fruitless due to the constantly changing dynamic IP address. Thank you very much for your time. JudgeSpear 10:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
He's back. Ran for RFA, failed, immediately ran again. Derekhunter 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Peace | |
For your oustanding work on keeping V-Dash's interaction's with other members as peaceful as possible. Kudos! MelicansMatkin 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) |
I really have no problem with the user, but after the two very "vivid" emails, I figured RPP was needed, but I will keep an eye on the page. Take Care... NeutralHomer T: C 06:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Please reconsider your semi-protections of Goodshoped35110s' subpages. This user is extremely problematic, and there is no real reason to protect the pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#My recent block of Goodshoped35110s for a quick idea of this user's behavior. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for going over this with me, Im going off line now, but your time was appreciated Fasach Nua ( talk) 23:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jéské, sorry to bother, but remember this? 86.155.215.165, who later turned up as 81.157.100.12, is now working on Cantonese people both as 77.44.49.36 and 81.154.205.12. His edits are unsourced and entirely POV, and he's doing the same old ad-hominems on Talk:Cantonese people. My reversions of his OR have elicted an accusation of vandalism. I'm hesitant to call his accusations 'civil discourse' as it really appears to be neither. A glance at my contributions will show that I edit a variety of articles, including some serious academic ones, and that I do not make frivolous POV edits. His edits, OTOH, seem to revolve largely around Hakka and Cantonese, and are not only unsourced and unreferenced, but controversial, heavy-handed and show clear bias. InfernoXV ( talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You broke 3RR there. As an admin, you should know that adding unsourced material to an article (even repeatedly) is not vandalism, so it's not an exception to 3RR. Not only did you revert 4 times today in your content dispute, you extended the edit war further by asking another editor to revert for you as a proxy. Also not good. As you can see, I didn't block you even though I did block the IP editor; ordinarily I would block both parties to an edit war, but in this case I thought it would be better to suggest you just take it upon yourself to step away from the article for a while and cool off. Kafziel Talk 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
May I ask why you fully protected Virginia Tech massacre? An IP user - 67.52.70.242 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalized the article three times and Sfmammamia ( talk · contribs) reverted the vandalism. All three edits were unquestionably vandalism - (1) adding "butt head", (2) adding "Cho was one messed up person." and "bold text", and (3) blanking a section and replacing it with "i dont know what this feature is but isnt this all just cleint sided so why should i get introuble if it doesnt do anything". Though there is a mild discussion on the talk page about the inclusion of some questionable content, it has not resulted in an edit war on the article. -- B ( talk) 22:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I thought you didn't want anything to do with me? That topic was well within the guidelines. V-Dash ( talk) 03:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok.. Fine, I'll do that. You go your way and I go my way. V-Dash ( talk) 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
"VoAoGoIoNoAo isDUMB" is not my "sock puppet" it was made in retaliation for an edit I made. Perhaps for my revision of Alla Pugacheva. "VoAoGoIoNoAo isDUMB" put a "last warning" vandalism notice on my page it's all there (in the history). (in fact it was just after that that my profile was blocked, due to the content of my previous user name)
Landcamera900 ( talk) 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks : ) Landcamera900 ( talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
the article "Land camera" is a thinly veiled image gallery, but every time I try to put a nomination for deletion up a editor called Cburnett removes it, and she has made it clear she has no intention of changing the article. what can I do? Landcamera900 ( talk) 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jéské, I know you're familiar with all the madness revolving around mudkips. That said, could you please provide some input on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 21#Image:CSPC-DONOTWANT-Mudkip.jpg? Thanks! east. 718 at 09:01, 10/21/2007
Keep an eye on the page, protection expired. Will ( talk) 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw that. Your just to quick! Cheers, Dloh cierekim 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You may not be aware, but WP:USER was updated some time ago to allow editors to remove warnings from their own talk pages at will, and without archiving. Your reverts ( [15], [16], [17]) of LOLMAX ( talk · contribs) could be viewed ... unfavourably. Thank you for your time, -- Kralizec! ( talk) 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Marlith T/ C 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia isn't a social network. I was helping her edit and learn how to use certain tools and codes on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, please check out my contributions. ( I love entei ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC))
