I have deleted the campaign poster you had on your User page. Please don't campaign for candidates on Wikipedia's dime. This is not a political point from me, as I have not made up my mind yet as to whom I will support, it might be Hillary, but that has no bearing on my deletion. User:Zoe| (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with abuse of power and all to do with attempting to explain why we are here. To create an encyclopedia, not to campaign for candidates. I have requested a review of my actions at WP:ANI. User:Zoe| (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No caption, huh? You mean, no caption like Please support Hillary Clinton for President in 2008. ? User:Zoe| (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking it seriously. This is a controversy I was involved in back in the spring, and it was never resolved. I'll be damned if I'm going to let an unresolved issue be played off as established consensus. — coelacan talk — 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I also think this image should be removed. Wikipedia is simply not the place for political advocacy of any kind. Friday (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Chuckle. I think a monster may well have been unleashed. See User:Hit bull, win steak. The caption: "This giant public domain image of Hillary Rodham Clinton does not care whether you vote or not, but it DOES wish that people were more polite and reasonable. Some may consider it polemical, but I prefer to think of it as polemarrific!" is pretty funny. WJB scribe 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you are wondering....I am not sure which Democrat I support...I am torn between Hillary, Barack, and Gov. Richardson from NM (for some reason)....though I would take Hillary over the other two....but that is my opinion. - SVRTVDude 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you were critical, so no worries - such feedback has benefited the article, which is a great thing. I welcome all your comments, which are enormously appreciated. I didn't know what a run-on sentence was that's all as concerns one of your concerns, but I'll address that with your suggestion. With possibly creating a "Controversy" section, hmm I think the information fits better in the lyrical info and album cover sections respectively, as they can be analysed in total in the respective section. Thanks for all your help though, and if you think of any other concerns give me a bell. LuciferMorgan 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It just occured to me that I have images of 16 politicians on my userpage! I guess that means I support:
Should I be more worried about the number of userpage infringements or the risk of being carted off for a serious case of multiple personaility disorder...? WJB scribe 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
As you set out for
Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the
marvelous journey |
Hey there. I'm thinking about ditching the citation templates (they're just annoying and unhelpful to me...I also don't like the way they look). Could you hold off converting the refs for now? Sorry...and thanks for helping dig up some of the archive links. However, what should I do about the "Retrieved on" dates for these? Those are misleading to readers, since I certainly didn't retrieve the archived versions on those dates...I retrieved the LexisNexis versions...again, another reason why I linked to LexisNexis instead of the archived versions. Gzkn 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Shoot, I forgot to add a bit of documentation. Take a look again. =( {Slash -|- Talk} 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Pan Am 1996-1998 and Pan Am 1998-2004 were split from the Pan Am article some time ago. Those two companies are not related to the original Pan Am. Other such same-name airlines also each have their own article. Clipper471 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeffpw. If you have a moment perhaps you would care to review the message "Open Dialogue" that I have tried to start with Zoe. Many of her actions are in clear breach of wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am hoping she will reply, but I doubt it. I intend to go to WP:ANI to try to force her hand. Her personal interpretation of guidelines and breach of procedures make her, in my humble view, unfit to be an admin. Her continued harrasment of great member of the community can only harm this project. If I do go to intervention I would like to cite your case if that is okay. Pedro1999a | Talk 08:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Re this edit: may I suggest that you not twist the thumbscrews any deeper into her? — coelacan talk — 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to learn that my forethought saved you so much work but surprised to learn that it was so exceptional. On the other hand, SandyGeorgia had to go through all of the pages which I posted on and add more information regarding the FAR process, so, perhaps it was so not so time-saving a gesture after all. :-) - Severa ( !!!) 10:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Jeff! I thought I would let you know that I have just nominated the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article as a Featured Article candidate. The feedback and encouragement from you and the other reviewers is what motivated the nomination. Thank you again for all your support! Cimm [talk] 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the moral support. :) I added the ref. This FAC is gonna be exhausting isn't it? Raystorm 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually came to ask you something, but can't remember what? Any chance you recall what our last exchange was about? I couldn't find anything in the archives, but I'm working on a big project and rather busy right now. Post on my user page, let me know if you think of something--sorry for the cryptic message. Thanks for expending so much effort on Wikipedia in general being the gracious party. KP Botany 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Usually it takes at least 3, ({{ test3}}, in order to be eligable for AIV. If the edit looks like intentional vandalisim, give them a {{ test4im}}, which only gives them one warning. The IP is part of BellSouth, so it may be a shared IP. Admins are advised to be very careful with those type of IPs. But if they continue, send it to AIV again -- wL< speak· check· chill> 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about the "Selected article", right?
So I see Portal:LGBT/Previous article and Portal:LGBT/Previous articles. Whichever one you use is up to you, though I'd put a #redirect on the other one (or just have it speedy deleted).
As for the content of the archive page, I created the biography one by going back to the history and copy/pasting from the old versions of the page.
Do you want me to do that? I mean, I can if you want ;) -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that was very nice of you. :-) Cheers Raystorm 15:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems strange to think that I've only known you both for three months, and I'm probably never going to be in the same country as you, let alone meet you, and yet you can reduce me to tears with a few sentences. Thank you so much for your support - you can certainly count on mine for anything you do. Gratefully yours, Sarah. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Dev920 (
talk •
contribs)
17:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
Hey, Jeff ! I just left a query for Gimmetrow; I'm pretty sure that GimmeBot is fully functional now and can take over the facfailed chore, but let's see what Gimmetrow says. Thanks SO much again for everything you stepped in to do ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the new FA tag, nice job, I like it! I do have a suggestion, however. See, currently, adding the maindate portion to it, the tag will add the same line as the previous sole tag except that it does not wikilink the date like that old one did. Instead, the date stays in regular black text. Seeing as the FA templates are in American format this means that the date will come out as forced American format while if wikilinked it will default to user prefference, perhaps we can add that feature on so that it remains as neutral as the last tag did? Whaddaya think? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 06:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.
