This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerry/Archive_2.
“
...delusional...kangaroo...
”
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jerry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You may wish to have a look at the talk page for this article, as well as its sources. I had my doubts at first as well, but the article is not eligible for speedy (and actually now appears to pretty clearly meet WP:WEB, multiple non-trivial sources.) Seraphimblade01:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree — please be careful to ensure that articles tagged for speedy deletion meet the criteria. If there's any doubt, prod it or AfD it. Thanks. Tijuana Brass02:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing their webpage, and seeing that many of the links are dead, and after finding most of the available references to them are self-created press-releases which became local stories in small papers, I still think it was a good candidate for speedy per WP:CORP and WP:WEB, but since there are at least 2 editors who disagree with me, I will leave it be per your request. Jerry lavoie11:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Pasted from my email (*=censored for privacy)
This is my first Wikipedia edit, so I probably screwed it up. Anyway, I am a subscriber to E***T***, an evaluation listserv. We have been having several posts there on how to pronounce Dr. Likert's name. Most people consider it "like-urt," as in enjoyment of something. His family and former students confirmed it is to pronounced "Lick-urt," as in to taste something with the tongue. I'm not sure how I messed up, but if you could fix it, I will appreciate it. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks,
M****** P***
(entered by Jerry lavoie10:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
This revert was apparently an error on my part. I can not see any good reason why I reverted it. Your edit summary clearly explains why you changed it. I do make mistakes and appreciate you letting me know. The article is correct per the information you provided at this time.
Pasted from my email (*=censored for privacy)
That information about Jason Stollsteimer is true, he did in fact get into a fight with Jack White from the White stripes and you would know this if you had done some home-work. Brad Moody is also an important person in Australian politics and Jason Stollsteimer was once abused in australia because of his resembalance to him.
- fun***_fun****@h******.com
(Entered here by Jerry lavoie10:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC))
Your edit added:
Jason was also alleged of fighting Jack White from the White Strips in a detroit night-club. Jason also looks extremely similar to Brad Moody from Australia who is a major face in the fight for homosexual rights in Australia and is leader of the Australia Homosexual Group. This has caused Jason alot of problems over the years.
There are major grammatical errors in that. As well, there is no credible source cited (or found by me in a simple Google search) for the bit about Jason looking like Brad and that causing problems. I suggest repairing the grammer, explaining exactly what problems there were, what Gay Group you're talking about, and citing credible sources, using inline-citations for each statement. As the edit stands above, I believe that it should be kept out of the article, and that reverting it was the correct thing to do, per WP:LIVING. Jerry lavoie11:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Pasted from my email (*=censored for privacy)
you are a cock
- fun***_fun****@h******.com
Hi there,
I assume good faith on your part in making this statement, so I looked-up the word cock and found the third listing of the first entry at answer.com:
OK, now seriously, how hard is it to just fix your contribution to make it acceptable per wikipedia policy and manual of style?
First lets tkae the issue on Jason and Jack getting into a fight... I remember that was all over the news here, so a quick google search for "Jason Stollsteimer Jack White Detroit" gives hundreds of citable sources; we'll just randomly pick one Fox News, which says:
The fight between Jack White (search) of the White Stripes and Jason Stollsteimer (search) of the Von Bondies broke out Saturday night at the Majestic Theatre Center, police said.
Stollsteimer, 25, told police that White punched him seven times in the face. Police said Stollsteimer's right eye was bruised and swollen, and he was bleeding from his nose. He was treated and released from a Detroit hospital.
After having a quick look at a calendar, we now know that Saturday night was December 13, 2003.
So the first part is basically done. I'll put that in the article when I am done typing this up.
Now the bit about the Brad Moody lok-alike, and the troubles surrounding the the gay group... I went back to google: I searched for hours, and nothing came up. It seems you are the only person on the planet to ever have put that in print on the Internet. If you can find a source for it, I will gladly help you get it grammatically correct to put it in the article. Just let me know how I can help.
You are such a nerd, you could have just ignored my email but you had to be a nerd and look up what a cock is because you don't have one down your pants. Were you the kid in high school who was stuffed in his locker and was taken by his mum to the formal. Seriously you are a dick-head, go and die.
- fun***_fun****@h******.com
Hello,
Thanks for taking the time to email me again. If you go back and look at the article, and perhaps look at our archived discussion on my talk page, you will see that I did include the information about the fight. It has proper citations now. I also found some good information about Jason's interest in vintage equipment.
I am probably at least twice your age, (if not three times), and am way past having any recollection or concerns about high school. As for my penis, well, I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about it either.
If you have any information about the rest of the content you had wanted in the article, please let me know, and I will gladly help you. I am also available to help on any other articles you may want to work on. If you want suggestions for something to work on, there are no articles yet for Marci Bolen or Don Blum. (and for that matter Brad Moody).
I request that if you leave a message for me about the WP:AFD for Danny Graham that you container it in this section. I will move comments and delete headers for messages that are left separately. Thanks, Jerry lavoie05:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge receiving this message, but I respectfully disagree. But that's okay. Glad to see you are back involved with the project.
No, I am not back involved with the project. I merely check my talk page from time to time so that if anyone leaves anything important there, I can refer them to the appropriate place, rather than their request sit there unhandled.
It seems to me that you have a beef with the project or others in it, and not really my courtesy notification on the AFD.
No, I left the project for personal reasons which I don't wish to discuss. I do have a problem with your talk page spam, as it's the only reason I am here trying to make the point.
...as you stated on your talk page changed the password to one you don't know...
Again, why did you leave this comment? I have never done that and nowhere in my talk page history does it says that I have – Gurch21:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Gurch, I do not wish to have an ongoing dialogue with you about this relatively (to me) insignificant issue. Can we just drop it and move on? I don't find any value in what is going on in this back-and-forth discussion. I don't understand what on my talk page is spam. but I really don't want you to tell me, either. If it is really such a big deal, I bet someone else out there will mention it. Can we end the thread here? My energies are focussed on other things, and I like it that way.
Nothing on your talk page is spam, it's what you've left on others' talk pages; you know what I meant. If you want to drop the issue, fine; though I suggest in future you at least check whether an editor is still active before leaving them a message like this. I would still like an answer on that last comment of yours, though; at no point have I changed my password or done anything remotely like that. Are you confusing me with someone else? – Gurch21:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Section Closed
This section is now closed. The AFD in question has been closed as Nomination Cancelled. Thanks for your interest, but User:Jerry_lavoie does not want any more feedback about this AFD.
Hello, the current licence of that image is pretty much wrong:
I, the author of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:
Actually you've copied the image from a website.
"This website states Creative Commons Licence applies."
Are you sure the CC stands for the image? Have a look at the video and ask yourself whether the image may only be a decoration (which is still copyrighted). --32X15:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The website clearly states "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License." and it provides a link to the creative common license project definition. There is nothing else on the page except a description of the video, which surely would not be what the cc license pertains to. As a republisher of Creative commons content I do not have a responsibility to trace the content to its original source. It is reasonable to assume that the license is valid unless and until a verified rights holder claims otherwise.
I did not add the "I the creater of the work" part... that is automaically added when cc license is selected on the dropdown. You may want to report this to bugzilla if you don't like that. Jerry lavoie16:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
"There is nothing else on the page except a description of the video, which surely would not be what the cc license pertains to." Actually there are two links to a video. I believe that's the reason for the CC.
"As a republisher of Creative commons content I do not have a responsibility to trace the content to its original source." You're right here, but I wouldn't count on that. No website, no final proof.
Hello, TSME again. Not that I want to look like a dick, but ...
The original CC states:
Attribution.
Noncommercial.
Share Alike.
Now the image is licenced as {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-2.5}} which attributes you as the author (self), and commercial usage is allowed (GFDL). The dropdown box is clearly not the best way to give a proper licence tag. There's stil that silly "fair use" alternative ... --32X13:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for letting me know. It's funny that the license changed, when the edit history on the page shows no changes. I think the developers of the wiki must have made a change to the global template. Well, I agree, as it is displayed now the license is totally wrong. I will <try> to change it. I might need some help. I'll let you know. And I don't think you're being a dick... I am sure you have the best interests of the project in mind, and I think you are doing a good job patrolling the image space for copyvio's. Jerry lavoie19:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I intentionally gave you a vandalism warning after an error in judgement on my part. I quickly realized my error, and tried to clean it up as soon as possible. But you had already received the "You Have a new message (last change)" banner, and had responded before I had a chance to fix it. Again, sorry. Jerry lavoie00:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Subpages?
I noticed that in a couple of AfD debates you said to make an article a subpage... taking a glance at WP:SUBPAGE, they've been deprecated for nigh on 3 years now in the article namespace. As such, any article with a title like x of y is now considered the equivalent of a subpage as regards policies and deletion debates in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, so suggesting that an article "be made a subpage" when it already is one makes little sense. --tjstrftalk03:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for letting me know. I am still rather new, and I appreciate being patiently shown the policies and standards of wikipedia by experienced editors such as yourself.
I just made the word up and tried it out on the ISO article. funny how it matches what used to actually be done. Just coincidence. Jerry lavoie04:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Editors that don't provide an edit summary tend to look like vandals
I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary as you didn't when you edited Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (see this edit). This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.
However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.
Incidentally, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important. You can enter that summary via the edit summary box on edit pages (as shown below).
The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places:
Page history - list of changes to the page you edited
Related changes - list of recent changes to pages linked to the page you edited
List of new pages: shows the edit summary of the creation.
* Use the enhanced watchlist to see all recent changes in the watched pages, not just the last change in each page.
It appears you rely too much on automatic edit summaries like those provided by Vandal Proof. Please note that VP doesn't provide summaries for you at WP:AIV. Will (Talk - contribs) 03:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
wow what a huge spam-acious message. Could you trim that down to just the facts? I do not see the value in providing edit summaries on AIV, the page is inherantly an edit summary already. Everything I would put in an edit summary is right there already. VandalProof does not provide the feature of edit summary for AIV. Jerry lavoie03:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
For your information, I didn't copy "the contents of Help:Edit summary into" your talk page. I used to settle for using {{summary}}. However, too many users complained that I wasn't telling them when they omitted a summary. Furthermore, too many didn't understand from that template why it was important. So developed {{User:Will Pittenger/SumCO}}. Now I have one template that explains why I need summaries. The intention isn't to fill your page with junk. However, I can't satisfy everyone -- especially before I know their opinions.
When I report a vandal, my edit summary includes the offender's user name or IP address. Now if there is no option at all in Vandal Proof for WP:AIV summaries, you may be stuck. (I knew it wouldn't provide one for you, but I thought you could enter one manually. If not, I apologize for bothering you.) However, I can easily see some offenders attempting to vandalism WP:AIV. If nothing else, they would attempt to remove themselves.
I really have to disagree that edit summaries are useless. Vandals rarely provide them. They are more likely to check the Minor checkbox (it takes only two key presses or one mouse click).
I didn't say that omitting an edit summary would be a reason to treat an edit as vandalism. Rather, I wanted to point out that some bots (and possibly others besides me) will scrutinize the edit more closely. If you give it the right summary, the edit might be ignored.
