User talk:Master Jay/Archives Dec 2005

From My Lawyers

"Our client has nothing to do with that, whatever that may be. Our client has done nothing wrong which warrants impediment of any future promotion. Thank you in advance"

What do you think of this page?

I hope it is friendly on the eyes. --Master Jay 04:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yikes! My eyes hurt! Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the color to a more "eye-friendly" hue. --Jay (Reply) 19:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"New user talk"? What if I'm not a "new user"? Joyous | Talk 19:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I know what you mean. What I meant was that the topic of that discussion was regarding my new user talk format, not referring to actual new users. I have changed the wording so that it is crystal clear.--Jay 19:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, your meaning was clear; I was just messing with you. And the current background color is much better than the scary yellow-orange. Joyous | Talk 19:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Buffalo Skull of Diligence

File:Mandan hunter with buffalo skull.JPG

You have been presented with the Buffalo Skull of Diligence for reverting vandalism on Mandan while it was on the Mainpage, December 9, 2005. Thank you for your watchfulness and diligence!

Thanks for your work reverting the vandals on Mandan while it was on the mainpage yesterday! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Just doing what I can do.--Jay 19:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

re: 50 Cent

Replied here, mate. Blackcap (talk) ^{(vandalfighters, take a look)} 05:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

All is good. --Jay

Greece page and greek man boy love tradition

You deleted my addition to the greek page. It is a well established fact that man-boy love was common in ancient greece.

It is also a well established fact that you are a vandal. --Jay

Rome burning stake

I didn't think I put that on yet. I was taught in history last year I was in the middle of making sure that was correct. I learned it was done as a form of execution. There were many plays that weren't done this way but many were. Go to this page http://www.roman-empire.net/society/soc-games.html and go down to the subject "Public Executions." I'm looking for backup sources but I was also taught this in history class. Also, in http://abacus.bates.edu/~mimber/Rciv/gladiator.htm , it says . "Under Nero, the practice arose of writing plays adapted from myths in which people died and assigning the role of a character who would die to a condemned man. The audience would watch the play, and the actual killing of the condemned man in character's role (an ancient variant on a snuff film)." But I think I'd better look more into Roman Drama before posting it. --Zaphod Beeblebrox 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Good. Very good. This makes a quality Wikipedian. --Jay

A small answer

You have a great record of vandal fighting, which I personally feel is key for an admin. I think that you should wait until you have been with the project for at least three months and then try for adminship. Many users refuse to even consider a candidate without that much experience. Just keep up the good work, and try to participate some in AfD and similar areas. You'll almost certainly get my support at that point. Canderson7 ^(talk) 00:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that I think that you would be lauded for your contributions but would be asked to wait a little longer. I'd wait until I had about 2,500 contributions and had been here a little longer. If you don't want to partiiciapte in Afd your might want to join a WikiProject; just increase your interaction with the communtiy&mdas;the only vote against my Rfa wanted to see more interaction with the community. Good luck and keep up the good work. Thanks. -JCarriker 11:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Re Jay leno's French bashing

How can facts about someone be controversial ? It looks to me that some people want to distort reality by forgetting some aspects they do not want to see while all I want is to be thorough. Isn't completeness and thoroughness the goal of an encyclopaedia? Please add back the section I typed, along with the sources I provided. 10-dec-05

RE: Jay Leno

Well first of all, thank you for posting your opinions at my talk page. You have a point there about "some people want to distort reality by forgetting some aspects they do not want to see while all I want is to be thorough." And I agree with that in part, however, encyclopedia's mustn't turn into places to post editorial type comments. I know that you are trying to be thorough, but my revert still stands because: 1) Has it ever occured to you that Jay Leno is a comedian? Before you decide to respond, just think of that for a moment. 2) Your source might as well be pepsi.com for a coke article, simply because it is an editorial focused on "french bashing" - give me say, the New York times as a source, and we can discuss further. 3) Your contributions may have some truth, but we must only post relevant facts - a post like that on the George W. Bush page would be deleted without dispute. Please refer to this policy for more detail. Thanks --Jay 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Re 2

I think you are unfair. 1) His declarations were done when he was the interviewee, not the interviewer, and not while he was acting.
2) Sources include journals such as the LA Times to which he gave interviews. You did not even took the time to look at the sources apparently. Your analogy with pepsy is misplaced, at best.
3) It's your choice to think it is not relevant to you, but you should accept that it is relevant to others.

