User talk:Jake Wartenberg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Re: Your AIV report on Sunocap

Thank you for your report on Sunocap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and you are encouraged to revert, warn and report inappropriate conduct. I have however declined to act on this report for the following reason:

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. this is discouraged but not forbidden. You could contact him and explain to him how to contribute more effectively

The Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism might be a helpful read if you wish to improve your future reports. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you've already done that. Cheers! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

William H. Gates, Sr.

That wasn't a mistake. This photo is of poor quality, and don't even have a license. Gridge (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC).

Interests

I see you have an interest in computers. Maybe we should be friends? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarondoucett (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds Good!  :) -- Jake Wartenberg (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Reverting Edits: Save Mart Supermarkets

Dear Jake, Are you reverting the 2 paragraphs in question (Re: Save Mart Supermarkets), because you are trying to retain the integrity of the Wikipedia content? This content is incorrect and goes so far as to be slanderous. It has been continually added/reverted by someone that is not identifying themselves (IP only). Can you let me know what your intentions are? Thanks. James (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's cool. I just saw a paragraph removed with no edit summary. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 01:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! I misunderstood your intentions. I and serveral friends have been watching this page and trying to keep this erroneous, if not libelous, content out. Thanks very much! James (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank You! -- Jake Wartenberg^talk 18:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Um..

How was that an attack? Please explain your reasoning. ThanksFru23 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I must have misread something. I am very sorry! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 01:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse Me

Excuse me, I am new to this Wikipedia editing. Why do you keep sending me messages about reversions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.79.222 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits constituted vandalism. Jake Wartenberg^talk 01:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your help fighting vandalism on the Serial killer page. As you can imagine, the page is a magnet for vandals. I've had it semi-protected twice in the past few months, but the anonymous IPs immediately jump on it once the protection period ends. Cheers! momoricks (make my day) 00:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That just made my day! Jake Wartenberg^talk 00:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I like your vandalism site.

Here is a classic one that should be on there: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Backstreet_Boys&diff=242489895&oldid=242485992 —Preceding unsigned comment added by EpicDeathFireMan69 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you like the site. I added the diff you linked to, thanks for the tip! Jake Wartenberg^talk 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Careful with speedy-tagging

[This] looks quite mis-tagged. Decently written, rational explanations, several cited sources that are on-topic (though maybe not the WP:RS we would hope)...clearly not vandalism. DMacks (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Woa! Sorry. Jake Wartenberg^talk 00:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for vandal-fighting! DMacks (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

antara

Does this image Anthara Biswas violate wikipedia image rules ?If not, could you add the "keep" tag for it ? --PhyrnxWarrior (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why I templated you; whoops! Jake Wartenberg^talk 13:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to

revert user: carsoncolts edits on millikan high school, it is vandalism.

Sorry about that. I have removed the warning from the user's talk page. But please remember to sign your comments and Assume Good Faith. Also, new comments go at the bottom of a talk page. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^talk 12:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

no, no, no! I am sorry. You were NOT being a vandal, carsoncolts is! I was asking you to revert HIS changes on Millikan High School. Sorry about that, and please put the warning back on his page! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.170.196 (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please write in clear, coherent sentences in the future. Thanks for fighting vandalism! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 02:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Thankyou for the wish and Merry Christmas to you too. Cheers.

P.S: Btw I am a Muslim, but I won't mind getting those Santa Clause candies and goodies. Marsa Lahminal (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Christian either.  :) Jake Wartenberg^talk 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Your user page and such things.

I'm pretty new here, so I was just wondering how you have your user page set up to look as good as it does. Are you using a script or something, or do you just enter in all the code yourself? Ertemplin (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement. I didn't use any tools, but I am glad you like the page. Jake Wartenberg^talk 20:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sceptic

Hi. Skeptic is the US variant of sceptic (see [1]), so someone changing this word in an article about a British subject is not vandalising (sic). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to a diff? I am more than willing to accept the fact that I may have made a mistake, but I am not sure what you are talking about. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It was 2 edits ago. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? Can you at least tell me what article? Jake Wartenberg^talk 21:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind; found it and fixed it. Jake Wartenberg^talk 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Osiris

Hi Jake, you left a message on my page re vandalism but methinks you mix me up with someone else. Taam (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Methinks so too. Jake Wartenberg^talk 13:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Jake

Sorry about the YouTube - I plead ignorance. However, if you view "The Money or the Gun Open Titles" on YouTube and check me out on IMD, you will see that I am the accredited film editor on this series, so I know what I'm talking about. Please reinstate my accurate revisions to The Money or the Gun wiki entry.

Darren Jonusas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djonusas (talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Describing anything as "cringeworthy" does not comply with WP:NPOV. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 23:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, he performed the song in an ironic manner in order to lambast the advertising industry, but i'm willing to tone down the text if needs be. what say you?

