User talk:Jkelly/Archive02

This is an archive of inactive discussion. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

The album infobox 2 saga

I just wanted to thank you for all the effort you have put into resolving the dispute over the use of this template. I feel that it is one of those conflicts that has a tendency to wither into endless assertions in the vein of "no, I'm right, and you're wrong", which, aside from not achieving a solution, tend to polarise people and further hinder any progress. So, thank you, and here is a flower :) --Qirex 11:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:Please correct

No, I am not an administrator. I'm not sure if I'd make a good one, though, as I don't fully understand all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and am not the best user when it comes to resolving disputes. But thanks for the compliment anyway! :) Extraordinary Machine 23:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I sometimes get quite stressed with disputes and overreact to them, but thanks anyway. :) Extraordinary Machine 18:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Beatles for Sale

Thanks for your comments on the article's FAC. Together, Jgm and I have worked to improve the article and cite more sources. Please have another look and tell us what you think. Johnleemk | Talk 16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Jkelly Am trying to reply to your message re. Beatles For Sale. My "work" of last night/early this morning has elicited the response I needed - thank you. I was so maddened by the "Original Songs" offering and the initial representation of the album as darker than A Hard Day's Night, its predecessor that I felt that as a Wiki fan and some sort of Beatles scholar I had to interpose.

I would be extremely grateful if you could help me further in understanding how I can communicate ideas without barging into a page unnecessarily. I'm not IT quick, as you may already have gathered; I was looking for a Talk page for Beatles For Sale last week where I could say something but failed..

On the matter at hand, if I may, I need to (re)iterate that the present Beatles For Sale articles/pages "must" be changed because they are so lacking in basic scholarship and musical observation. I am also having great difficulty with the Wiki policy where if you quote an existing source, no matter how cockeyed and erroneous it immediately gains a position of primacy. The All Music Guide quotes on offer here are way, way off as regards the subject matter. One listen to A Hard Day's Night should tell your ears and mind that this is not a "bright" cheerful record but one which contains several songs of a downbeat nature. Several are written in a minor key which confirms this basic evaluation. The title track is in a major key but its bridge in is a minor. "I Should Have Known Better" also has a recurring segment in a minor key ("and if I tell you that I love you..." "If I Fell" is essentially in a major key but its use of minor chords makes it rather doleful. "I'm Happy Just To Dance With You" is written in a minor key. "And I Love Her" is notable for its melancholy. "Things We Said Today" is in a minor key, as is the closing track, "I'll Be Back." Thus, to present Beatles For Sale as being darker is plain wrong, JKelly.

Next: to talk about the opening three tracks of the album as "The Lennon Trilogy" is again, a critical error. I have read a wealth of material on The Beatles career and music and have NEVER come across the usage of this term. If you want to talk authorities, McDonald's Revolution in the Head makes no reference to the term, and neither does Mark Lewisohn, in his Chronicle or in his Recording Sessions books. Thus, it has no place in Wikipedia.

Next: this may appear to be a trivial point, but the writer has McCartney's What You're Doing as a "rocker." This doesn't stand up at all. Thus it begged this question to me: what is this very flawed work doing, not just in a Wikipedia entry per se, but on a Beatles album of all things, also, when it's clear that a bunch of Wiki people are obviously trying hard to make a real success of the encyclopedia as an album archive. I have to say, that any "proper" Beatles scholar is going to be metaphorically laughing at Wikipedia if this is the best the organisation can put out on a Beatles record.

As a professional writer, a writer with articles on popular music published on Barney Hoskyns's (an established UK music writer and expert of many years standing) Rock Backpages website and a Beatles fan of over 40 years standing, I get involved in this debate in good faith. Like everyone else, I presume, I offer my services to Wiki unpaid, and, like many others, with plenty of other calls on my time, professional and otherwise. I am only too happy to give what I have the time to offer in terms of expertise to Wiki. This includes becoming more involved on The Beatles entries and any other that fall within the realm of my self-professed expertise. I don't do this out of egotism - I just find it hard to read material on Wiki which is not marginally, but materially substandard.

So let me re-iterate: if you would like me to help in any way in improving the Beatles For Sale section and anything else, please tell me and I'll pitch in. It would be so sad if people like me were placed in a position where we regard Wiki with a sense of disappointment because it cannot reach a good standard of expertise, when it clearly aspires to. I know this is an appallingly arrogant thing to say, but you need the help of people like me. You also need to let people like me write summative and evaluative articles about art - within the remit of the 5 Pillars - without worrying that what I say has to be immediately verified by another so-called expert. I understand that you are trying to guard against mistakes and unqualified comments, but your present policy is causing the worst of the historiography of popular music to be filtered into Wiki articles that the powers that be seem prepared to let stand for a long time. I can assure you that nothing I would write for Wiki (now i have grasped the pillars) would be something that I would not substantiate by citing clear evidence or by citing a second source.

Like many other writers, I suspect, I could easily pass by on the other side and leave you to it, but I would love to help.

Kind regards,

Thoss 15:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Additionally - I didn't think that any of the points I made on the BFS page last night were original. The only opinion expressed, the influence of Dylan on Lennon's lyrics from late-64 onwards is not remotely original and can be found in many, many Beatles sources.

Regards,

Thoss 15:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

BfS Talk prob.

JK as i way saying about my IT limitations. I went to the Talk BfS page again just now and it still isn't clear where/how I can make a comment and/or to whom. Can you help, please?

By the way, I didn't think that you'd written some or any of the BFS article. Sorry if I made you think I was getting at you.

yours,

Thoss 14:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite ^(talk) 04:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your copy edit. Cheers,

Sam Spade 02:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip!

