User talk:Jesse Viviano/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jesse Viviano/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:Questions, 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!  AndyZ 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Marina C (2)'s comments moved from user page

Thanks Jesse, for your message about Speedy Deletion Templates I'm still learning! Marina C (2) 08:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN Cut and Paste incident

How do I move a page with multiple sections to BJAODN? Cut and paste did not get good results.

What didn't work? If you use the edit button at the top, instead of the sections editor, it should be easy to cut exactly the part you want. You may then have to change the level headings, to make them appropriate. Adding an extre '=' on either side of the section heading will make it do down a heading (making it a subheading). — 199 17:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It was creating section headings that really should have been subheadings. I leanred from someone else's subsequent corrections. Jesse Viviano 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Delete tags

Hi, thanks for that. I must have forgotten to do that, thanks for taking the time to let me know. --Wisden17 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Help in reporting a Primetime sockpuppet

Did I do everything that I needed to do in reporting Primetime's latest sockpuppet, did I miss something, or do I just need to jump straight to requeting a CheckUser? The suspected sockpuppet is User:Djf2006. Jesse Viviano 21:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I blocked User:Djf2006 straight away. Checkuser isn't required when it's an obvious case. I probably would have just reported this to WP:ANI. To be honest I'm not familiar with the sockpuppet process, but use {{helpme}} again if you want a run-down on that for next time.--Commander Keane 21:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes you should add {Sockpuppet|Primetime}.--Commander Keane 21:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Trey (2006)

You nominated this article as vandalism. It seems to be a hoax but is there a pattern from this particular user. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I should have only gotten one warning, since I did not know it was wrong until I had already made both pages. You warned me after both vandalisms. Sorry --Mountain Dew 03:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the message on my talk page. It is good to see that the criteria on hoaxes has been tightened up. Capitalistroadster 03:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks

thank you for the message. I'll make a note of it. Jon513 17:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Zero Mile image in Nagpur article

Jesse, Why did you remove the Zero mile picture from the Nagpur article? Under the Creative Commons License, the image can be reproduced for noncommercial purposes. I don't believe that the article Nagpur is has a commercial intent. I will try to re-insert the image into the picture.

Jimbo Wales himself stated that such images uploaded after May 19, 2005 must be speedily deleted in this post in the Wikipedia mailing list. The GFDL, which is the license that Wikipedia licenses its material under, requires that such material be able to be used for commercial purposes. Creative Commons licensed files used on Wikipedia must allow commercial use and derivatives to be allowed here. Jesse Viviano 14:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

About Image:KaciBrownYamaha.jpg

You said: "Please do not confuse me with User:Ae 3, whom you blocked for one month, when you read my comment. Since I have marked the image with the {{Promotional}} tag and placed the URL of the web page in the image description page, should the changes to remove the image from Kaci Brown be reverted, or should I nominate the image for speedy deletion as a copyvio because 48 hours have not yet passed and it is not used in Kaci Brown?"

I'll mark it with {{orfud}} and if it isn't used within seven days, it will be deleted automatically. In my opinion, it can now be added back to the Kaci Brown article, though that particular article isn't on my watchlist. If you want to do that, please go ahead and then remove the ophaned tag. Thanks for tracking down the source! --Yamla 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Primetime

Thank you for the heads up. I'll clean up my additions (and make the page into a simple redirect) in a little while. I probably should have done exactly that a long time ago, when I learned that /Primetime belonged on WP:LTA. And double thank you for contacting me on wikt (where I can notice it) and not here! --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've since been given reason to doubt that last batch of sockpuppets, as Primetime now has a copycat, or two. I'm also not sure that considerable cross-project tracking is warranted anymore...especially when I am not well versed on the Wikipedia subtleties. So I'll leave of the dubious additions for now. But thanks again. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Roy Patrick O'Duggan

Thanks for the heads up about closing this AFD. It's taken care of now. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

About speedy deletion and hoaxes

I noticed that you removed the speedy deletion tag I left on Banana Pod Spider. I am quoting this from the non-criteria section of the criteria for speedy deletion (emphasis added is mine):

* Hoaxes: Articles that present unverifiable and probably false ideas, theories, or subjects. Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous, but remotely plausible articles should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum.