Djonusas (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just try to avoid inserting your personal opinions into the article. You could say "poorly received" if there is a source that you can cite (ie a negative review) Jake Wartenberg^talk 00:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

ok thanksDjonusas (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No Problem. I have removed both warnings from your talk page, as it is now clear to me that your edits were made in good faith. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Account creation tool

Someone, probably you, has requested access to the toolserver account creation tool under this username. Please confirm here that it was you. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

'Twas me indeed. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^talk 12:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have access to the tool now, but don't I also need the "accountcreator" permission? Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^talk 14:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

do not delete my page on scout songs

it is perfectly useful imformation there are no grounds for deleteing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevelvetvoice? (talk • contribs) 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be more than useful. Please read WP:FIRST. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 01:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

waht specifically is wrong with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thevelvetvoice? (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Does not meet WP:NOTE Jake Wartenberg^talk 02:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I didnt mean to vandalize Yoga. My friend did that to try to kick me off Wikipedia since i usee it all the time. He was just being stupid. Really sorry =( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.33.158 (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your IP is on its last warning, so as long as it does not happen again you should be fine. For purposes of legitimate editing, you may wish to create an account. Jake Wartenberg^talk 02:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

American Pie

Seriously guy, why'd you delete my addition to the song's article? It was clearly needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.73.235 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not. Remember that this is an encyclopedia. Also, please add your comments to the bottom of the page. Jake Wartenberg^talk 15:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Word Salad article

I left you a note at my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monado (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Jake Wartenberg^talk 15:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Baconian theory talk page

I feel angry about your intervention. If you had waited a couple of minutes you would have seen that I was constructively creating an archive 3 which you have now disrupted. So I'll try again. Please desist from disrupting my editing. (Isnotwen (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

In the future, please leave an edit summary so that we vandal fighters know what you are doing. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 20:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I got the same message, but the user did not have a proper edit summary. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

External links

Charles Brandt's website

Hoffa Mystery Solved

These links are for the public to gain knowledge into the most recent findings regarding the Jimmy Hoffa case. I believe it is unfair for Stephen J. Anderson to delete information that serves the public's quest for the truth about this case. Any help you can provide in this matter would be appreciated. --Spectre7277 (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Err... Are you sure you are talking to the right guy? Jake Wartenberg^talk 04:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

RFA

It was my page that I deleted what do you meen it was un contructive?It's Me :) O Yea its me.. Washington95 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to withdraw the RFA, it is better to do so as outlined in WP:GRFA, however, I have re-blanked the page. Jake Wartenberg^talk 16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind; the page has been properly deleted now. Jake Wartenberg^talk 16:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

hi jake,

hi, m new to wiki espacially to this editing, i don know how to edit n use, i hav been trying, so if u could help me... <—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimukund (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Y Message on your talk page. Jake Wartenberg^talk 16:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Brightling

Hi You deleted my information on Brightling This is true imformation as my name is Brightling Why do you keep deleting it? --Spongyluke1 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Information must be encyclopedic. See WP:N. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^talk 20:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Music Never Stopped

I did a {hang on} and it was deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by J04n (talk • contribs) 02:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's too bad. Why don't you recreate the article in your sandbox, and then recreate the article when you are satisfied that it will not be deleted. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 02:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yggdra Union

I did not commit vandalism. Vandalism is more akin to say deleting the whole page entirely or inserting random nonsense. Secondly, forums are not a source and so the section I've deleted is eligible for expunging since its backing is grounded in a forum but not any reputable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.141.9 (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing information from articles with no explanation is considered vandalism. In the future, you need to discuss changes you plan to make on the article's talk page, and leave an informative edit summary so that people can understand your intentions. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^talk 16:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is always a good idea. I see you do good work speedying, and thanks for recognising that my sneeze-sex syndrome article unquestionably does not fit our speedy policy, having an impeccable secondary source that refs a primary source from the prestigious Royal Society of Medicine; indeed it doesn't even fit our afd requirements. One reason not to template regulars is that we do know the policies, and I would not create a stub if I did not feel it fitted with what is wanted in terms of new stubs, so thanks for your reverts. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

YUnderstood. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 21:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

pd

there is a cure pd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.250.191 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Jake Wartenberg^talk 22:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, Jake Wartenberg. You have new messages at User talk:IRP#Thanks for reverting vandalism to my talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

 Done Jake Wartenberg^talk 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Menorah (Hanukkah)

Yes, some Jews do light all candles the first night, seven the second, six the third... Sources: Being a Jew myself. Mynameinc (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not a source. See WP:NOR. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^talk 18:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A citation needed tag would have been better, yes? Mynameinc (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a source for that information? If not, I think it is better to not include it. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^talk 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I know of Jews who do, and I can't find an online source so I won't include it, but the House of Shammai's teachings should be mentioned in the article, because sources can be found for that. Mynameinc (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

YSounds Good! Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^talk 19:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry

my cousin vandalized your site

on behalf of him

i am very sory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.129.132 (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

YDon't worry about it. ― Jake Wartenberg ^{T M} 03:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Defence mechanism (biology)

I'm a bit taken back by finding this former article eliminated entirely, and the title re-routed to Antipredator adaptation, which title covers a much smaller field. I believe 82.16.1.141 may have been responsible. I don't think we have a consensus on this action, and in any event the Defence mechanism article (& its talk page) had some valuable content which should not be discarded. Therefore, I'm hoping you will look at the situation and take appropriate action. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The article content has not been removed, but merged, as discussed on it's talk page. If you do not feel that all of the content that should have been kept was moved over, you can move content to the new article from the old revision. If you are opposed to the merge itself, I would advise you to state your opposition on the aforementioned talk page. Also see WP:DISPUTE. In any event, I am not one of the super involved parties; I only reverted that IP's exit because it failed to leave a proper edit summary. I am happy to answer any questions you have, however. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg ^Talk 17:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; reading the original Defence mechanism (biology) article has satisfied me that there is nothing more there which deserves rescuing. I think the plan of producing an over-arching article on defence mechanisms (which is needed) will have to wait untill someone has time to do it. The old talk page has my earlier thinking on this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Y Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 21:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Anthony McCormack

The change I made to Anthony McCormack was reverted by yourself, as it appears to be unconstructive. I believe that the article is extremely inaccurate and the sources are disputable. How do I delte or nominate it for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anth1234567890 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:AFD. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 01:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Smiles!

