User talk:JustBerry/Archive 5

Speedy deletion declined: Johnsons Creek Natural Area Preserve

Hello JustBerry, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Johnsons Creek Natural Area Preserve, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: nature reeserve "designated as among the most significant natural areas in the state". You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 04:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC).

 Done

Your recent contributions

Hello JustBerry, unfortunately I'm rather concerned by some of your recent edits. Here you tagged an article on a real person who died in 1958 as both a "plot summary" and for "BLP sources", among a host of other tags. You declined a draft on software as a biography. Of the various deletion discussions you started, I expect all but possibly one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Scudamore-Stanhope, 9th Earl of Chesterfield) will result in "keep" or "speedy keep". In particular you still nominated articles for deletion for "insufficient context" when that context was clearly provided, although that was one of the points GorillaWarfare noted in her edit review last year. You voluntarily stopped reviewing AfCs last year because there were issues with the quality of your reviews, and while in principle there's nothing wrong to take up such a field again when you have gained more experience, I don't see that you actually did gain that experience - edits since then have been scarce. My suggestion would be not to nominate pages for deletion, but rather to participate in deletion discussions and to see how others argue, what pages are kept and which ones are deleted, and thereby to gain a better understanding of how AfD works in practice. And I'll also reiterate what GorillaWarfare said in that review: You seem to be quite fast when you're editing; slowing down a bit and improving quality instead of quantity may be a good idea. Finally, it may be beneficial not just to tag articles for various issues but to try and fix them yourself - having an article with improved grammar is more helpful for our readers than having one tagged for imperfect grammar, for example. If you need any help, you're welcome to leave me a note on my talk page. Huon (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Been away for a while, thanks for the note. Will not do for sure; we can chat on IRC if you wish. Hope to see you around. @ GorillaWarfare and @ Huon --JustBerry (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, JustBerry. You have new messages at Melmann's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Done

Talkback

Hello, JustBerry. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback.
Message added 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ayub407^talk 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

WP:PERM - clerking

Thanks, but no thanks. We appreciate your enthusiasm but PERM is strictly an admin area. We do all the checks again anyway and have some tools you don't. MusicAnimalBot was also recently created to finally put a stop to this kind of thing. If you know all about vandalism, your help is more urgently needed as a trainer at the CVUA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung กุดผึ้ง Thanks for the feedback, will do. Also, thanks for the request acknowledgement. --JustBerry (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

September 2015

What's with this? [1] RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 14:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52: Could you re-iterate the issue? According to the diff you've provided above, I seem to have put a welcome template on the talk page of a user. Is there something wrong? --JustBerry (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I know it was probably an honest mistake, but that user has not just joined the Wiki. RMS52 ^{Talk to me}

@RMS52: Thanks for letting me know... I will take a look into the issue and address it accordingly. --JustBerry (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Don't worry! We all make mistakes! RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 16:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52: Out of curiosity, how did you catch that error? The issue has been resolved [2] --JustBerry (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, just did. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 16:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52:Are you tracking recent edits? You seem to be pretty active. --JustBerry (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 17:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52:I mean it doesn't quite add up that you would "stumble by" something like that. I'm curious as to how you came across it. I think it's a pretty straight-forward question to be honest. --JustBerry (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I thanked that user for an edit on Belfast International Airport, I am on a mobile device, pressed the wrong button, stumbled accross their talk page and noticed that welcome thing. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@RMS52:Ah, all right. See you around. --JustBerry (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Recent edit to Rock the Hills Music Festival

Your recent edit to 'Rock The Hills Music Festival' removing a remark that you found to be a conflict of interest was unwarranted. Rock The Hills does in-fact welcome "large scale" (meaning signed by an agency and a well known artist name) Canadian (because the bands are Canadian) headliners. We ask that you contact our event management at jamesgunn@rockthehills.ca if you have any further questions or comments. We understand your dedication to the Wiki space but ask further changes like this are no longer made.