{{empty}} it is from now on! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Hogeye

I am trying to figure out the status of the above RfC. Does your certification of the dispute still stand? The RfC was "re-listed", but as having only one certifier. I am interested in this because of a number of reversions at Fascism by User:Hogeye over the last few days. Jkelly 22:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It cannot stand, since I did not make any attempt to solve the dispute this time. To avoid being confusing, I reverted the reopening and made a new page instead: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hogeye 2. --cesarb 22:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Madonna image

Hi, I think you are right about the source of the image. I suppose the uploader could be an employee of Meredith Corp. Do you think good faith should be assumed? Arniep 20:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I still think the upload was a genuine donation rather than a fan trying to upload a photo. The user uploaded it to commons on June 14, 2005 but didn't get round to putting it on a Wikipedia page till September. When questioned about the license the user stated in the edit summary Der Urheber der Darstellung gestattet die Verwendung und Weiterverbreitung des Bildes mit oder ohne Veränderung unter der Bedingung, dass weiterverbreitete Kopien die Nennung seiner Urheberschaft ent (translated) The author of the representation permits the use and further spread of the picture further with or without change on the condition that spread copies further the denomination of its authority ent(?). That doesn't come across as fan type behaviour to me, rather an employee/photographer/company owner trying to be generous to this great thing they heard about Wikipedia, but then forgetting to actually link it on Wikipedia pages until September. Maybe the company could be contacted to ask if permission was granted? Arniep 23:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, actually I used babelfish for the translation! Anyway, it turns out the text was copy-pasted from the license de:Vorlage:Bild-by (listed at de:Wikipedia:Lizenzvorlagen_für_Bilder#Gute_Lizenzen) which I think is something like Template:PD-self which possibly indicates the uploader was the photographer? Arniep 23:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, you are right, it was a different photo. However I still can't see where user Peter-m tried to add the image on the German wikipedia as the user claimed but it doesn't really matter as it seems like it will be deleted on commons. You would think that there would be plenty of fans that would upload their photos to Wikipedia unforttunately it doesn't seem to be the case. Most fan sites seem full of copyrighted images, I am beginning to think that "fans" just prefer copyright images to their own or are stingy about giving their own photos away. Arniep 20:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Yeah, I'm aware of the edit summary and how it works. I'm just lazy most of the time.. WhisperToMe 04:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian Paisley

Hi. Thanks for your comment. I have usually tried to back up my statements with references. However, nearly this whole article is referenceless. It seems to me that the contributors are trying so hard to find more points to put down Ian Paisley, that they have forgotten that this is an Encyclopedic article, and not some case for the prosecution of alleged war crimes. This is not the only article that is slanted in Wikipedia, but it would have to be one of the worst. Wallie 17:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Hi. I hope you are right. At the moment, I am not allowed to put in anything. I have tried to accommodate them, but they just revert everything I say. Most of the article is unsupported views, and it seems impossible to make the article more NPOV. As you notice, my latest effort has already been reversed out. Wallie 18:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Protocols

Re: "Hi. I'm curious why you deleted my suggestion. Was it an editing accident, or did you think it was inappropriate? Jkelly 00:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)"

I'm sorry, any deletion of text was purely an accident. I got caught in edit conflicts when I tried to post, and got rather lost in the chaos. Paul B 00:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm too tired. I also put this on your user page by mistake. Time for bed! Paul B 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've restored your comment. Paul B 12:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh!

Concerning the nomination, I did not know this. So thank you for the clarification. :) Although I still think those votes should count as an anonymous supporter or opposer is still a somebody. But that's his call, not mine. Thanks anyway! --Hollow Wilerding 02:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

FDR and corporatism

Hi, I've got a question for you on Talk:Fascism. Right now it's at the bottom of the page, but if other edits intervene before you can get a look at it, just search the page for "03:57, 16 November 2005". -- Jmabel | Talk 04:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox

Thank you for your peer review comment on omnipotence paradox. Just the sort of useful comments which warm my blackened little editor's heart! I think I've addressed the concerns you raised, although a true Wittgenstein buff could certainly still elaborate on the article. Most importantly, I found the source information for the picture of Averroes (and during my searching, I came across a color version of the same Florentine painting detail, which is now what the article uses). Thanks again. Anville 10:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

You seem like a very good user, you know your way around Wikipedia policies and procedures, and you're very calm and intelligent when dealing with other users. Would you be interested in becoming an administrator? You've only been here about 3 months or so, but I'm convinced by your history of good edits that it shouldn't be much of a problem. :) Coffee 13:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed a couple of days ago that you tagged a bunch of images for speedy deletion because they were unsourced, and I thought it would help Wikipedia to have more administrators interested in image maintainance tasks like that. I actually hesitated to ask you about adminship then, since people might see 3 months as too short a time... but then I noticed today that this nomination is getting overwhelming support. And I also notice you do help with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, which is great. With admin powers you could help in other ways too. :p Coffee 16:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jkelly. Just follow the instructions at the bottom of this page. Good luck! Coffee 17:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your impending adminship! Looks like your nomination was even better supported than my own. :) Coffee 17:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of screenshots.

