User talk:Jamesofur/Archives4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

On Dariush Mehrjoui

I am astonished that you have so wilfully neglected my earlier request on this page. What manner of interaction, civilized or otherwise, could this be? --BF 16:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

note, answered on user talk page James (T C) 17:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Jamesofur, thank you for removing the original file on the Deletion page. There were actually two, which are link together for purposes of use, however, Jimbo separated them individually on the Deletion page. The other file is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TWCC_Award.pdf

You will find in the history the June 11th upload was not redacted, where the other file is redacted. Would you mind removing the un-redacted from there as well? It will be greatly appreciated, as your other effort was. Thanks again! Victor9876 (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks, I didn't notice the other file. James (T C) 03:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your quick!!! Again much thanks! If I may take you up on your offer to have the originals removed (I believe that is what you meant) I would also appreciate that. On a further note, how long does the Deletion page hold the content and when can I use the documents again? Victor9876 (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Victor, I talked to Oversighter Keegan and he suppressed the older versions of File:Power of Attorney.pdf. Unfortunately he suppressed all versions of File:TWCC Award.pdf and I'm unable to undelete that, sadly to get that restored you'd have to talk to him. James (T C) 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually he has now suppressed the original version of both :) You can still see the Power of Attorney one though because of the copy on Commons (you need to put your source info on that side though). You may want to put the other pdf (with all private info redacted) over on commons as well. About putting it back into the article, you can do that yourself whenever you need to the deletion process won't put it back in but it also won't take it out. James (T C) 04:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamesofur, if you deleted the final local version of this file, did you delete it under WP:CSD#F8? If so, in future, I suggest not deleting the local copy until all source/copyright info is on the Commons version as well. In fact, this is mentioned in the text for that speedy criteria, and since it wasn't there, a speedy delete was not a valid option. If you did not delete the final local version, do you know who did?--Rockfang (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it says I deleted it, that is actually more of a bug in the system. I actually just deleted old versions (the ones that were unredacted) the end deletion was done when Keegan suppressed the whole versions but the system sees through anything suppressed and just sees my deletions. James (T C) 04:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I will contact Keegan.--Rockfang (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello James - as you may or may not know, Wales outed me by name and Wales and I had some rather tart exchanges, the files you helped with, were obviously targeted for deletion by Wales, which makes one suspect of why he nominated the files for deletion, rather than just delete them himself. I was blocked for 24 hours, so there is no need for me to raise issues on the files, except that they will never be used in the McCoy article. Therefore, the TWCC file has already been deleted, I have noticed that the Power of Attorney file is still operational, would you mind using the speedy delete avenue to remove it? I would ask that all my photo's and upload's on the McCoy page and the Charles Whitman page be removed as well, but that would just create other issues that I don't need. Thanks for help if you can! John C Moore a.k.a. Victor9876 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your response awaited

Your response is being awaited here. --BF 01:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response on User:Raamin's page. --BF 21:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Your e-mail

I replied. Just drawing your attention that I'll be offline for two weeks in a couple of hours if you need further clarification. Cheers, MLauba (Talk) 09:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Forwarded the missing mail. MLauba (Talk) 21:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Knight and Day

Hi

I saw that you are in charge of this page upto 2nd July.

Can you please look into the request posted by me for adding original review comments from certain critics in the critical reception section.

Also the Knight and Day movie page does not look good in terms of neutral to all the fans alike as mostly negative reviews are only posted for it.

Can you please look into the discussion page of Knight and Day and consider my humble request.

Looking forward for reply from your side

Thanks

Sriram —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolguychn (talkcontribs) 18:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I responded, at Talk:Knight and Day. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"subject's wishes"

What I fear has happened is that this person has demonstrated that if you are enough of an abusive, slanderous, vulgarly obscene jerk, and sufficiently vicious in your ignorantly vituperative abuse of Wikipedia and all Wikipedians, you can manipulate your coverage in Wikipedia. Is this the lesson we want to teach all controversial subjects? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that he was some of that (as well as no doubt that what he REALLY wanted to do was replace the article with his own, which wasn't happening). However the anger and abusiveness from him and other subjects frequently come from quite legitimate and understandable concerns, they get angry because they no longer know what they can do and generally only after they have been trying to work with us for a while. It is the same issue we have with legal threats, just "blocking per NLT" is not helpful if we don't look at the actual complaints since they are frequently actually issues. Frequently if we actually fix (the legitimate) issues the legal threat will not only go away but we will win a new ally. We are an enormous site that provides a lot of information to people and is often more popular then their own private site, it is understandable that they would WANT to control it even if that is not possible.
Does that mean that all complaints are legitimate? No, of course not, some people will never be able to be happy because they just want to control the article (and Mr. Long appeared to be one of them). However, I still think that it is not improper to give the subjects wishes due thought especially when the notability is borderline (if it isn't that's a different talk). I think however that ignoring them solely because of their anger is rarely helpful, it doesn't get them to quiet down it just makes them angrier. I have also dealt with abusive and vulgarly obscene subjects who, to be honest, had very legitimate reasons to be so. Most of them apologized later on but it is hard to completely fault someone who goes off the rocker when they have been horribly libeled and start getting phone calls from friends and family about it (especially when the libel stays there for a day or much more). Almost every subject who gets very upset like this is honestly and completely certain that they have been wronged and generally libeled. We, and the courts, may disagree but it does not change the fact that they believe so. It may not be how I would act, I've found being nice, if forceful, about things tends to work better but I can not blame the feelings. James (T C) 18:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Further edit: The nice ones will always have better luck. The honest fact is that when nice about it they can often find ways to GET what they want in there because the community is much more receptive. That being said I'm not positive we should ignore the angry ones because of the reasons above (they frequently have not illegitimate issues) and because they frequently have actually tried for a bit before they got angry (not always, but frequently). Too often we drive people to be come vandals, abusers and sockmasters because they feel they were abused, wronged etc by users or admins. Too often, when you look back at the history, they aren't wrong. I'll still work to stop them, but I'd also prefer to stop them before they start if possible. James (T C) 19:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry?

Hi, you (or your account) on Simple English Wikipedia recently block my account (same username as here) for indefinite (I can't edit or create articles) on the grounds of sock puppetry - now I don't know how you arrived on this reason, but I do know that I have only one account on Wikimedia, I have never influenced anyone to vote a decision upon a subject which myself have previously casted my vote on, and I have been influenced by anyone to do the same thing. I can prove this because my edits on Simple English Wikipedia are very low (round about three) and from that you see the only page I have edited is my Userpage. The only reason I can fathom out why you block me is because I placed a link to my English Wikipedia account (this account) on my Simple English userpage, that is not a form of sock puppetry and is not against the rules. I don't know if this was a error, or something else?
Please can you look into this
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 17:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand this isn't the place to post this kinda thing, but I can't edit your talk page on Simple English Wikipedia - because of the block.

Answered in private unless requested to do otherwise by user. James (T C) 18:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding
--George2001hi (Discussion) 09:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)