DocDeel516 ^discuss 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for helping me with my enquiry at the Help desk about creating a wikiproject.--DocDeel516 ^discuss 21:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome! --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 22:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Likiwinks

Hi Jake,

I came up with an idea for an educational game using Wikipedia to teach kids (and adults) about how different encyclopedia entries may be linked and how to navigate around Wikipedia by using the wikilinks.

I submitted an entry but it got auto-deleted. I tried to add the {{hang on}} tag, but I'm not sure if it worked.

Can you please advise - was this a bad idea/use of Wikipedia?

Thanks,

Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpollock (talk • contribs)

Certainly. While Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, you absolutely can put this kind of content in your user space, as I see you have already done. An alternative would be to write about your idea elsewhere on the web (you might consider creating a web page for it). I really like your idea, by the way. Good luck. PS: Remember to sign your posts! Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Also, see Wikipedia:Wiki Game. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

hi im really srry and i will never do it agaon..;0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.19.126 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jake Wartenberg^Talk 20:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Ok, sorry. I didn't think it would change it, and that was my source that was better, because I still can't verify the source and that is a personal experience. mynameinc 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 02:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"Hush" was not written by Deep Purple.

The song "Hush" was not "written" by Deep Purple. In fact, they are the second artist to record a cover of that song! (The first one was Billy Joe Royal) The song was written by Joe South. Check out the article under his name and you'll see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.99.144.208 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I bet you're right, as I know absolutely nothing on the topic. But you need to cite a source, and probably say who wrote the song in the same place that you make that assertion. Cheers, and happy editing! --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 20:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern.

Hello,

I am very sorry to this result. However, I have just made an account on Wikipedia-- and are not that familiar with these sort of guidelines (Yes, I have read the beginners section) I am shocked by your warnings towards me; even though I have presented thus, evidence of the truth.

Such as? I would like you and me to agree upon this conflict between Greater and Metro Vancouver Personally , I would go with both because the district still uses Greater Vancouver in the water and plumage systems ; Environment Canada still uses Greater Vancouver in Watches and Warnings, etc. I would also go with Metro Vancouver 50% because it is metropolitan , but who doesn't know that Vancouver's a populous city? Everyone knows Toronto is a metropolitan city, and it still uses GTA [Greater Toronto Area]

Hopefully you can agree upon with me ; I am just fixing up some sentence flaws, I am unclear of how this is called Vandalism [Yes again, I have read through the guidelines, however to this myself I am unclear]

PS. The Picture about Arbutus Ridge is looking upon Downtown Vancouver ; to be more specific.

Thank you in regards; Please talk to me if you have any concerns or questions.

Thank you the most sincerely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiarecooll (talk • contribs) 03:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments are not the best place for extended discussion. Please discuss controversial changes you intent to make on the article's talk page. In the meantime, I have restored the article to it's original version. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 03:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to reply here, Jake. :) Regards, — Aitias // discussion 03:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap! I did not realize that Huggle had done that, and have withdrawn my report. I need to pay closer attention ;) Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 03:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Aitias // discussion 03:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have vandalized the page, "even though I didn't know about it until I read the Vandalizehelppage" but saying sorry doesnt hurt :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiarecooll (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does not. Welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 04:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are very kind; and thank you Happy Holidays

but although, I need some help. Personally, about the Metro and Greater Vancouver thing I really want to do something about it; (i have been changing some sentence structure but) however I keep on getting the vandalized message.

Should I go to the controversial page site?

Oops , sorry I forgot to sign. Iiarecooll (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say "the controversial page site". In any event, you should read this discussion, if you have not already. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 04:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and regards

Sorry for causing trouble for everybody on this Christmas Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiarecooll (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Iiarecooll (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 04:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Beckford

The statements I have added to the criticism section on the Robert Beckford page are to balance fair and reasonable. No academic criticism hads been cited and no vandalism has been commited. Please stop harrassing fellow wikipedians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.178.44 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read this talk page's header. The manner in witch your posted your comment is very disruptive (I have repaired the damage). Regarding your criticism, please see WP:NPOV and stop trying to insert your own point of view into this encyclopedia.--Jake Wartenberg^Talk 20:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not "point of view" to emphasise the lack of cited academic criticism in the criticism section of an article about an academic, rather balancing out the truth more fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.178.44 (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that you were emphasizing far too much. But I have noticed that you have voluntarily toned down your language, and appreciate it. Do you think that you can accept the current revision I have made as a compromise? Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 18:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Robert Beckford

 – --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Prince Albert Sask

I made an edit on the PA page while not logged on, you reverted the edit claiming it was vandalism, that took time for me to right and I logged on and was about to start adding references. Please read and evaluate whether or not is vandalism. Best KermitCrack —Preceding unsigned comment added by KermitCrack (talk • contribs) 03:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. In the future, please leave an edit summary, so people like me know what is going on. Happy editing! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 03:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

vit K carboxylase.