As a user up for adminship, I hope you can justify removing the copyrighted images from the Soul Calibur character articles. They are screenshots of a software/video game, which IS allowed under Wikipedia:Fair Use. Since you originally removed them, I am requesting you perform the tedious task of adding them back in unless you can justify their removal beyond Fair Use. Thanks. -- Bubbachuck 18:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Simply because they are screenshots does not automatically mean that they are allowed as fair use. Did the image description file include the source and the copyright holder? Was there any commentary on the image in the article? The vast majority of screenshots fail these two simple tests for acceptable fair use: if you don't like that, fix the images and articles concerned (or persuade the U.S. Congress to change copyright law). Physchim62 (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My welcoming of you

Yeah... I wasn't talking about another user. Your little message made me laugh. I couldn't really come up with anything better than that, so I hope you weren't too confused. I'll see ya around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Project Fair Use

Hi, thanks for the note, I've added my name as suggested. Arniep 01:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thessaloniki

Hi there, I've got a script that I pass my Wikipedia edits through and it automatically converts safe HTML escapes (ie not gt, lt, or amp) into UTF-8. I read the style guide as you suggested, and it appears to say that UTF-8 is just as acceptable as markup ("Use the HTML entity <ndash; or type it in directly if your keyboard allows it."). UTF-8 also has the benefit of taking less space to code, and looks better in edit boxes/change pages. If you really think it's a problem, I can change my script to exclude mdashs & ndashs from conversion to UTF-8. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 23:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

image

We can't use that Paisley image for three years.

1. It is explicitly the copyright of the DUP.
2. It contains extraneous contextualising additions that are incompatible with NPOV. (You can't use an official portrait of Adams with the Tricolor, Paisley with the Union Flag, Bush with the Stars and Stripes. The use of official party portraiture is highlight controversial on WP and such images are often put up for immediate deletion.
3. The alternative image is covered legally for usage. That one isn't.

Please be careful with what images you install on articles. They could get WP into court. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 19:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Crowncopyright images should come from crown sources, not through another site. And AFAIK no-one legally can change them, even to clean them up, because they remain the property of the crown. Fairuse is slightly more clear, free licence images dead clear. Sorry for not spotting earlier that the original CC image had been replaced by one a copy from a different source with less clear legal status. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 21:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus! Was that what was showing on the page??? I was seeing the official image on the Paisley page, on the image page, everywhere I looked. Good God. No wonder someone was annoyed. That other image was totally unacceptable. Damn these caches. I'll clear it again. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 21:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the intro

Thanks for the intro note, especially the tildes tip - I was sure there was a quicker way than writing it all as markup. I use WP everyday for work purposes, so I thought it was time I started putting something back. Thanks again, and I'll get back to you if I need any help! Bedesboy 22:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

how you define POV or NPOV in Macedonian dispute

Hi, you reintroduced "Former Yugoslav" in the article Macedonia (Greece). What leads you to the conclusion that this is more neutral, and how do you think the Republic of Macedonia's position is shown to achieve NPOV? Regards, Goldie (tell me) 06:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Jean Laplanche, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Jacques Lacan and Jean Laplanche

I apologize if my first edit comment on this was a bit snarky. The forced initial reference definitely was improved by your subsequent edit. However, I still cannot really see the point of mentioning Laplanche right there. Many students of Lacan underwent analysis and bacame psychoanalysts (or did other highly notable things). Foucault, Derrida, Althusser, J.A.Miller, and Irigaray, for example, all attended Lacan's seminars, and are all much more notable than Laplanche (I'm not certain of which years off the top of my head, but it still makes singling out Laplanche peculiar).

Btw. I think the Socialisme ou Barbarie reference in the Laplanche articles seems off. He certainly wasn't an initial founder of the group itself; perhaps he was for the journal that grew out of it, but that needs context. The Laplanche article falsely gives him a greater prominence than Lefort or Debord in this, which is definitely misleading. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

3rd Degree

I oppose your re-direct of 3rd Degree to Third degree. The former is a type #1 dis-ambiguation page (namely, a list of stubs that if expanded can be accessible from a dis-ambiguation page) and the latter is nothing but a link to Wiktionary. Georgia guy 02:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I deleted Third degree, since there shouldn't be cross-project redirects, except in exceptional conditions. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I have promoted you to adminship. Congradulations. Please familiarize yourself with the relavant policies before using those shiny new buttons. Raul654 05:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done! If you need to practise the one labelled "block", you're welcome to block me for a bit. (I'd rather appreciate being unblocked not to long thereafter, but I'd let you pull rank.) -- Hoary 10:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Congratulations, and you're very welcome! --Merovingian 11:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Indeed, may I also extend my congratulations, very well deserved! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Congratulations, and good luck! See you around WP.--Lordkinbote 00:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks

Congratulations on your successful RfA, and thanks for your support for mine. Looking forward to working with you. Cheers, AnnH ^(talk) 20:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Greater Hungary page move

"It seems as if you are preparing to create a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page."

Yes I do. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

My pleasure. Congratulations and good luck! Jayjg ^(talk) 04:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations and Warning

Congratulations on your adminship. I came here to warn you that the IP that you and I have recently warned has switched to user page vandalism [1]. Please block him, thanks. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

(awarded as a gift due to the Holiday Season). εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the spam

Thanks for removing the book advertising. I was going to go through it systematically now and was pleasantly surprised to see that you'd beaten me to it :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

For easy reference:

Why did you change all of the spellings to American English? Please see WP:MOS section "National varieties of English". If you are unfamiliar with European English, please be cautious about changing spellings. Jkelly 21:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I am aware of the differences between American English and British English, I could care less which one is used. I don't care if "honor" replaces "honour" in an article or vice-versa. If I made an edit that was seriously wrong, then I would completely understand why you would alert me of my actions.