Also I find surprising that you think that because he is a comedian, he should not be accountable for what he says when at work. He writes his own scripts, so he is accountable for what he says. And he is definitively accountable when he is interviewed and encourage hatred against French people or people with French origins.

I go back to my point that if someone does not want to include something that he (you) does not appreciate, those things gets deleted on this site. I do not think it makes wiki a reliable source, but more a revisionist tool. It's my opinion, and it is based on my experience with your site!

Attempting to erase some facts to rewrite history is plain WRONG.

Lets put this issue to rest

Well I guess I was mistaken. Carry on; Welcome!

Hello 82.153.101.34, 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:

   * The five pillars of Wikipedia
   * How to edit a page
   * Help pages
   * Tutorial
   * How to write a great article
   * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (Jay (Reply) 20:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! And lastly please consider getting a username for a more authentic identity here at Wikipedia. Happy editing. --Jay 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Goodwill

As a gesture of goodwill why don't YOU add back what was deleted? I do not want to have to add it back myself to see another administrator (JIP or someone else) delete it again, and again, and again. If YOU add it back, that matter will really be put to rest. Thanks for doing the necessary modifications!

12-dec-05

Re: Goodwill

Well, I've already acknowledged this issue; you have all my support in posting your information; however, you are more than capable of putting it back on if you feel it is correct. If it is good, then you mustn't worry about it getting deleted. We are finished this dispute. Thanks. --Jay

Dictatorship

Well I really did not want to have to add my paragraph YET ANOTHER TIME (probably the 10th). But as you, "Master Jay", gave me your assurance that it would not be modded down this time, I did it.

Guess what?

Less than 5 minutes later, another "administrator", "JIP", had deleted it again from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Leno on the claim it is vandalism. And blocked me and the entire subnet for 24 hours, even from posting on your talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Master_Jay#Re_Jay_leno.27s_French_bashing

My experience with wikipedia demonstrates that Wikipedia is a site where Freedom of Speech is banned. It is a site where if an administrator does not like something, he/she can label it as "vandalism" and simply delete it based on that pretext. The fact that what he/she is deleting is backed by hard data does not matter.

Needless to say, such dictatorial behaviors do not make wikipedia a reference in my eyes. It's more a revisionist tool to rewrite history. I will not waste my time no more with dictators. I do not like people burning books, even electronically.

You see, I was right to ask YOU to add it back ;-)
Now it sure is put to rest, but not in the right way.

15-dec-05

Something else

what was the vandalism I supposedly committed? Please give me the article so I can see it. This IP may be shared by the entire 35-stroy building here. Let me see the article and I'll let you know who might have done it...

The vandalism was on the transistor page (click here) If you do not want to continue to get these messages, I suggest getting a username. Thanks.

--Jay 21:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry

ok...

I do have a username: jcrocker, but this IP address is my workplace's. It appears my entire 35-story work building shares the same IP! Arghh...

I understand. --Jay

Stanley Williams

Have you brought it up on the article's talk page? One of the admins following the page would have a better idea whether it would be appropriately tagged that way or not than I do. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't brought it up on the articles talk page. However, I don't think it would be much of an issue to tag it {{current}}. --Jay 21:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

For all I know, someone will think that marking it as a current event is a POV attempt to keep the debate going, or something, since his execution is done and in the past now. I don't know. It's more than a simple typo, so it's inappropriate for me to make changes when regular editors can't. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand.--Jay 23:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

thanks!