Re:AfD template added to article with no corresponding entry in AfD
Come on, give me at least SOME time! It was part of a huge mass nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhay, which was created about the moment you posted your message. I use AfD rather a lot, I can use it. Even so, people make mistakes, please don't instantly presume I am trying to use a tool I can't. J Milburn00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I posted this three times, I guess that gives you damn good reasoning for why I can't use tools. Maybe I should go to bed... J Milburn01:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I see I HAD done it wrong. The reason it took so long (and the reason I was perhaps ratty) was because the first time I typed it out, I navigated away from the page in a way that meant I couldn't get back. Not sure how, I was juggling too many tabs too quickly. Obviously, this irritated me somewhat. Happy editing! J Milburn01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
(I am) new to this. (I'm) not sure what is going on with my edit of (Neuropsychiatry).
Please advise.
many thanks, mp mp*****@**t.*** (*=blanking to protect privacy)
Here is my commentary on what you had added to the article, and why I believe it was a problem:Historically, all neurologists were fully trained in psychiatry, and all psychiatrists were also neurologists (see Freud, who originally was a child neurologist, and Charcot). This were the classic "neuropsychiatrists".
I believe your use of the word "all" and "fully" give this statement a non-neutral point of view, because to disprove it one would only need to find 1 psychiatrist who was lacking anay one facet of training in eather subject.
For reasons perhaps more related to academic politics than to science, the two disciplines split into "neurology" and "psychiatry", as if one could understand (and diagnose and treat) the brain and the emotional mind independently.
This statement appears to be in response to another party's point of view on an argument, even though the other side of the argument is not presented. If you simply state the fact that the disciplines were split, and perhaps add the year that this occurred, without providing your own commentary on why the split ocurred and why it was wrong to do so, it might be includable.
Recent scientific advances - e.g., the possibility to "visualize" if ever so primitively certain emotional processes as they are taking place in the brain - as well as the realization that this hyperspecialization may be harmful to patients suffering from complex mind-brain disorders (e.g., epilepsy, chronic pain), may have contributed to a certain rapprochement.
This statement perports to state one side of an argument as being "obvious", while acknowledging that there is another side of the argument. This is clearly not a "neutral pioint of view".
A small, but now again increasing number of physicians are both fully trained neurologists and psychiatrists, and arguably most qualified to diagnose and treat patients suffering from these "overlap" disorders: Epilepsy with co-morbid mood disorders, the differential diagnosis of non-epileptic seizures, Parkinson disease with depression or dementia, psychosomatic disorders, chronic pain, and others.
You are here pushing the same point of view as above, and stating that it is a low percentage of professionals who believe this way, but seem to be stating that these are the progressive or righteous few.
Currently defined by many psychiatrists as a subspecialty of Psychiatry, for a number of reasons alluded to above, Neuropsychiatry, is the branch of medicine dealing with mental disorders attributable to diseases of the nervous system. It is closely related to the field of Behavioral Neurology, which is a subspecialty of Neurology that addresses clinical problems of cognition and/or behavior caused by brain injury or brain disease. Indeed, Behavioral Neurology / Neuropsychiatry is recognized as a single subspecialty by the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties (UCNS).
Here is the first paragraph that provides any non-neutral point of view, although it is also polluted with weasel words ("many psychiatrists"), and seems to include a greater context not cited ("alluded-to"). This paragraph does provide good content which could be preserved, however.
OVERALL SUGGESTION:
Find an authoritative reference which discusses this classical professional argument, and simply state in the article that both points of view exist, and reference the external document, allowing the reader to do his own research and come to his own opinion on the subject.
very helpful. i wonder how you are able to keep track of all these entries.. ;-)
re content:
neuropsychiatry has a long history and is much more than a "subspecialty of psychiatry
My edit was at least in part a response to what I feel is an overly simplistic article whose knowledgebase seems limited to party line publications of ONE professional organization in ONE country of the world.
so i wonder, why was this acceptable?
not sure how to resolve this issue.
your thoughts...
best, mp mp*****@**t.*** (*=blanking to protect privacy)
I would suggest something to the effect of:
Neuropsychiatry has been a medical discipline since ____. The medical community combined this into psychiatry in ____. Neuropsychiatry itself dealt with (aspect a) as well as (aspect b) and (aspect c) of (medical generality), where psychiatry in its strictest form dealt solely with (aspect a) and (aspect b). This occurred amidst some controversy in the medical community, as described in the book _______________________ by ___________, published in ____. In recent years, new developments, such as (develoment a) and (development b) has given rise to a renewed discussion over the two disciplines and wether they should again be split. This is described in book _________________________ by ________________ published in ____.
You may wish to review and cite Neuropsychiatry Online; it seems to discuss the issue at hand. This is far beyond my PATC (Electrical Engineering), so I don't think I can help you with context, but I am willing to help with formatting, citation, and achieving neutrality.
I moved the table you contructed to United States dollar. I feel that it is more appropriate there. I follow the reference link you provide. But I can't find the numbers. Could you explain a little further? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the move of that content that you described. If you go to that site, it is a calculator where you can enter 1980 and 1.00, then enter a target equivalent year. The resulting web page will show the amount of money you needed in that year to have 1.00 of buying power (in the US) in 1980. You could do any two dates, not just 1980 and another year, but 1980 is traditionally used for comparisons of US Dollar worth, in my experience.Jerry lavoie23:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
yes, you do have to manually do that for each year. Jerry lavoie 23:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Random Pear
You have been given a random pear, though it is not entirely random as it is in return for you smile (thank you!) Cheers, Dar-Ape02:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Civility Barnstar of CCD
The Civility Barnstar of of Concordia
I hereby give you this coveted award for your civility to other fellow Wikipedia members. Sometimes Wikipedia can be stressful, so this helps a lot. Thank you very much! Regards, •The RSJ•Talk | Sign Here
You left me a message about the TIP article. I believe that the edit I made was a correct edit and that the article was in error. Thank you for the opportunity to leave you a message.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.25.178.43 (talk • contribs).
On this article the generality "In the United States, it is customary to tip x% at a restaurant" is impossible to complete correctly. The reason is: this varies widely by region, type of restaurant, time of day, day of week, and type of meal purchased. The reason the first editor's information is kept is because it was cited. Your edit removed the citation and changed the claimed tip percentage. While undoubtedly in good faith, your edit is the kind that can provoke an edit war. Every editor could come to the article and change the percentage to match their experience. The only correct way to prevent this is the cite a source for the information. I hope this helps. Jerry lavoie03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hi, thanks very much for your assistance on my Godby article, I appreciate it. I put a few more <br>'s near the top to preserve some of the text alignment with the pictures. Mitch
Hi there, I've proposed a new WikiProject which is in ways similar to the random smiley awards, it is called wikiproject appreciation and it is all about recognising users contributions, no matter how many, or how minor they are, aswell as to promote optimism on wikipedia. Because you are a good distributor of random smiley awards I though you might be interested in joining this project if and when it's created. I'll be creating templates and such and the whole project page if there are enough users willing to be active members and participate. for more detailed information please see here for more info. Also could you please reply on my talk page. Tellyaddict18:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sims2 scrnshot.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sims2 scrnshot.png. 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 BJBot04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I recommended it for speedy deletion. The other editors of that article came to a concensus that the picture I added was not good enough quality for the article, and it has since been replaced with much better ones. Since it was licensed as "fair use", it would be illegal to use it in any other article, so It should be speedied. Thanks for letting me know. Jerry lavoie04:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: Diesel Multiple Unit
Have you consider the possibility that the website might be wrong all along? To me Multiple Unit"s" should be plural is like "pants", there is no "pant". --Will7420504:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I considered the possibility that the railway Technology Industry website was wrong about the correct name for this railway technology. But when I compare it to your grammatical hunch, it seemed more likely that you were wrong. Check out the websites of some of the manufacturers of this technology... eg. Siemens... they call it Diesel Multiple Unit, as well. Here is a list to make it easier for you:
In fact the only websites I found that use the plural form are either talking about two different DMU models. (except one blog site.) Jerry lavoie04:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You have been named one of User:Editor37's favourite members! He thanks you for the smiley and returns the favor by adding you to this exclusive list. He loves you.
Thanks a lot for the smiliy award! It really cheered me up! Also, I have become a smiley-giver like you and am currently working on sending smileys to random users...Thanks Again... --TomasBat (Talk) 01:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Chris, I added the code on my user talk page but the bot never signs it. I see it signs other article talk pages still, so I wonder if it is not designed to sign user talk pages? If you see something that I have not done correctly and have advice for me on how to get it to work, please leave me a post on my user talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerry lavoie (talk • contribs) 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
It automatically signs all user talk pages, so you shouldn't have to add any special tags to make the bot active. In fact it should be monitoring this page right now. Any missed comments probably occurred during a network connection downtime that was becomming fairly common with my ISP until recently. Thanks, Hagerman(talk)17:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I have replaced the tag you removed. Please be aware that it was not an inuse tag, as you said in your edit summary, but an underconstruction tag. As a result, WP:LOCK does not aply. The tag is correctly used, it warns users that major works are going on at the article over a long period of time, and to check back regularly if it is an article they are interested in, and be aware the article is far from complete. Blood Red SandmanOpen Up Your Heart-Receive My EviLove18:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You are correct about the erroneous edit summary on my part. But as for the tags, themselves: all articles, including those featured on the main page, are under construction. This is the very premise of a wiki. The under construction template is for articles that are in such a state of incomplete editing that they could be misinterpreted as being nonsense. These short-lived templates are designed to give you time to complete your in-process edits without having to contend with db-nonsense and prod-csd(A1/A3) tagging by other editors. It is NOT intended to convey anything to the reader-only page visitor, and should not be used to say "I have big long-term plans for this article, come back later and see my work". Jerry lavoie 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I see where your coming from there - I guess neither the template nor myself have been as clear as we could. I wouldn't go quite that far in terms of how unwritten the article is, though. For example, in the article in question, there are several bits that I know to be either incomplete, out of date, or simply quite possibly plain wrong, in spite of their soutces to back them up. This is because the article is half built, and undergoing major works. Therefore, the tag is apropriate. Blood Red SandmanOpen Up Your Heart-Receive My EviLove21:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough... I deleted hundreds of them, so there's bound to be a few that should have stayed for reasons such as you mention. Jerry lavoie21:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You just removed a bunch of "inuse" and "underconstruction" tags from articles I am working on. I can potentially see the rationale for removing long-standing "inuse" tags, although I am indeed still working on these articles. However, I don't see the rationale for removing the "underconstruction" tags. These alert the reader that they are reading an *incomplete* article. This is important! Yes, the tag makes the article look unfinished. It IS unfinished! By deleting the tag, you are substituting illusion for reality. You make the article look finished and complete when in reality it is not. In my opinion, image is not everything, and the tags should remain. If you wish to contribute to these articles so that they can be considered complete, then be my guest. I will welcome the help. Thanks. —Dfass19:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
All articles, including those featured on the main page, are under construction. This is the very premise of a wiki. The under construction template is for articles that are in such a state of incomplete editing that they could be misinterpreted as being nonsense. These short-lived templates are designed to give you time to complete your in-process edits without having to contend with db-nonsense and prod-csd(A1/A3) tagging by other editors. It is NOT intended to convey anything to the reader-only page visitor, and should not be used to say "I have big long-term plans for this article, come back later and see my work". Jerry lavoie 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The {{underconstruction}} template is the appropriate template to use for a multi-day article expansion or rebuild per Template:Inuse/doc. Unlike the {{inuse}} template, this one encourages collaborative editing while also alerting readers and other editors that the article has recently, and will continue to experience significant changes in the near future. Steevo71421:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
"This template should be added to the top of an article when you are about to engage in a very major editing or expansion of the article, and for that purpose only. Be aware that this template encourages other people to edit during the time that you're working on ti as well, and that you may be responsible for resolving edit conflicts. Please remove the template when you are completed with the major editing or expansion that you are conducting. Use this template only if you are in fact planning on actively editing/expanding for some duration; do not use this template if you will not be resuming your editing for a while".
