User talk:TheJack15

Re: Every Soul Is a Circus Article

Hi TheJack15 Thanks for reviewing my recent submission. I'm not clear what content is disputed and which references are incorrect. Please advise. Thanks again Feralpearl (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references are all they same, so it is not necessary to put multiple reference of the same source in the article. TheJack15 (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:AmericanAirlinesAirbusA320.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:AmericanAirlinesAirbusA320.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward S. Farrow

I will do that as soon as possible, I have just begun to look through the source material that I am using. -Wjculp

Copyright Violation

Just a reminder TheJack15 that some of your uploads have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry for uploading it, I will make sure to double check the copyright status before uploading another image. TheJack15 (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Alvin the Almighty. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, FLEEK, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Alvin the Almighty (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move closure

Was there a reason why you closed this move request after it was recently relisted? Did you review the relisting comment? Tiggerjay (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because their was simply a lack of participation. Even though you notified other project pages about the requested move, no one left a comment on the Move Request except for one person. You can relist the request again if you believe the request will reach a consensus, otherwise, I think it's best to keep the page where it is. TheJack15 (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if there was simply a relist, but do you realize the other project pages were notified less than 12-hours prior to your closing this RM? Tiggerjay (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move closure (2)

I believe you should self-revert your closure here, for at least the following reasons:

Multiple ongoing threads at WT:MOS, WT:CYCLING, etc., have drawn attention to this RM, and commentary was still active on it. You closed it so fast, I could not even respond to concerns raised by one commenter regarding my own comments, all posted within the last half-day.
Because this RM contests an undiscussed move (that goes against a previous consensus discussion) the automatic default is to revert to the status quo ante name before the dispute arose, in the advent of no consensus, but you did not perform that necessary rename.
You do not appear to have weighed the merits of the arguments; the support comments are based in WP:POLICY arguments (both regard to policies per se and guidelines), while the first oppose is nothing but a "reword some other page to my satisfaction or else" ultimatum, and the second is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS argument (in which the claim of a local consensus is not actually supportable to begin with), so neither oppose has much of any weight at all.
Despite the fact that MoS could be clarified a bit with regard to its dash-related wording (and already had been before your closure [1]), it's actually clear that this case is already addressed by MoS; it's precisely the same as the "Hale–Bopp" example.
Non-admin closures should not be performed when there's clearly room for doubt.

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was only 1 person who supported, and 3 people who opposed. It obviously fell in favor of the 3 people that closed. TheJack15 (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're simply vote counting, then based on your math above, it should have been closed NOT MOVED which is different than NO CONSENSUS. Also I don't see how you count three opposed, as I see TWO SUPPORT, TWO OPPOSE. With active discussion going up to the day you closed it, and there being an active conversation, it appears you were in a rush to close before consensus (or lack of) could be established or formed. Additionally with a prior RM on record, it takes more than a quick discussion to overturn prior consensus. Yes, consensus can change, but not on the whim of a few editors. Nor can it be discounted as no consensus with so little participation. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Moves

TheJack15 - thank you for contributing to move closures, but reviewing many of your recent closes shows that you're not following the closing instructions regarding closing comments, edit summaries and cleaning up after yourself. Additionally you appear to be errant closing contentious move discussions, mixing up "not moved" and "no consensus" and not properly evaluating all of the elements of requested moves. I would ask that you stop closing RMs and instead focus on voicing your comments on these requested moves as you learn more about the process. With no disrespect with only 4 months and 260 edits so far, you're jumping into the deep end of the swimming pool too quickly...

If you'd like another example besides the two already brought up earlier on your talk page, take for example Talk:Woman in the Dunes (film) can you explain to me what you believe consensus is regarding what to do with the DAB pages, as well as how SMALLDETAILS might apply here? Tiggerjay (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheJack15, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Tiggerjay (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move Review

Because of the edits you have made and your apparent sockpuppetry, I have opened a Move Review case to review your existing page move closures. Because you closed the move discussion for this page you might want to participate in the move review. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Nrwairport (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal to the Unblock Ticket Request System or the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Fylbecatulous. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Shayley Bourget, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Fylbecatulous talk 13:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]