No problem.--Jay

thanks 2

i would just like to add a thnks for your welcome to WIKI. i hope my posts so far have been enjoyed, and look forword to many other articles to come. Jimmy-james

Sock Puppets

An interesting question. Firstly sockpuppets aren't against Wikipedia policy i.e. you are allowed multiple user accounts. Using sockpuppets to evade other aspects of policy are e.g.block evasion or 3RR etc. is against the rules. Very few people can do IP checks (ArbCom members primarily) and certainly not all admins. However an IP check isn't actually required, when an admin blocks they can select to Auto-Block, anyone else then coming from an address used by the vandal will automatically be blocked. Sometimes admins don't use this facility because they don't know the IP so by using it they might be blocking a lot of other users from the same ISP (if the ISP uses proxies). But for most ordinary people using the auto block facility works. For the more determined vandal (or block evader) however it is possible that the user can change their IP address, there are a number of ways this can be achieved. e.g. because their internet connection uses a dynamic address which they can "force" to change (often within a limited range of say 10-20 addresses), or their ISP has a large number of proxies so they can change to a different one, or they are exploiting Open proxies and can also then just switch quite quickly to a different open proxies (Open proxies get indefinitely blocked when discovered and remain so until they stop being open). Hope this makes sense --pgk^(talk) 21:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jay 21:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Question about move-to-Wiktionary

Thanks for the welcome. I was wondering if I might trouble you with a quick question: The entry for Formalism (literature) is only one sentence and has been marked as a candidate to be moved to Wiktionary, but it should be an encyclopedia article, which I am happy to write myself (it's a central topic of my dissertation). My question is whether it's kosher just to delete the move-to-Wiktionary tag and write the article or if I should announce it somewhere first. Sorry for the trivial question, but I couldn't find an answer to it in any of the relevant pages. Thanks in advance for your help. RobinJ 22:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to take down the tag and right a bang-up article on formalism. In addition, you may also want to add it to the Wikitionary. And don't worry about announcing anything. You should also make the definition at Wikitionary disambiguate between the different definitions of formalism. I hope this answers your question. --Jay

Yes, that helps. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. RobinJ 01:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Article References

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1322341

Here is an excerpt from the article,"In the extra-large category, including schools with more than 11,000 students, the University of Massachusetts, in the small New England town of Amherst, with a student body of more than 24,000 students reported the highest violent crime rate."

Thanks. Just checking -Jay 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Not too bad tonight.

Doesn't seem so bad, but of course the moment I say that it'll go through the roof :) Rx StrangeLove 02:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

:s

== 'hi erm i havent been vandalising wikipedia, actually, i havent got an account on wikipedia... im confused, i hardly ever come on here, only to do homework :S'

I don't believe I've ever confronted you regarding vandalism. Exactly how did you get to my talk page and under what IP address was this apparent message left? --Jay 23:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Odd edit

Hello Master Jay. I ran across an odd edit by you at Troy. According to your edit summary, you were attempting to revert this edit by 70.188.178.146 to the 20:44, December 18, 2005 revision of the article. But if you compare that version with the version produced by your edit, you can see that in fact this edit introduced several changes. Did you use "rollback" to do this edit? Or did you make these changes manually? Paul August ☎ 02:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, this looks like is a "bug" in the rollback. Paul August ☎ 03:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to post a query about this at WP:VPT. Paul August ☎ 04:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the post. Paul August ☎ 04:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Master Jay. Altough you said you were using the "rollback" feature, that feature is only available to admins, and a check of your User Name seems to indicate that you are not. Are you perhaps using some kind of homegrown software which attempts to provide the same functionality? If so then it seems to have a serious bug. You may want to go back and check all your edits you've made using this tool, to look for similar errors and fix them. Please don't use it again until it is fixed. Is this your own software? Are other editors using it too? If so then we need to contact them somehow as well. Thanks for your help in this matter. Paul August ☎ 20:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