Rockthehills (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)RockTheHillsRockthehills (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rockthehills: Firstly, your account seems to be a violation of WP:COI - I would highly suggest you read that page. Essentially, it seems like your account name is in a 'conflict of interest' with the article itself, hence making it harder to maintain WP:POV. I would advise you to ask someone else to make appropriate edits to your articles for you: Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_isn't_necessarily_a_good_thing. --JustBerry (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: Again, we request no more changes are made by this account. A third party editor has came in and is now making changes. Please feel free to contact us with any comments or concerns: jamesgunn@rockthehills.ca --Rockthehills (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rockthehills: Which account are you referring to? I appreciate your effort to maintain a neutral point of view. To help you out, I've made some changes to the article to lower the issue of WP:COI. If problems persist, the issue will need to be dealt otherwise. I suggest you read the links I've provided you with above. Additionally, to clarify, communication on Wikipedia is primarily done through talk pages; email is not the most appropriate form of communication for this issue. --JustBerry (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: The user's editing will not be disclosed. Further more this account is operated by an individual and not an organization. We are curious to know how legit information is posted to pages if the organization with the most accurate data is not allowed to post it? Is my understanding on this correct? --Rockthehills (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Rockthehills blocked for a username violation. Rockthehills, if you're reading this, any editing for pay must be disclosed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for looking into the issue. --JustBerry (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done If you have anything else to add to the issue, please remove this tag and proceed with the discussion. --JustBerry (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 Done Moved to user page. --JustBerry (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Korean Central Broadcasting Committee

You made a mistake. This is has nothing to do with adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. I only added the Korean name of the organization. 174.113.217.132 (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@174.113.217.132: Please provide a reference. There seemed to be a clear controversy on the page with prior reverts to your edits. --JustBerry (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: According to the Korean Wikipedia and the organization's website, the name of the organization in Korean is "조선중앙방송위원회" 174.113.217.132 (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@174.113.217.132: In the future, please make your edit summary clearer. --JustBerry (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved.

Edmund Payne

With three edits which were blatant vandalism, would you not think it a good idea to make use of your tools and block the idiot IP on Edmund Payne? Cassianto^Talk 22:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: User has not received adequate warnings for a block anyway. Just report vandals to WP:AIV in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The vandal has received 4 warnings today alone; do you not consider that to be enough of a warning? And why would I take the time and bother to report it elsewhere? You're an administrator, why can't you block them? That seems like a load of red tape nonsense to me. Cassianto^Talk 23:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Are you talking about the most recent IP editor on Edmund Payne? The user has only received 3 warnings on their talk page: [3]. --JustBerry (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Three warnings, in my book, is two too many. Why don't you block them? With edits like this, I don't feel as if this IP is here to improve the project. It's down-right vandalism. Cassianto^Talk 23:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: However, the user has appeared to stop vandalizing. If you notice any vandalistic activity from the IP, feel free to report to WP:AIV --JustBerry (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the point in having tools if you're too afraid to use them? As for AIV, I won't be reporting them; I shall instead be telling them what disruptive piece of shit they are and thus, I shall half expect to be blocked. That's how it works around here. Cassianto^Talk 23:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Please calm down. --JustBerry (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me, I don't take too kindly to it. You seem to be incompetent at identifying a vandal. Cassianto^Talk 23:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: It's quite clear that identifying the vandal is not the issue here, as I had placed all of the warnings on the user's talk page until this point. As a general rule of thumb, administrators are advised to only block users after a final warning. The last warning level that was given to the user was a level warning of 3, not 4. Your reason for concern is not in disagreement here. You can always post the user at WP:AIV if you feel the user has exceeded the blocking threshold and see if administrative action is taken without any further edits. --JustBerry (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

ANI

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cassianto^Talk 23:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 User misread user page.

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, JustBerry, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Tagging of Negi (caste)

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Negi (caste). I do not think that Negi (caste) fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because the link to caste in India gives ample context. I request that you consider not re-tagging Negi (caste) for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 16:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Reverts at "Stop motion"

Hi, I confess to being mystified about what would make my edits at Stop motion appear non-constructive to you, but perhaps it is in part a consequence of my being too lazy to log in as AVarchaeologist, my one and only WP handle, which over the years seems to have earned a good reputation on topics such as this, and editing as my automatically floating IP address instead. The article text, as I found it and as it has now been reverted, confuses the 1939 black-and-white "In Tune with Tomorrow" with the 1940 color version entitled "New Dimensions", which is the one that was released to theaters under a new title during the 3D fad of 1953. The error also throws off the stated numbering of subsequent films. The 1939 and 1940 NYWF films are mentioned in any competent online or print history of 3D films (e.g. Ray Zone's outstanding book Stereoscopic Cinema and the Origins of 3-D Film, 1838-1952) and it is clear enough to me that the author(s) of the paragraph I edited is/are interested mainly in the recent productions it enthuses about and not overly familiar with the early history. 66.81.242.32 (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@66.81.242.32: @AVarchaeologist: Reversions are not, and should not be, based on IP vs. logged-in users. It would be better if you had in-line references supporting your claims. --JustBerry (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved. Remove template if discussion is continued.