It is not to be used to simply state "This article is incomplete." Active editing has to be underway or currently planned. I removed this tag from several hendred articles; most of them with a tag life in excess of 10 days. Many of these articles had clearly been abandoned or completed by the tagger, yet the tag remains. See User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. Jerry lavoie21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work in removing tags that have been around for longer than they should. I have no doubt that there are way too many out there now that have been in place far too long and should be removed and I appreciate your work in keeping that number down. My UC template was removed barely 24 hours after the last edit, and under the justification of WP:LOCK, which did not apply. But I can understand that type of thing happening occasionally with the volume that you are doing. Thanks again for your hard work! Steevo71421:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt and recognizing that a few errors here and there will occur when mass-editing.Jerry lavoie21:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Do you have any suggestion as to how I would have known that? (There was and is no message on the page stating the user is blocked). Also how is this a mistake? The user vandalized, I warned. I am missing your point, apparently. Jerry lavoie22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It was a mistake because there was already a level four warning and it was posted at 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC). You warned the user at 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC), almost an hour after. Squirepants10122:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware of VandalProof? This program is custom-tailored to make fighting vandalism an easier task. Where obvious vandalism is found all I have to do is press a button, and the edit is reverted with appropriate edit summary, and a warning is added to the user's page. During this process I do not actually see the users talk page. I don't see the big deal with warns after blocks or multiple consecutive test-4's.Jerry lavoie22:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of VandalProof because I have the tool; I've reverted a couple of edits with it over the past few months, so I can see how you might have not seen that warning. Squirepants10100:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
More than fair enough. I am not as experienced of a Wikipedia user, and I do thank you for the advice. In my own defense, the page was simply a stub when I added the tag. You have made it a true page now, thank you. Yours Jmlk1709:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I would first look over WP:CAT, this will help you understand wikipedia article categories, in general. There are also links in there for finding categories, either alphabetically, or through search. Personally I do not find either of these methods to be very user-friendly. I generally find a well-established article on a similar topic and look at the categories on it. For your specific article in question, I would suggest the following categories:
I cannot express my gratitude to you because of your friendly support, clear and open words which are true, indeed. And that is why I want to thank you and, of course, will leave everything you had done this way.
There is one more thought I had after reading Sioban Hansa's remarks. There are quite many references visible on the world wide web to prove that Gandhi Information Center and the "Manifesto against conscription and the military service" have been of impact and influence on the "movement" (as Hansa put it). In case I send you some references as weblinks, will it be helpful to add these links as annotations to the text on Gandhi Information Centre?
Thank you for your kind assistance and guidance to the wikipedia universe, C*******n B*****f (*= censored for privacy)
Yes, send me the links in question, I will review them and determine if I feel they are appropriate to include. Please read over WP:WEB which has some discussion of which web sites are considered notable enough for inclusion. As well, when entering references to counter a claim of lacking notability, web sites that are under the control of the subject of an article, are mirrors of such a controlled website, websites that are mainly used for people to post their own content; ie: blogs, rants, forums, and the like, are not considered very compelling source references.
Any newspaper articles, magazine articles, and radio or television coverage is considered notable. The more familiar the publisher and the more neutral they are, the better. Magazines that post small articles which appear to be written by the subjects of the articles (ie: has the same text as the subjects web page, etc), and postings on websites that appear to be part of an arrangement between the website controllers to exchange publishing space (ie: party A has a small article in Party B's ezine, and at about that some time Party B has a small article published in Party A's ezine), are also not considered very compelling source references.
Any book with an assigned ISBN and/ or has made any Best Seller list or has been reviewed in any major publication is likely to be considered notable.
In short, if I wanted to get an article about myself included in Wikipedia, I would not start by putting the article in, and then preparing to battle everyone who tries to get it deleted. I would instead contact the publishers of every english speaking newspaper and magazine in the western hemisphere and provide them with a short bio about me and my contact information. There is a high possibility that at least some of these publications will need "fill-in" material and will publish something about you. Once several of them do, then more would likely do so, particlularly if your next request includes a list of previous publications. Then once you amass an overwhelming list of such references, put the article in. If anyone tries to delete the article, you'd have enough ammunition to counter even the most energetic of deleting editors. (Please excuse the term ammunition, I realize you are an anti-war activist.) Jerry lavoie16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jerry,
I think considering the fact that the Manifesto has been included into the final statement of the last International Peace Tax Conference, there might be sufficient ground to include an internal link to the wikipedia Tax Resistance webpage.
You'll find interesting references to the Manifesto among others on the following webpages:
Simply states that he is a signatory of the manfesto. No context. Not includable, except if you wanted to include the statement "including ArchBishop Desmond Tutu" after stating that it is signed by famous people. Jerry lavoie21:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
(www.draftresistance.org*: *Libertarian Party of America, Center on
Conscience and War, Central Committee For Conscientious Objection)]
This is a press release that you authored and signed. It does not provide any encyclopedic context, but rather asks people to "please have a look at" your website and manifesto. It is not includable. Jerry lavoie21:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a mirror or republication of your manifesto itself, which does not offer critical commentary, but rather republishes it and gives your contact information. It is not includable. Jerry lavoie20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Niether the Center, the Manifesto, nor its author (you) are the subject of this article. The article describes a specific event and group in Brittain, but includes a statement that the group supports the efforts of the Center and the contents of the Manifesto. I believe this is not includable, except as perhaps part of an overall statement about the stated support by others.Jerry lavoie20:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a press release that you authored and signed. It does not provide any encyclopedic context, but rather asks people to "please have a look at" your website and manifesto. It is not includable. Jerry lavoie21:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
This document is in an unknown to me non-English language; please provide a link to the English version or send me a translation. Jerry lavoie21:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your info and you kind and friendly support,
C*******n B*****f (*=censored for privacy)
After reviewing the links you sent, which took me quite a bit of time, I have found none of them meet the criteria of the policies I sent you. Please read the policies and filter out your further submissions before sending them to me. I do not want to spend another several-hour session reviewing links to your press releases, directory-only listings, and incidental mentions in unrelated articles. Thanks, Jerry lavoie21:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Jerry, I understood.
But "incidental mentions" do not relate to Country Joe McDonald's website, I suppose. And also not to the final statement of the war tax resisters. There might be additional reasons for not including these links? asks you briefly
C*******n B*****f (*=censored for privacy)
No there weren't any additional or unstated/ hidden reasons: I have no agenda for non-inclusion of your content. In the war tax resistors references, they simply state that they agree with your founding principles and your manifesto. The Article is not ABOUT your organization or the manifesto.
I was unable to determine, probably due to my ignorance on the subject, that Joe MacDonald is notable. His webpage (the link you sent me) looks to me like a blog, or personal website. These kinds of websites are not usable as references. If my assesment was incorrect on his page, if it is indeed a notable page per WP:WEB (please read that policy before insisting that the website is notable), then please let me know. BUt also understand that I believe my determination would be similar to that of other editors, and making arguments that are contentious (even though correct) does not help your cause (the cause of defending the inclusion of your two aticles).
Country Joe McDonald is notable (outstanding Woodstock performing artist and since then). I do not argue within your wikipedia cosmos (because my voice has no
authority), that is why I prefer to consult your advise. The inclusion of the Manifesto by international war tax resisters is more than notable.
I understand your arguments - the same time not able to force press agencies or printed media to write an article about our registered non-profit society for education and the international Manifesto (since 2002 on the internet with many press releases). ::To sum it up: It is all a matter of (dirty) politics, otherwise a journalist would have investigated & reported, like this one exception from the cruel rule: "Junge Welt", Berlin, 29.9.2004 Between this 27 and 31 January I have been invited by the Government of India to attend the Satyagraha Conference on Gandhi Centenary Commemoration in New Delhi, and I participated. One example: I gave an interview for "Hindustan Times", but have not found a reference in their articles. This is the method to silence down by ignorance and indifference.
I read User:Sioban Hansa's new comment (4 Feb), but cannot laugh about it. Good wishes for your brave efforts, C*******n B*****f (*=censored for privacy)
Unfortunately this link is a page in German language, with which I am terribly unfamiliar.
I do understand your frustration and agree that it is much harder than it ought to be to get one's own research published in wikipedia, particularly as in your case, when the person is an obviously recognized expert on the subject. But wikipedia does have its rules for inclusion, which are for the most part good at keeping legal troubles away. I think if their inclusion policies were vague or underenforced, then they would get sued by people all the time, and the whole wiki would fail. Not a perfect system, indeed, but perhaps the best one it can be.
I wouldn't use that template outside of pages involving complicated templates using some rather esoteric functions. I originally created it because I was trying to work on a DEFCON template and an idjit insisted on breaking it, ignoring the standard esoteric template. I certainly would never use it on anything but a template or function page in my userspace that merited it, since it is very , ah, blunt.
Personally, i think it's a bad idea to create a medical disclaimer, as there are already things in the wikipedia defining what the wikipedia is not, including for the case of an "agony aunt". Generally, i don't use the wikipedia for medical research, i use medical textbooks, as any decent medical/clinical diagnosis requires, in my opinion, fully referenced texts.
While the wikipedia is a great resource, and people who read such textbooks should add their wisdom to the wikipedia in the form of referenced work -- i think that in terms of medical articles, wikipedia is not well rounded or referenced enough on the whole, and shouldn't be considered by medical experts for anything other than primer material if it isn't thoroughly referenced and recent.
The idea that informing someone that an article contains medical information that is dubious, is on one hand a seemingly good idea of informing people not to perform heart surgery or intra-cranial drilling. It's merely a case of telling someone that the article is not along the guidelines that wikipedia asks, and is therefore just doing the same thing as an infobox for wikipedia style.
Also, the case of a particular area of medicine, for instance "dianetics"; rather than actually have an infobox which says "this process does not actually do anything, take it under advisement", it'd be easier to reference a paragraph or two within the article to say that the practice or principles of such a study aren't scientifically sound, in the form of a criticism section.
Well, i agree that there's no need for people to take the information on here as instruction manuals for how to perform medical proceedures, but on the whole, i think that the "medical disclaimer" thing should simply be an expansion of the already existing wikipedia proceedures.
Although a lot of people might not make the assumption that if an article is not referenced and verified, that the information may be dubious -- but i guess it's just not implicit enough in wikipedia standards.
Perhaps some form of thing should be posted on the talk page, or the article that doesn't look like a userbox, but as an expansion of the verify/reference templates. I personally, when dealing with clinical matters, always use books anyway, but i think that it's important in my research to understand things from the source, rather than from the echo.
Wikipedia has a great capacity to be the best thing since sliced bread, but it needs to be referenced in-line at all available opportunities. I already flagged up the issue of having a universal cleanup/attention template which lists the problems or attention that is required for an article on the village pump. J O R D A N[talk ]10:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you voted early on this, and wanted to let you know that the article has substantially grown (and will likely grow further) into a useful list of evidence for the Moon landings that has nothing to do with hoax sites. I'd like to invite you to take another look, and to consider changing your vote. Gravitor19:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jerry. You left a message on my talk page concerning moral particularism, but I guess there is some misunderstanding. 1. I'm certainly not Jonathan Dancy. Please check my user page. 2. You have probably heard of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (just follow this link or the link at the end of m. particularism); if SEPh has an article on moral p., that's reason enough for Wikipedia to have it too. 3. Please use Google if you still have doubts on the subject.