Dude: I am not vandalizing the article. The FURTHER READING list has NOTHING to do with the enzyme, save the last three book references. My name is Steve Presnell and I have written a good section of the vit K article and I wrote the Vit K carboxylase article years ago. Please delete the URTHER READING, save the THREE book ones. The three references to the review articles are fine (1-3) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.230.27 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You are currently involved in what is called an edit war. If you continue to violate the three-revert rule I can assure you that you will be blocked from editing for a period of at least 24 hours. Please discuss your changes with User:Alansohn, who reverted you edit in the first place. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 18:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry

i am sorry for my vandalism. i was really hyper at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobmofe (talk • contribs) 18:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but please don't do anything like that again. --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 19:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry

sorry for all the vandalism. my little brother put all of that stuff when i wasnt on the computer. i hope that there was no trouble —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amurciano123 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, but please try to keep this kind of thing from happening in the future. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 21:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a bundle for reverting this edit to my talkpage. Man, it's amazing how persistant some of these vandals are. After you intercepted that message, Ray johanson posted two more times. It was kind of funny to see my own talk page on huggle. AND to not be the one to revert and warn. Nice userboxes, too.. I might use a couple. (Especially the Vandalism Information one)

After checking out your edits, I have to wonder exactly who disputes your awesomeness. I'd assume it's the vandals.

𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 03:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. Happy editing! --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 05:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

complaint.

I have provided credible evidence of the Incest rate of Bushmills, Ireland and you continue to disrupt my post. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmuntzawesome (talk • contribs) 06:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your source does check out. Sorry about that. I have added back that information in a more acceptable manner (one sentence does not deserve two sections) under "Demographics". Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 07:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a false complaint. The "source" is a copy of a vandalised Wikipedia article. Robmuntzawesome has been doing a lot of vandalism, you can see this in his contribs. XLerate (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I guess I'm too nice/gullible. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 07:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I found it deceptive, the site was legitmate. Thank you for the barnstar! XLerate (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Child’s Play (Star Trek: Voyager)

Your reversal of my deletion of the notability question of the Voyager episode Child's Play seems to indicate you can have even more fun by naming all the other Voyager episodes as not notable enough for WP. In other words, since WP carries all Voyager episodes as articles, either you should mark all of them as not notable or reinstate my deletion. Please note that I indicated the purpose of my deletion clearly in the history, as -notability. Please also verify the WP stub line before deleting edits next time, to see the context. Thanks. 99.145.106.177 (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I was responding not to the removal of the template, but to the addition of a second "Plot" section (I don't think we need two of those). It should all fixed now. Sorry for any confusion. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 07:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You Have New Messages

So now wet yourself! Lol! Anyway, I was really here to give you this (I just stumbled into your userboxes).

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your great Vandal work and for reverting vandals on my pages. Cheers and Happy Editing. :) Andy (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I saved it here. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 16:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

AM Radio

My deletion of the redirect for AM Radio (band) is because the redirect does not have anything to do with the music group AM Radio. I also deleted the link from the main AM radio article. I think the optimal thing would be to make a disambiguation page with the main meaning, the Everclear song, and the rock band, but I do not know how to do this myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.193.78 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It is necessary that you leave an edit summary, so people know what it going on. Once you did, I saw my mistake, and nominated the page for deletion (not the same thing as a blank page). I have removed the warning from your talk page. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 21:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Confused? Yes, Wikidly!

Jake, Silly question, but how does one upload text onto wikipedia, or at least submit text for consideration?

1. 1. 1. 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenrei (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The same way you posted this message. You don't need anyone's permission! Just click "edit this page". I hope this helps, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 17:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition of CarbonCounted details to Carbon Labelling in Carbon Footprint definition

I think the re-addition of details about CarbonCounted's carbon labelling initiative is as valid as the Carbon Trust details in this definition. We are both not-for-profits and we are both doing similar work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carboncountedsteve (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you read WP:COI? Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 21:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Carbon Trust likely posted their own promotional details as well. Perhaps theirs should be deleted? Neither company is making any money from their efforts, so I think they should both be there in the definition of a carbon label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carboncountedsteve (talk • contribs) 21:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is highly recommended that you do not edit articles in which you have conflict of interest. But if you see material of a promotional nature, please let me or someone else know, so that it can be removed. The correct response is not to try to "balance out" with more promotional material. Thank you, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 21:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks for your guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carboncountedsteve (talk • contribs) 22:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me, specifically, what content you think should be removed? Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 22:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure - in the Carbon Footprint definition there is a section covering Carbon Labelling. Currently there are two major not-for-profits working on carbon labelling globally, The Carbon Trust and CarbonCounted. We are not competitors and are both working to enable carbon labelling. However, if you believe that a post of details about CarbonCounted is a COI, then the post that The Carbon Trust put in should be removed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carboncountedsteve (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to your conflict of interest, it is difficult to ascertain if that information is appropriate. I will look into it. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 22:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hi,

I wasn't vandalizing the Skiing page. There is a great deal of duplicated information in the "types of skiing" section that should be moved to the appropriate pages, then linked back. That's what I was doing. I also removed some ridiculous inaccuracies, like the bit about backcountry skiers primarily using helicopters. Huh?

It needs to be cleaned up. You do it if you can't stand seeing me take care of it.

169.229.135.3 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to your last version (I was not the one who reverted your edits). Don't get so worked up --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

happy new year!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.176.143 (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

--Jake Wartenberg^Talk 16:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

this site good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.73.21 (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009

Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 45	24 November 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: 200th issue
ArbCom elections: Candidate profiles	News and notes: Fundraiser, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Dispatches: Featured article writers — the inside view
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 46	1 December 2008	About the Signpost

ArbCom elections: Elections open	Wikipedia in the news
WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 5, Issue 1	3 January 2009	About the Signpost

From the editor: Getting back on track
ArbCom elections: 10 arbitrators appointed	Virgin Killer page blocked, unblocked in UK
Editing statistics show decline in participation	Wikipedia drug coverage compared to Medscape, found wanting
News and notes: Fundraising success and other developments	Dispatches: Featured list writers
Wikipedia in the news	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Ice Hockey
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for rapid action on Gordano School

