User talk:Jersey Devil/Archive 1

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 22, 2005 and March 12 2006.

Damn, still learning how to use this thing.--Jersey Devil 00:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Speak! Damn you wikipedians, I haven't had one comment yet. I order you to speak! Do not disobey your czar! Jersey Devil 18:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

This is Rangeley from BoR, proving it is a depressingly small internet. Rangeley 18:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi man, you still in high school? IIRC you are in you should be in your last year right??? Anyway, check out U-P every once and a while. Jersey Devil 03:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently your email is blocked. I can't email you.

Anyway, I don't care if you did it or not, though Lib tells me it was kylie that did it. I just think that you need to take a gigantic metal dildo, and fuck yourself up the ass for 4 whole days.

And by the way, you are not a centrist, nor will you ever be. You claiming otherwise does not make it so. Accept your orientation, liberal.

User:ro4444 21:22, 9 September 2005 (EST)

Yes...because a fascist s telling me that I am a "liberal" really offends me *rollseyes*. Why did you leave U-P anyway, there is a British clone of you named "Ryan Lian" taking up your trolling duties. Jersey Devil 20:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL. Typical of you Y2A, to label anyone to the right of Jon Stewart as a fascist. I also enjoy how you have a tendency to put words into people's mouths; I have never said that anyone who smokes tobacco should be stoned to death, at least seriously. And Ryan Liam is your intellectual superior; ympathizer, who thinks anyone who smokes tobacco should be stoned to death,I'd reder to him with more respect if I were you. User:ro4444 23:07, 10 September 2005 (EST)

PS Massachusetts and Boston pwn New Jersey (aka New York's landfill) and Newark.

obeys drug czar*

ro4444 has not told you people who do not know him, but he actually became a woman. I saw for myself, and he is just as hideous now as he was as a man! 168.18.147.68 02:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holloway

u said in the Natalee Holloway article.. Who gives a shit about this bitch? .....seriously Jersey Devil 02:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)..., while the media attention is a bit much, it is by no means her fault, she does not deserve to be called a bitch, this is not appropriate to be discussing on a talk page, and im sure that if you were missing most likely raped and murdered, i dont think that you would mind the media attention and i also dont think that you would want to be called a bitch. Mac Domhnaill 00:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivian presidential election, 2005

Thanks for creating Bolivian presidential election, 2005. It seems to have taken off. Hopefully once the results come in, we can get them on there. I don't know where exactly on the internet official results would appear, however. Possibely here? --Descendall 00:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your article just made the front page. --Descendall 13:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Rutgers student

Wassup Jersey Devil...

Just thought I would greet a fellow wikipedian that attends Rutgers. Would also like to congratuate you on your Bolivia Presidential election article. --dirtyliberal 21:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Legislature

Thanks for noticing all (or perhaps some) of the New Jersey Legislature-related edits! I've been devoting a great deal of time to ensure that each and every State Senator and Assembly member page has been created and updated and that each municipality reflects its elected representatives at the federal, state and county level (plus local, where availability and patience allow). That's what Wikiproject New Jersey is all about! Alansohn 19:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ollanta Humala

Hi Jersey Devil, I am Gonzalo and I am Peruvian. I saw what you wrote in the spanish article about this guy and I can tell you that his life before 2000 is not known. The few things we now about him is that he studied in a Chinese school in Lima and was a soccer player (he quit because he sucked) and then was member of the Peruvian Army.

Well, personally I dislike him completely , as many peruvians I support Lourdes Flores Nano (she is the best candidate but is in second place). Ollanta Humala is an "anti-sistema" and admires Juan Velasco Alvarado (the worst President ever) and Hugo Chávez. Well, that's it. Take care and say hi to all Peruvians there in the USA!. Bye . --Gonzalo (AvLa!) 22:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political Parties of Peru

Hello there! Thanks for your help in the article. if you can, take a look at the one in Spanish Wikipedia and try to give an accurate statement in the dispute. Cheers! Messhermit 17:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Chávez