Reliable source for common knowledge

Really, why must one quote a reliable source for grammar, as was the case with my edit in Brazilian real (old)? The current plural form of real is reais, as it is spelled in the banknotes of Brazilian money. Why do you think it is needed to quote a source to prove the evident? Please provide a plausible and detailed justification.--179.210.203.72 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@179.210.203.72: In your edit, you mentioned that the new plural form is updated as reais. Since this is new and still not in the realm of common knowledge, even an image of a banknote of something of the sort, at the least, would be helpful in verifying the validity of your statement to a common reader. --JustBerry (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@179.210.203.72: However, your edit has been restored. --JustBerry (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved.

A barnstar for you!

@Chillum: Thanks, much appreciated! As a note, not sure if anyone has mentioned this to you yet, but it might be helpful to put a sysop icon or userbox on your userpage, so people more readily reach out to you for admin help if need be. --JustBerry (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no need to hang out my shingle, after all being an admin is not a big deal. I am actually thinking of reducing my userboxes, never was a fan. Chillum 23:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum: Not really to hang out your shingle... speaking from editor experience, I've found it helpful. That's a personal preference and not my decision, just putting it out there. Happy editing --JustBerry (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Userbox moved to userpage.

Japanese song

When a Japanese song with an English title has an article it's usual to state that the song is in Japanese and give the first line, isn't it? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Quite frankly, the major here is that contributions are being made to the article without any references, as the article tag mentions at the top of the article. Please see WP:References. --JustBerry (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the article has references - it's entirely unsourced. Why would a reference be needed for only the information added? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't make it right. Please read what Wikipedia is not. --JustBerry (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't tell me to read what I know very well. You've strolled past removed 3 improvements because you object to 1 of them. That isn't value-adding editing in my view. These articles are crap basically, I expect you agree. But dragging them up from crap (or prodding them) requires something of a collegiate attitude. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi:If you think the article is not of encyclopedic quality, it would be more effective to add citations and make in-line citations for your statements, rather than making unsourced claims. You should also note that the revert was made in an anti-vandal attempt; this is not a personal disagreement of any sort to your edit specifically. --JustBerry (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If this was an "anti-vandal attempt" you perhaps need to edit more carefully. It would be more helpful to select the particular part of the edit you wish to add claims to and add a . Not reverting value-adding edits such as correcting WP:MOSCAPS. Or contact the original editor who created the sourceless badly written stub in the first place. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

In any case I've now found a source (near miraculous achievement for a Japanese song) added a cover and fixed the MOSCAPS. If you want to revert any of these be my guest. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi:You seem to be missing the point here. If you're making claims of any kind, there should be a reference of some form supporting that claim. Additionally, I don't see how adding the starting lines of the song is useful in the introduction of the song. However, I see you've added a reference to the article. I think the point has been made, and we can move on now. --JustBerry (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Resolved edit conflict. The previous message was written before viewing the message prior to the prior message. --JustBerry (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved.

Unknown Header

Hi Just Berry, I implore you to read the stuff I removed. It is literally a product list. If you disagree that's fair, but to me it looks like stone-cold advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gugulet hu (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gugulet hu: Mind linking me to the article? Also, please sign your messages in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: The article is Clover (dairy). Thanks. Gugulet hu (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gugulet hu: Ah, all right. Your edit has been restored, and I've notified the contributor not to include promotional content here. --JustBerry (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

I can't sleep!