See you around. Velho17:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If you feel this was closed in error, please file a deletion review. I gave the merge/delete arguments a little less weight because merge/delete is not a valid debate outcome, as the history is lost, and that creates problems with the GFDL license. --Coredesat03:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I protected the redirect - it's protected for two weeks for now, since it shouldn't really need to be protected any longer than that (any recreations after that can be reverted). --Coredesat20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Copied from my email
From j****m****007@m***.com (* = censored for privacy):
Hi Jerry,
I am fairly new to wikipedia, recently I was blocked from using the Wikipedia edit tools. This was due to my ignorance and what the wiki community is all about.
I was permanently excluded by, User talk:Night Gyr/archive, I have been trying to contact him but I am unable to do so, I think he has blocked me. I do not contest his deletion and agree with my exclusion as I am more aware now of who the wiki experience.
Hello, J****,
I am sorry to hear about your current predicament. I appreciate your interest in editing wikipedia, and take on face value your statement of being contrite about your inappropriate behavior.
First-time blocks are rarely permanent. Normally, blocks are put in place for 31 hours. If the blocked user contests the block, he has procedures that he can follow to appeal the block. I have not pasted those instructions here, as you have indicated that you agree with the block. I was unable to find any block installed by Night Gyr in the past 2 days. This might mean that he used a related account to do the block, as is sometimes done. Without knowing your blocked registered user name or IP address, I am unable to further assist you.
If you would like me to research this further, please reply with your username or ipaddress. You can find these by going to wikipedai and clicking on the "MY TALK" link at the very top of the page. If you reply to this message, please tell me whether you are over or under 18 years of age, so I can know if the requirements of WP:CHILD and Wikipedia:Child Protection apply to you (It will require me to take additional measures on wikipedia to protect your personally-identifiable information, including your email address and your ipaddress.)
If it's Jasemaan, I changed his block from indefinite to 24 hours shortly after I made it. Essjay returned it to indef after getting an email from him. He's the one you want. Censoring his name is kind of counterproductive to me knowing who the person you're talking about is though. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks.
PS: Don't tag a talk page as being a Shared IP address without evidence. -- Netsnipe ► 03:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not make a report on WP:AIV recently. I think that part of your message might have been intended for another user. The sharedip template helps anonymous users who might otherwise be confused by messages intended for other users. It is not a "report" to admins, and the "tagging" of a talk page with this template does not require or request any action by anybody. Jerry lavoie03:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. You only did the SharedIP tagging. Please don't use it indiscriminately on any user talk page unless their editing history, WHOIS records or RDNS supports that tag. Admins such as myself look on a talk page and we do make decisions on block length based on those tags. Shared IP addresses are already explained on MediaWiki:Blockedtext for those encountering a block for the first time. -- Netsnipe ► 03:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Jerry, I note that you deleted all mentions of the Center for Citizenship, Race, and Ethnicity Studies at the College of St. Rose, both on the St. Rose main page and on the CREST page. Why? I'm employed by St. Rose and a fellow of this program; nothing I contributed was copyrighted, nothing was defamatory, nothing unverifiable...
Before I go and put it all back again (only to have you restrip it out), I just want to clarify on what grounds you've made this edit. Should I have
placed the main info about CREST on a different page?
Hello, you contacted me on my talk page about St. Rose and CREST. I deleted the content in CREST because it had nothing whatsoever to do with the existing article. The correct procedure for this would be to make a CREST (disambiguation) page, create a new article ie: CREST (college organization) or similar, and place the information there. Then tag the original article at the top with {{otheruses|CREST (disambiguation)}}. Before doing this, however, please review the requirements at WP:ORG, to determine if the organization meets the notability criteria, which from my cursory review of the content I deleted, I believe it does not.
As for the St. Rose article, the content overpowered the article. This organization warrants only a brief mention and a link in the See also section. But first the link must be to the proper article as described above.
I hope you'll enjoy contributing as much as I do. When posting on discussion pages, please sign your messages. To do this, type four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message on my discussion page.
The Transhumanist04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Bisexual people
Well, the lists will be kept anyway, most likely, but I appreciate your attempt. :) If you want to see my progress on the lists, you can keep an eye here, if you like. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
On your picture of the day section is colliding with your Wikidefcon and Signpost sections. On this page, the Werdnabot note collides with your archive list. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Full screen had only minimal effect. I got maybe 2-3 extra pixels of width. Please realize that like many users, my top resolution (on this older LCD monitor) is 1024x768. I then lose about 150 pixels of width to Monobook's sidebar. Hence, your pages must not be wider than 1024-150=874 pixels.
On this might help to a limited extent is careful use of the following CSS: "display:table;". Used in something like your Archive box, this might be enough to prevent other elements from colliding. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments
I'm glad someone thought my AfD comment was amusing, because I'm willing to bet the author of the article didn't even read it. (Oh well.) Thank you. --N Shar00:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
When somebody uses a more obvious issue to liken it to the issue at hand, it serves only to create an emotional charge. They distract the emotions of people in the discussion. This creates a situation where the opposing side now either has to recant their statement or suffer being judged as also opposing the unrelated more-controversial issue. It is highly unlikely that somebody would be black, deny being black, and be asked constantly by media if they were black. People are not rhumored to be black. The issue is more, so to speak, black and white. By playing the race card, as the person did, (they state it themselves here: [1]) they caused a disruption of the AfD debate, which is inapppropriate. If you and I were at a Ttown hall meeting to discuss whether or not there should be a stop light at a prominent intersection in town, and after a while of debating it, I stood up and said "First a stop light, what next? They might as well brand us and put us into a concentration camp." This would be a similar exampke in my mind. The comment did not provide commentary on the issue of the debate.... wehter or not the articles listed met wikipedia standards. I hope this helps you understand what I meant in my statement. Jerry lavoie12:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You say that to compare sexuality to race is "pulling the race card"; in other words, you feel that if you oppose List of bisexual people, you are automatically a racist, because to oppose List of bisexual people is to oppose List of African-Americans. Then, you are forced to recant your position for fear of being labeled a racist. Is that a correct summary? But, is there ever anything wrong with recanting one's statements or changing one's mind? (I freely acknowledge I have changed my mind numerous times over the most controversial of issues, sometimes because I have been enlightened and understand the hypocrisy of my opinions. And I am not saying you are a hypocrite.) Is it possible that Oscar Wilde's sexual orientation and Frederick Douglass' race are equally notable? I am interested to hear your reply, Cedlaod22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
NO. You are WAY off base. I am saying that the racial issue is one that does not include people persecuted because of rhumors and suspicion. Everybody knows who is black and who isn't. The issues are so very different that raising the other during a discussion of the one serves no relevant purpose for that discussion. And since the racial issue is so charged with emotion and controversy, bringing it up stris up those aspects of a discussion which oherwise was going fine on an evaluation of the points pertinent to the isue at hand. I do not wish to have an ongoing discussion with you about this.... if we need to agree to disagree, then that is fine with me. As for changing ones mind.... I don;t know how much clearer I could have been about changiong my mind.... re-read the AfD.... I tried to get it closed as keep, and it was my nom. I am wondering if this whole discussion we are having is just wikiharassment? At any rate it is not something I wish to continue. Jerry lavoie23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I am surprised that you viewed my inquiries as harassment; I apologize regardless. I assure you that I had the best of intentions and was only trying to better understand your statements. I of course respect your desire to put the matter to rest. A la prochaine, Cedlaod23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, frankly, I had a good laugh at "Izdavač books" (hint: Izdavač means "publisher":-) ). But thanks for your sincere efforts to save it; I didn't have the article at my watchlist, but I do watch WP:DRV. Duja►16:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Aleksandarserbia23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) hi.are you there?can you help me in smederevska palanka...don't know why pix are not shown in small window.can you tell me where i was wrong
thx
Update to my vote
Hi Jerry, I've added an update to my vote and cleaned up the article. Thanks for the warning. (if needed, please reply on my talk page. don't be lazy)Pdelongchamp20:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is for your words of support on his talk page regarding what happened to him - the definition of what this barnstar means, "being nice without being asked". Thanks. Sceptre13:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome
Hi Jerry, you're welcome. I feel that depression (and mental illness in general) still has a stigma around it, and that the stigma discourages many people from seeking treatment. At least, it discouraged me for years. Thanks again, and also thanks for giving your support to Cliff as well. --Kyoko20:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi you where on that article and helped improving it. now another editor has put on a deletions notic on it. And if you think it should stay i would be greatfull if you pointed that out on the site.
Its still a article i think can be improved and it is interesting and notable. thanks --Matrix1715:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, yes i tought so to. i dont now why the person who put it up for deletion did it. it was wrong anyway. or what do you think?
--Matrix1717:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi again would be kind if you left a little message on the discussion page on robert bierenbaum telling that you dont agree that this is a deletion worthy article. so their will bw no more talk about that from certain people.--Matrix1717:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Look at isotope23s answer on the discussion on your messagw i think its a very strange answer,i mean anyone can see that the article is obviously ok.i think it is a personal thing. --Matrix1719:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I was correcting it to the value stated in my text book "Materials Science and Engineering AN Introduction" by William D Callister Jr, Table 6.1 pg 137. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.180.130.2 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
This is my new user acount -salzar
please check ...
Your work on Stephen Stanko is well done but it does seem to contradict itself. I have explaind details on the articles Talk page. As you are the only editor of this article, may I ask you to check into this? exit2dos200004:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jerry, I posted a reply a couple of days ago to your last comment over on my discussion page. ThanxTheriac19:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry
I was in the process of archiving my talk page when I noticed you wished me a Happy Valentine's Day and apologized. I'm sorry I didn't reply, I missed it when it happened.
I'm not upset (I was at the time, but that had more to do with my personal life than anything else), and if I came off as uncivil or angry, I'd like to apologize. I probably won't be around much, but I do appreciate the sentiment. --ElaragirlTalk|Count17:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I Have just received a message claiming that I am Vandalizing Pages But I was not even signed in please respond my user name is oln
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.154.94 (talk • contribs)
oops
my mistake...i'm pretty new here :(
:)
It's ok...I hardly found the way to reply to your message :D When I will have more time I will read the help page and so on...I just wanted to add some articles now and I tryed to copy the way from other articles...that's why I did those mistakes :(
Thanks for help :)
Greetings from Serbia
Age category
Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:
If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot12:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings! A recent change has been made in the clerking system at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. There are no longer any obstacles to editors who wish to help out in this areas, as the standby list has now been deprecated. You were listed as a volunteer on the standby list before it was deprecated. If you are still interested in helping out in this area, please:
In helping, please make sure you follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Procedures as it is very important to the process there to follow these instructions for smooth operation.
Please remember "Trust between the clerks and the checkusers is essential. Clerks who persistently make problematic comments on requests or otherwise violate decorum may be asked by the checkusers to cease contributing here."
"Be aware that this position is rather dull and carries no particular prestige; status-seeking will not be looked upon kindly."