Thanks for your rapid action dealing with the vandalism on Gordano School. I wasn't quite sure what to do with multiple edits by a registered user + IPs.— Rod ^talk 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for fighting vandalism! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 19:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

reply to your message

Hi. You have changed my correction stating the reason that it was not neutral. However, the PKK is recognized as a terrorist organisation by the USA and the EU. It still kills civilians with bombs in city centres. This is not a matter of neutrality but referring to the truth. sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.204.253 (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please cite a source when you make such an assertion. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 19:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yum

Thanks for the cookie. :-) -- Vary Talk 01:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Jake Wartenberg^Talk 14:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Technology report

User:Aude has offered to put together the technology report for the coming edition, but she might appreciate some help since there has been so much development since the last report. You should leave a note at the planning room, and ask Aude about how her plans for it and what help you might provide. Beyond the next edition I'm not sure what the plans are, so if you want to handle the Technology report on your own, you may have that opportunity.--ragesoss (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Company Name Was Actually Three Words: BlueSky Software

I changed this because I have paper documents and an installation CD-ROM from this company, all with the name in print thusly: Blue Sky Software —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.127.33 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Google seems to agree with you. I have moved the article to "Blue Sky Software". Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 18:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

HP 2100

The ru, f77 code fragment is restored from an earlier version of the article.

As it stands, that fragment is clearly missing, do you have reasons to object to its restoration?? I have personal experience with the machine that the fragment is accurate.131.107.0.73 (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I was moving too fast, and I did not realize that was code. I rolled back my edits and removed the warning from your talk page. Happy editing! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ok

geez calm down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.10.6 (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 68

W00t w00t! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 68: Wikipedia's Nicotine High has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and even subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 12:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Hi Mr Jake

I did not by any means intend to add any unconstructive editing on the NFD page, I know the NFD band members personally and just noticed that it says "for live gigs we bring in Steve Carey" yet Steve who is a friend of mine still, left the band last year so i thought to just update it to the new guitarist James Mcilroy.

Kindest Regards x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beans666beans (talk • contribs) 13:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note

Your name was mentioned here. Nothing to be concerned about, just someone who did not know about the ACC process. –xeno (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Technology report

My draft is ready at User:Aude/Technology report. I am inquiring about Toolserver status, so may have that to add. Feel free to make any changes, additions, or whatever you think is needed. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mildred E. Mathias Botanical Garden

• Can you provide a photo or two for the article? Ucla90024 (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm... I am not much of a photographer, and I live in Massachusetts. I think that I am missing something. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Contributing to WikiProject

Well Jake, since you told me to be bold I tested your advice, by fixing a typo: ”cashe” on your page — was that OK? --Mitch3000 19:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally! Thanks --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

MMMMMM

Thanks for the cookies!! AnyPerson (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

--Jake Wartenberg^Talk 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop dude

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/11/sources-voinovich-to-retire-from-senate/ 128.210.12.38 (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a source. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut meetup

Hi! We invite you to the Hartford, Connecticut meetup, currently scheduled for January 24, as the previous meetup was lightly attended due to a snowstorm. You are being notified because your name is listed on Wikipedia:Meetup/Hartford/Invite list. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 2	10 January 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes:Flagged Revisions and permissions proposals, hoax, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Dispatches: December themed Main Page	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Dobbs Franks

Hi and thanks for the promptness of your reply.

I hope I meet the notability requirements. Here are some of my recordings:

On VHS

Australian Opera: The Gondoliers ABC VIDEO ARTS Australian Opera: Die Fledermaus ABC VIDEO ARTS

On CD

Mozart Bass Arias Conal Coad, Gary Karr, Tasmanian Symphony conductor Dobbs Franks ABC Classics (PolyGram Classics)432697-2 Rita Hunter Ritorna Vincitor, Tasmanian Symphony conductor Dobbs Franks ABC Classics (PolyGram) 426804-2 La Boheme the Ballet, West Australian Symphony Orchestra conductor Dobbs Franks ABC Classics 476 199-9 David Joseph selected works volume 1 Adelaide Symphony Orchestra, conductor Dobbs Franks MOVE MD3301 Bruce Cale orchestral works, Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, conductor Dobbs Franks Tall Poppies TP188

There are two CDs which are to be released any time now music of Richard Meale and Gerard Brophy.

There is much more I can dig up if required, but I thought I would get this information to you as soon as possible.

I am trying my best to do the right thing in creating this page for Wikipedia. Please let me know what I need to do to meet the criteria, which I feel sure I do.

THanks

Dobbsfr (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved to User talk:Dobbsfr

 – Jake Wartenberg^Talk 04:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

im sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.134.252 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cindy Lineau, who had worked at the Civic Arena since 1974, practiced day in and day out to become . . . the first female Zamboni driver in Olympic history.

Did I do anything wrong? Do you need more info on this matter?

Just a source for that information. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 02:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama

why would you think me putting Obama's name is vandalizing? the youtube link i put is a video of him saying he is a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.41.151 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to add the link a source. --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 02:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Roberta Baskin

Thank you for speaking up. I am involved in an editing war. I am a former professional colleague of Roberta Baskin and someone is out to trash her. This is particularly serious as she is job searching and the wikipedia entry that is being posted is inflammatory. This other person does not listen to reason and judging by his history (he's been out to trash her for several months) he's been warned and sanctioned by wikipedia before. I am all for third party mediation. Please tell me how to proceed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldoggy (talk • contribs) 03:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Roberta Baskin

By the way, I have been trying for days to figure out how to contact wikipedia to enlist some third-person intervention. I am glad you stepped in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldoggy (talk • contribs) 03:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cindy Lineau, who had worked at the Civic Arena since 1974, practiced day in and day out to become . . . the first female Zamboni driver in Olympic history.