I want to sleep but I can't Mpumi02 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mpumi02: ... May I help you? Do you need something? --JustBerry (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Lonely

Just need someone to talk to Mpumi02 (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Pending changes

Note that I reverted your approval of this edit as it introduced an unsourced birth year. The date has been, and remains, contentious and no reliable source has been provided for verification.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thanks - I will look out for that in the future. When doing anti-vandal work, I'm fairly critical of unsourced material; feel free to review my contribs if this raised any concern. --JustBerry (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No need to review, these things slip by sometimes. I just wanted to let you know why I reverted it.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Thanks for the heads up. I've given the reviewing process another read through as well. --JustBerry (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Sorry

My little sister did that I'm sooooo sorry!!! Ali9730 (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ali9730: No worries, it happens. Just be more careful in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done for now. Ali9730, feel free to remove this template and continue the discussion if you feel the need to do so.

re: Dash (cryptocurrency)

Fair enough. But please do me a favor and look at many other articles in related categories; there's plenty of spam that needs to be culled. It would indeed be great if more editors familiar with this area would take care of those categories; but if none step forward, laymen like me will have to be keep on with our reviews. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Sure, absolutely. I bet with some teamwork we'll be able to resolve the issue in that field. Where do you think the issue is most prevalent? We can start there and work from there. --JustBerry (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Teamwork = good. On that note, please be aware that I prodded a few other entries in that category. I am concerned about many more, but that will need further policy discussions; please see WP:NCOMPANY for some proposals I've written (and see the background Signpost articles I linked, too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Will work on later.

Congratulations from STiki!!

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, JustBerry! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@West.andrew.g: The barnstar is much appreciated; it is certainly my pleasure. I will check out the Wiki talk page for sure. On a different note, I would like to inform you that I'm currently using STiki on Mac OS 10.10, and STiki appears to be using a lot of my CPU. I'll put the issue down on a talk page or feedback page with additional debugging info; I just wanted to give you a heads up. --JustBerry (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

English bazaar

I will correct the data. My Source is www.gkciet.ac.in Iamarup (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Iamarup: Awesome. If you're wondering if your source is reliable, take a look at WP:Reliable sources, which should give you a good sense of how to evaluate your sources. Let me know if you need anything else. --JustBerry (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I want to create a page GKCIET which should about our college.

I was tried it. But any of developer mark my page as a copyright violation.

here is the link G.K.C.I.E.T

@Iamarup: It appears that Diannaa deleted the page for an unambiguous copyright infringement, and RHaworth deleted the page for lack of notability. I would highly suggest that you leave a note on their talk pages to address the issue directly. As far as the copyright infringement goes, Diannaa would be the best person to talk to regarding what exactly the copyright infringement was. Prior to contacting RHaworth, I'd recommend you read WP:Notability and become generally familiar with Wikipedia's notability policy. --JustBerry (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Japlish

This might illustrate why I was somewhat testy yesterday. FYI Despite attempting to add source, add CD cover, correct WP:MOSCAPS violations in the Japanese song article above a (presumably) non-English speaking editor just came right along and removed them all - this is par for the course with Japanese pop culture articles. I incorrectly assumed you were one of these editors. Apologies for that. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: No problems, we're all human - things happen. I'm glad it got resolved. --JustBerry (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved

Seveneves

Hi, can you help me understand the reason you reverted my edit to the Seveneves article? I would appreciate any contructive criticicism on how I could make the edit better. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seveneves&diff=680773946&oldid=680773783. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.51.140 (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@70.173.51.140: Overall, the edit looks all right. However, it seemed like a controversial issue, which was not addressed on the article talk page. Moreover, though, please review Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. Having multiple sources for that kind of claim would be better in eliminating any potential systemic bias (see WP:Reliable Sources) that may be in any one particular source. Since this site doesn't seem to be affiliated with selling the actual book, the issue here really appears to be the coverage of scope in the reference you provided after your claim here. --JustBerry (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Salesforce.com

I understand the preference for a reference about the token security error. However, the problem is that Salesforce.com don't document the problem (or really admit they changed the supported behavior). This is why I added it to the criticism section about Salesforce/Outlook. It would be great if there was a good reference but what can I do if the company the article is criticizing deny the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.206.243.184 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@89.206.243.184: Do you have a third-party source? See WP:Sources. How do you know your statement is true? --JustBerry (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Collision Avoidance text......

Hi Berry,

So you figured out that I am new here...good! I suppose I could find references for certain aspects of the paragraph I wrote, but it is mostly first-hand knowledge from having been there at the time. Any special way to handle this type of knowledge?