I am careful with how I spell things and if you want to revert my edits to suit the interests of the British Empire (or what's left of it), then have fun. However, many of the articles in Wikipedia have not undergone a simple spellcheck or a basic check in grammar and mechanics. So, whether I use American English or British English has no bearing on my overall capability in providing edits using proper English grammar and mechanics. You need not be concerned with how I make corrections for I am careful.

If I make a serious error in any of my edits, then by all means leave a message or go ahead and make the necessary corrections to the article(s). Over and out.

- Deucalionite 11/29/05 4:49 P.M. EST

Swiftboatng Wikipedia

The reason I made the RV and labeled it as vandalism, was because I stumbled across this article today:Swiftboatng Wikipedia , and assumed that the most recent edit from the anon was indeed vandalism. TDC 21:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sam Overland

Madame:

I am growing weary of facing people such as yourself in my quest to reintroduce the good name of Dr.Overland. I appreciate your insight but strongly diasgree. As a high school history teacher it is my duty to know facts such as these. Please comment me back so as we may discuss your incorrect assumptions.

Sam Overland - a speedy

It would be a speedy as a hoax. If it is ok, I'll tag it accordingly. The anon IP seems to have created himself 2 new IDs, check out Talk:Mother Teresa. Pl. change the tag to speedy. If you need help, let me know. I'll change the tag--Gurubrahma 07:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought it wd fall under G2, i.e. vandalism. I am generally weary of taking these to Afd as it involves lot of time and effort. btw, I am on my way out with the knowledge that Wikipedia is safe in your hands. --Gurubrahma 07:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi. Thanks for the comments and congratulations to you! You were asking if there was any suggestion to improve things, that you could help with. Well there is. I am very concerned at the amount of name calling on Wikipedia, either directly, or by inference. In particular, people are called vandals or trolls, or their article trollish or vandalism (inference). (Note that the Wikipedia article mentions that the quickest way to identify a troll, is that they call other innocent people a troll, in order to create friction.) Often those attacked in this way are neither. They merely put up something that the person using these names disagrees with. I think those responsible do this, as it is a quick way to win an argument. I think that there is a culture forming that says these name callers are somehow correct. What concerns me most is that new people, who are genuine are quickly ejected from Wikipedia in this way. I would be very interested in your thoughts on this matter. Thank you very much. Wallie 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No. I did not have any particular user in mind. It is just something I have noticed from time to time, and not just directed at me. I have seen other editors work reverted for "vandalism", which at worst may be been a little badly worded, but the text is correct in essence. The author usually just goes away, and the text remains reverted. I often wonder how the person felt about this. Wallie 20:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The example you gave me is the sort of thing I am referring to. The reverter is not necessarily more experienced/more correct than the revertee either. I am also wary of people quoting regulations, which I take to be guidelines and apply them to others, but not themselves.

Another concern I have is that articles about people often have irrelevent (usually negative) titbits. If you try to remove this, someone says it is a fact. If someone is, say a concert pianist, to bring up the fact that he is probably a racist because his grandfather was a suspected Nazi during 1932, or categorise him as a bisexual because he looks like one is just like petty gossip. The article to my mind should stick to what he has done as a concert pianist, as that is what most people want to read the article for, and that is what he is famous for. Wallie 13:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you don't think I am trying to be contentious. Quite the opposite is the case. I try to avoid these issues by knowing how to handle them. Naturally I enjoy being on Wikipedia, as it is in its early days, and editors are given freedom, which should always be the case. I have been getting advise/giving suggestions to you, as you seem to be of the same mind as me in finding out how to do things in order to get a positive result for Wikipedia and those working on Wikipedia. You are also further down the road as far as this knowledge is concerned than me. Wallie 08:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wc3forum.tk

I left a message for the editor on his talk page, although I am suspicious that the whole account may be a bad faith action. C'est la vie. Tom Lillis 02:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

They are gone

Given the shit (opps) they were adding in, and the attacks on user pages, I have now blocked them. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad to help.

No prob. Got your back. The nonsense keeps rolling in; hang on and I'll give you a hand in about two minutes. - Lucky 6.9 02:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't know about the proxies per se, only that those ridiculous "flame war forum" articles kept coming in from all directions. Besides, if you aren't ticking off trolls, you aren't doing your job. I should know.  :) Anyway, it's a pleasure to help you. We persist. Best, Lucky 6.9 06:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Album articles

Hi. I just thought, as you seem to be interested in such things, that WP:ALBUM and its associated template Template:Album infobox have been updated to more closely follow WP:MOS. You might want to drop by and see some of the changes that have happened. Thanks, and enjoy your editing. Jkelly 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to be pretty attentive to the goings on at that wikiproject, actually. Have you noticed me doing something wrong? I assume that was just a friendly message, but you got me all paranoid for a second there. Flowerparty■ 13:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Sources for Cool (song)

Thanks! I can understand why User:Malber and others may have considered parts of the article original research, but I think it was all just a misunderstanding about the content of the references. Extraordinary Machine 18:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

FAC/Marilyn Manson

Thanks for your input last month at Wikipedia:Peer review/Marilyn Manson/archive1. The article benefited greatly from all of those comments, and it's now a Featured Article candidate. I would definitely appreciate your vote! --keepsleeping say what 20:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

User conduct RFC.