You edited Martha Chávez to say that her party is Cambio 90. However, I'm not sure that's the case. I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that Cambio 90 doesn't exist anymore. Even the article uses the past tense. I know that Chávez's official political party for the 2006 presidential race is Alizana para el Futuro, but I think that might have just been made up out of thin air after the JNE kicked Si Cumple off the ballot. I'm not sure if either Alianza or Si Cumple are parties in the Congress. Could you clarify this for me? Thanks. --Descendall 05:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out her page and it says Cambio 90, so I guess it still does exist. I have no idea when that thing was updated, though. I imagine that I'm not the only one who has a hard time keeping track of the ever-changing political alliances of Peru. --Descendall 05:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated 1st Barnstar

On behalf of the Wikipedia community, this Exceptional Newcomer Award is hereby presented to Jersey Devil for exemplary contributions to Latin America related articles, in particular for the addition of a list of graduates from the School of the Americas article, and for displaying exceptional enthusiasm, skill, and boldness beyond your experience. Keep up the great work! Ombudsman 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jersey Devil is a Rangers fan?

Your user page shows so much beautiful Jersey pride until that vile R*ngers logo on the bottom. For shame. -- D.M. ^(talk) 14:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Guerrini

I'm just curious. Did you just follow my listing of Driving rock movement because that was the next article I was going to list for deletion? =)

SpinnWebe page deletion

Not that it matters at this point, but just wanted to point out that the page was not made by me, as I take the "don't create pages about yourself" wiki rule to heart. I did expand on it, but wasn't the primary contributor to it. (I am the only SpinnWebe webmaster.) Unfortunately I didn't see this until someone just pointed out to me that it'd been deleted already. --Spinn 19:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the "recreation of deleted material" but when I went to the site it did not say that it had been deleted ... it just said that no article existed (and I knew one did, so I looked it up in my webcache and replaced it). I didn't see any link to a mention of a vote for deletion.JohnRussell 17:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpinnWebe removal of speedy delete notice

Just to let you know, I have reverted your removal of the speedy template again, citing the following from the box itself:

If you disagree with its speedy deletion, please explain why on its talk page or at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.

As you can see here, the article has been improved since its restoration. I also doubt that Spinn has recruited people. The site does, however, have a following, and the article likely was on several people's watch-lists before being AFD'd, and then surprisingly reappeared on our watchlists after a user created an entirely new article about the same subject.

This is not "sinking so low" - this is the way Wikipedia works, and it appears there is consensus that the SpinnWebe article should stay. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spinnwebe

If an article is recreated even after an AFD decided to delete it, it can be tagged as a speedy deletion candidate. Check out WP:CSD, it is rule 4 under "General". Or notify the admin that closed the AFD on his talk page. ;-) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 00:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I came here via your comment on Terenceong1992's talk age.

P.P.S. I'm surprised and sad that no one welcomed you for four months... so for completeness' sake, a belated welcome template follows:

Welcome!

Hello, Jersey Devil/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinnwebe AfD

With regards to your "Strong Delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpinnWebe - can you please address the question of why Spinnwebe does not meet criteria 1 of WP:WEB? Per WP:WEB this alone merits its inclusion, regardless of the previous AfD vote which did not take this criteria into account or what you think of the various editors weighing in and their motivations. I find the wording of your criticism to be not very accepting of good faith.

I can assert that the site was a popularly trafficked site 10 years ago on the web, in addition to the various reviews and articles cited within the article and AfD page showing non-trivial media mentions. I think it's established that it's notable. In addition, the article is detailed and not "web directory" or advertising material. It clearly describes a (once very popular, now slightly popular) site with a long history. Do you have any counter-argument to that? KWH 08:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support (spinnwebe afd)

Comment Cdcon got it exactly right. As I stated, the Wired article mentions Spinnwebe solely in the context of the DFC. The role of Spinnwebe on DFC is already mentioned in the DFC article. On it's own merits, Spinnwebe alone does not warrant an article. This no longer has anything to do with the process of deletion.--Jersey Devil 20:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I've been involved in a few tough AfD disputes the past few days, it's good to know someone here who can discern between reason and emotion. Cdcon 21:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your facts

You've made a number of verifiably false statements or taken actions against Wikipedia policy in your AfD votes/Speedy delete statements recently. For example:

Delete vote for Homersexual as "Vandalism": was most probably a simple mistake that was corrected
Original Spinnwebe AfD, "The entire page was made by webmasters at the website": false, verifiable by page history (as it existed at the time, it was created by User:SchuminWeb; with no apparent knowledge of who the webmasters of SpinnWebe were, as there is in fact only one, you did not verify your claim before the AfD)
"by the way, User:Zompist put up his own site in another Wikipedia page Zompist.com": false, verifiable by page history
replacing of {{holdon}} templates after they're no longer needed [1]: these are temporary tags meant to be removed by the author once he is finished typing a response and their removal is required
AfD for Mirsky's Worst of the Web as "nn and vanity": not "vanity" in the sense described in the Wikipedia definition, and a quick Google search suggests enough history, and shows at least two mentions in reputable publications, to indicate the page should have been marked for {{cleanup-rewrite}} instead of deletion
telling users not to delete speedy delete template: the template says "If this page obviously does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice", so simply the intent to fix the page is enough to remove the template
marking Concerned for deletion despite its notability due to appearances in several print gamer magazines and a number of notable websites, which can be determined with simple web searching; the article may lack these references, but this is cause for rewrites and additions, not a full deletion
various accusations of vote stacking, vote rallying, "sinking so low as to remove the speedy delete template", etc.: arguably not easily verifiable, but making these claims without compelling evidence is contrary to assuming good faith

Of course it is good to be bold, but please verify your claims and be clear of Wikipedia guidelines before making strenuous arguments that are contrary to existing policies or information. --Notmydesk 22:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to go over all of those but to be short Homersexual was vandalism, it was a huge picture of Homer Simpson and was deleted and the term Homersexual was redirected. As for removing the Speedy Deletion tag, it had nothing to do with reviving the page to make it notable. The person (Schuminweb) made no changes to the article after he took it off. Which leads any rational person to believe that it was taken off in order to avoid an admin from coming in to delete it on sight. I was in my right to put up that speedy deletion tag and even Spinn acknowledges that because the article that was put up was the exact same article that had been deleted via afd and the speedy deletion critera allows for one to delete recreated material. The vote stacking 'accusation' was proven correct by Ruby on the afd for Spinnwebe and can be seen on Schuminweb's user contributions and I am not the first person to 'accuse' him of that. Also, I don't appreciate remarks like 'tell ya..kids these days'. It violates Wikipedia:Civility. Lastly, I am done with putting afd's in Spinnwebe related pages. I see that if I do that all I get is a large amounts of the same people voting keep and telling their friends to vote keep via web forums. It causes to much trouble, keeps me away from editting articles that I actually want to edit, and in the end the meatpuppetry and vote stacking used to get keep votes wins and articles that shouldn't be on wikipedia (like the Zompist and Mark Rosenfelder article) get kept--Jersey Devil 22:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is a reason to revert, not delete. Uness the article somehow detracts from Wikipedia in general, but my research showed me there was once an entry for Homersexual which I would agree should be merged into the article it was merged into. Even if I'm wrong, someone asked why you said "vandalism" and you didn't elaborate...much like people have asked you specific questions to explain your reasoning, which you've been ignoring.

I don't understand why you keep ignoring changes made to the SpinnWebe article. At the time User:SchuminWeb removed the speedy delete template, the article had been brought into compliance with WP:WEB. Whether you agree with that or not, you keep saying it was identical to the originally deleted article, which is was clearly and verifiably not. Schumin himself didn't make any changes, but I fail to see how this is material, because the WP:WEB additions had already been done. And as notmydesk says, the intent to fix is already good enough to remove it, according to the very template you posted.

I also don't understand how Schumin leaving a message for parties that commented in the speedy delete page constitutes vote stacking; if he was really trying to do something untoward, why not contact people directly outside of Wikipedia so as to avoid the accusation altogether? Or at least he could just contact me, since my address is easily available, and you've already accused me of my own vote stacking, so it should make sense to you that he wouldn't have to use Wikipedia at all to do the sneaky things you're accusing him of.

And notmydesk's comment: yeah, so what. Two wrongs don't make a right, true, but you've caused a lot of frustration with your accusations recently, and he let some steam out. I did too on that same page, unfortunately, but I deleted it; you can check that too. But really, I'm just tired of the innuendo and accusation, and I lost my cool for one edit. But on the other hand, you seem to have been accusatory with nearly every statement, and it's wearing me down and souring a number of new people to Wikipedia in general.