Thanks, Ross

TheWizard44 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheWizard44: Sure, I'd be happy to help. What is the link to the article? --JustBerry (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

In looking around I guess there is quite a bit out there. This work was heavily covered by the press, and many papers and patents were generated.....

For the early Lexus and Cadillac work.....

"Collision Warning System Technology" presented by Olney R.D. et al, at Intelligent Transport Systems World Congress in Yokohama, Japan in November 1995

For the SSC vehicles.....

WARDSAUTO "Delco's dream machine" May 1, 1996 by Keenan, Tim

and

Car & Driver magazine "The Mensa-Mobile" August 1996 issue, pages 144-145

Let me know if you think we need more.

Thanks for the help, Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWizard44 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@TheWizard44: Do you mind linking me to the article you are talking about? I'm not quite sure as to which article you're referring to exactly. --JustBerry (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Berry,

Ok, I'm lost now......do you mean the Wikipedia article, my edit text, or something to do with the reference section?

/wiki/Collision_avoidance_system

Sorry for the newbie questions, Ross — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWizard44 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you've cited your content now; it looks fine. The initial concern was truly WP:Verifiability. Reading the introduction and the sections talking about reliable sources and sources that are not reliable, respectively, will allow you to have a better understanding of Wikipedia citation style and philosophy. Let me know if you need anything else. --JustBerry (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Undoing vandalism

Sorry, completely new here so might be doing this wrong! You just undid my edit on the Emily Maitlis page but I was actually undoing vandalism that I had spotted. Two edits had been made - one changing her job title from "journalist and newsreader" to "spin docter" and another fixing the typo in "doctor". If that was the wrong thing to do please let me know. Thanks! YourOtherLeft (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@YourOtherLeft: Nope, actually neither of us did anything wrong, quite frankly. There were apparently two consecutive vandal edits made. Thanks for reverting the prior vandal edit and resolving the issue - nice work! I'm currently using WP:STiki, which allows privileged to oversee a large volume of edits for vandalism at once. Hence, I only resolved the latter vandal edit instead of both, as they were made by two different editors. --JustBerry (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

suggest you briefly do a check of facts or so called rumours yourself ( easy to do yourself in this internet age on Google, Duck Duck Go, Bing or even in case in hand Baidu) before deleting others edits. Then you would have found multiple independent press and stock exchange "rumours" in at least two pretty independent jurisdictions one or two of which could have been added as references by yourself and so constructively improve rather than destroy. No doubt a reference to Bright Food's take over offer will sometime reappear in relevant article since its elsewhere on Wikipedia independently of my input as its a big world. Over to you if you want to improve article if within your expertise as I can not be bothered at this time despite having some relevant expertise which I do not always exercise when I post between other distractions. Cheers. 91.84.79.94 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@91.84.79.94: Please read what WP:STiki is. The intention of STiki users is to remove higher volumes of potential vandalism, which include test edits, unsourced content, blatant hoaxes, etc. If you feel certain content should be added, please source your claims. Also, are you YourOtherLeft? --JustBerry (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not me YourOtherLeft (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@YourOtherLeft: All right. --JustBerry (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Message from 109.207.29.2

Just wondering on why you took out the references to the new style Irish twin and earth cables being different from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_and_earth - wondering if should it have gone somewhere else ? I see it as being relevant if the article does not say UK only.

regards Mike 109.207.29.2 (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@109.207.29.2: Restored your edit... I am using WP:STiki, which is a tool used to identify and remove potentially vandalistic edits. I will take a look into what may have gone wrong. --JustBerry (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah OK - that's made me happier, I was wondering what I'd done wrong. 109.207.29.2 (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Mike

@109.207.29.2: Awesome. Feel free to ping me or leave a message on my talk page if you need anything else. --JustBerry (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Thank you