I'd be willing to certify that, certainly. He sort of earned my aggravation with the user page defacing. Just lemme know specifically what you need done and I'll do so. Tom Lillis 02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

All set. As for the administrator thing, thanks for the kind words. The rollback summaries are courtesy of a modification to my monobook.js. Not the first time the mistake has been made. Perhaps I should customize my signature template to include "Not an admin, just an addict!" in red blinking letters. Heh-heh. In any event, I have moved it into the certified RfC list. Feel free to let me know if anything else is needed. Tom Lillis 03:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In the future, possibly. At this point, I think I have severely inadequate credibility. Most of my contributions fall into the category of speedy delete candidates and as those are by nature deleted, there's not much there to recommend me as a reputable member of the community. Outside of that, I only have around 500 edits, and the vast majority of those are talk page mediation and vandalism reversion. This time next year, perhaps. Tom Lillis

Thank you

Thank you for your support note, JK, which I appreciate very much. I'm still hanging on, thanks to people like you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Fascism anyone?

Thanks, but you under-rate your participation on the page. Sometimes just asking honest questions helps move the work forward. It's one of the things that makes Wikipedia such a great idea.--Cberlet 23:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright infringment

Sorry about that, J. Thanks for going to the trouble of removing them. Will try and be more careful in future. Cheers! Fergananim 00:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

From Macedonian

Hi there. I answered to your post on my talk page. Please use this page for any further communication. I am sorry for the delay, I really have a bussy period so I am not able to visit Wikipedia every day. Take care, Macedonian^(talk) 02:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation - User JDG

Thanks for your comments. The ongoing disputes over the Dylan article call out for formal intervention, but the situation has become so unpleasant that, it seems, most everyone shies away from it. This situation has been going on for about six months; user:JDG has been targeting my edits since shortly after I began working on the Bob Dylan article, and has devoted himself to personalizing the issues involved rather than discussing evidence and sources. Rather early on, when other editors attempted to informally mediate the dispute, I made several extensive, substantive posts (e.g., [2], [3]); JDG, when called on to provide a substantive response, withdrew from mediation (and, temporarily from editing, at least under that ID). He returned a month or two later, and has been regularly attempting to restore his favored text, not by presenting sourced information and achieving consensus, but by directing personal attacks on editors who disagree with him (mostly me), and by attempting to impose a (spurious) policy regarding editing of Featured Articles that has been rejected whenever he's advanced it as a revision of the actual Wikipedia "Be Bold" guideline (just as he had done before my involvement). [There has also been an parallel ongoing dispute over the "Be Bold" guideline, with user:JDG on more than one occasion unilaterally making major, substantive alterations to the guideline in defiance of the requirement for making such changes only after demonstrating consensus.]

The questions involved have been argued at nearly interminable length on the talk pages for the Dylan and "Be Bold" articles (at least with regard to my positions); there's only so many ways to restate Wikipedia policies/guidelines and their application to the same texts. At this point, I admit, it's difficult for an uninvolved editor to keep the dispute in context without considerable effort. I'm ready to restate my position at whatever level of specificity is appropriate within Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms, but right now I don't have the time or the stomach to recycle the same material on a talk page that's been dominated for months by persoanl attacks and denial of Wikipedia policies.

JDG is one of a small but active set of Wikipedia editors who believe that "consensus" means that no one can modify language they believe is important without their approval, and act aggressively to prevent such editing, without regard to Wikipedia policies. The disputes on the Dylan page aren't really, for the most part, content disputes, but disputes over the application of Wikipedia policies, most often over NPOV/NOR and verifiability. I think JDG's comments on the admin's noticeboard, denying that his edits qualify as reverts, are as clear a demonstration as one could ask for of his bad faith.

Much of this dispute parallels the Mel Etitis RfC (down to JDG's nasty comments about Mel). As you quite accurately commented there, too many disruptive editors have the idea that "the way in which one can avoid having one's contributions copyedited to conform to Wp policy is to complain about being harrassed, attack the copyeditor's character, round up a number of potential allies and then make the other user feel unwelcome in various places throughout Wp. This is behaviour that the community needs to discourage, not give a gift of legitimacy to." And this is exactly the approach JDG has been taking in this dispute.

The situation really requires outside intervention. I hope you'll be willing to act on the principle you stated in your Mel Etitis RfC comments and help resolve this dispute in conformity with Wikipedia policies. Monicasdude 05:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm putting together the information/history you asked for, and hope to get it to you tonight. Thanks. Monicasdude 13:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It took longer than I though, and I may not get it all up here in one session. But here is the fairly complex history of admin involvement. The earliest stages of the dispute predate my involvement in Wikipedia.

December 2/8, 2004: Admins Filiocht and Rhobite comment on NPOV violations in the Dylan article, and Filiocht performs "radical pruning" on one section of the article.

March 25/30, 2005: Admin Blankfaze objects to key phrase in article intro as NPOV-violating. Blankfaze modifies phrase 3 times, over 2 reverts by JDG. JDG responds to Blankfaze change by insisting JDG's version is factually accurate, not NPOV-violating, but refuses to cite sources: "Are you going to force me to cite surveys and polls to back up something so obviously true? Citations for common knowledge are tiresome and just act as sludge in an article. . . .Ok, you just go on reverting despite having no real argument about the numbers involved. I'll let it stand until I have time to bring in a mediator." After Rhobite supports Blankfaze, JDG comments "This makes two Admins unable to see the difference between reporting a widespread POV in an article and inserting an editor's POV in an article. A worrisome trend."

April 23/26, 2005: Admin Delirium objects to article's unsourced claim that "Dylan is credited" with introducing social/political themes into popular music, citing evidence. JDG disputes claim w/o providing sourcing or citing evidence.

April 25, 2005: Admin Taxman reverts deletions by JDG, commenting "don't remove information if it is valid" in edit summary.

May 17, 2005: I edit Dylan article for the first time (my second Wikipedia edit), making extensive factual corrections and removing a substantial amount of NPOV-violating text.