And, P.S.: while I was entering this, I got an edit conflict, and I see you've made yet another accusation that there's some rallying going on, rather than a group of friends who are making valid and cogent points about their positions. I'm...okay, I'm sorry, but could you please stop this. Your constant accusations of people who are acting in good faith is really pushing me to want to curse my fool head off, which I know will not help my position, but...your constant accusations are putting me and my friends off our interest in Wikipedia as any kind of useful store of information. Can there possibly be any stronger Anti-Wikipedia position than that? --Spinn 22:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire Homersexual article was vandalism. It was created as vandalism. It was a huge picture of Homer Simpson. The decision there was to redirect the actual term "Homersexual" to the list of phrases of the Simpsons, not to keep that article (the article as it was, was deleted). Lastly, like I said, you win. I'm not going to put up afd's on Spinnwebe related articles anymore. I see that it is pointless because what I said happens always does (see the multiple afd's for Zompist and the Mark Rosenfelder page). Any further comments about this incident on this page will be deleted by myself as I am no longer going to take part in the discussion about your website's afd.--Jersey Devil 23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the "kids these days" comment -- it was honestly an attempt to portray myself as an old coot, and not a dig at you, but looking at it from your point of view I can definitely see why that would bother you. I am sorry; I should not have said it and now wish I hadn't. Still, I keep seeing myself unfairly referred to as a "meatpuppet" by people who have been here longer and have had more experience with Wikipedia than I, so I don't feel as if I was terribly out of line by comparison. For my part, I have not encouraged anyone to vote on an article's deletion via a web forum or by any other means, nor have I been encouraged to vote myself by any post in a web forum. I am simply doing what you are, exercising my right to contribute. You might take a moment to consider that if you propose something for deletion, and it is ultimately voted to be kept, this is not necessarily evidence of vote-stacking or conspiracy against you, but could simply be an indication that the article should in fact not be deleted. Take a look at Mirsky's AfD page and consider that, quite possibly, you may have been wrong.--Notmydesk 23:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Concerned article is likely to be kept by afd. The alexa ranking is making me consider changing my vote, if print publications mentioning the notablity of Concerned are linked to the afd I'll change my vote, until that happens I'll leave my vote as is. With that said, I've already said that I am taking myself out of this larger dispute about Spinnwebe and Spinnwebe related pages. I ask that talk concerning it stop on my talk page. If it continues, I'll delete it.--Jersey Devil 23:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You owe me

You owe me a apology for claiming i am soapboxing! I take great offense in that! --Striver 11:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Striver

Was s/he reported for cussing out another editor as shown here...I mean, with that edit and the level of disruption elsewhere, an Rfc may be in order at the very minimum.--MONGO 13:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It;s under close supervision...there is nothing but hate in this editors posts, hardly contributing to a positive experience for thaose wishing to write an encyclopedia. I won't issue a block for an edit that is now 10 days old, but it will be useful as evidence shoulkd the current bahvior pattern persist, which is a guarantee. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.--MONGO 19:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like two, unless that 152 IP account is his also.--MONGO 19:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We had an RFC for Striver. He stayed chastened for a week or so before reverting to his usual truculent behavior. I'm the one who usually ends up butting heads with him and I'm the supposed "bigot" that temporarily drove him off WP. I can't say that I've done all that well at keeping my temper with Striver, but I try to remain fair even when sorely tried. He provokes controversy by his own behavior, but discounts any criticism as hatred of the Shi'a. Zora 02:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's about done here...see my latest comment [2]...no need to chime in there, I will handle this...arbitration or just a complete banning invoking WP:IAR is imminent--MONGO 23:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have no problem with going for another rfc, or even ArbCom, im confident that i can stand my ground. I would not advice MONGO or any other admin that is involved in pages i edit, ie: is personaly involved in the matter, to block me. That would be abusing admin power and a reason to losing them. As for cursin Zora, i thought that was my last words on Wikipedia, after doing i vowed to not address her again, and intent to continue doing that, and then deleted my userpage and talk page. Further, i know you hate me. That ok, i have people that love me. The reason i returned to Wikipedia is that people urged me to get back. And by the way, most of your afd crusading against the 9/11 Truth movement articles seems to not going so well. --Striver 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that it is vandalism to remove information on bad grounds. Read yourself:

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. WP:VAND

The speedie delete tags i removed was a totaly legit action, the articles should have been AFD, it was bad faith edit to speedie them. As for cursing Zora, i have explained it, it wasnt wise, i snaped. I snaped so hard that i put speedie tags on my talk and main page, and didnt edit for almost a week. --Striver 02:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those watching this thread, the speedy deletion tag that Striver removed was removed wrongly because the material had previously been deleted. Recreation of deleted material warrants a speedy deletion tag (number 4 on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion). I would also ask you to look at how he laughs about how the wikipedia commmunity is unable to stop him "I have no problem with going for another rfc, or even ArbCom,". Is this what we want? Someone going around rampantly creating articles that are shot down by majority delete afd's laughing at the process because he survived it before. This user needs to be banned, not just blocked, he was already blocked before and conned his way out of it by promising good behavior. If you have any respect what so ever for Wikipedia you would ask Wikipedia admins to ban this poster who runs around telling people that the process isn't able to get rid of him.--Jersey Devil 02:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked once as a new fresh beginner since i didnt knew of the 3rr, my block was undone after a e-mail explaining that. Also, having something deleted does not mean it should never be recreated. I did, somebody didnt agree, we went for AFD, just as i is supposed to be. Laughs? Im not laughing, just stating that i feel confident i can state my case there. I dont appreciate the smear campaing against me, for that is what is going on. --Striver 02:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your comment about IP vandals

On your user page you say Many of the people who vandalize are IP's. There should be a rule where you have to register to edit an article. I see no argument in favor of it. Am I correct in reading that as you see no reason in favor of the rule mentioned? Bubba73 (talk), 03:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No (but I can see how you made that mistake), I meant that I see no argument in favor of keeping IPs from editing..--Jersey Devil 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I understand it now, because I agree 100%. In fact, I would go farther. I want to require users to register and read a policy statement on vandalism and agree to it. I know people will still vandalize, but I think it would help. Bubba73 (talk), 04:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver - Wikibombing?

Just coined the term (i think). If you're familiar with wikibombing (where sites link to each other to try to boost their PageRank), this is exactly what Striver is attempting to do. Feel free to use the term, I feel it captures well the intent behind the rash of nn article creations. --Mmx1 04:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why whould i like to do that? I have no intrest in any site, what site am i promoting by execive linking to, if i may ask? --Striver 05:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them, but most of them are attempting to boost the notability of the individuals involved in your POV tag on September 11, 2001 attacks --Mmx1 05:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a long-time Striver observer, I think he just likes creating articles. He was creating ten a day, average, when he was more involved in the Islam-related articles. He doesn't seem to feel the need to fill them with anything substantive.

I sorta feel for the guy. I think I have something of the same need-to-feel-helpful-and-needed motivation, and perhaps the same tone-deafness in dealing with people (Asperger's syndrome), just not so badly. Zora 05:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, what is wrong with creating articles that report on their notability? Of course they dont have any if they arent reported, i dont get how it is wrong to report on their acheivments. You seem to imply that it is wrong to do anyting that shows their notability. Also, is that only wrong for 9/11 activist, or is it wrong for Bush? Why dont you go delete some of the pages that are "attempting to boost the notability" of Bush? --Striver 05:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neglecting WP:POINT for a moment, which ones? The point is that what's happening is that you are creating articles to prop up notability; i.e. Bin Laden conspiracy theory < - Supporters (e.g. Bowman) <- tier two supporters (e.g. Lance and the few recent ones < - Problem Reaction Solution. These articles should be notable in their own right, not as part of a larger conspiracy, to excuse the pun.

When I see you creating articles whenever someone questions the notability of an individual, it raises eyebrows.