Here is the link for my info, http://scshaweb.tripod.com/scshl11.htm She worked there when I played hockey back in the mid 70's...

BCWoonton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcwoonton (talk • contribs) 03:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Roberta Baskin

I object to the reference of WJLA-TV as a "Gotcha" journalism group. WJLA has no association with the referred to defamation lawsuit referred that was filed, and then withdrawn, in 1994. That is a slanderous allegation against WJLA-TV which is a respected news organization in Washington DC. Where do the quotation marks around "Gotcha" come from?--Waldoggy (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Lesions

The edit that you just reverted (my edit to Lesions) was legitimate. The page had repeating sections, as I detailed in the edit summary. Szafraki (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Y OK. Sorry. --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 04:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Care in reversions

Unfortunately, in this edit, in which you apparently thought you were reverting the addition of dubious material, you were actually putting that (false) material back into the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I thought I was removing that material. Things are so chaotic around here right now... Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 17:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Jake Wartenberg

Want me to salt it?--Jac16888^Talk 16:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 16:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Congratulations by the way, having your own attack page is something to be proud of, shows you're getting to them--Jac16888^Talk 16:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

--Jake Wartenberg^Talk 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Mygerardromance (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. Mygerardromance (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 18:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

atrial kick

sorry, still learning. --Zizanie13 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(RC) Stephen Appiah 3RR(s)? and bad behavior (handled)

Hi Jake, I'm doing RC patrolling (too) and watching this. Not quite sure what to do. :)

NOTE: Beyond the 3RR issue on Stephen Appiah ... 81.102.233.188 is re-posting abusive responses diff1 diff2 (note different time stamps) diff3 on user talk pages and removing article talk page contentdiff 1, diff 2, diff 3. AND they are repeatedly erasing all warnings from their talk page User_talk:81.102.233.188 (see talk page history

Suggestions? Proofreader77 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

ACTION: User has been blocked for a week. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Page

sorry about all the problems with my page. i'm new to this and it is more complicated than i thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker1969 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on social liberalism discussion page

hello you have taken away my comments on social liberalism as you deem them unconstructive I think I have raised some very valid points that are clearly articulated, I will post them below and unless you can explain what you think is wrong with them I think its unfair you delete them

best regards

Chris

Contradictions

This page seems riddled with contradictions,

It states that "social liberalism"'s economic foundations were laid by John Maynard Keynes But that social liberals are opposed to free trade an globalisation. How can those two statements be reconciled?

Keynesian economics are strongly in favour of free trade

Keynesian and classical economics are essentially the same when it comes to macro-economics but differ on micro-economics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.106.121 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberals???

"Classical liberals such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek"

Surely these people are considered libertarians, more than classical liberals?

There are key differences between classical liberals and libertarians a classical liberal would support government ownership of roads paid for by taxes a libertarian would support private roads paid for by tolls

John Stuart Mills, a social liberal?

His "Principles of Political Economy" is the definitive text on classical economics. This is a man who considered progressive taxation slightly immoral. Even Adam Smith the exalted high guru of capitalism supported progressive taxation.

Oxford Manifesto and the Liberal international

There is absolutely no mention here of how this movement fits in with the Liberal International or the Oxford Manifesto. Certainly the opposition of social liberals to free trade would be add odds with both the liberal manifesto of 1948 and the liberal international.

Margaret Thatcher

The article states that social liberals are against the neoliberal policies of Margaret Thatcher. Margret Thatcher's policies involved the privatisation of utilities, transport and communications.

This is entirely in keeping with article II section 1 of the liberal manifesto

"The suppression of economic freedom must lead to the disappearance of political freedom. We oppose such suppression, whether brought about by State ownership or control or by private monopolies, cartels and trusts. We admit State ownership only for those undertakings which are beyond the scope of private enterprise or in which competition no longer plays its part"

Social democrats-Social liberals

Surely the deciding factor here must be state control of industry? Anyone who believes in state control of industry is not a liberal

There were a few issues with all the horizontal lines, but I probably should not have reverted your edit. Sorry. Things have been pretty crazy around here. The version you reverted to is much better. I hope there are no worries now. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 21:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Polygamy in US

Hi Jake. I disagree that my edit to the polygamy article was unconstructive. I deleted that section, because if you read it, it is basically a section listing several polygamists who have been arrested for sex with a minor. It has zero to do with polygamy in the US, which is the subject of the article. 163.1.146.123 (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. That should be in North America, not the US. 163.1.146.123 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. I don't know why I missed your edit summary. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 13:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, thanks. 163.1.146.123 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

GJOKAJ headline

May you please delete the Gjokaj article. This person who keeps adding his own history is presenting with faulty information. His clan doesnt even come from the "TRIESHI" headline, which is where the Gjokaj headline is under. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjokaja1 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please cease your vandalism. If you have a dispute with another editor, please see WP:DR. And note that only WP:ADMINS can delete pages. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 22:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Blanked the page

Hiya! Just wanted to let you know that the "Blanked the page" edit I recently made was an unintentional error on my part. I only meant to delete my comments which had become irrelevant after I made a minor edit to the article; I didn't mean to delete the headers/tags. (Of course that's what you get with "select all", "delete" -- duh!)

I always go back and check my edits, but this time I guess the "bot" caught it before I did. Not a newbie but by no means a Wiki expert, I get a little annoyed when I get the "dummy" treatment: use the sandbox, etc. But certainly not your fault! (And yes I do use "preview" before "save", but everyone slips up now and again, especially when rushed.)