I am not involved with the checkuser system. I am acting only to inform you of this change. Thank you. --Durin14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Common sense
Hi, please assume good faith; the person who added lots of "citations needed" template calls to the Tomato article could have been unaware that an "unreferenced" template exists. I've seen people thank me for replacing "citations needed" with "unreferenced"; I don't think that's likely to happen if someone yells out "USE YOUR COMMON SENSE". --Kjoonlee06:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
heheh.. stalking... well, no.... but maybe yes, depending on your definition. I am using your contributions for my list of articles to use for the User:Nickj/Can We Link It link suggestion tool. It is faster than clicking the "random article" link. Does it bother you? I can go to somebody elses contribs... Jerry22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's OK, it was just curious to see a whole bunch of articles pop to the top of my watchlist all by one editor. I figured you had some good reason to be following me. —dgiestc22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually I am down far enough on yours that I have to use the scrollbar... so I'm jumping off anyway. Cheers! Jerry22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
No thanks... if I can't edit it myself, then my edits shall go undone. I'd feel like a feeble n00b having to ask somebody to edit for me. Jerry00:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Online link suggesting tool
You might want to be a bit more careful with that tool; Image:US [[Maritime flag|Naval Jack]].svg|U.S. Naval Jack is not a good substitution for Image:US Naval Jack.svg|U.S. Naval Jack! As with all these automated tools, you actually have to check them to make sure they're not making a mess. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻02:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes indeed, some of the links added to Crass are inappropriate, the artcile also looks over-linked now, i don't think it really needs to link to articles like light bulb! i havn't got time to go through and clean up right now, but I do feel that your additions have created more work rather than made a better article, cheers quercus robur09:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comment has nothing to do with the comment above it. In the previous comment, the link that was added damaged an image tag. Your comment seems to be a matter of opinion. Per WP:MOS-L, adding links is encouraged to allow readers to follow their curiosity to other articles. Since less than 10% of the words in the article you listed are linked, it would not be considered "overlinked". As well, I did not add any links that were already linked elsewhere in the article. I have reviewed the links I added to the article in question, and I still believe they all llink to the proper articles as intended. With the possible exception of the link to "incandescent light bulb", they also seem to have direct relevance to the article. And what harm is caused by the addition of that link? Since I have linked several hundreds of articles and only received these two complaints, (the first one being absolutely proper, as the link broke the page,) but yours is just a a matter of difference in editing stlye, so I probably need to ignore it. Jerry11:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Linking tool with disambiguation pages
I noticed your edits to Blanche. You must be careful when editing disambiguation pages to follow WP:MOSDAB, which suggests not adding secondary links, and instead only have links to pages that one may have been looking for by that link. I have reverted most of your changes to follow this guideline. Rigadoun (talk)19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank-you. I did not realize this applied to articles which do not contain "disambiguation" in their title. But after reviewing WP:MOSDAB, I do see that you are correct. Thanks. Jerry21:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, there's no need to remove speedy tags from articles that are also at AfD. It speeds up the process if those articles are also listed at CAT:CSD (hence why I tagged it as well as commenting in the AfD). WjBscribe02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If the speedy process already ran its course without resolution, then the AfD should clear it up. If it did not have a chance to run its course, then the AfD was premature. The excessive taggage is unpleasant to readers. The encyclopedia IS for readers. Read User:Shanes/Why tags are evilJerry02:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It was speedy tagged after being nominated. The point being that if another editor after the nominator decides that it meets a speedy criteria, he is not bound by the decision to AfD of the nominator. An admin reviewing the speedy tag can then either delete the article or leave it to the AfD if he doesn't think a speedy criteria is made out. And deleting unencyclopedic content is more important than tagging aesthetics. Any deletion tag will pretty much ruin the encyclopedic feel of a page for the reader anyway. And you agreed this one was a speedy candidate... WjBscribe02:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As you say, I agree to speedy deletion. What I object to is three (3) separate tag templates being placed on the article. The first one, the AFD, the second one, the Speedy, and a third one, a "another editor has expressed concern..." we could pile-on tags a mile high, and it does not really improve the process, it only serves to a) bite a newbiee who may have added an article that does not meet notability criteria out of ignorance, b) confuse the reader, and c) make wikipedia deletion processes look chaotic and ugly. The speedy deletion of the article seems certain, based on the AfD, and it does not harm anything for it to stick around while that process continues.... not a problem with WP:LIVING, or any other really urgent "lets start a forest fire to burn this thing" issue. Jerry02:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The tags all provide information for the admin who reviews the article. They tell him that (a) an editor was concerned about the notbility of the subject, (b) an editor nominated the article for deletion and (c) that an editor believes it meets a speedy deletion criterion. All of those seem important bits of information and more important that the aesthetics of an article that is bound to be deleted. Note that deletion tags are not mentioned in the essay (User:Shanes/Why tags are evil) you refered me too. Please only remove speedy tags if you believe the speedy deletion criteria is not met. WjBscribe02:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
<tab reset>Well, I can see we are not likely to agree on this one. The spirit and intent of the essay clearly apply. If you just scan it for the words you'll not see them, but if you understand what the essay means, then you'll see that the tags inturrupt the encyclopedia browsing experience, and are certainly unnecessary. The AfD all by itself clearly addresses all concerns that suggest the article should be deleted. Additional commentary can be provided in the AfD, or the article talk page. The admin who needs information before closing the article deletion would most certainly read the AFD comments. All pertinent information can be placed there without placing an undue burden to the reader of the article. Jerry02:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I think we'll have have to agree to disagree here :-). I think the essay omits deletion tags for a reason. And that deleting articles through CAT:CSD is the priority over AfDs (as it saves editor time in reviewing the article and commenting on an unecessary AfD). You disagree. Fair enough, its not as if there's policy on the matter... WjBscribe02:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So I see. You didn't exactly present our disagreement neutrally... I don't plan to get into a discussion about the merits of New Page Patrol versus WP:BITE problems. Nor now the article has been deleted can I see how long after its creation each tag was placed. WjBscribe17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I regret that you state I did not present our discussion neutrally. My comments on his essay talk were twofold in purpose: to ask him if his essay applies to what we talked about, and to begin a dialogue about future content for his essay. For that reason, additional context was added intentionally. I did provide a link to our actual discussion, and asked him to read it, so I did not feel it was necessary to recreate a faithful duplication of it on his page. I was not asking him to decide which of us was "right", just asking him if stacking of templates associated with wikipedia deletion procedures and maintenance tagging was also among the things he was describing in his essay. Jerry17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's the catch. AFD trumps PROD, so an article that is on both gets discussed via AFD. Other than that articles that are (1) speedies or (2) copyvios can be deleted regardless of circumstances. Indeed, articles on AFD are not infrequently speedied and discussion closed. Borderline speedies that are on AFD should be discussed there, and borderline speedies that already had an AFD discussion resulting in a keep (or lack of consensus) shouldn't be speedied. >Radiant<08:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Some articles suffer from tag overflow; this is generally an indication that something is Really Wrong with the article. I don't see how it hurts anything (except that the tags themselves are overly large and in need of pruning). Also, it's quite common to add {{cleanup}}-related templates as a result of an AFD. >Radiant<11:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Mccoy pottery
Hello Jerry. I have seen you have replaced links I removed to non compling sites. I am aware we have had previous discussions about one of these. However you did not continue with your suggestion of further input, such as mediation. Please do not put these back. These sorts of sites are not acceptable by Wikipedia policies.ThanxTheriac10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, there you go again saying "Per wikipedia policies". I have repeatedly asked you to provide a relevant policy link and to state a specific policy. If you will review the edit history on the article in question, you will see that when you removed these links you were not logged-in. I had no way of knowing it was you again, as I did not know your IP Address. My last comment to you was that if you wanted to bring the issue to RFC we could, but I was unwilling to only include the link in the McCoy article, so as a compromise, I suggested not using any specific links, but rather just asking the question about the link inclusion policy. You never replied. As you know the policies do not say these links are not allowed in specific language; your interpretation and my interpretation of a rather vague policy are not in agreement. I will re-add the links, and if you still want them removed, we will have to bring the issue before RFC. Jerry11:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on my talk page. I am also very lazzy so i do not check others talk pages where I commented. Also thanks for the barnstar you gave me in January!!! Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting vandalism by this user. However, please do not use the "last warning" tags unless the user has been previously warned on the talk page. They hold no merit if the user needs to be blocked and if anything, make it harder to block them, since an escalating system of warnings is required. Its a lot of asinine red tape I know but unfortunately we have to live with it for now.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, I refuse to use edit protected. So if the warring parties never agree to compromise, then this article stays protected indefinately? That seems a horrible display of poor judgement or your part. I am disappointed in your decision. As editors exhibit uncivil behavior more and more of our encyclopedia will become broken if people make decisions as you have. I look forward to you changing your mind. Jerry22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
He didn't re-add it, I did. COPPA is under-13 only, so no "excessive personal information" is being divulged that could get us into legal trouble. Unless you're trying to claim that anyone under 18 can't post information about their ages, which is absurd. --tjstrftalk18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Policies, and indeed my own policy for my talk page, can be more restrictive than COPPA. I cited Wikipedia:Youth protection, which does not specifically state an age, it just uses the generic term "child". The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier". [1] Since there is no useful purpose beneficial to editing wikipedia for his age to be posted on my talk page, I do not want it there. I believe this is a reasonable decision on my part, as it only pertains to pages in my user space. Jerry18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
While I concede that, with the usual WP:OWN caveats, you are allowed to alter postings on your own talk page, I don't think posting a forboding message to his talk page was particularly helpful or friendly of you. Especially not one based on his being below the age of legal majority. UN definitions dealing with Child Exploitation laws aside, the standard definition for child is "pre-pubescent". Wikipedia has no policy at all on the issue, and even the current administrative agreement of asking the very young to remove personal data and offering to delete it from history for them isn't applied to 14 year olds. --tjstrftalk21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
There's simply no purpose for this user to post his age on my talk page. I never interacted with him before, and I do not want/ need to know that kind of personal detail, especially about a minor. As a single 30-something male US citizen, I have no business getting into conversations with 14-year old boys that start out with "Hi, I'm 14 years old"... sounds too much like a possible sting. I go well above and beyond the legal requirements of COPPA to ensure there is no reason to question anything. That is my choice, as it applies to my user space, and I stand behind it. Jerry21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jerry. Thanks for you recent edits on the C.S. Lewis article. Can I suggest in future than you think twice before using gimmicks such as link suggestion tools? Many of the links added are not terribly relevant to the article, and some are totally inaccurate. For instance, James Lewis was not the father of C.S. Lewis, yet he is linked to him in the article. Context is the most important thing when deciding on links, and this is something only a person can do. Martin21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. The tool is not automated in any way. It just makes suggestions that the user then checks as "yes" "no" or "not sure". I usually actually look at the linked page, unless it seems really straight-forward from it's title. I do not consider my editing using the online linking tool to be "a gimmick". MoS:L does not provide extremely specific guidance on what to link and what not to link, so I guess it is really a matter of preference (read: opinion)as to whether certain links meet the criteria of "relevant to the article" and "that a reader would want to follow". I certainly believe that after my edits the article was better off, and that it had less than 10% of its words linked. I understand you disagree with some of the added links. Feel free to revert them. As to the specific link for James Lewis, you are correct about that one being inappropriate. Perhaps a review of my contributions will show you that I do more good than harm, and the few errors which do occur are easily corrected when pointed-out. Thanks, Jerry22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Jerry, thanks for the reply. I'm sorry if my comment seemed a bit harsh; it certainly wasn't my intention to cast aspersions on your ability as an editor, nor would I ever do so. I was merely pointing out the downfalls of the system you were employing. It's not something that would particularly appeal to myself, but if you feel it improves your productivity, I can hardly disagree with that.