Dear JustBerry Thank you for your messages. I cannot contest any deletions as the pages have already been deleted. I would really wish I had been given time to address any issues rather than just having the pages deleted like that. I did quite a bit work with the pages relating to the remilitarization of the Rhineland and the Suez crisis, but since that time, other hands have changed the direction of the articles in a manner that I find unwholesome. I took older copies of those pages and used them as the basis of the user pages to create example of how I think those pages should be, so if there are any copywrite violations, it would have been from the older copies of those articles. I am very sorry if there are any copyright violations, and I would be more happy to address these concerns if the pages are restored. Thank you for your time, and please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I had an exchange with User Rhworth concerning the deleted pages, which has e-mailed to me. But he advised me to discuss this subject with you before reposting. If I repost the articles with the improper materials removed, would that be ok with you? Thank you for your time.--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

User:VaDawn/sandbox

The bio of Louis Flies on that page is not a copyvio, but a reverse copyvio . The external site is a Wikipedia mirror. Go back to http://ijkm.nl/Louis_Fles and read to the bottom. . What should have arouses suspicion of this is that the site is labeled "All about Kim Kaerdashian" Many sites use a technique like this to show up on google and get hits; its a deceptive but common type of Search engine optimization. Google is smart enough to detect them and downrate them in its rankings, but apparently they do not think it useful to filter them out of the search results. (or their algorithm does not work well) DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@DGG: Thanks for the update and informing me. Does anything else need to be done? --JustBerry (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Deletion of sandbox?

Hi, I've been working on improving Jodie Foster's article in one of my sandboxes and got a message from you stating it's a copyright infringement? I can assure you the text is my own! I googled "fanpal.com/celeb/jodie+foster" and it seems like their text is lifted from the current article. It's not uncommon for sites like fanpal.com to blatantly use material from Wikipedia. I'm frankly puzzled by this! Please don't delete my hard work just because a bot on some external site copies from Wikipedia. I think it's pretty clear I'm not taking the material from that site, given that not only is my text different (I started work on this earlier this year and have only now come back to it), but I also give sources for what I'm writing. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I've also previously brought Charlie Chaplin to FAC status, and have done major improvements with FAC in mind to Marilyn Monroe, I can assure you I'm not an editor who has a habit of copypasting information from shitty websites to Wikipedia!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Had a closer look of the fanpal.com site, and I have to correct: none of it is from my sandbox, it's just a copy of the current article on her. I've previously made some edits to the article, and of course copy+pasted the WP article to my sandbox to edit it. I think it should be pretty clear this is a case of fanpal.com copying Wikipedia – the site doesn't list any footnotes, whereas the article on Wikipedia does. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

If this (http://www.fanpal.com/celeb/jodie+foster/) is the website we're talking about, you can even see at the bottom of the page that their source is Wikipedia. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I think this is the same as the case above. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

It even states on the tag you left: "Please be sure that the source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror." Please take the tag off as soon as possible, it's clearly a mistake. Sorry for the multiple messages, but this is pretty annoying. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

RHaworth has now deleted the sandbox, completely disregarding the fact that I contested it by showing that fanpal.com is a mirror site. I would appreciate it if you could correct your mistake ASAP! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

 Resolved as per User_talk:RHaworth#Deletion_of_my_sandbox. However, in the future, you may want to leave a message on an article talk page or WikiProject talk page before making an overhaul to the mainspace like that. Of course, making live edits directly to the mainspace incrementally would be another option. Additionally, please note that a deleted page can always be restored if something like this happens again - don't panick. --JustBerry (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Speedy deletion nomination of User:RJGray/Sandboxcantor deleted my rewrite of a Wikipedia article

Hi, The speedy delete software seems to have made a mistake. The site http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Cantor%27s_first_uncountability_proof that supposedly has a copyright version of the Cantor uncountability proof article really has a copy of Wikipedia's Cantor's first uncountability proof, which means that they may be violating Wikipedia's copyright policy by not stating they got it from Wikipedia.

I am actually the person who did the majority of the writing on this article. Just check the May 5, 2009 revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cantor%27s_first_uncountability_proof&direction=next&oldid=277413416, and the January 10, 2010 revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cantor%27s_first_uncountability_proof&oldid=339459647.

I am currently working on a rewrite of the article since it failed in GA Review because of major problems with the old article. The page that was deleted is my rewrite which I had planned on working on today. Please undelete it as soon as possible.

Also, I suggested that in the future, the speedy delete software first check the Wikipedia article to see if a site is posting a Wikipedia article. This would have been very easy in this case since the webpage that supposedly had copyrighted material: http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Cantor%27s_first_uncountability_proof ends with "Cantor%27s_first_uncountability_proof" and so the speedy delete software could just append this to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/" and detect that the site has a (perhaps slightly out of date) copy of a Wikipedia page.