I believe that Banana Pod Spider falls into the loophole that I highlighted to flush obvious hoaxes down the bit bucket. First, no spider has a backbone. Second, if the animal in question had a backbone, it would go into the phylum Chordata because that phylum is reserved for all animals with a backbone. Third, there is no way one can chemically get phosphorus from potassium because the two are different elements as in the following quoted garbage from the hoax: "The spider has a special gland found in NO other animal known to man. It has a gland called the "lonomial gland". It is used for manipulating potassium, in two major functions. In the first, it uses potassium, and changes it's chemical structure to become phosphorus." One could use radioactivity to do the job, but that is physics, not chemistry. This is why I believe that this article ie not plausible at all, and therefore falls under CSD G3. Jesse Viviano 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Your background in arachnology and chemistry is obviously better than mine. However, the fact that you required 160 words to convince me that this is a hoax tells us that perhaps this isn't obvious vandalism, which is what CSD:G3 is really meant to handle. In any case, the 5-day Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process should take care of this. Owen× ☎ 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Nilo...

Seemed like random trolling, and both said account had already been blocked separately anyway. Sorry about that. Circeus 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Front page article

Thanks for dealing with all the vandals on the FA. Anchoress 21:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not block those vandals. I just tagged the vandals' user pages with the correct block notices by going through the block log at Special:Log/block because many administrators failed to tag the vandals' user pages. To find out who blocked the vandals, go through the block log, and you will find out which administrator blocked the vandals. If you go to the vandal's user page, there should be a link called "User contributions". From that link, there is a link to that vandal's personal block log. Please thank the administrators who blocked the vandals. Many of the blocking tags also have direct links to the users' block logs. Jesse Viviano 21:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh sweet, thanks! Anchoress 21:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage creating

Hi, please don't create userpages for blocked accounts unless they have a significant number of edits. It serves no purpose, and just encourages the vandals. Thanks. --Doc 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alfonso Leon De Garay

Sorry I deleted right after you tagged it. I moved it to the new title and ameneded Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. I will delete "ALFONSO LEON DE GARAY". Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy copyvio

Hi, I saw you changed the copyvio tag to a speedy copyvio tag in some articles like Barkley Sound. I changed it back, since the website where the content was copied from is not a commercial content provider as stated in the tag. To quote "A commercial content provider is an entity directly engaged in making money from the content". The site in question was more like a tourist guide for the regio, not like a newspaper or encyclopedia (examples mentioned of commercial content providers). Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On how to tag copyvios

You might not have known, but if an article is less than 48 hours old, it can be speedily deleted using the tag {{Db-copyvio|url=http:whereItWasCopiedFrom.tld}}, where the "url" parameter is the URL the text or image was copied from. This gets rid of the copyvio much faster than at WP:CP. If it is older than 48 hours, then list it at WP:CP. It must sit there a while so that Wikipedia forks can copy the copyright notice over the old version of the article. Some forks will keep an old version of an article if the article is missing. Jesse Viviano 20:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the speedy criteria only applies to copyright violations from commercial sites. Since I've only tagged one recently, you must be referring to that one. It was from a .edu site, and I've had those rejected previously as non-commercial. GRBerry

For a clear and well thought out argument for not letting us forget Primetime, VaugnWatch, Lightbringer and other truely dangerous vandals. 68.39.174.238 16:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

sjsandford@hotmail.com

Hi, got the advice to change my username and have actioned it. Hopefully this will be changed soon. I was wondering why an article I had written was gone? Perhaps it was too commercial. It was not meant to be at all. Sjsandford@hotmail.com 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing imposters

I understand you have good intentions in mind when you are categorizing indefinitely blocked attack or imposter usernames, but I would ask that you please stop. If it's obvious that the username is inappropriate or impersonating, just leave it blocked. Neatly tagging it and dropping it into a category only serves to encourage the vandals. WP:DENY is the best solution: just block 'em and ignore 'em. Creating their userpages just results in stuff that can show up in web searches and stuff, which only gives their attacking efforts more attention. Thank you for understanding. --Cyde Weys 18:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do when I notice that the user page already exists and is full of garbage? Do I request deletion? Jesse Viviano 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
When a userpage already exists for an indef blocked account, you should usually just blank it and mark it with the basic {{indefblockeduser}}. That way we treat every vandal the same. But if it hasn't got a userpage, please don't create one, unless the account has substantial edits (substantial edit accounts acounts are normally worth marking, as someone may come looking for the user). --Doc 19:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
One more case, should I tag the userpages of open proxies and Tor nodes as I normally do? Jesse Viviano 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Asiatic Cheetah

I would agree with you if the entire article is all copyvios. If some of the article is not a copyvio, then I would delete all the parts that are and leave it as a stub. Thanks, NawlinWiki 14:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy copyvio redux

Hi, regarding my message here. The criteria "commercial content provider" was removed yesterday. See point 8 of the article criteria for all the parameters. Thought I'd mention it just in case you missed the change. Cheers, Garion96 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is great news! Jesse Viviano 02:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian flag

Why are you replacing an extant image with one that does not exist? Raul654 03:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I forgot the image prefix. I fixed this. I will mark the old version with a {{Db-noncom}} tag soon. Jesse Viviano 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Dorothy Norwood

personal attacks

OK, sorry about that. But that Danny Lilithborne also offended me. He also attacked me.