May 24, 2005: Editing dispute between JDG and me over deletion of one paragraph, mostly written by JDG. I argue disputed text is inaccurate and unsourced; JDG insists "these news reports are well known. Over-citation is sludge." Never really resolved, folds into broader dispute.

May 30, 2005: I make an extensive edit to the Dylan article, intended to remove much of the NPOV-violating material, rearrange the text to more closely coincide with the chronology of Dylan's career, and correct a significant number of factual errors. Nine minutes later, JDG reverts my edit, declaring that since a featured article is involved, "Even one significant change or deletion requires some Talk activity." In response, I cite the "Be Bold" guidelines. A series of unpleasant comments are exchanged, both via edit summary and on the talk page. I place a request for mediation; JDG comments ominously about arbitration.

June 5, 2005: JDG resumes revert warring the article and declares on the talk page that I have violated Wikipedia "policy" by "doing a major overhaul of a FA without discussion." Admin Rhobite replies that "there's no Wikipedia policy stating that changes to a featured article need to be approved first." JDG then revises the "Be Bold" guideline to reflect his position, and specifically identifies the Bob Dylan article as one which to which "Be Bold" principles do not apply. Revert war on Dylan article continues, and unpleasant comments continue to be exchanged for several days/

June 9/10 2005: I revert "Be Bold" guideline to eliminate JDG's edit. Reverts are exchanged. Admin Omegatron also reverts JDG's changes.

June 12, 2005: Admin JYolkoski steps into the "Be Bold" dispute, commenting that "editing a policy page to support your own position in an editing dispute is not a good thing to be doing" and asking JDG to return the guideline to its pre-dispute text. JDG then posts a request for a third opinion and a request for mediation.

June 12, 2005: Admin Gamaliel calls on both parties to tone down their rhetoric on the Dylan talk page and in edit summaries, with specific reference to one of my edit summaries.

June 14, 2005: Admin Omegatron responds to JDG's comments/requests: "If you want to change a guideline that's been unchanged for a year, you need to get a consensus on the talk page first. Revert warring, especially a guideline, extra especially when changing it to a version that supports your position in another dispute, will get you nowhere."

June 15, 2005: Admin Dan100 attempts to informally mediate/resolve the Dylan article dispute. He asks me to explain my side of the dispute; I do so. He comments that my edits do not appear unreasonable, and sees no reason my edits "should not stand." He asks JDG to identify any points where JDG believes my edits violate Wikipedia policies/guidelines, particularly NPOV, sourcing, and verifiability.

June 15/16, 2005: JDG posts comments on his user page and various pages involved in these disputes more or less declaring an end to his involvement in Wikipedia.

And that's more or less Phase I of this dispute, with 8 or 9 admins weighing in on various points. It seems like a big enough chunk for one session. Admin Theo Clarke also put together a useful analysis of this stage of the article dispute for the RfC. He (rather sensibly) withdrew from engagement in the RfC when it became clear that neither side was changing its stance and removed his comments, but they can be seen here [4]

The length and complexity of the dispute signal, I think, why volunteer admins have been reluctant to involve themselves steadily. I hope you find this outline of the dispute (which is more extensive than you requested) is helpful. Monicasdude 06:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Phase 2:

July 15, 2005: I propose removing the Featured Article tag from the Bob Dylan article, commenting that "the article needs more work and more contributors, and I think the FA tag is inhibiting revisions (not to mention the effect of the nasty edit war)."

July 18, 2005: JDG supports removing the FA tag, with lengthy comments regarding me that skate the edges of the "no personal attacks" policy. On July 20, he makes similar comments including an undisguised personal attack.

July 20, 2005: JDG posts on the Dylan talk page, mostly a personal attack on me over an edit made by another user which I did not support. Makes similar comments on July 27, 28, and 29.

More to follow. Monicasdude 21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Album articles....

Would you be willing to help me write a plea? Because I've done so before and everytime it seems to get ignored. Oh, and beware of Monicasdude above. He has his own RfC page and tends to twist the truth around to suit his own ends. A very difficult editor to work with. Thanks BGC 11:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Congrats.

Hope you're enjoying your, er, administrative position (lol). --FuriousFreddy 19:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

St. John Lateran

Hiya J! You might not have noticed but the St. John Lateran is located at the Italian version of its name, thanks to a four person vote in April, even English speakers worldwide (except in the US) don't use the Italian version of the name. I've proposed a vote to move the page back to its original location. It is at Talk:Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano. Please drop in and vote FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Trauma

Hi. Per the history, I see you've had an interest in editing the Psychological trauma article. I've made some additions and such and would invite any comments/criticism. I think there's a lot more work to do on it, but at least now there is a workable definition. Thanks for your time. --DanielCD 21:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Demographics of Greece

Hi. I got the info. from the CIA World Factbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.251.152 (talk • contribs)

3rr?

I was unaware of any 3RR content dispute. They added:

"She is also mother of Carol, ITV's Queen of the Jungle and it is probably for this highpoint of cultural achievement that poets in aeons to come will remember her."

...which looks like nonsense vandalism to me. I reverted, checked their talk page, and reported it to AIV. --Syrthiss 19:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, not a problem. Just didn't want you to think I was pushing some 3RR through weird channels. :) lol @ "fangush" --Syrthiss 19:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Clealls?