Please reply to User talk:Audacity, as I will not be watching your talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tim-pete.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Come on over and voice your thoughts. What now with it? A ribbon? Do you have an idea? -- Ouro 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I had IRC for two years and I detested it every minute I had it. I would end up in the wrong chatroom or the wrong network, or it would randomly sign me out, or other multitudes of irritating things. Without a very good reason to, I do not intend to acquire it again, it caused me way too much grief. Sorry man. Don't mind setting up a Bravenet chatroom if you really want to gather us all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There's Skype, too, if you had it. I'm KingCranky there. :-) I wanted to run something by you before I took any action. It's not really that important. But a group chat would be fun, come to think of it. Jeffpw 22:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I challenge you to a Jump-a-Class contest! Pick a stub, any stub, and let's see which of us can jump further :) -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oi! Don't upgrade your own jump articles! :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I was bored and translated the polish article on Jan Lechoń into English. If you want to have a go at copyediting it, feel free to do so. Am notifying you as you wrote you're interested in biographies. Cheers. -- Ouro 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
David and I worked that out. If he says that this person is notable, that is good enough for me. I've seen many people who actually have names recognized by others that don't meet our notability standards. Atom 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I felt that it might be too informal where "homosexual" should be used (saying gays and lesbians, or gays as meaning both genders). I always thought/felt that we should only use it when we are distinguishing between male homosexuals and female homosexuals. The negro analogy wasn't good, I'll admit; sorry if it seemed extreme. — Deckill er 21:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jeffpw, I answered your question about Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg being listed as a Vanity image in the discussions of the Sexology and Sexuality guidelines on the deletion request page of this image. Thanks for your interest NightFlyer 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the head's up, but I only tagged the article and I share no credit for its creation. I will, however, take a look and see if there's anything I can do to clean it up. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I'm really peeved! Whether it's governments with bombs or guys with administrative privlidges on Wikipedia, it seems that anyone with a little strength abuses it. I'm not sure Adam4Adam will pass review. People here have a way of making the evidence fit their opinion rather than vice versa and I think this may come into play regarding a gay guy's sex site. I hope HoS sees your message about the Imperial Court System article as it way cheer him up. He blanked his really pretty user page today so I am guessing he's really fed up. You might therefore want to do those citation fixes yourself. Shaundakulbara 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're confused about. The section I'm referring to begins "The LGBT Portal is Wikipedia's gateway to material relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender related articles in the encyclopedia." The first paragraph describes what the portal is. The rest of the (rather large) box is a discussion of the term "LGBT". I would think that such a discussion would belong in LGBT, but it's not the sort of broad overview I would expect on a portal page. I would probably cut all or most of the text after the first paragraph, and maybe expand a little more in other directions. Dfeuer 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If you have a sec take a look at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. It seems like a good idea as projects get larger and means people know who to direct questions to etc. Wikiproject LGBT probably isn't large enough to need a whole team but a coordinator might be a good idea. I doubt there'd be any objection to Dev becoming the project's coordinator- she effectively does this already. And it seems like a good way of recognising her efforts and role in the project. What do you think? WJB scribe 04:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia's English LGBT Miss America... I like it! Well, that's going up on my userpage at some point... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jeffpw. Uh, think about Jungian Synchronicity. I was reading your comments about the three pictured ladies in your page, pondering about dropping a note to you about the issue, when your message popped up in a different tag ( Firefox forever, pal).
No, no action taken. I posted the message(s) [1] [2] two and a half days ago. This is a riddle for me.
I restored nothing, because that could be regarded as an hostile move by the other guy (despite the fact that it is not). I prefer an administrator to clean the mess, just to avoid a "personalization" of the conflict. Randroide 10:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your admin nudgering, Jeffpw. Be "careful" with the synchronicity issue, it is and obsessing meme ; ) Randroide 10:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I understand your frustration, but as I mentioned on WP:ANI it is incorrect to label this user's action as vandalism. The user is clearly acting in good faith and has a legitimate content dispute. I strongly disagree with his method of conducting this dispute and will block him if he continues to unilaterally remove the LGBT project tags from articles. However you should not characterize this as vandalism. I am trying to reach a solution that satisfies all concerned, please don;t make my task more difficult by continuing to provoke Eedo Bee. Thanks, Gwernol 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
i wonder if you would consider this edit/response as counter-productive if your user was replaced with mine [3] - that was the users "reply" to my degree 1 notice - this response resulted in the rest of the dispute which spreads on more than one location.
extra small note: the new anti-semitism calls itself anti-zionism, if you need examples you can start here: [] - that's just the tip of the iceberg.
last note: i'm not an evil "the zionist gah!", only an israeli who supports peace and is tired of gross misrepresentation which only perpetuate the conflict.
Jaakobou 17:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do over the weekend. Feel free to pester me if I've not done anything by Sunday morning (Saturday night your time) — OwenBlacker 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jeffpw
I explained in my "request" that I am learning by experiencing. This was the first time I wanted to nominate myself for adminship. I read the instruction and acted accordingly. I prefer to work on the quality of articles as long as I am an ordinary user rather than thinking about the meaning of 0/0/0 in adminship request. I learn things when I need. Sangak 17:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
But I'm tired of doing Gay porn stars!! After tagging ~237 of them, I'm tired of 'em! :) -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I still have a soft spot for Anthony Gallo, no matter how many times I've....looked at his pictures (maybe soft is the wrong operative word). :-) Jeffpw 20:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I just kinda float there. I use the name Amsterdad there. Let me know when I should turn it on. And your innuendo was way worse than mine, WJB! Jeffpw 21:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. How many articles are we going to end up with at this rate? Thanks for that link. Much as I might enjoy ensuring that article gives fair representation to more liberal religious views on the subject, if I don't get a good answer to my question on the talkpage about why we need this article in addition to Christian views of marriage and Jewish view of marriage, I shall send it to AfD along with its brother. WJB scribe 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
So? And the article denotes what that I don't know already? Confirmation that Liberal Jews make their politics the basis of their religious belief, not Judaism itself? What else is new? Nkras 05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeffpw: I stated my opinion based upon experience. Don't quote me rules when they are used for political ends or to silence opponents. You and the other anti-traditionalists insult my culture, my religion, my social class. Do not threaten me. Nkras 06:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
As discussed on the article talk page, I now have nominated this article for deletion since I am not yet convinced and it may profit from a thorough review. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippe Servaty. Tikiwont 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, and said as much on the Afd. It's up to the community now. Jeffpw 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So are we all ready? I suggest (since this was a challenge thing) we each review the other three articles on the talk pages and consense to the new ratings - any objections? The four articles are:
-- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
i wonder if you would consider this edit/response as counter-productive if your user was replaced with mine [4] - that was the users "reply" to my degree 1 notice - this response resulted in the rest of the dispute which spreads on more than one location.
extra small note: the new anti-semitism calls itself anti-zionism, if you need examples you can start here: [] - that's just the tip of the iceberg.
last note: i'm not an evil "the zionist gah!", only an israeli who supports peace and is tired of gross misrepresentation which only perpetuate the conflict.