Re: Noncomerical template

I've copied the conversation to: Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#About_.7B.7B.5B.5BTemplate:Noncommercial.7CNoncommercial.5D.5D.7D.7D. Please respond there. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

The contributer tagged it saying there was a better image available. Which he pointed out on his talk page User talk:Throw#Fair use rationale for Image:NamcoMuseumBattleCollection-EUFrontCover.jpg. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Publicgirluk

Where did you get the idea from that she had been banned by Jimbo Wales? She was blocked by Nandesuka, and this was last reinstated by Dragons Flight. Tyrenius 20:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:List of banned users. Jesse Viviano 20:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No, Jesse, see [1] grendel's mother 02:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mikewalker.jpg

Im not sure but it seems like a fair use situation to me. Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy 1)No free equivalent is available 2)Does not replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media 3)The copyrighted work is only userd once. 4)It has been published on mike walkers web site 5)It is encyclopedic 6)It is media-specific 7)It is used in 1 article 8)The material contributes significantly to the article by identifing the subject of an article 9)Image is only used in the article 10)The image is tagged fair use and cited the web site "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" No.

Maybe im doing something wrong? This is the first fair-use image i've tried uploading. Spazm 15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: My mistake at WP:AIV and some apologies.

No worries—it happens. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 12:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What to do about vandalism from 24.123.27.138

Hi Jesse, this is a follow-up on an IP that I submitted at WP:AIV. You marked User_talk:24.123.27.138 to show that the IP belongs to Roadrunner, and that it may be assigned to multiple users. My question is: do we know that this one rotates? The result from ws.arin.net [2] puts it in a block of 32,768 addresses assigned to Roadrunner, and it's classified as 'Commercial' by them. Since it's commercial doesn't that suggest a static IP? The fact that there are no good edits over 6 months also suggests that this IP may not rotate among users. EdJohnston 14:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to comment...

I've made a more formal-ish request to have Primetime's Meta-wiki sockpuppet blocked here: Meta:Babel#Cross-wiki_ban.3F. Since this was your find, I wanted to let you know. 68.39.174.238

Yea, but you made the suggestion on Meta, so I included you in this "mini-SPAM" (;)). Anyway, I've informed Connel of that as well. 68.39.174.238 21:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

<br> => <br />

Hello there!

I just noticed this edit of yours and decided to do some investigation. I have loaded up the previous version (the one with <br> tags) and to my surprise, it passed the W3C validation as "valid XHTML". So, I looked up the page's source and the <br /> tags were already there! It seems that the Mediawiki software is smart enough to do the substitution by itself, so fixing existing pages is probably unnecessary. Just a technical note I thought you might be interested in. Happy editing! :-) —Misza13 09:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Ok, thanks. I'll remember that in the future. —Khoikhoi 19:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. Ciao. —Khoikhoi 04:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Pages needing translation

I have translated one of the pages you listed at WP:PNT. As is the case with most of the onomastics articles, the prper way to clean it up was to delete most of the content. I hope you find my clean-up work satisfactory, and please don't hesitate to send any more onomastics articles to me, as this is not the first I have clean up. Regards, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 13:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry about my comment on Elephants having 8 knees, as i read this information in the book called "Can Cows Walk Down Stairs" by the New Scientist Aro888 07:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Fair use rationale for Image:Mozambique flag 1975.gif

Hi. Thanks for your message. When I uploaded this image, along with many others, my purpose was to use a current flag on the articles of the World Cup Qualifiers, instead of using the present mozambican (?) flag. I understand that it must have a reason to be fair use, but unfortunately I'm suffering of a extreme lack of time (I don't edit anything here in months), so if you could add this reason I would be more than grateful. Sorry if I made english mistakes, but it's not my main language and I'm kinda asleep now. Thanks again --BLOGuil 23:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Block of 70.255.46.234

The block is for anonymous users. — ERcheck (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Must-carry