No offense, but just WTF do you think you're doing by protecting WP:COIN? It's a public noticeboard, for Christ's sake. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
<Just curious, but why did you go the route of a long protection on a public noticeboard instead of simply dealing with the anon? No offense, but this seems like a pretty dumb approach to the problem to me. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Why'd you delete my page? V-Dash ( talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
But it wasn't a troll.... V-Dash ( talk) 02:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Not it wasn't. V-Dash ( talk) 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Please check it 'buku! Your pal - Sukecchi ( talk) 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit on Talk:Dungeons & Dragons in which you reverted a comment. Sure, as you note, this isn't a forum. However, I don't believe we are supposed to be quite as strict in policing talk pages as articles proper. Reverting well intentioned, if inappropriate, talk comments seems overly harsh. Wouldn't it have been enough to reply with "This is not a forum. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for discussing the subjects of the articles."? — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Please only use the standard {{ CHU}} template with its paramters, it's much more thorough for easy reading for bureaucrats. That is the template clerks should use. Thanks :) Qst 21:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A new user, SPD has made the exact same edits to Pokemon Diamond and Pearl that V-Dash did back in November. By that I mean this new user keeps changing the genre from CRPG to RPG, and changing the number of species. I thought that I should bring this to your attention, given V-Dash's past history of trolling and sockpuppetry, as well as your experience in handling the situation with that user. It could be unrelated to V-Dash, but I certainly find it suspicious. MelicansMatkin ( talk) 22:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I imagine you already plopped what SPD V put on the talk page in a translator, but in case you didn't: "You are weak, stupid, etc. Why should you go against the word of the fact? Your article does not switch that the large N states. Your encrassent games with your nonsense". Looks like something he would say to me...although in French. - Sukecchi ( talk) 11:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hate to break the eggs, but I was sick with food poisoning during the holidays, so I believe you have the wrong guy. V-Dash ( talk) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah see, I'm enduring the pain and agony of a dip(for chips) my bro cooked, yet you wanted to accuse poor old me. Ah, but you at least apologized. Well Suke, you're up next. V-Dash ( talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Convenient your brother ws there to troll in exactly the same way you were, when you were away from you PC... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.214.72 ( talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I was explaining to DarkFierceDeityLink that if Sonic and Metal Gear properties had no cameos in previous SSB games, then it makes no sense that Mega Man doing the same should be used as an argument as to why he is or isn't in Brawl. Your reply to me about WHY Sonic and Metal Gear properties weren't in the previous games (besides being something I already knew and have had to explain to confused people on the Talk Page in the past) didn't have much bearing on the actual point I was making; I was basically trying to explain to him that his argument made little sense without actually saying it that way and insulting him or anything. Moot point in the long run since that convo got deleted, but anyways... Arrowned ( talk) 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Recently someone asked me for help in a dispute between two parties, where one has accused the other of wikistalking him. After looking at the situation, I recommended they just drop it and go edit articles. However, the one editor that accused the other disputant of wikistalking ( User:Ronz, if you'd like to know) has accused me of assuming bad faith. I fear this may be true, and I have a horrible feeling that I may have been biased towards another party. I hate to get involved, but what should I do now? Maser ( Talk!) 05:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
---|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++ Lar: t/ c 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent contributions to the Wikipedia article
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection are very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to review your contributions for spelling, grammatical, capitalization, and punctuation errors before you save. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting others must do on the article, and will help maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance of Wikipedia. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to encourage the best possible writing from our authors. Please take a look at the
Manual of Style and the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Heh heh heh!--
12 Noon
2¢
01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)