Jaakobou 1 Feb. 2007 (UTC)
A response would be both civil and appreciated. Jaakobou 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't try to draw me into your disagreement with Abu, or however he spells his name. I only left one message there saying he didn't need to leave the warnings on his talk page, as there is not consensus or policy about that. I have no comments to make about anything else there, or the diffs you provided here. By the way, it is not considered uncivil not to reply to a comment on your talk page, if you have nothing to say. Thanks you. Jeffpw 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff! I started the page and then realized that there isn't a lot of information to be found about her online. This is all I have about her now -- if you have more info please post it -- I'd love to know more about her! Karanacs 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC) PS I'm very impressed with everything I'm seeing on your user page. Keep up the great work!
I see your page got archived correctly! Yaay :) -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, cool. That was fast! It would be good to have a source for most gay icons coming out of American/British gay culture, but I'm not too worried about it since it's almost certainly true. —Cel ithemis 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If I had known it I definitely would have used the proper citation templates! Sadly I followed an incomplete reference from somewhere else. Perhaps someone who regularly edits the article for The Observer might own back issues and be able to track it down? ~ Zythe Talk to me! 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool. What accent do you have? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't following ANI or Jimbo's page at the time. I'm dismayed by this. Whatever disagreements we've had, I regard her as a good admin overall and a good editor. I don't think she was in the wrong here, and I certainly don't think she should have taken the fall for this incident. — coelacan talk — 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
A _________ is a publicly recognized relationship which creates kinship obligations regarding the sharing and transfer of resources between individuals, the children that a sexual union may produce, and, in some societies, the extended family. All human societies have some form of __________, and in all complex societies which are governed by law, __________ is a public legal act with strong social customs and often religious rites involved. People _______ for many different reasons which may include: to publicly declare love and/or companionship; to legitimize sexual relations and procreation; to form a family unit; to strengthen social and economic stability; and to nurture and educate offspring.
At least when Nkras wanted this to read "a marriage is union between a man and a woman" everyone knew what he was talking about. The present definition is simply hideous. It would read fine using the word family in the first two spaces. Sigh, from one bizarre POV to another. WjB scribe 05:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff - thank you for your support in pushing this article all the way to FA status! I appreciate all the encouragement. I am tied up with real-world stuff right now, but in due course I hope to work on quality biographies for othr members of his family. Kind regards Cimm [talk] 11:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, very cool! Thanks for letting me know.
Isn't there a prohibition on putting fair use images on portals, though? The first edition cover is, unfortunately, not out of copyright. —Cel ithemis 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I know that Martina Navratilova is a lesbian, but Billie Jean King is bisexual. The section of the article I changed stated that they have 'come out as lesbian', so I changed it. Unfortunately I managed to get it the wrong way round but I've now altered it to get it correct. Thanks for pointing out the muddle. Argenteum 09:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, well it seems I will be needing some assistance from you again. If that is okay. Recently, I started fixing up the article Royal Descent. However, over the last few days, another editor has started to edit the article and is deleting my edits and another person's edits. Everytime, something new is added they delete it. I have tried to discuss it on the talk page with them, but they delete edits and then argue about it later to the point it just had gotten silly. This user has already been blocked twice for breaking the 3RR rule, although, it appears they are being careful to not revert so much again. Yet, back to their old behavior. Should this be reported and would it be wrong to file another report? I do not want to become one of those annoying people who complains about everything. RosePlantagenet 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for checking it out! They have been careful not to break the 3RR rule, so I was not sure where the complaint belonged. RosePlantagenet 15:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. Do you know why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippe Servaty was relisted? I don't see it in DRV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacan ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
I have no idea other than what was written on the additional comments. Whoever relisted it felt that not enough people had commented. That doesn't seem a good reason to me, but since I am involved in it I didn't want to remove the tag. Jeffpw 11:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. What a pain. Well you did good work on the sources Jeff. It'll be kept. — coelacan talk — 11:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be great if the Imperial Court System article made it to the LGBT page as you suggested. It would also be super if you would give the reference notes any improvements they need -- I'm not wiking very much these days. By the way, Adam4Adam passed the AfD debate. Thanks for your support. -- House of Scandal 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, thanks for pointing me to the ANI discussion. Sorry that the LGBT project had to put up with that level of abuse. I'm glad to see appropriate action has been taken against Eedo Bee. Best, Gwernol 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Greg&jenny.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thx for pointing that out, although I myself would never edit someone's userpage, but would confront them first (as I did w/ CroDome). :) Stop The Lies 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=108029529&oldid=108029522 This] is an extremely incivil comment towards David Levy. This whole discussion about fake evil message bars of d00m is certainly going to be on WP:LAME if you keep up comments like this.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Dude, tone it down. Putting a billion practical joke bars on your page is nearly (if not completely) a violation of WP:POINT. You can express your ideas a bit better if you just calm down, step away from the computer if need be, and come back later. It's seriously not THAT big a deal. It's the internet. Life will go on. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You know Jeff, I might actually click on the link if it was Hillary telling me that I have new messages. :p Seriously though, you may want to trim the number of those boxes down. The screen ablazes with yellow. Agne Cheese/ Wine 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff, though I would be very impress if you did find a way of including Hillary in that message box. :) Agne Cheese/ Wine 08:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeffpw, thanks for your message on my talk page. Just so you know, I reverted the information because it was unsourced. Also, the anon added this category to the articles of seven other actors, some who are living. As you know we need to be especially careful to source information such as this in biographies of living persons. Thanks again. Regards, Accurizer 10:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You may have seen a discussion on my talk page, but I have a question I think you can answer. If there are multiple refs to one book on an article, but to different pages in that book, how do you include that? Several full on {{ cite book}}s with different "pages=" parameters? Or is there a way to ibid? Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Right about now I like that version very much. Thanks for the moral support Jeffpw. ( → Netscott) 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff:
While I agree that the joke banners should not be removed, I ask that you please stop restoring them for the time being.