Thanks for your dedication Wikipedia! I doubt I'll ever become an administrator — too many obstinate knuckleheads out there which I simply do not have the patience for. :)

Cheers!, Rico402 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Happy editing! --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 23:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Admiring Your Userpage

I don't know exactly why I stumbled across your userpage, but I feel compelled to tell you that it's pretty fantastic. I love the "Do something useful" part. Very cool. FaerieInGrey (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add {{User:Jake Wartenberg/rc}} to your user page. --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 13:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA

Regarding your reversion to Bird strike, you may wish to double check WP:TRIVIA, Whilst i am aware that this is contentious policy (I am editing logged out from my user account, as I mainly work on technical articles), lists of trivia such as references to indiana jones, a comedian's stand up routine and a probably fictional japanese dish, are not adding to the article in any way, and are trivia that cannot be integrated into the article in a meaningful manner.

Not all IP edits are vandalism :) (I believe its about 7%, see the straw poll page on your watchlist) 121.44.110.200 (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What you removed is not a trivia section. While I agree that it would be nice if there were sources, I don't think that is reason to remove the section, only to improve it. What do you think? Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 13:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that essay is about articles that are about popular culture, and not articles that are about physical phenomena, and as such does not apply directly in this situation. An article entitled "Bird strikes in popular culture" would surely fail notability. I still hold with my first comment. 121.44.110.200 (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you are mistaken. Could you read the page? Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 13:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?

My post regarding Malphas constitutes vandalism you say? Your words constitute discrimination. In what way is the truth "vandalism"? Nothing i said was in discrimination of anything, or in any way offensive to anyone. I am simply putting out the truth for people to see. Is this what you are afraid of perhaps? If you think i am wrong, do you have proof that what you are saying is right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malphas

Vovim Baghie —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.O.Malphas (talk • contribs) 13:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing some long term harassment or something? I'm not sure why you're reverting this user's comments and leaving templated vandalism warnings. I don't think the Malphas edits were all that useful, but they don't appear to have been vandalism either. --Onorem♠Dil 14:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The edits I reverted sure seemed like vandalism to me. In any case, I think that I will drop the issue before it escalates and let someone else take care of it. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 16:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

re: S.O.Malphas edits of Malphas

Let's see:

1. deleting See Also interlinks, and reference
2. deleting existing categories and language interlinks
3. replace above with a personal site: JoysOfSatan.org
4. no edit summaries or talk page comment
5. conflict-of-interest sounding user name
6. AND: Onorem reverted it, too

Looks like vandalism to me. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too. *sigh* --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 05:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost

I finished the draft of this week's BRION technology report for the Signpost. (User:Aude/Technology report) Feel free to add or adjust anything. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making changes to the BRION report. --Aude (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was also going to look into this, but I am not sure that there is time. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fine to save things for next time. I'm sure some weeks will be slow with any tech news. --Aude (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

True. Things are going to be picking up in the immediate future, though, now that the fund-raiser is over. Feel free to ping me earlier in the week in the future if you want to share some of the work. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 23:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User Name

I got my new user name. Maybe you can help me spiff up my user page? Yours looks a lot more legit. GLaDOS (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

How common?

How common is the name Wartenberg? I had a teacher at school, Winfred (Fred) Klaus Adolf Watenberg. I wondered if there is any relationship. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not too common. I am always surprised to hear about people with my last name, like this guy. I don't think that there is any recognizably close relationship, but I could be wrong. Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 02:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiThanks

Thank you so much for your help on the technical page, have a wonderful week. Ikip (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You too. — Jake Wartenberg 18:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

Reply to your Q on my talk: Well, it was my block, so I don't think it would be kosher to deny the unblock request as well. I was just providing some feedback for the reviewing admin. --barneca (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that clarification. I added a note regarding threats of violence made by the user as well. Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 18:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fezara article

It looks like the Fezara article is full of junk. For example I do not believe that their national anthem mentions David Hasselhoff. Also Masal Bugduv is a hoax / fictional footballer. My guess is that everything after the first sentence can be deleted. What would be an appropriate warning to place at the top?
Pnelnik (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the article as a possible hoax, and proposed its deletion. Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

rock band edit

The edit I have made was constructive and by my opinion, right. The reason why I have removed the Grateful Dead songs is because.

1. It's unconfirmed, and shouldn't be in the confirmed songs section, or wikipedia alone.

2. The IGN source is missing, it was probably removed.--F-22 Raptor ^IV 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I don't know what that was about—I either missed the edit summary, or read the diff backwards. Sorry. — Jake Wartenberg 19:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost tech report

I have a partial draft of the BRION tech report at User:Aude/Technology report. (sorry for not getting to this until Friday!) Anyway, I feel like it's been a slow tech news week and there's not so much to report. If you and/or User:X! can fill it in more so that there is enough for this week, that would be excellent. Otherwise, my suggestion is for BRION to take a week off.