Oh. Very cool that you know him. Sorry for the bother. -Chèvredansante 23:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Are yo u sure that you are not Medicine Horse? I have good reason to believe otherwise. creelman's fish!--Chèvredansante 00:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This Is The Sea

Made another minor edit, due to my own mistake, See Talk:This Is the Sea Benjitz 01:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

BD2412's RFA

Although my RfA is not over yet, I figured that since so many people voted before it had been posted, I may as well start thanking people before it wraps up. Thank you for your vote - and with no reservations at that! I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 04:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bolding

I object to bolding blue links because it is pointless and ugly. Adam 02:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Adam 02:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I revert your edits, someone else reverts my edits, it all works out in the end. Adam 02:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

3r Rule

If I revert vandalism 3 times, then I am in violation of the 3R rule? Don't pee on me and tell me it's raining R.Kelly! 155.84.57.253 21:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right

Take a look at the block log...the behaviour of the blocks suggests that User talk:Polysciwantacracker is operating from a proxy of some sort I think...I'm ready to permanently block the account now. What do you think? The RFA - should it be deleted then as well? --HappyCamper 03:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have already gone ahead and perm blocked User:Polysciwantacracker Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not entirely obvious to me why this conversation happened here. Nevertheless, I am sure that everything worked out for the best. Jkelly 06:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

oddly-placed paste of movie dialogue

It was, certainly, that; it's a fair cop. If I may explain:

The Paganism article spends a lot of time chewing over the nuances of the words "pagan" and "heathen" and their origins. For me, that brought to mind this pivotal scene from The Wicker Man, where Lord Summerisle (Christopher Lee) and Sgt. Howie (Edward Woodward) discuss exactly this subject. I don't know enough about the beliefs or the word sources, but I think that the dialogue is pithy, relevant and interesting.

I'd love to see someone try to express all that in a suitably encyclopaedic sort of a way. I couldn't think of a way of improving on the script other than by simply quoting it, with a suitably placed elipsis or two. Ben-w 06:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Stewart Farrar

I like what you did with the article. Well done & thanks! :-) - Ali-oops^✍ 22:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sex Pistols low-value wiki-linking

About my low-value wiki-linking changes to the Sex Pistols article: I see what you meant. I understand now, and agree with you (we don't need to detract the user's experience). But what I don't understand is why didn't you change the other years wiki-linking on that page? And why keep them??

Please reply here or on my discussion page. Thank you.

Unbreakable_MJ 19:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Glad to know. Thanks for replying and the good example. Unbreakable_MJ 20:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I suggest adding a note to WP:MOS about that rule exception. Anyway I did a mistake here and need your help moving this page:

• Unbreakable (song)

to:

• Unbreakable (The Alicia Keys song)

Then put this:

• #REDIRECT [[Unbreakable_(song)_(disambiguation)|Unbreakable (song) (disambiguation)]]

in the old page.

I've done all the other pages and fixed the wikilinks but need help doing the moving!

Vegan 3RR

Hi

we have been through this bullshit already friend.

The problem started when other folks broke the 3RR rule, ignored the consensus on the discussion page, refused to even enter into discussion. Just kept reversing not just edits but the entire article including all developments.

The agenda of those individuals was clearly misplaced. We are defending the article against them. They can try using ever dirty trick they can - including erroneous 3RR accusation, sock and meat puppetry - but it wont work.

If you want to engage in the discussion of the topic - and you are not just another one of their mates - then fine, otherwise I'd keep out of it.

For the record I don't have a fixed IP.

195.82.106.62 19:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

regards to message

Qualifying a statement with "many believe" which is factually correct is hardly vandalism. And certainly isn't "nonsense". 69.248.237.88 00:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

This hardly falls under the guidelines of consensus that the earth being round garners. Many countries in the world including many individuals believe that it is genuine, this being the case the qualifier "many believe" it have been proved a hoax is well within the policies you stated. 69.248.237.88 00:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see the only "others" are you, as it has been you reverting my changes. I think its quite clear if you have a particular disagreement with my edit based on your opinion, obviously that is fine, but you should not double up your role as being both against my edit intellectually with adminstrative power. I have discussed my changes and you have described your opposition, you can not advocate and referee at the same time. Per your request I will add my changes to the discussion page but know you have acted in poor form. Thanks 69.248.237.88 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

disscusion

I have stated my case on Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Qualifications please respond accordingly with your edit objections in mind. thanks 69.248.237.88 04:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Goldman Band

Sorry Mr. Kelly,

I am new to Wikipedia and did not mean to break any rules. The fact of the matter is that another user has been using the Goldman Band article as a vehicle to demean and hurt other users. I have since warned IP 72.225.201.174 on three different talk pages and hope that either he edits out hurtful and slanderous comments like "ruthless bureaucrat" and "Christian "Napoleon" Wilhelm".

I will, of course, wait for a response from this user (or 24 hours) before I attempt another edit. The Wikipedia Community Portal and pages about vandalism are many and complicated. It is difficult to know what the correct procedure is in this case.

Thanks for your help. Daniel Costello —the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.83.187.199 (talk • contribs)

War of 1812 (category error)

Hi Jkelly. Thank you for the correction on the category. I wasn't sure where the heck to put it, but I knew it didn't belong in 'Toronto'. :) Cheers, Madmagic 04:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Unbreakable

Yes there are many songs with the same title Unbreakable. I listed 3 in Unbreakable_(song)_(disambiguation). But I guess I should forget about this whole Wikipedia thing.

Yikes.