David Levy and I agreed to neither remove nor restore them at the present time (in the interest of preventing further disruption), and it would be very helpful if you would accept these terms. Thanks. (
→
Netscott)
06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
whos user page have i edited? not edited anything in while jesselp 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC) oh okay i see someone else did, you can delete these comments jesselp 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Greg&jenny.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik and leave a comment if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
How interesting evrik is being RfCed for being uncooperative and bloody minded when he's just started another campaign to demote the LGBT Barnstar. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol - All those user boxes on my page come from *your* page - ha! You had such a variety. I would have taken more, but I ran out of time and patience with the layout spacing. I'll take a look at some of the projects and see what's shaking at the LGBT Project Page. I mostly do images, though I occasionally dabble in some editing. But to be honest, I don't have the best temperment for editing wars, so I limit my involvement there. I'm too sensitive :-( -- DavidShankBone 23:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Category:LGBT organizations for the time being, per my comments at WT:LGBT. I know we're in disagreement here, but for erring on the safe side, I hope we can leave it off unless and until a consensus develops. — coelacan talk — 18:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on my talk page. Much appreciated. I can't believe I'm in an argument like this! OY! ParAmmon ( cheers thanks a lot!) 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm worn out! I need a cyberauthoritarian robot clone to cover for me while I take a nap. What a day. — coelacan talk — 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff. I've submitted this article for peer review ... I figure if I've got it up to good article status, I may as well see how far I can take it. I can't figure out how to add it to the LGBT-specific peer review, so it's on the main PR page. Please feel free to contribute. Thanks. Proto ► 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeffpw, g'day. How's it going? Good I hope. I trust that you've had an enjoyable night in the wintry northern hemisphere and that your day is going to be fine. I have trolled through some of your previous postings and I don't believe that you're in a position to stand in judgement of me as you have done on my talk page. Therefore, although weak - I'm not a violent man nor particularly argumentative - I've discussed my views on the AN/I page. Warmest regards, Enzedbrit 06:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Heart | |
I, Smee, award this barnstar to Jeffpw for getting a bad rap for being a good editor. Thank you. Smee 11:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC). |
I don't see an organisation that has resulted in 167 convictions of pedophiles to be hysterical or reactionary. I get that they are paranoid, which is why they want us to hardban anyone who is a pedophile, but accusations that we are harbouring pedophiles are hard to refute when the only vague guidelines we have are unwritten and based in the heat of a wheel war. We need to have a firm policy to point to, and I resent that you think you can tell me what I should and should not trust. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Following a report at WP:AIV I saw your comments at the talk page of 63.228.47.144 - I assume some edits were deleted but how are you sure this is a banned user?- from their contrib history I couldn't figure that out. Just wondering, maybe if you explain it I can be more effective in my own vandal fighting.
Oh...and I can't resist...after reading your userpage I have to point out Ms. Albright was a relentless Arafat kisser. You'd make her President? Yikes. :) Kaisershatner 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping watch while I slept, Jeff. By the way, you don't need to warn Nkras socks at all, and it doesn't matter what they are saying, you can just revert them even if they're being "nice". Per WP:BAN, he can't edit. Everything he says is subject to immediate reversion, even if it's just "hey how's it going?" Just tag it with {{IPsock|Nkras}} (but not {{banneduser}} because the sock might be used by someone else someday... only User:Nkras needs to be tagged with that one). Once the user page is tagged, you can report immediately at WP:AIV, including a note that it's banned User:Nkras. A lot of admins are already familiar with his style. — coelacan talk — 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your apologies. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is forgotten. Cheers! Raystorm 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That was both unexpected and pleasant. While you are at it, you might keep an eye on John the Apostle. Not unexpectedly, a certain subgroup is reacting strongly to any suggestion that their idol may have truly loved. No further comment, I have too much to say on the subject. Regards, Haiduc 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, I hope all is well and once again thanks for the helpful peer review comments on Christ Illusion. I wish to submit the article for FAC very soon, and was hoping you could give it the once over to make sure there are no visible problems within the article. If you're too busy, then that's fine - anything you can say regarding the article is fine, whether it be critical or an appraisal. Thanks! I'm buzzing others from the peer review with this same message also, so didn't think you wanted to feel left out. :) LuciferMorgan 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The old consensus which involved many editors and lengthy discussion is not overruled by the comments of a few in a recent entry on the talk page. Tomyumgoong 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could you please remove this fair use picture from your user page? As I'm sure you know, you can't use fair use pictures on user pages. You can easily use one of the many free pictures from commons:Hillary Clinton. Thanks, Yonatan ( contribs/ talk) 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've warned Tmac68 about the three revert rule. If he continues, I guess he'll have to be reported on the noticeboard. WjB scribe 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for weighting on this issue. As you see for the extensive talk page, it has been quite an ordeal. On the canvassing issue, as I stated in the talk page my opinion is that the practice is disruptive. As if it is a violation of the rule, it may be a matter of opinion. Evrik sent 17 neutral messages to various users. Some of them with a history of postings on catholic issues. In an attempt to keep the paragraph untagged I agreed to all the suggestions but one of the contacted editors tagged it again yesterday. Bakersville 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the campaign poster you had on your User page. Please don't campaign for candidates on Wikipedia's dime. This is not a political point from me, as I have not made up my mind yet as to whom I will support, it might be Hillary, but that has no bearing on my deletion. User:Zoe| (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with abuse of power and all to do with attempting to explain why we are here. To create an encyclopedia, not to campaign for candidates. I have requested a review of my actions at WP:ANI. User:Zoe| (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