As an alternative to the weekly tech report, I'm thinking we could run occasional tech stories. I had previously drafted something about mobile Wikipedia browsing and have that mostly complete now (except copyediting) at User:Aude/Mobile Wikipedia. This could run instead of or in addition to the usual tech report. Let me know what you think, and if you or User:X! want to take the lead for next week, that would be okay with me. --Aude (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should run your story on mobile browsing (it's awesome, by the way). We can use this week's BRION report draft as the starting point for next week. I am not a great copy editor, so I hope that X! can put the final touches on it. Also, any feedback or help here would be great, if you have time. Thanks! — Jake Wartenberg 02:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I made a few minor edits to your story, but I think it covers the Flagged Revisions issue nicely. For the BRION report, if X! has anything to add, then it might run this week. Otherwise, it can wait and have more material next week. --Aude (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making those fixes! — Jake Wartenberg 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for the strong work on the Flagged Revisions story. One thing that helps make writing, and reading, major stories easier (and makes collaboration a lot easier) is to break the story into well-defined sections. Just something to keep in mind for next time. Cheers!--ragesoss (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 4	24 January 2009	About the Signpost

Jimbo requests that developers turn on Flagged Revisions	Report on accessing Wikipedia via mobile devices
News and notes: New chapters, new jobs, new knight and more	Wikipedia in the news: Britannica, Kennedy, Byrd not dead yet
Dispatches: Reviewing featured picture candidates	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)

User:Litlesniper04

has been indef'd. Thanks for the report. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thank you! — Jake Wartenberg 00:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost tech report

I have a draft at User:Aude/Technology report, though think there is more to add. I will take another look tomorrow, but if you have anything to add, that would be helpful. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

HSS

The "for for" was not a mistake.. see [2], although the style was weird indeed. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mkay. Should I put it back, or do you want to word it differently? — Jake Wartenberg 17:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reworded already [3]... and open for improvement. --Edcolins (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Good. — Jake Wartenberg 17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 07:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This week's tech report

I can't do the tech report this week, due to a wikibreak that has come up for the next several days/weekend. If you and/or User:X! can write it, that would be appreciated. Though, I saw your note on the Signpost page saying you were busy. --Aude (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

X! has already started the report. I will help him out as much as RealLife^TM permits. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hartford Meetup: We need your help!

The next Connecticut Wikipedia meetup will take place sometime during April 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please list on the meetup page whether or not you can go. Also please contribute ideas for topics and dates! Hope to see you there!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69 and 70

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69: Sixth Sense and 70: Under the Microscope have been released. You can listen and comment at their pages (69, 70) and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 06:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 5, Issue 6	8 February 2009	About the Signpost

News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more	Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs"
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage	WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Signpost design

Hi Jake! As you contribute to the Signpost, I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this design refresh I've been working on. Thanks in advance. Pretzels^Talk! 00:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that it looks great! Sorry I can't be more helpful. — Jake Wartenberg 02:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Inquery

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_suspects_in_the_Ergenekon_investigation&diff=269432053&oldid=269323357

A few of the entires had been seemingly removed. Was that intentional? Also did the info on the WP pages have a source? I have no reason to doubt it but sourcing can't hurt. -- Cat ^chi? 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea how or why that happened. I rolled back those edits; I will do some more work on the article soon. — Jake Wartenberg 21:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that the edit came to an older version. That happens to me too... Really annoying and embarrassing. :). -- Cat ^chi? 10:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

re:DRAMA Report

Hey, Jake Wartenberg. You have new messages at Shep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing or tnulling the template.

§hep^Talk 22:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009

From the editor — A new leaf

Commons Picture of the Year
Picture of the Year 2008 begins voting

News and notes
Flagged Revisions, historical image discovery, and more

In the news
Political tiff, error repeated in press, predictions of doom

Dispatches
How busy was 2008?

WikiProject report
WikiProject Gaelic games

Discussion report
Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations

Features and admins
Approved this week

Technology report
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Arbitration report
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 06:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jerusalem

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Jerusalem panorama early twentieth century2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 02:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! — Jake Wartenberg 03:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Congratulations on your first featured picture credit. May it be the first of many. Cheers! DurovaCharge! 03:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks :) — Jake Wartenberg 03:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jake!

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 61 support, 3 oppose, and 1 neutral Cheers! Nja247 20:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

re:Discussion Report

Hey, Jake Wartenberg. You have new messages at Shep's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing or tnulling the template.

§hep^Talk 21:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Quays Waterford

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Quays Waterford2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! — Jake Wartenberg 13:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut Meetup: You are invited!

The 2nd Connecticute Meetup will take place on April 18th, 2009 at Real Art Ways cafe and arts center in Hartford, Connecticut. Please state whether or not you can attend on the meetup page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) because your name was on the invite list. 16:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Jake Wartenberg. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~

22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I do like me some cookies

§hep^Talk has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jake - may be you would like to write this entry:

Beni Virtzberg

Here is an article about him:

1

2

The Hebrew entry:

בני וירצברג

My name is Dahlia Virtzberg-Rofe'; I'm his daughter.

Sincerely, Dahlia

89.138.249.33 (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

dz_r@017.net.il

Hmm. I don't think I am your man. Try leaving a message at WP:REQUEST or, if it's really important to you, WP:BOUNTY. Good Luck! — Jake Wartenberg 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jake, for your kind reply and for the good advice.

89.138.249.33 (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I did it. Dahlia Rofe' (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

• Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
• An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
• News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
• Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
• Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
• Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What are we looking at for this week. You got it...or? §hep^Talk 23:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I got it. I will let you know when I get most of it done, so you can look it over. Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 03:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. §hep^Talk 03:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I will work on it here :D — Jake Wartenberg 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you look over last week's issue? Or is this segment going to cover a discussion until it's closed? Thanks, §hep^Talk 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I had just looked, and was thinking "Aw crap, we already covered that!" I have no problem canning those entries. If you want, you can list some discussions you think we should cover, and I will read them and write the entries. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg

I'd keep what you wrote; more indepth on points. I was thinking this might be good to covered as well. §hep^Talk 19:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... — Jake Wartenberg 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Gah. I think you will have to finish it up. Sorry. — Jake Wartenberg 04:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)