BodyBuilding.com

The origionial intent for this page was good, however with the open editing policy a few rotten people ruin it for everyone

--What a shame. --Jay 21:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

---

hey... sorry jay, i didn't realize that it actually changed the site. this is cool, this wikipedia thing. <3 happy happy holidays <3

No problem --Jay 04:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Biffeche

Hey Jay,

Thought you'd probably want to know--last night I saw that you gave an anon a vandalism warning for marking an article as a hoax. I went ahead and looked into it and it looks now as if the anon is actually right (even if she/he didn't know the AfD prodecure), and in fact found a hoax article that's gone unnoticed here for more than three years. (You can see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biffeche for the full discussion)

Be careful with rolling back folks without checking into that stuff--that would have been a bad message for us to miss! Remember that if you're in doubt, you can always move it to the talk page with a note.

Happy holidays! --Dvyost 18:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks --Jay 20:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Rollback feature

Hi there Jay. I haven't been using the rollback feature as I don't have admin status, sadly. I'm new to vandalism reversions and have only been doing them for the last couple of weeks. If you have any suggestions or advice about how to make the process easier I'd appreciate your comments. - Gimboid13 21:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll get back to you on that one.--Jay (Reply) 22:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin

I'm flattered by your offer, but I'm afraid that I will have to decline for now. WP:RFA says that there must be a month of time between two different nominations. And my previous nomination failed only last week. I'd be happy to accept an offer in a few weeks of time, but for now.. I just can't accept that. -- SoothingR^(pour) 06:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No problemo --Jay 21:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Rollback stuff

Hey Jay, I'm afraid I'm not privy to any more info than you on that--maybe check WP:AN for anything related, but I'd suggest just contacting the author of the tool. In any case, the design end leaves me rather muddled. Good luck getting that sorted out though--I hope they get you back up to speed soon! --Dvyost 06:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks anyways --Jay 21:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Confuse

I am totally confused. Explain to me how Wikipedia works. Anyone can write, edit or create pages.. and anyone can re-write, re-edit and re-create other people's pages?

Then there's all these warning pages pertaining "vandalism" or "nonsense".. and the subsequent "blocking" of those who do it. Who is writing these warnings and doing the blocking? It seems everyone is warning and blocking everyone else with no real set of people who manage this site.

Help.. what is going on here?

Well, you've addressed an issue that unfortunately affects numerous users. First of all, thanks for asking; the computer you are on right now logs onto the world wide web using something called an IP address - which is like your PC's "phone number" to dial up the web. Since you use AOL, that "phone number" changes rather frequently, so the messages you are receiving were supposed to go to a vandal that uses that same IP address. Unfortunately, you happened to log onto Wikipedia when the messages ended up on your end. The site isn't run by random folks - the people who send these messages are Wikipedians and site administrators. Basically, we are the community responsible for the site's upkeep. The messages are not random - if vandalism is commited under your IP address, you are warned by this community and subsequently blocked if it continues. Only vandals are blocked after numerous warnings. And yes, anyone can write, edit, re-write, etc. any page, as long as it is a proper contribution (i.e. typo, adding a picture, rewriting a poorly written paragraph, adding new content, and so forth.) To avoid these messages, I suggest getting a username and logging in with that username each time you visit this site - that should take care of messages being wrongfully forwarded to you. I hope that helps a bit. --Jay 22:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

City Hall

Hi Jay, nice pick of Brampton's City Hall you uploaded. One question, could you clarify where exactly you got it from, besides just "promotional"? Thanks! -- user:zanimum

I got it from here If you look closely, you can see that the page was either removed or renamed. I hope that helps --Jay 22:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

User name

70.240.101.4 also Urban909. sometimes i forget to sign in...

Just checking. --Jay 20:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)