No caption, huh? You mean, no caption like Please support Hillary Clinton for President in 2008. ? User:Zoe| (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm taking it seriously. This is a controversy I was involved in back in the spring, and it was never resolved. I'll be damned if I'm going to let an unresolved issue be played off as established consensus. — coelacan talk — 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I also think this image should be removed. Wikipedia is simply not the place for political advocacy of any kind. Friday (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Chuckle. I think a monster may well have been unleashed. See User:Hit bull, win steak. The caption: "This giant public domain image of Hillary Rodham Clinton does not care whether you vote or not, but it DOES wish that people were more polite and reasonable. Some may consider it polemical, but I prefer to think of it as polemarrific!" is pretty funny. WJB scribe 16:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you are wondering....I am not sure which Democrat I support...I am torn between Hillary, Barack, and Gov. Richardson from NM (for some reason)....though I would take Hillary over the other two....but that is my opinion. - SVRTVDude 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you were critical, so no worries - such feedback has benefited the article, which is a great thing. I welcome all your comments, which are enormously appreciated. I didn't know what a run-on sentence was that's all as concerns one of your concerns, but I'll address that with your suggestion. With possibly creating a "Controversy" section, hmm I think the information fits better in the lyrical info and album cover sections respectively, as they can be analysed in total in the respective section. Thanks for all your help though, and if you think of any other concerns give me a bell. LuciferMorgan 22:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It just occured to me that I have images of 16 politicians on my userpage! I guess that means I support:
Should I be more worried about the number of userpage infringements or the risk of being carted off for a serious case of multiple personaility disorder...? WJB scribe 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
As you set out for
Ithaka, hope the voyage is long Don't expect Ithaka to make you rich. Ithaka gave you the
marvelous journey |
Hey there. I'm thinking about ditching the citation templates (they're just annoying and unhelpful to me...I also don't like the way they look). Could you hold off converting the refs for now? Sorry...and thanks for helping dig up some of the archive links. However, what should I do about the "Retrieved on" dates for these? Those are misleading to readers, since I certainly didn't retrieve the archived versions on those dates...I retrieved the LexisNexis versions...again, another reason why I linked to LexisNexis instead of the archived versions. Gzkn 01:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Shoot, I forgot to add a bit of documentation. Take a look again. =( {Slash -|- Talk} 04:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Pan Am 1996-1998 and Pan Am 1998-2004 were split from the Pan Am article some time ago. Those two companies are not related to the original Pan Am. Other such same-name airlines also each have their own article. Clipper471 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeffpw. If you have a moment perhaps you would care to review the message "Open Dialogue" that I have tried to start with Zoe. Many of her actions are in clear breach of wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am hoping she will reply, but I doubt it. I intend to go to WP:ANI to try to force her hand. Her personal interpretation of guidelines and breach of procedures make her, in my humble view, unfit to be an admin. Her continued harrasment of great member of the community can only harm this project. If I do go to intervention I would like to cite your case if that is okay. Pedro1999a | Talk 08:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Re this edit: may I suggest that you not twist the thumbscrews any deeper into her? — coelacan talk — 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to learn that my forethought saved you so much work but surprised to learn that it was so exceptional. On the other hand, SandyGeorgia had to go through all of the pages which I posted on and add more information regarding the FAR process, so, perhaps it was so not so time-saving a gesture after all. :-) - Severa ( !!!) 10:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Jeff! I thought I would let you know that I have just nominated the Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan article as a Featured Article candidate. The feedback and encouragement from you and the other reviewers is what motivated the nomination. Thank you again for all your support! Cimm [talk] 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the moral support. :) I added the ref. This FAC is gonna be exhausting isn't it? Raystorm 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I actually came to ask you something, but can't remember what? Any chance you recall what our last exchange was about? I couldn't find anything in the archives, but I'm working on a big project and rather busy right now. Post on my user page, let me know if you think of something--sorry for the cryptic message. Thanks for expending so much effort on Wikipedia in general being the gracious party. KP Botany 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Usually it takes at least 3, ({{ test3}}, in order to be eligable for AIV. If the edit looks like intentional vandalisim, give them a {{ test4im}}, which only gives them one warning. The IP is part of BellSouth, so it may be a shared IP. Admins are advised to be very careful with those type of IPs. But if they continue, send it to AIV again -- wL< speak· check· chill> 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I assume you're talking about the "Selected article", right?
So I see Portal:LGBT/Previous article and Portal:LGBT/Previous articles. Whichever one you use is up to you, though I'd put a #redirect on the other one (or just have it speedy deleted).
As for the content of the archive page, I created the biography one by going back to the history and copy/pasting from the old versions of the page.
Do you want me to do that? I mean, I can if you want ;) -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that was very nice of you. :-) Cheers Raystorm 15:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems strange to think that I've only known you both for three months, and I'm probably never going to be in the same country as you, let alone meet you, and yet you can reduce me to tears with a few sentences. Thank you so much for your support - you can certainly count on mine for anything you do. Gratefully yours, Sarah. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Dev920 (
talk •
contribs)
17:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC).
Hey, Jeff ! I just left a query for Gimmetrow; I'm pretty sure that GimmeBot is fully functional now and can take over the facfailed chore, but let's see what Gimmetrow says. Thanks SO much again for everything you stepped in to do ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed the new FA tag, nice job, I like it! I do have a suggestion, however. See, currently, adding the maindate portion to it, the tag will add the same line as the previous sole tag except that it does not wikilink the date like that old one did. Instead, the date stays in regular black text. Seeing as the FA templates are in American format this means that the date will come out as forced American format while if wikilinked it will default to user prefference, perhaps we can add that feature on so that it remains as neutral as the last tag did? Whaddaya think? -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 06:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.