Anyhow, I hope you didn't take any offence at my comment, and I hope we'll see you on the C. S. Lewis article in future. When the page was up for GA candidacy, all the other regular contributors seemed to be on holiday, so I had to work on it myself to get it up to the required standard. It'd be nice to have another pair of capable hands around the place! Take care, Martin22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I wasnt addingnonsense to that page, i was merely adding a comment i thought should have been added. One ofmy friends died because of this stupid game, i just wanna make people aware of it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.71.195 (talk • contribs)
Image:Fiu stad.jpg
Hi, I'm afraid I'm overturning your "keep" assessment of Image:Fiu stad.jpg. First, you are making a wrong claim about public domain ("2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional works are not protected") - that's simply false; second, I'm not convinced by the fair-use claim either, because the text doesn't really say anything that would make the image necessary for understanding. If the text provided a critical discussion of the architectural details or anything like that, it would be different. Plus, it didn't have a source either. --Fut.Perf.☼06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Vodianova.jpg implausible self-made claim by uploader, and certainly not fair use by any stretch of the imagination
Image:MacMilln.jpg - would be fair use as an illustration of the work of art as such (the artist's style etc.), but not simply for an article about the subject of the work of art
Image:HMSBoadicea1942.jpg - no source, no fair-use rationale ("non-replaceability" alone doesn't make it fair use, it's an extra criterion that has to be fulfilled in addition to being fair use!)
...and I'm sure I could find more, as you seem to have made many such assessments. Please familiarise yourself more with the image policies, especially Wikipedia:Fair use, before you make more "non-admin closures" of this kind. Thanks, --Fut.Perf.☼, 07:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, please never "close" deletion cases of images you uploaded yourself, as you did in several instances. Fut.Perf.☼08:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: image closures
Regarding the message you left on my talk page, that's a lot if information to digest all at once. It will not be possible for me to review the individual cases and study what decision I made and try to learn from the situation, as you have deleted the images. I wonder what the hurry was to delete them instead of discussing it first? If the only lesson you wanted me to learn was don't close image deletion debates at all, then that's simple... but if you wanted me to become more familiar with the procedures, then this will require more discussion. I am quite certain that the law says "a 2-dimensional representation (either rawing or photograph) of a 3-dimensional work on public display may be made and distributed without consulting the copyright holder without violating the rights of the copyright holder." The 3-dimensional work itself is copyrighted. In other words, the architect who designed the staduim would have legal protection against somebody building another stadium, but not against people making drawings and photographs of it. In addition, the law states that such 2-dimensional works are not subject to copyright, and therefore are inherantly public domain. This means that even though the architect who designed the statium can not sue me for making a drawing of his stadium, I can not claim copyright rights on such a drawing.
As for the rest, as I said I can not review the details because you deleted them. But my recollection of the ship Bodacea, was that the uploader claimed it was created by a US Government employee, and that he got it from the National archive office, where he worked? That seems like it would be fine, as well. If you are saying he has to provide some additional proof that his 60-year old photograph was really created by a US government employee, then that sounds a bit more like copyright paranoia than anything else. Perhaps you are a deletionist and don't like non-admins closing these discussions? If that is the case, then please just say so, and we can all save alot of time. If not... then please provide a copy of the image page records for the images you deleted which I closed, and put it in my user space so I can review them. Thanks, Jerry10:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the "haste" is just because - well, we get so many questionable fair use images, I'm just finding I can't keep up if I don't assume "shoot first, ask questions later". (see my little essay at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Fair use. As for the cases you question, let me see: as for the 2D/3D thing, I have the feeling you are mixing two things up: (1) A work of architecture in public view (in the US) can indeed be freely photographed without infringing on the copyright of the architect - but then the photographer has a copyright on the image; (2) the case referred to in {{pd-art}} states that when photographing a 2D work of art, the photographer may not establish copyright of their own, so the copyright on the photograph remains that of the creator of the original work of art. These two cases don't go together, and in neither case does the resulting photograph automatically become free for third parties. As for the Bodacea image, the uploader stated it was from a British, not US government source; unlike the Americans, the Brits do retain copyright on such images.
As for the process, I certainly don't mind non-admins helping to watch image usage, but I'd recommend to be more cautious with making edits that have the appearance of binding decisions as long as you're not absolutely certain you understand the policies well enough. Am I a deletionist? Well, I'm not of the fanatic anti-fair-use crowd, but I do believe "fair use" is a widely abused notion on WP; my estimate is that about 80% of our alleged fair-use images really aren't. Fut.Perf.☼10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks. My involvement stemmed from the new autotagging policy which seems to have been implemented sometime in late January. The system seems to have created quite a backlog. The initial templates stated the deletion review would be concluded in 4 days... when they reached the 40-day point, I realized that the issue needed more attention. I initially consulted an admin about it and asked if it would be appropriate for me to close images that met the following conditions:
Nobody expressed agreement that the image should be deleted (in other words the only delete !vote was the system autotag).
The user did express some plausible fair use criteria, or one was readily apparent to me
all of the fair use criteria of WP:FUC were met, including:
No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
The image is not used in any manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
The amount of copyrighted work used is as little as possible. (ie: A low-resolution image has been used instead of a high-resolution image, and or the image is cropped.)
The image has previously been published and this is clearly stated on the image page.
The image is encyclopedic and otherwise meets general Wikipedia content requirements.
The image meets the media-specific policy requirements.
The image is used in at least one article.
The image contributes significantly to the article(s) in which it is used
It is not used in a manner as to serve a purely decorative purpose.
The image description contains:
Proper attribution of the source of the material/ copyright holder.
An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed.
A list of articles in which fair use of the image is asserted.
I was told it would be okay for me to do so, as long as I used the correct templates, edit summaries, and made sure due diligence was followed to ensure all of the requirements are met.
I look at the image page, its talk page, the article(s) page(s) and its(their) associated talk pages(s) and only close those discussions that had no editors express concern, and obviously met the WP:FUC, in my judgement.
I can see that from what you are saying that I confused the US Government and UK Government laws; and that the drawing of the stadium does not count as a 2-d reproduction of a 3-d sculpture. These laws are rather esoteric, so it takes some experience with the various facets to learn these things, I guess.
I think that it would just be more helpful to have a discussion with an editor making a good faith effort to clear the backlog, rather than to hastily revert his efforts, and tell him to be go learn the policies. I really did try to learn the policies, you know, and there are plenty of examples of others who have closed using the 2D/3D argument, which is where I learned it.
So where should we go from here? Should I just back off and leave this to the experts, or should I continue to be bold and help clear the backlog? Jerry15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, point taken, and sorry if I sounded condescending. I guess the main point where our judgments differed was that thing about "contributing significantly" to the content of the article. I tend to interpret that far more strictly, in light of how I understand what's said at Fair use (the WP article, not the project page), and on this page: [2]. Recommended read. Fut.Perf.☼15:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and patience. I do appreciate the feedback. By the way, I look forward to someday being an admin, so your feedback, particularly on my participation in pseudo-adminish things is very helpful. Please do continue to give advice if you see I need it in the future. Thanks, Jerry22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
hi that message was not garbage i included it on the danity kane page but then later thought it would be more suited for the aubrey o day page. for proof of that story existing you can check on this website www.concreteloop.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.176.74 (talk • contribs)
Regarding Danity Kane, The edit you made says that some pictures came out (past tense) on 03APR (tomorrow). This seemed to meet the conditions for being considered a hoax. Please properly format and cite future additions to the article. Please also sign your talk page posts using 4 tilde's, ~~~~, which will append your dated wikisignature. Also it is customary to begin new threads with a header, which can be done by encapsulating your header text with double equals signs ie: ==Header Text==. Finally it is always helpful to specify the article name you are referring to by placing an internal wikilink to it in your post or in the header; editors on countervandalism recent changes patrol interact with hundreds of articles an hour. Thanks.Jerry22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
i did not vandalise the tough guy hardcore page
err i didnt vandalise it.
all i did was add the band Biohazard who are a seminal tough guy hardcore band and are a better example then Madball. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.214.9.213 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
Regarding Toughguy hardcore, actually you added an internal link to the wikipedia article Biological hazard (the medical topic). Where you did not provide an edit summary it was not possible to determine why you had added this link. Please use caution in the future to always ;provide an edit summary and to review internal links before adding them to articles. Jerry23:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Romeroadbuild.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Romeroadbuild.png. 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:
The poem is public domain because it was published before 1923 in the United States. Since U.S. copyright law places all works published before 1923 in the public domain, and Wikipedia is an international project, Wikipedia only recognizes this law when the work was originally published in the U.S. It is generally recognized that if a work is originally created in a country, and that declares that work as public domain, then all countries will also recognize that work as public domain. Thank you for trying to eliminate copyright violations, but in this case you have made a mistake. Jesse Viviano06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I still do think that the republication of a poem is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, if it does not contain any historical or critical commentary, so I intend to AfD the artticle on those grounds. I do appreciate the feedback on the copyright law as it applies to this, however. Thanks. - Jerry
Semi-automatic link addition
Hi Jerry, sorry for hacking on you again... - I reverted the links you added to Greeks. Some were doubtless good, but quite a few were, well, real howlers (funny ones, some of them). I guess that's the danger of using those semi-automatic tools. Sorry for making it a blanket revert of your whole edit, but I felt on balance it would have been quite a lot of work to identify all the bad ones in the text and removing them individually. Here's just a few that struck me as odd:
On quick scan of the article it seemed appropriate as it contained "classical elements in greece", but you're right.
"Official language" - doubtful if the concept treated in the article can be applied to pre-modern societies
I believe this link was correct. The article says its an official language, so either the article is saying something doubtful, or the link is correct, or it should be clarified what is meant if something different.
"survives in small communities in Greece, New York and Israel." - text is about "communities" in the sense of groups of people; link is about "communities" as administrative units
Interesting distinction.... kind of like distinguishing countries from their governments and populations. Seems awkward. Jerry20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I replied to your message on my talk page, although you already figured out what was happening with my edit. I expanded a bit on the project I'm working on. That's all. RobDe6800:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Coaching
I'd be glad to coach you. We can begin whenever you are ready. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Happy editing! Johann...[T...C]21:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Click remote.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Funpika23:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Coaching
Thank you for informing me. I am currently typing up the answers. I'll have them up soon. Happy editing! Johann...[T...C]03:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much Jerry.
Thank you so much Jerry for your kindness. I will certainly message you in case I need help. Thanks once again. Shaionara15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Alan Waddell
I considered it carefully at the time - while there was 5 delete votes and 3 keep votes, and the discussion had actually been allowed to run 1.5 days over due to admin backlog, the issues raised by the delete appeared to point to a deletion of the article - there were COI/AUTO concerns raised etc. My choices were to reduce the article to a stub, or to delete without prejudice against recreation, and I chose the latter. Orderinchaos02:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Jerry lavoie. I have previously expressed concern with your approach towards me. Your recent comments support this:
(1) You earlier reviewed every one of my edits, and then listed nearly 100 of them on your discussion page. (2) Your latest comment to me “I see from other comments left here .." suggests that you may be monitoring my discussion page.
(3) Making accusations “a policy that you seem to have created yourself”
These suggest stalking and harassment, and I ask you to stop.