--Mmx1 05:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i do belive the articles ARE notble in their own right, and when people question it, i get motivated to prove them wrong by creating the article. As you might have seen, all AFD are going to fail, execpt for the problem reaction solution and the Citizens Commision. And that proves my point. Further, i still honestly belive its wrong to delete even those two articles, one a very notable event for 9/11 activists, and the other is actualy the MAIN strategy that 9/11 "bush did it" proponets belive is at work, even BEFORE 9/11, in the 1990s!. It is simply wrong to delete the most used term of a whole group on non-sense arguements! --Striver 06:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments. First, have timelined (well, not timeline but I'm not bored enough to dig up the creation dates) Striver's pattern of behavior following the POV tag on September 11, 2001 attacks (which is what got me in this godforsaken mess in the first place) on my talk page. Secondly, do not be so confident about the status of your articles. I stand by my 2 afd's and all my votes, and the only reason I've not yet removed all but the most egregiously bad pieces of them have been out of good faith for the afd and attempts to create a page. When the afd's conclude in 5 days, I will enforce WP:V, and from what I'm seeing, there won't be much left. --Mmx1 06:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I must admit Striver got me there, I am indeed a die-hard Conservative Republican Bush loyalist. For one thing, even if I were it wouldn't matter so long as I put my personal views behind me for the sake of creating a good encyclopedia. Another, is the fact that you have to fool yourself into thinking such nonsense. "Hmmmm, they are all deleting my articles....therefore Wikipedia must be run by die-hard Bush loyalists"....maybe the reason we are all demanding action on your behavior is because you are spamming wikipedia and are not a worthy member of wikipedia. Maybe you should think "why are they, experienced wikipedians, all putting afd's on my article....what am I doing wrong" before you go out and put political labels on everyone to try and excuse your rampant POV violations. I also ask that this not be made a forum, there are other things in wikipedia more important than Striver trying to defend himself that I want to hear about. I mean, feel free to comment on my talk page, but this particular section has gone on for to long and I'll deleted any additions to it. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 06:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Striver

I have seen some of this struggle going on. I think MONGO is preparing to take action. I will let him take the lead on this one, unless I see something (like a 4th revert) sooner that requires action. --rogerd 04:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked for 24 hours for disruption and gaming the 3RR rule...that is just the beginning if he doesn't cease with his agenda...also a look at this may be of interest to you [3]--MONGO 09:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website

Just looking at your user page. Thought you might like this website www.realclearpolitics.com Compilation of all major new stories in US from all sides of the aisle. Very popular amongst State Department types living overseas who need a quick look at what is going on at home. Anywho thought I'd throw it by you--Looper5920 08:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice site, I'll add it to my list of sources.--Jersey Devil 09:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hola amigo

I commend you for the good work you have been doing on Peru-related articles, among other things. It is good to have a moderate voice in this, what can be at times, partisan and divisive environment. I am sorry not to have been more helpful of late (real life, etc etc etc), but I still keep an eye on things, and I am delighted to see activity of late at the Peru project. Thanks for keeping me posted, and I look forward to seeing more of your contributions hither and yon. If I can ever be of service, don't hesitate. -- Viajero | Talk 17:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in Peru

It seems that the other party involved in the discussion decided to move on regardless of not having reach an agreement. Can't you return the page to the previous version ad force the other user to talk in the talk page once again?-Messhermit

Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected. I had been keeping an eye on the page for a while. Don't worry, I'll still keep an eye on it. I don't see what the big deal is though. All we asked was that it be placed in some kind of order by different catagories i.e., time periods and such, instead of a bunch of stub articles in a big list where it was impossible to tell their historical significance. (Also, don't forget to sign your comments)--Jersey Devil 06:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really bad, and the user:Soman is basically trying to present the rv war as my fault. Pls, help me to deal with this problem once again. Messhermit 18:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the page. Could you translate Si Cumple for me. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 15:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that I can help?

Lol, I'm always the one that is asking for help. So far I have manage to modify and expand a couple of articles, but is there something that I can't do for you? Messhermit 17:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just realice something: Both the articles that deal with the Peru-Bolivian Confederation, the War of the Pacific and Peru are under attack. Chilean POV warriors try to impose its will, and they keep claiming that:

Atacama was part of Chile since its independence.
They have the most important role in the Chinchan Islands war
Peru and Bolivia were the ones who started the war of the pacific.