Please reply to User talk:Audacity, as I will not be watching your talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 07:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tim-pete.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Come on over and voice your thoughts. What now with it? A ribbon? Do you have an idea? -- Ouro 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I had IRC for two years and I detested it every minute I had it. I would end up in the wrong chatroom or the wrong network, or it would randomly sign me out, or other multitudes of irritating things. Without a very good reason to, I do not intend to acquire it again, it caused me way too much grief. Sorry man. Don't mind setting up a Bravenet chatroom if you really want to gather us all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There's Skype, too, if you had it. I'm KingCranky there. :-) I wanted to run something by you before I took any action. It's not really that important. But a group chat would be fun, come to think of it. Jeffpw 22:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I challenge you to a Jump-a-Class contest! Pick a stub, any stub, and let's see which of us can jump further :) -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 05:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oi! Don't upgrade your own jump articles! :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I was bored and translated the polish article on Jan Lechoń into English. If you want to have a go at copyediting it, feel free to do so. Am notifying you as you wrote you're interested in biographies. Cheers. -- Ouro 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
David and I worked that out. If he says that this person is notable, that is good enough for me. I've seen many people who actually have names recognized by others that don't meet our notability standards. Atom 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I felt that it might be too informal where "homosexual" should be used (saying gays and lesbians, or gays as meaning both genders). I always thought/felt that we should only use it when we are distinguishing between male homosexuals and female homosexuals. The negro analogy wasn't good, I'll admit; sorry if it seemed extreme. — Deckill er 21:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jeffpw, I answered your question about Image:Ejaculation_sample.jpg being listed as a Vanity image in the discussions of the Sexology and Sexuality guidelines on the deletion request page of this image. Thanks for your interest NightFlyer 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the head's up, but I only tagged the article and I share no credit for its creation. I will, however, take a look and see if there's anything I can do to clean it up. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 22:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I'm really peeved! Whether it's governments with bombs or guys with administrative privlidges on Wikipedia, it seems that anyone with a little strength abuses it. I'm not sure Adam4Adam will pass review. People here have a way of making the evidence fit their opinion rather than vice versa and I think this may come into play regarding a gay guy's sex site. I hope HoS sees your message about the Imperial Court System article as it way cheer him up. He blanked his really pretty user page today so I am guessing he's really fed up. You might therefore want to do those citation fixes yourself. Shaundakulbara 00:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're confused about. The section I'm referring to begins "The LGBT Portal is Wikipedia's gateway to material relating to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender related articles in the encyclopedia." The first paragraph describes what the portal is. The rest of the (rather large) box is a discussion of the term "LGBT". I would think that such a discussion would belong in LGBT, but it's not the sort of broad overview I would expect on a portal page. I would probably cut all or most of the text after the first paragraph, and maybe expand a little more in other directions. Dfeuer 02:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If you have a sec take a look at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators. It seems like a good idea as projects get larger and means people know who to direct questions to etc. Wikiproject LGBT probably isn't large enough to need a whole team but a coordinator might be a good idea. I doubt there'd be any objection to Dev becoming the project's coordinator- she effectively does this already. And it seems like a good way of recognising her efforts and role in the project. What do you think? WJB scribe 04:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia's English LGBT Miss America... I like it! Well, that's going up on my userpage at some point... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jeffpw. Uh, think about Jungian Synchronicity. I was reading your comments about the three pictured ladies in your page, pondering about dropping a note to you about the issue, when your message popped up in a different tag ( Firefox forever, pal).
No, no action taken. I posted the message(s) [1] [2] two and a half days ago. This is a riddle for me.
I restored nothing, because that could be regarded as an hostile move by the other guy (despite the fact that it is not). I prefer an administrator to clean the mess, just to avoid a "personalization" of the conflict. Randroide 10:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your admin nudgering, Jeffpw. Be "careful" with the synchronicity issue, it is and obsessing meme ; ) Randroide 10:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I understand your frustration, but as I mentioned on WP:ANI it is incorrect to label this user's action as vandalism. The user is clearly acting in good faith and has a legitimate content dispute. I strongly disagree with his method of conducting this dispute and will block him if he continues to unilaterally remove the LGBT project tags from articles. However you should not characterize this as vandalism. I am trying to reach a solution that satisfies all concerned, please don;t make my task more difficult by continuing to provoke Eedo Bee. Thanks, Gwernol 13:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
i wonder if you would consider this edit/response as counter-productive if your user was replaced with mine [3] - that was the users "reply" to my degree 1 notice - this response resulted in the rest of the dispute which spreads on more than one location.
extra small note: the new anti-semitism calls itself anti-zionism, if you need examples you can start here: [] - that's just the tip of the iceberg.
last note: i'm not an evil "the zionist gah!", only an israeli who supports peace and is tired of gross misrepresentation which only perpetuate the conflict.
Jaakobou 17:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do over the weekend. Feel free to pester me if I've not done anything by Sunday morning (Saturday night your time) — OwenBlacker 16:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jeffpw
I explained in my "request" that I am learning by experiencing. This was the first time I wanted to nominate myself for adminship. I read the instruction and acted accordingly. I prefer to work on the quality of articles as long as I am an ordinary user rather than thinking about the meaning of 0/0/0 in adminship request. I learn things when I need. Sangak 17:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
But I'm tired of doing Gay porn stars!! After tagging ~237 of them, I'm tired of 'em! :) -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I still have a soft spot for Anthony Gallo, no matter how many times I've....looked at his pictures (maybe soft is the wrong operative word). :-) Jeffpw 20:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I just kinda float there. I use the name Amsterdad there. Let me know when I should turn it on. And your innuendo was way worse than mine, WJB! Jeffpw 21:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. How many articles are we going to end up with at this rate? Thanks for that link. Much as I might enjoy ensuring that article gives fair representation to more liberal religious views on the subject, if I don't get a good answer to my question on the talkpage about why we need this article in addition to Christian views of marriage and Jewish view of marriage, I shall send it to AfD along with its brother. WJB scribe 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
So? And the article denotes what that I don't know already? Confirmation that Liberal Jews make their politics the basis of their religious belief, not Judaism itself? What else is new? Nkras 05:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeffpw: I stated my opinion based upon experience. Don't quote me rules when they are used for political ends or to silence opponents. You and the other anti-traditionalists insult my culture, my religion, my social class. Do not threaten me. Nkras 06:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
As discussed on the article talk page, I now have nominated this article for deletion since I am not yet convinced and it may profit from a thorough review. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippe Servaty. Tikiwont 10:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, and said as much on the Afd. It's up to the community now. Jeffpw 16:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So are we all ready? I suggest (since this was a challenge thing) we each review the other three articles on the talk pages and consense to the new ratings - any objections? The four articles are:
-- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
i wonder if you would consider this edit/response as counter-productive if your user was replaced with mine [4] - that was the users "reply" to my degree 1 notice - this response resulted in the rest of the dispute which spreads on more than one location.
