User talk:Jbutera

Welcome!

Hello, Jbutera, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MA practice

Hi,

Almighty Saints/Latin Kings

The problem with the two articles is not that they're fake - I'm well aware that these gangs likely do exist (I'm not from Chicago, so I don't know). The problem is that they are both original research, and not cited for the most part (in fact, when I nominated the Almighty Saints article, it had no sources, and it wasn't until the first one was AFD'd that both articles got some sort of slap-dash citations).

The websites they lead to are written by gangmembers, not news organizations, law enforcement agencies or whatever, so they can't be taken as accurate, even if they likely are. As an extreme example, someone could write on one of those pages that "We have nuclear weapons", and there'd be no way to verify it, other than to take them at their word. That's original research, and that goes against WP:NOR, which is WP policy.

If someone can actually give valid (news, law enforcement, etc.) references, that may sway the vote. But until then, my vote on it stands, and if Latin Kings isn't fixed in another week, I'm going to recommend that article for AFD as well. Hope this helps.--み使い Mitsukai 18:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Chin/Ronald Ebens(punk)

You're a Detroiter? We should talk. You know quite a bit. Dr. Frank Wu's writing a new book about the case. Could use all the info we can get. Let me know where I can ask for Joe.MMetro 08:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi there. I understand your frustrations with vandals. However, your edit summaries have been a bit harsh lately. You may wish to read the policy at WP:CIVIL and the very funny essay at WP:NAM. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just received your posting. I will try and be more civil. The vandal claims the website reference is spam from a website selling books and videos. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wish that everyone making changes were required to setup an account like I have done. I will continue to reverse the vandal's vandalism and refrain from the nasty remarks even though the vandal is not worthy of my respect.

With respect, JButera (talk)

gangs wiki project

im trying to start a gang task force wanna join ?Sickero (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its a wikiproject we baasicly patrol for pro gang vandalism and add citation. also make foia requests thru the fbi to make contributions. i have done this before. also pictures I have some picture I will be adding to wikipedia articles. my latest contribution is a norteno tag. Sickero (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Chicago Gaylords, you will be blocked from editing. BoL (Talk) 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chicago Gaylords. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, actually, my mistake. I saw this post at RPP and I thought you were trying to add unsourced stuff. But please don't remove the tags. BoL (Talk) 04:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Gaylords

The Gaylords page is temporarily protected from edits. On the talk page we are discussing whether or not to keep the unreferenced sections and links, which will eventually be put to a vote. If you want to keep the unreferenced information and links, you will need to say so on the discussion page before we vote. 74.228.158.68 (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Backhanddrop.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Backhanddrop.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 15:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]