I have did not respond immediately to this RFC as I have been very busy. I have been able to carry on with some edits to Wikipedia, but could not devote time to a debate. Your choice of words again concerns me: “..is being interpreted as a concession.” I have already noted I do not view this as some form of battle, yet your wording is one of confrontation. ThanxTheriac12:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope. I did review your edits, because what you are doing is wrong. You agreed to take the issue up at RFC. Than you did not reply or participate in the RFC. I do always read user talk pages before entering a new comment on them. I do not believe any of the above is stalking. Stalking would involve any attempt to locate you in real life or to disrupt your use and enjoyment of wikipedia. You can not continue to revert another persons edits and then refuse to discuss it. If you feel my actions are/ were unacceptable, feel free to use RFC. Jerry03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I have replied to RFC, as I have already explained there were very strong reasons I was not able to do immediately.
I have also previously noted that you actions towards me were making me feel uncomfortable: listing > 100 edits was, at the least excessive of you and unnerving to me. These feelings were enforced by your clear monitoring of my discussions pages, and your subsequent comment; especially your choice of words such as "concession". This is suggestive of a battle, which I have neither engaged in nor am interested.
I am aware that a history of my edits remain in the public domain. However just as my conversations on the daily commute are audible to others, and theirs to me, there is generally reasonable behaviour therein. Just as I would feel intimidated if all my conversations were subsequently reviewed and broadcast similar behaviour of wikipedia brings similar reaction. As I have noted listing > 100 of my edits was excessive and intimidating.
I am concerned with how you are presenting this debate: the use of words such as "unilateral", "By not discussing the issue and just doing your own thing" and "You can not continue to revert another persons edits and then refuse to discuss it." is a distortion of facts. As you participated in the debate about the external link to Wenford Bridge Pottery you know that I disagreed with it inclusion, but after discussion I agreed with the conclusion for it to remain. There are other such examples, including raku & polymer clay, where I have discussed these with other editors to reach a consensus.
There is already some consensus on the TJBailey site, and whilst I do not like to reference other editors without their consent, myself & another feel it should not be included. In crude and simple terms 2 is > than your 1.
Well, we clearly have a different way of thinking, it seems, about most things in general. My choice of words is probably attributed more to the part of the English-speaking world I am from, and not related to some ill-intentions. Please try to assume good faith. In a discussion about editing policy I do not see how a very meaningful conversation can be had without using very specific examples, and citing diffs. I always do that, and I expect it from others, so instead of saying "on several of your recent edits", I say "on the edits I have listed below". I think it makes it less likely to be interpreted incorrrectly. And instead of someone else saying "according to wikipedia policy" I always insist that they cite a specific policy, and provide a link to the exact place that I can read the policy. This is where you and I have had our difficulties, it seems. You feel intimidated when I list specific edits you have made, and you seem very much against the idea of specifically stating what policy it is that you are following. You seem rather fond of the idea of just stating that a policy is out there that supports what you are doing/ saying, and that I should just accept it, or go find it on my own. These are, indeed, incompatible idealisms. I truly believe that there are incompatible schools of thought, and that may be why our species is so prone to world war. I do not wish to wage war on you, so perhaps we should just drop the issue altogether. These external links are not nearly as important in the grand scheme of things as your happiness. So to be clear, I do think that the inclusion of external links to sites which have commercial aspects to them is acceptable and encouraged where the sites provide content that is beneficial to the reader, including images and text that are subject to copyright restrictions. This is the last communication you will receive from me, unless you respond to me on my talk page, as I do reserve the right of "last word", since this started with a revert of my edit. Jerry11:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Alan Waddell page
I received an enquiry from Jwaddell (talk·contribs) regarding the Alan Waddell page, and have let the user know about the subpage. If you could liaise with them about it, that would be fantastic. Orderinchaos08:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You stated that I considered it a "great school". I never stated that, and the main reason here is not that it's a "great school". It requires information, the information before was just copied and pasted from some review site, it was bland and not informative at all.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbxg32000 (talk • contribs)
fool
i've never editted anything on wiki so don't send me messages saying I did, you clown.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.20.244 (talk • contribs)
Assuming good faith, I imagine you are just confused about a message you received because somebody else using your same IP Address had vandalized wikipedia. You can avoid receiving such anonymous messages if you create an account and log-in. Jerry03:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:OnePieceLPno9.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:OnePieceLPno9.gif. 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. BigrTex14:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Mother's Day
Hi, Jerry. I can't even begin to understand why you reverted my removal of "Mother's Day in Other Languages" from the Mother's Day article. Wikipedia is not a translation service; translations of article subjects are not something we include as a matter of course. Is there something about Mother's Day that makes its translations notable? PowersT02:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an international resource; the holiday is celebrated in many countries. The section did not provide all possible translations, only the names of the holiday in countries where it is celebrated. Wikipedia is not a translation service, true, people can not post content and ask for a translation. Also, we do not provide arbitrary translations of article content. But where the article is about all global holidays honoring mothers, it is appropriate to provide the names of such holidays in the correct languages. Jerry23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, then shouldn't it be "Mother's Day in Other Countries" or "Mother's Day in Other Societies"? That would make it encyclopedic. Translations are for dictionaries. PowersT01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the section title could be improved. But deleting the content was not the right course of action, in my opinion. Jerry02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:EastHillsMschool.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:EastHillsMschool.png. 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. BetacommandBot20:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:ClarkLogo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:ClarkLogo.png. 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. BetacommandBot04:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jerry. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Rocky horror lips.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Jerry/Userboxes. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk08:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jerry. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Bedford Town Seal.png) was found at the following location: User:Jerry/Personal. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk05:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jerry. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Help Indexer.png) was found at the following location: User talk:Jerry. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jerry. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Help Indexer.png) was found at the following location: User:Jerry/Userboxes. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jerry. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Help Indexer.png) was found at the following location: User:Jerry/Navbar. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jerry. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Help Indexer.png) was found at the following location: User:Jerry/Sandbox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk07:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jerry. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Hush.JPG) was found at the following location: User talk:Jerry/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk08:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Jerry. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Lewiston.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Jerry/Personal. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk18:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Jerry, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Nucor logo.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Jerry/Personal. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk02:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Chinese pie / Pâté chinois
I've been forced to remove the "comments" (for lack of a better word) you added to Pâté chinois about Poirier's hypothesis. Without a citation (and I can find one for Poirier easily, since he's been my teacher in History of Quebec French), it is nothing more than Original research. Circeus21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
You were not "forced" to do anything. You made a choice to do something. Please embrace your freedom of choice and acknowledge that you made a conscious decision to do something. If there is no better word than the one you choose, there is no reason to parenthetically state that there is no better word. Jerry17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
monobook.js
I see that you've copied the scripts that I'm using in my monobook.js to your monobook.js. I'm glad that you like my scripts; however, I'd advise you to remove sandbox.js from the list (it's what I use to test new scripts, so if you're including it it could cause your browser to crash at random if it turns out that there is a mistake in the script after all, which normally happens), and I'll point out that formatedit.js and autotag.js are nonportable and unmaintained, and I don't think they still work. You might want to check out WikiProject User scripts' script repository for more scripts, including the vast range of scripts written by users other than me :). Hope that helps! --ais523 11:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I've used my admin powers to fix your scripts page (hope you don't mind; it seemed reasonable given your reply); bypass your cache (Ctrl-F5 on Firefox and Internet Explorer for Windows), and hopefully all the features you've mentioned should still work without the risk of a slipup on my part causing your account to crash. If I've removed something that you were using, or made a mistake, either revert my edit myself, or let me know and I'll try to fix it. --ais523 07:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Small cleanup icon
I noticed your comments over on Why tags are evil from some time ago. I thought you might be interested in a new, unobtrusive clean-up icon created by User:Notmyhandle, which I think would be another good step in the same spirit as that taken by the small sp icon that has become so prominent, such as on White House. You can take a look at the new, smaller, cleanup icon here, and if you like what you see, please leave a comment here. I think that tags, though they serve some purpose, have really become visual pollution, and we need more of these smaller icons. Cheers. Unschool07:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm
Skinheads are fags in denial. First off "[1] Aristotle noted differences between Greeks and the people of the north ( blond hair, blue eyes ), believing that Greek superiority was visible in their medium skin tone, as opposed to pale northerners and dark Africans. Aristotle claimed that blue eyes were a sign of a cowardly nature." The most "Aryan" people are the Tibetans. So get your info right before you start hating the human race. Yes, that's right one race, the human race. Idiots.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.91.202 (talk • contribs)
The script should only be capable of finding changes in your own watchlist; if it's getting someone else's, that would be a security flaw. Try bypassing your cache, and if the problem persists, you can disable it by deleting the following line in Special:Mypage/monobook.js and bypassing your cache:
As for hiding the 'edit' tab for anons, that's possible and quite easy, but not the best way to do it (it wouldn't hide section edit links, and anons could still change pages by putting ?action=edit on the end of the URL). If you don't want anons to be able to edit a (non-Wikimedia but MediaWiki) wiki, ask a developer on that wiki to change the configuration to remove the 'edit' permission from group '*'.
Hope that helps! --ais523 14:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note about changing the editor's index. No, I don't mind at all if other editors make improvements, in fact, I appreciate it. (I'm going to move this to Wikipedia namespace in the near future; there isn't any particular reason for me to "own" it much longer, since it's pretty close to being as finished as an index to Wikipedia could be.) -- John Broughton(♫♫)12:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Me again, another userscript question
This appears to be a browser incompatability that was previously aware of. CSCWEM's name is highlighted correctly on Firefox but not on Internet Explorer for some reason when I tested it; I haven't looked into the matter too closely. (The URLencoding in the admin list is deliberate.) --ais523 09:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Theriac
Just saw your message on Theriac's talk page. Being a sock certainly would explain why he -as a new user- diving into WP:EL with such fervor. However, since Theriac has only had one edit since April (when we all had a our collective run-in with him), I doubt he will respond to the WP:SOCK claim. Regardless, drop me a line if you need me to relate any of my experiences with Theriac in a WP:SUSPSOCK. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
you have claimed that "Based on your edit history and pattern of perpetually removing external links from articles with no regard for concensus, I believe that you are a sockpuppet of User:AndyAndyAndy. Please comment if you believe that I have this wrong."
well not only do I believe you have this wrong but I know you have it wrong. making accusations based on little evidence leaves one open to making mistakes, for example based on your edit history (priapism) others could suggest you have sexual problems and use wikipedia to throw throw accusations around in order to rid yourself of frustations. but I would not make any conclusions based on edit history, perhaps this is something you would consider in the futre.
Please sign your posts. Sentences start with a capital letter. Review the use of the comma to separate lists. And "future" is not spelled "futre". Lastly, your argument about my edits to Priapism being suggestive of me having a sexual problem, and this leading to inappropriate behavior on wikipedia is frankly bizarre and childish, and weasel-worded. Jerry00:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
before correcting someone else s spelling at least get your own correct (see "belive" and "capitol") my use of "childish" behaviour was very delibrate - it was to illustrate how the use of edit histories can be misleading.
<tab reset>
Fair point, but I still think your strength of argument was low. The evidence supporting my claim is more than a mere glance at edit history. I will bullet my points below:
Let's Take User:AndyAndyAndy
Here we have a user who writes in UK English and almost exclusively edits articles on art pottery.