extra small note: the new anti-semitism calls itself anti-zionism, if you need examples you can start here: [] - that's just the tip of the iceberg.
last note: i'm not an evil "the zionist gah!", only an israeli who supports peace and is tired of gross misrepresentation which only perpetuate the conflict.
Jaakobou 1 Feb. 2007 (UTC)
A response would be both civil and appreciated. Jaakobou 16:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't try to draw me into your disagreement with Abu, or however he spells his name. I only left one message there saying he didn't need to leave the warnings on his talk page, as there is not consensus or policy about that. I have no comments to make about anything else there, or the diffs you provided here. By the way, it is not considered uncivil not to reply to a comment on your talk page, if you have nothing to say. Thanks you. Jeffpw 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff! I started the page and then realized that there isn't a lot of information to be found about her online. This is all I have about her now -- if you have more info please post it -- I'd love to know more about her! Karanacs 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC) PS I'm very impressed with everything I'm seeing on your user page. Keep up the great work!
I see your page got archived correctly! Yaay :) -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, cool. That was fast! It would be good to have a source for most gay icons coming out of American/British gay culture, but I'm not too worried about it since it's almost certainly true. —Cel ithemis 22:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If I had known it I definitely would have used the proper citation templates! Sadly I followed an incomplete reference from somewhere else. Perhaps someone who regularly edits the article for The Observer might own back issues and be able to track it down? ~ Zythe Talk to me! 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool. What accent do you have? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't following ANI or Jimbo's page at the time. I'm dismayed by this. Whatever disagreements we've had, I regard her as a good admin overall and a good editor. I don't think she was in the wrong here, and I certainly don't think she should have taken the fall for this incident. — coelacan talk — 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
A _________ is a publicly recognized relationship which creates kinship obligations regarding the sharing and transfer of resources between individuals, the children that a sexual union may produce, and, in some societies, the extended family. All human societies have some form of __________, and in all complex societies which are governed by law, __________ is a public legal act with strong social customs and often religious rites involved. People _______ for many different reasons which may include: to publicly declare love and/or companionship; to legitimize sexual relations and procreation; to form a family unit; to strengthen social and economic stability; and to nurture and educate offspring.
At least when Nkras wanted this to read "a marriage is union between a man and a woman" everyone knew what he was talking about. The present definition is simply hideous. It would read fine using the word family in the first two spaces. Sigh, from one bizarre POV to another. WjB scribe 05:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff - thank you for your support in pushing this article all the way to FA status! I appreciate all the encouragement. I am tied up with real-world stuff right now, but in due course I hope to work on quality biographies for othr members of his family. Kind regards Cimm [talk] 11:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, very cool! Thanks for letting me know.
Isn't there a prohibition on putting fair use images on portals, though? The first edition cover is, unfortunately, not out of copyright. —Cel ithemis 23:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I know that Martina Navratilova is a lesbian, but Billie Jean King is bisexual. The section of the article I changed stated that they have 'come out as lesbian', so I changed it. Unfortunately I managed to get it the wrong way round but I've now altered it to get it correct. Thanks for pointing out the muddle. Argenteum 09:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, well it seems I will be needing some assistance from you again. If that is okay. Recently, I started fixing up the article Royal Descent. However, over the last few days, another editor has started to edit the article and is deleting my edits and another person's edits. Everytime, something new is added they delete it. I have tried to discuss it on the talk page with them, but they delete edits and then argue about it later to the point it just had gotten silly. This user has already been blocked twice for breaking the 3RR rule, although, it appears they are being careful to not revert so much again. Yet, back to their old behavior. Should this be reported and would it be wrong to file another report? I do not want to become one of those annoying people who complains about everything. RosePlantagenet 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much for checking it out! They have been careful not to break the 3RR rule, so I was not sure where the complaint belonged. RosePlantagenet 15:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. Do you know why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippe Servaty was relisted? I don't see it in DRV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacan ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
I have no idea other than what was written on the additional comments. Whoever relisted it felt that not enough people had commented. That doesn't seem a good reason to me, but since I am involved in it I didn't want to remove the tag. Jeffpw 11:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. What a pain. Well you did good work on the sources Jeff. It'll be kept. — coelacan talk — 11:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be great if the Imperial Court System article made it to the LGBT page as you suggested. It would also be super if you would give the reference notes any improvements they need -- I'm not wiking very much these days. By the way, Adam4Adam passed the AfD debate. Thanks for your support. -- House of Scandal 12:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, thanks for pointing me to the ANI discussion. Sorry that the LGBT project had to put up with that level of abuse. I'm glad to see appropriate action has been taken against Eedo Bee. Best, Gwernol 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Greg&jenny.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thx for pointing that out, although I myself would never edit someone's userpage, but would confront them first (as I did w/ CroDome). :) Stop The Lies 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=108029529&oldid=108029522 This] is an extremely incivil comment towards David Levy. This whole discussion about fake evil message bars of d00m is certainly going to be on WP:LAME if you keep up comments like this.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Dude, tone it down. Putting a billion practical joke bars on your page is nearly (if not completely) a violation of WP:POINT. You can express your ideas a bit better if you just calm down, step away from the computer if need be, and come back later. It's seriously not THAT big a deal. It's the internet. Life will go on. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 08:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You know Jeff, I might actually click on the link if it was Hillary telling me that I have new messages. :p Seriously though, you may want to trim the number of those boxes down. The screen ablazes with yellow. Agne Cheese/ Wine 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff, though I would be very impress if you did find a way of including Hillary in that message box. :) Agne Cheese/ Wine 08:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeffpw, thanks for your message on my talk page. Just so you know, I reverted the information because it was unsourced. Also, the anon added this category to the articles of seven other actors, some who are living. As you know we need to be especially careful to source information such as this in biographies of living persons. Thanks again. Regards, Accurizer 10:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You may have seen a discussion on my talk page, but I have a question I think you can answer. If there are multiple refs to one book on an article, but to different pages in that book, how do you include that? Several full on {{ cite book}}s with different "pages=" parameters? Or is there a way to ibid? Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Right about now I like that version very much. Thanks for the moral support Jeffpw. ( → Netscott) 00:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeff:
While I agree that the joke banners should not be removed, I ask that you please stop restoring them for the time being.