Sorry to bother you so much :P , but I find myself overwhelm sometimes with so much articles to watch. Cheers! Messhermit 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I'm under attack in those pages with POV warriors. Messhermit 17:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Peru

You may wanna look this article too. I need some help with the grammar, otherwise I think that the article is good enough now. Try to fix any mistake pls. Messhermit 00:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Politics of Peru

It seems that the list of political parties is not the only that has owners. Now I'm engaged in this revert war that another wikipedist from the article that talks about. Please, any help is welcome to fight this POV warriors. Messhermit 17:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i forgot...

to sign my name, thanx for reminding me though. I'm also from lima and then i moved to West Orange, NJ, but i was fourteen years old though! --CesarCossio 10:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for the comment on my talk page. I will be reading up on many things about Peru, including its' Military and History. The girl I am dating has Peruvian heritage, so I'm at least attempting to know something about her heritage. I find the history to be very interesting.-User:Bmahoney

Problem Reaction Solution AfD

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem Reaction Solution as a no consensus because AfDs are not always about vote counting (hence, that's why we renamed it from "Votes for deletion"). After the article was rewritten, all the votes were for Keep. I therefore weighed the votes after the rewriting more than the votes before. However, a no consensus doesn't carry the same weight as a keep: it means that a re-AfD in the future is not without question, at least until a more concrete result comes to past.

As for the author of the article asking other people on their talk pages for assistance, I'm sorry, but this wasn't mentioned in the AfD. There are many AfDs to close, and I take what's written on the AfD when we decide on the final result. If it wasn't mentioned, I don't take it into consideration.

Yes, it was a difficult AfD to close (hence, why it was one of the last to be closed), but I won't hold it against you if you wish to list this on WP:DRV to contest the result of this AfD. However, if you do so, I must ask that you let me know on my talk page. Thanks, D e athphoenix ʕ 04:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I noticed something else. Even on a strict vote count, 14d vs. 7k means that there was approximately 2/3 consensus to delete (about 67%). Ignoring the author means roughly 70% consensus to delete. Both of these values are actually below the consensus to delete, which, for most vote closers, is about 75-85%. So even if I were to perform a strict vote count and ignore the author's vote, the consensus is not enough to delete the article. Remember that the credo of AfD is "If in doubt, don't delete." --D e athphoenix ʕ 05:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protect

Which versions should I protect and what is it al about. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NJ Collaboration of the Week

Thanks for participating in Wikiproject New Jersey. In an attempt to create articles for some of the non-existing pages related to New Jersey, NJCOTW was recently created to bring members of WP:NJ together to work collaboratively on a certain selected topic, which this week is List of Governors of New Jersey. Please help by nominating/voting/commenting on articles on WP:NJCOTW, or by helping to improve articles in the scope of the topic for the NJCOTW. AndyZ 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Striver

Ah yes, nothing beats someone that peddles nonsense and calls anyone a vandal when they make edits that contradict both his inability to use common logic and is desire to spread anti-American crap all over the place. I've got him monitored...and he is not the only one I watch closely...--MONGO 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate it for deletion if you wish, but it's been around for some months now. I saw it before, but was too busy dealing with his other POV pushing hypocrisy to do much about it...it seems to operate on the same premise as the 9/11 project he started...protect his opinion stuff from deletion.--MONGO 00:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Goodman

See WP:NPOV for guidelines on what does and doesn't constitute PoV material. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of Wikipedia

Do not use Wikipedia for personal attacks on the motivations of others. When you vote, VOTE ONCE, and then leave comments under your vote. If you have a worthy comment, make it about the topic and not as a form of harassment of others. Would you want that done to you and your motivations? --Northmeister 04:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOu have been reported for your violation of wikipedia's policy on "harassment", "personal attacks" and violations of AGF. You have also been reported for violating 3RR. Please refrain from personal attacks and name-calling. I wish an apology from you for calling me a "LaRouchite." and for your 'disruption' of the vote. --Northmeister 06:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

I removed the "from" from this sentence on your userpage: "I see no argument in favor of keeping IPs from editting." which exactly contradicts the previous two sentences. 68.39.174.238 06:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Maybe not all IPs are bad after all :)--Jersey Devil 07:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]