This users edits come in bursts of weeks or so at a time high editing, followed by periods of near idleness, seeming to indicate periods of business travel or other disturbances to the individual's schedule.
This individual's edit summaries are arrogant. Claiming self to be expert in the subject matter and degrading the edit he/she is reverting, at times.
The user has a serious disaffection for external links to sites which he/she feels are commercial, spam, or "noncompling".
This individual repetetively reverts editors who re-add the links, and does not participate in discussions on the relevant article talk pages.
Now let's look at the edit histories of the Anonymous IP's.
Very few edits outside of pottery articles.
Most articles have been previously edited by Theriac.
Reverts re-adds of same external links which were previosuly wheel-war edited by Theriac.
So I think there is sufficient evidence for concern. Notice that I did not file a SockPuppet Investigation request, but rather asked for discussion from the user accounts whom I suspect are involved. If a reasonable explanation can be provided, I am open to hear it. But a childish accusation of sexual deviancy due to my edits doesn't really dissuade me. Jerry13:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
i will not bother to provide "a reasonable explanation" to you, as to be blunt why should i? and before accusing others of being arrogant it is you who needs to moderate their behaviour - i was under the impression that wikipedia was open source & welcomed input, and yet you have been aggressive in confronting me. additionally i have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in a point-by-point analysis of either my edits or others - though weakness causes me to ask if others have been so prolific in editting "art pottery" articles where are those corresponding ones of mine? also that you include my apparent use of UK english as some form of "evidence" is frankly bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.126.159 (talk • contribs)
<reply out of sequence>Actually, I never said that you use UK English. Go back and read it again. I said that two other users use UK English. You have said that you are not those users, so why take offense? Methinks you're giving yourself away. Jerry23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
i investigated what "sock puppets were, and learnt they are people who create new online identities. having not bothered to register on wikipedia (and with a welcome such as this i can not see me doing so) how can i be accused on adopting different personnas?
finally perhaps my reference to your edits on priapism was too subtle, I was not suggesting that this was a condition of which you suffered but used it to illustrate that it is possible to make misinterpretations based on someone's edit history.
I guess I managed to be unclear. I am concerned that a wikipedia user has circumvented wikipedia policy by using alternate accounts and anonymous accounts to continue edits that are contrary to concensus. At least one of the accounts I listed has been CONFIRMED of being a sockpuppet through an official investigation. Since you made edits consistent with this user, it was cause to inquire about it. If you are willing to discuss this in a civil and adult fashion, then I am willing to listen. If not, a WP:SUSPSOCK may have to be filed. Jerry21:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
i know nothing of any concensus
i know nothing of any CONFIRMED official investigation, & is this an open source encyclopedia or the house of unamerican activities?
And regarding "willing to listen" and "civil and adult fashion" -
i noted earlier that you were mistaken with your assumptions. you just ignored this. so how can you be "willing to listen"
why should i engage you in further discussions? do you own or control this website?
it was you that started being confrontational with your aggresive behaviour
I regret that you are having such a difficult time with this process. It has become apparent to me that further discussion on this page will not yield worthwhile results. I invite you to stop replying here. Obviously, since this is my user account talk page, I can't really ignore this page, so unfortunately this will have the effect of me having the last word, as it would seem. While that is not my intention, I suppose it's okay. Jerry23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Huffines.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigrTex20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Brent Taylor (American politician), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Charlene20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ArborCreekMS.png. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, I have tagged it for speedy deletion under criteria 'db-author'. Jerry17:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair use disputed for Image:CAPDhacker.png
Thanks for uploading Image:CAPDhacker.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Just now this picture was posted on reddit. [5] Various people indicate that the image is not from 1884, as there are background objects from the 1970's. Personally checking the source, this image is from 1977, while the building itself is from 1884. I am about to change the source info for you, but please check and update the info yourself. - Zero1328Talk?02:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I have nominated it for speedy deletion under db-author, because it obviously does not meet 'pd-old' free use criteria. Thanks for letting me know. Jerry21:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I was expecting that you'd look further into the site and find the real source, but either way I don't know on whether the image may have been a good image for the article itself. It may have been from the Library of Congress, but I didn't want to look for it. - Zero1328Talk?07:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair use disputed for Image:SavoyMagazineLondon.png
Thanks for uploading Image:SavoyMagazineLondon.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:SurgeonsWife.png
Thanks for uploading Image:SurgeonsWife.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thank you for notifying me. I have removed your disputed fair use template and added a fair use rationale template. Jerry16:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MinesOfSulphur.png
Thanks for uploading Image:MinesOfSulphur.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thank you for notifying me. I have removed your disputed fair use template and added a fair use rationale template. Jerry22:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kbhslogo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Kbhslogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Hiya Jerry. Saw the edit to soggy biscuit and thought heck that must be my old Jerrykins. I'd love to catch up about and gas about those special times on the Bainbridge, you taught me so much. Love to met up and maybe reinact the passion!!!! Please drop me a message at "budmacdonald at gmail dot com" (gotta be careful of those spammers!) Big kiss for being so gently with me on my first time. Bud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.95.131 (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be a spoof/hoax message. There was no Bud MacDonald that I recall on the Bainbridge when I was there, and I never played soggy biscuit. I don't know what first time you're referring-to where I was apparently so gentle, either. BTW The gmail address listed comes back as "550 5.1.1 No such user (hash code)". Jerry20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What gives Jerry? I can not believe you have forgotten me? This really hurts cos you were my first. You were the first man that I let make love to me. You have a special place in my memories as you were so gentle with me as a rookie. It was only later that it got rough - I let you play hard as you liked it that way even but it hurt. I can only guess you have come under pressure to deny yourself, I remember you were pressurised to deny your sexuality. Please contact me, Bud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.221.140 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)corrected by Jerry
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:StankoBook.png
Thanks for uploading Image:StankoBook.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Radford HS Hawaii.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Radford HS Hawaii.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Coppa Ciano.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Coppa Ciano.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Click remote.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Click remote.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
I see I had omitted the article name when I added the non-free use template. This has been corrected now, and I removed your concern template. Thanks for informing me. JERRYtalkcontribs18:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cumberlandhsnsw.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Cumberlandhsnsw.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Click remote.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot14:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The image had been removed from its article by recent vandalism; I have corrected the problem and removed your orphan tag. Thanks for informing me. JERRYtalkcontribs01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NormalLife.png
Thanks for uploading Image:NormalLife.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MorTaxRemains.png
Thanks for uploading Image:MorTaxRemains.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LPHS logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:LPHS logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Palacetheatrelogo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Palacetheatrelogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
Hi, thank you for you opinion, but it absolutely was in the obituary section of the New York Times (I still have the paper). Not an advertisement, 99% of all the obituaries are paid for, so that is the reason it says "paid notice", published march 28, 2004. All obituaries for the past few hundred years are always paid for in all mainstream papers (unless some special editorial)! It was never in the classified ad section, with items for sale. That would be very bizarre for an obituary!
Plus, I am only using it as a citation for the date of death, not to sell anything. I think the New York Times is a very reliable source. You state "classified ad (advertisement)", that is normally associated with selling an item. Nowhere on the New York Times page does it state paid advertisement. It was absolutely in the obituaries section, but that is a “notice”, not an advertisement.
Thousands of people around the world enjoyed his music while he was alive and his style of playing is very unique. I think the obituary of any person is sacred. There are hundreds of thousands of pages on wiki that need major help. I can’t understand what your motivations are in trying to do something destructive instead of something constructive. I have created and helped edit hundreds of pages on wiki, not sure what you have against a dead persons obituary, but I think it is very strange. We could have both be spending our time improving wiki, instead of wasting time arguing about this.
According to Dictionary.com an obituary is “a notice of the death of a person”. That is exactly what it is. It establishes the date of death. If this is not acceptable, then we have to delete literally thousands of pages on Wiki. As an author, I can tell you that most authors rely very heavily on obituary from the New York Times.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I am very saddened and disappointed to see you use the phrase "I can’t understand what your motivations are in trying to do something destructive instead of something constructive." Please read WP:AGF. Then please review my contributions and decide if your statement was fair and/ or called-for. It is very unpleasant for me to put my effort in toward improving this project and making earnest efforts to be civil and read a comment like yours. As for the rest of your comments, I no longer wich to discuss this issue with you. I will just agree to not edit the article in question and leave this up to the other editors. JERRYtalkcontribs22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Re: user removed sock banner
I did notice the removal - actually, like you pointed out, he moved it with everything else to his archive page. For the time being, I am not too worried about it. The user has seen the banner, and it's still on his archive page (which is still in the sockpuppet category). I'm not sure about the rule(s) governing the removal of the sockpuppet banner. WP:SSP is more specific in this regard, but that is a more formal process with its own set of banners (and I didn't file this as an SSP case). At the same time, there is a possibly relevant guideline at WP:UP#CMT and, less officially, WP:DRC. -- Gyrofrog (talk)18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ThamesHSlogo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:ThamesHSlogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
This is really not understood. I will assume good faith, and not accuse you of vandalism or trolling, but I really can't make out what you are trying to communicate. Peace and happy editing. JERRYtalkcontribs16:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Admin
Hi. I just wondered if you'd consider letting me nominate you for adminship, as you seem experienced enough. Thanks. Epbr12310:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank-you for the compliment. There was a time last year when I became extremely interested in adminship. I was enrolled in the admin coaching program, in fact. I had a very disrupting health problem (cancer) come up which made my use of wikipedia very sporadic and difficult for several months, however, so I withdrew from the program. In the past 3 months I have been doing very well, healthwise, and I am again able to spend more time in wikipedia editing and patrolling, so I am indeed interested once again in adminship. One concern I have, however, is the perception that others will have of my former activity level and my period of idleness, followed by my now lower contribution level. I do what I can now, which I think is very beneficial, and I do see times where the mop tools would come in handy to repair messes like improper page moves, forgotten tags, etc. So if you feel I am a worthy candidate, I would be honored to be nominated. JERRYtalkcontribs16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Epbr123 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Epbr123 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jerry. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I declined the speedy. "very small" by itself is not a reason for speedy. Please tag only according to WP:CSD. Forthis one, give it time to expand, and if it isn't, then use AfD. DGG (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I was tagging it as A1/A3, for little content and no context for expansion, but I realize where it is contested it is better to let the article some time to grow, and perhaps consider it for AFD later. Thanks, JERRYtalkcontribs04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Scott Waddle
Thanks. I scrolled over the link on the Main Page, and popups said it was 24KB long. I clicked it, and I found ~2KB of text. I couldn't let it stand the way it was. :-) Nishkid64 (talk)04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
If you continue working on Russia-related topics, I guarantee we'll bump into one another again :) It's been a pleasure working with you, too. If you ever have a question you feel I'd be able to answer, don't hesitate to let me know. Take care,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Real96 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
J O R D A N [talk ] 15:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
J O R D A N [talk ] 10:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
-2007-05-14T08:27:00.000Z-Image:Rocky_horror_lips.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-15T05:57:00.000Z-Image:Bedford_Town_Seal.png){kind=link}
-2007-05-16T07:33:00.000Z-Image:Help_Indexer.png){kind=link}
-2007-05-16T08:25:00.000Z-Image:Hush.JPG){kind=link}
-2007-05-16T18:05:00.000Z-Image:Lewiston.jpg){kind=link}
-2007-05-17T02:53:00.000Z-Image:Nucor_logo.JPG){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading Image:ArborCreekMS.png. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