David Levy and I agreed to neither remove nor restore them at the present time (in the interest of preventing further disruption), and it would be very helpful if you would accept these terms. Thanks. (
→
Netscott)
06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
whos user page have i edited? not edited anything in while jesselp 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC) oh okay i see someone else did, you can delete these comments jesselp 17:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Greg&jenny.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik and leave a comment if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
How interesting evrik is being RfCed for being uncooperative and bloody minded when he's just started another campaign to demote the LGBT Barnstar. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol - All those user boxes on my page come from *your* page - ha! You had such a variety. I would have taken more, but I ran out of time and patience with the layout spacing. I'll take a look at some of the projects and see what's shaking at the LGBT Project Page. I mostly do images, though I occasionally dabble in some editing. But to be honest, I don't have the best temperment for editing wars, so I limit my involvement there. I'm too sensitive :-( -- DavidShankBone 23:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Category:LGBT organizations for the time being, per my comments at WT:LGBT. I know we're in disagreement here, but for erring on the safe side, I hope we can leave it off unless and until a consensus develops. — coelacan talk — 18:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment on my talk page. Much appreciated. I can't believe I'm in an argument like this! OY! ParAmmon ( cheers thanks a lot!) 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm worn out! I need a cyberauthoritarian robot clone to cover for me while I take a nap. What a day. — coelacan talk — 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff. I've submitted this article for peer review ... I figure if I've got it up to good article status, I may as well see how far I can take it. I can't figure out how to add it to the LGBT-specific peer review, so it's on the main PR page. Please feel free to contribute. Thanks. Proto ► 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Jeffpw, g'day. How's it going? Good I hope. I trust that you've had an enjoyable night in the wintry northern hemisphere and that your day is going to be fine. I have trolled through some of your previous postings and I don't believe that you're in a position to stand in judgement of me as you have done on my talk page. Therefore, although weak - I'm not a violent man nor particularly argumentative - I've discussed my views on the AN/I page. Warmest regards, Enzedbrit 06:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Heart | |
I, Smee, award this barnstar to Jeffpw for getting a bad rap for being a good editor. Thank you. Smee 11:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC). |
I don't see an organisation that has resulted in 167 convictions of pedophiles to be hysterical or reactionary. I get that they are paranoid, which is why they want us to hardban anyone who is a pedophile, but accusations that we are harbouring pedophiles are hard to refute when the only vague guidelines we have are unwritten and based in the heat of a wheel war. We need to have a firm policy to point to, and I resent that you think you can tell me what I should and should not trust. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Following a report at WP:AIV I saw your comments at the talk page of 63.228.47.144 - I assume some edits were deleted but how are you sure this is a banned user?- from their contrib history I couldn't figure that out. Just wondering, maybe if you explain it I can be more effective in my own vandal fighting.
Oh...and I can't resist...after reading your userpage I have to point out Ms. Albright was a relentless Arafat kisser. You'd make her President? Yikes. :) Kaisershatner 16:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping watch while I slept, Jeff. By the way, you don't need to warn Nkras socks at all, and it doesn't matter what they are saying, you can just revert them even if they're being "nice". Per WP:BAN, he can't edit. Everything he says is subject to immediate reversion, even if it's just "hey how's it going?" Just tag it with {{IPsock|Nkras}} (but not {{banneduser}} because the sock might be used by someone else someday... only User:Nkras needs to be tagged with that one). Once the user page is tagged, you can report immediately at WP:AIV, including a note that it's banned User:Nkras. A lot of admins are already familiar with his style. — coelacan talk — 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your apologies. As far as I'm concerned, the issue is forgotten. Cheers! Raystorm 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That was both unexpected and pleasant. While you are at it, you might keep an eye on John the Apostle. Not unexpectedly, a certain subgroup is reacting strongly to any suggestion that their idol may have truly loved. No further comment, I have too much to say on the subject. Regards, Haiduc 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, I hope all is well and once again thanks for the helpful peer review comments on Christ Illusion. I wish to submit the article for FAC very soon, and was hoping you could give it the once over to make sure there are no visible problems within the article. If you're too busy, then that's fine - anything you can say regarding the article is fine, whether it be critical or an appraisal. Thanks! I'm buzzing others from the peer review with this same message also, so didn't think you wanted to feel left out. :) LuciferMorgan 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The old consensus which involved many editors and lengthy discussion is not overruled by the comments of a few in a recent entry on the talk page. Tomyumgoong 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, could you please remove this fair use picture from your user page? As I'm sure you know, you can't use fair use pictures on user pages. You can easily use one of the many free pictures from commons:Hillary Clinton. Thanks, Yonatan ( contribs/ talk) 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I've warned Tmac68 about the three revert rule. If he continues, I guess he'll have to be reported on the noticeboard. WjB scribe 12:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for weighting on this issue. As you see for the extensive talk page, it has been quite an ordeal. On the canvassing issue, as I stated in the talk page my opinion is that the practice is disruptive. As if it is a violation of the rule, it may be a matter of opinion. Evrik sent 17 neutral messages to various users. Some of them with a history of postings on catholic issues. In an attempt to keep the paragraph untagged I agreed to all the suggestions but one of the contacted editors tagged it again yesterday. Bakersville 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)