By the way, you can check with Michael Hardy, who is the editor that knows I'm working on a rewrite.

Thank you, --RJGray (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

C/1980 E1 reversions

Hi, I'm Guest29416 from #wikipedia-en on freenode. It seems that the user who reverted my initial change has reverted it again (after you reinstated it) under the misapprehension that the semi-major axis is used solely as an "average distance" for elliptical orbits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.140.139 (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Continuing discussion here.

You have been mentioned in an Arbcom case

Hello User:JustBerry, you have been mentioned in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complaint_against_administrator_conduct and if you desire, enter a statement, and any other material you choose to submit to the Arbitration Committee's attention. You may find useful information by reviewing the following links as well:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration

Wikipedia:Arbitration guide

Thank you for the attention you have given this matter. Olowe2011 ^Talk 12:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

User:RJGray/Sandboxcantor

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I deleted this page that you tagged, but after a note from RJGray, I've just now undeleted it: the page's contents are taken from Cantor's first uncountability proof and predate the page that you thought was the source. Turns out that this is a situation of them infringing our copyright (since they failed to attribute us), rather than vice versa. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

@RJGray and Nyttend: Ah, all right. Glad we got that cleared up. Marking both sections of the talk page as done now. --JustBerry (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Arbitration case request declined

The Arbitration Committee has declined the Request for Arbitration Committee judgement arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@L235: Thanks for letting me know. Any ideas where the requirements for case acceptance are? i.e. percentage wise, etc.? --JustBerry (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Opening_of_proceedings. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

@L235: Aha, thank you. P.S. I was not asking for this case request, but another one I'm a non-party in. --JustBerry (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done

Request for Adminship

Hello JustBerry, thank you for considering me for adminship. This is a subject which I have been giving increased thought as I approach my ten year anniversary with Wikipedia.

Having deliberated on this for several days now, I would like to accept your offer as I do have an interest in extending my volunteer efforts in an administrative capacity. For example, I believe that I would be of assistance with administrative backlogs, such as the WP:RFPP, WP:RM, and WP:AIV notice boards in particular. I will add that I am not a prolific article creator, which may be a strike against me, but if the community can overlook this deficiency I would be happy to help in this role.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 00:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生: I will be working on drafting your RfA prior to official nomination. --JustBerry (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: @Yamaguchi先生: However, if you would like, it might be possible to have a mini-editorial review of sorts prior to making an official RfA if you're concerned about content creation. --JustBerry (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生: I have drafted an RfA nomination for you. However, I would like to note that this analysis of your article creation, as you mentioned, seems to be problematic in understanding the process of article creation potentially. Also, a handful of your edits appear to be anti-vandalism, which is needed, but thankless work. Have you been involved at WP:RFPP, WP:RM, and WP:AIV noticeboards substantially? If so, could you provide some diffs or examples? I think it might be best to increase your involvement on Wikipedia, especially content creation, to make way for a more rewarding RfA in the future. --JustBerry (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生: Also, it can be observed that you only appear to have been active in the past year, more or less. Also, the automated edits, although are needed, make the mainspace edit counts not so-much content-related. I'd suggest we suspend the RfA nomination for now. Although I had originally offered an RfA nomination to you due to the quality of your contributions and total time here on Wikipedia, I think it might be best to hold off for a later time. --JustBerry (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello JustBerry, thank you for your comments. There is no urgency with the RFA, I am happy to continue contributing as I have been, in areas that I am familiar. The focus of my involvement as of late is in the areas mentioned, and there should be hundreds, possibly thousands, of reports issued to the AIV and RFPP noticeboards. [4] Less frequently I will utilize WP:RM and WP:SPI when necessary, and from time to time I will request feedback at the general administrative noticeboard on a particular issue I might like clarification on. As to my activity, I contribute when my schedule allows, and I hope that my contributions prior to this past year were of some value. In any case thank you for the offer, and if you have suggestions on how I may be of better assistance going forward my door is always open. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 23:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yamaguchi先生: Glad we're on the same page. If you feel more ready to have an RfA in the future, let me know. --JustBerry (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done