As someone involved in drafting the must-carry rules and involvment in the U.S. from 1984 onward, it would be more helpful to add material, if you are aware of it, regarding worldwide must-carry rules, rather than simply complaining about a lack of globalization. To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. originated these rules which other country(s) have emulated. Tvccs 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea that this was a U.S. centric topic. It started off looking like an introduction to a worldwide phenomenom, but then became all U.S. centric. Therefore, it looked like a candidate to be globalized. If there was some indication that this is a U.S.-only topic or that most of the world had not adopted must-carry, then the tag would not apply. I myself am an American who has not travelled the globe much, and therefore would not know about anything in other countries' cable television situations. Jesse Viviano 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

personal attacks

I thought, personal attacks and unfriendliness are forbitten, then take a look on this page [3]. Lieutenant Dol Grenn 17:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What is going on there is a bunch of constructive criticism, not personal attacks. Constructive criticism is not considered a personal attack.
Also, accusations of bad behavior with solid evidence are not considered personal attacks. In fact, this is normal when reporting someone for abuse of Wikipedia, like a suspicion that someone is a sockpuppet of Primetime, a user who keeps inserting copyright violations all over the place in Wikipedia and Wiktionary, putting them in serious legal jeopardy. Making baseless accusations and calling people derogatory terms without strong evidence count as personal attacks. For example, if you call John Doe a pedophile without any evidence, that is a personal attack. However, if you can show that he is uploading child porn to Wikipedia, then calling him a pedophile is fine as long as you provide evidence. Additionally, you should file a CheckUser request to get the sicko's IP address so that law enforcement can bust him and rescue the children he is taking sick photos of, as well as reporting him to WP:AIV to stop him from uploading anymore of his disgusting trash. Jesse Viviano 02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bonaparte

Thanks, but I think commenting there would only be a waste of time. Bonaparte has made it quite clear that he "doesn't care" about using his old account. Khoikhoi 23:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh my!

Your comment about me in the Pepsi revert almost gave me a heart attack. :) :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 17:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Jesse Viviano 20:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

merci beaucoup

Thanks for the corrections et al on my page --Eggman64 04:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned fair-use images - 04 Nov 2006

I received your message re: the orphaned fair use images: Image:KBZK_logo.jpg and Image:KNAZ-2News-logo.jpg. However, Gay Cdn beat you to the punch by nearly two hours. I had already nominated the two images for speedy deletion, but it looks like you overrode the speedy delete nom with the standard delete nom. I will revert your noms. There were two others that Gay Cdn brought to my attention that I have also nominated for speedy delete: Image:KXLF_logo.jpg and Image:Kejr-kmoh-logo.jpg. Please do not override these. Still, thank you for your diligence. dhett 10:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to your Decision on the Jason Pierce AfD

(Reposted from my talk page in case you do not check both)

I noticed that you mistakenly speedily kept Jason Pierce. I reverted that because that was improper. Please do not speedy keep any pages unless one of the guidelines at Wikipedia:Speedy keep are met. Jesse Viviano 22:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"1. No-one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Also, there are some cases where the nominator specifies they are nominating for the sake of process, for someone else, or some other reason but are not stating an opinion themselves."
Also, please see WP:SNOW, specifically:
"If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process."
This is clearly the case here, as there is still no support for deletion. I will let the debate run its course this time, but in the future please do not second guess my decisions. I know my edit history on this account goes back little more than a week, but I've been an editor on Wikipedia for the last 4 years and do know a thing or two about the various processes. I would never close a debate early if not supported in my decision by the guidelines. Thanks for your concern, and have a wonderful day. →Bobby← 12:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Are you a girl or a boy? With a name like Jesse, it's kind of hard to tell. Thanks.--Gngmhj3 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a man. Jesse Viviano 03:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Personal attack redacted. See this old version if you must view the personal attack. Jesse Viviano 09:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fridge Cat

Hi, thanks for your note on Fridge Cat. I had no idea that referencing to Encyclopedia Dramatica is not allowed. It's a shame though, since it's the only reliable source I can find on the origins of "IM IN UR BASE KILLIN UR D00DZ," which is how the Fridge Cat meme spun off. Oh well.

The only other sources I can find for Fridge Cat that aren't attached to Encyclopedia Dramatica are:

http://www.knitemare.org/cats/ http://forums.ukhh.com/viewtopic.php?p=552432

Unfortunately, I don't know exactly WHO made Fridge Cat. It's a mystery.

Kosmonaut - Tuesday Nov 21, 2006 at 10:33 AM EST

Grrr, thank you for this – [4]. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

African Elephant

Hey, no worries about the mistaken vandal warning. I actually hadn't seen the warning message you had put up and had no idea what you were talking about at first, till I check my history page anyway. I hadn't heard about the Colbert thing before so didn't realize that's where this info was coming from. I'll keep it in mind when checking up on that page. Thanks for the apology and explaination :) Pnkrockr 15:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jesse_Viviano/Archive_1&oldid=1084121859"