Did I just bite a newbie? But, to be honest, he's making an awful scene about my redirecting a short seven-line article on a Michael Jackson album track back to the article. --FuriousFreddy 05:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

To your collection

I award this Barnstar (the first I ever awarded) to Jkelly for his heroic work fighting trolls. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

Makedonas took two pictures that show the blue flag. +MATIA ☎ 17:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

economic fascism

Hey, do you want to be an "involved party" in the arbitration I'm filing against Firebug? I mean I know you are involved, but I don't if that means I'm allowed to list you as an involved party? Would you rather not be listed as one? RJII 18:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hit the button already. If you want you can make a little statement on there. [5] RJII 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not two version of the same dispute. I filed this over his refusal to stop redirecting the article. He's filing an unrelated dispute complaining about my putting a clown on my RFC page. RJII 19:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic fascism dispute

Thank you for your willingness to work this issue out. I think this is the best temporary compromise:

• Unlock the page.
• For the duration of the ArbCom case, neither me nor User:RJII may edit Economic fascism, or any of its subpages, in ANY WAY.
• Anyone OTHER than the two of us is free to edit as usual in whatever manner they wish, as long as they don't break Wikipedia rules. They can decide whether to make it a redirect, an article, the template, whatever.
• If either me or RJII violates the temporary prohibition on editing Economic fascism, whoever violates it can be blocked for up to 24 hours by any admin.

Frankly, I'm loath to make any concessions at all to a serial violator of WP:NPA and WP:NPOV, but I'm willing to do this in order to show good faith, and as a token of appreciation to you. You really don't deserve to deal with all this crap. Firebug 00:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Admin vandal

If you would like to know what jeffrey changed on the user #'s talk page, I wrote that 'I had proven him wrong' on his talk page. Jeff went in (the history shows this) and changed the word 'him' to 'me' thereby reversing my intended statement. Looking at the vandal page has shown that this act is vandalism. I find it hard to believe that you see no wrong doing on his part, but as my grandma said, "To each his own." Thanks for your interest. Daviddec 10:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops

It appears that I blocked User:209.226.83.2 just after you did. I set the block for 15 minutes. I'm not sure how this affects your block (one full day) - I assume it over-rides it. My apologies. Feel free to undo my, uh, handiwork. Mindmatrix 17:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Monicasdude back at it

After I made such sanguine responses to you question on my page, it appears our friend Monicasdude has ended his abeyance of foolishness. He started with some ranting right at the thread you started: User_talk:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters#Bob_Dylan_dispute. Then on to the Dylan page; but just for some gratuitious annoyance, he's now trying to stop me from maintaining my own user talk page. Perhaps a kind word of warning from an admin would prompt him towards a bit less wikistalking and POV mongering. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for user:Lulu to post an unprovoked personal attack on me on his talk page and summarily remove my response. He's repeatedly been cautioned about comments like those in the past, and refuses to conform to the "no personal attacks" policy. And I have to say, whatever "heat" is involved, that the dishonesty of his comments on the Dylan talk page today demonstrate his lack of good faith. Monicasdude 22:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And I'd also note that, although it's not even mentioned in the relevant edit summary, user:Lulu reinstated a (completely unsourced) claim in the Dylan article (which I'd deleted) that Lowell George wrote an unflattering song about Dylan, commenting on events that occurred well after George had died. If you can even remotely figure out how an edit like that can be justified, I'll be quite interested in it. Monicasdude 22:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh... just to clarify, Jkelly: I certainly would not remove any comment from my user talk page, probably not even any that had obscenities or personal insults (not that Monicasdude reached quite that in this case; though I might archive them after a while), nor did I remove Monicasdude's comment. Even though his comment was a bit insulting, I just moved it down slightly to preserve the flow of our brief conversation from last week about the Dylan page. I guess it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things, but it just seemed so childish that Monicasdude immediately undid my minor reorganization of my own user talk page. Of more germane interest is that this might mark a "shot over the bow" in his new intention to "wrest full control" of the Dylan page (as he tried several times previously; hence the RfC's and all). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on with user:Lulu's talk page, but the first time I looked at the edit in question the relocation didn't show up; maybe a bit of server stall involved. In any event, user:JKelly seems to have interpreted the edit the same way I did, referring in his comment on my talk page to your request to "delete" my response to your comments about me. Placing a response directly beneath the text it replies to isn't exactly unusual, and it's no different than what user:Lulu's done on pages like the Dylan talk page. Given his comments on the Dylan talk page implying that those comments were made out of the blue, it's hard for me not to see the edit as an not-terribly-clever effort to inappropriately disguise the fact that I was responding to his unprovoked attack. Monicasdude 23:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And now for something completely different, unfortunately

User:BGC is hard at work reverting dozens and dozens of album articles to remove all contributions by other editors over the last few months. As ever, without edit summaries. This is plainly a response to my listing the albumbox 2 template for deletion. Given everything that's gone before, hasn't this reached the point of simple vandalism, and shouldn't it be treated accordingly. Whatever the merits of the albumbox dispute, removing changes down to the level of spelling corrections and timing formats can't be seen as good faith editing. Monicasdude 23:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just like removing and reverting all MY work - for MONTHS - is an example of bad faith editing on your part. Hence your lengthy RfC page. An eye for an eye. Get the template deleted, and the reversions will stop. Otherwise, it's free game. Nothing regarding fair use abuse has been proven. BGC 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's removed all your work; that's not true, and you know it. You make edits that take articles out of conformity with the Manual of Style and the album project guidelines, and other Wikipedia policies, and quite a few editors remove them. None of your rhetoric in the slightest way justifies your removal of edits, over the last two months, by dozens and dozens of editors, without explanations in edit summaries or justification on talk pages. That's just vandalism. Monicasdude 00:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Ask Lotus & JGD who the real vandal is here. That's why you have an RfC page. And JKelly, bottom line is, I feel certain people have no respect for my contributions and have acted in extremely bad faith. I'm just returning the favor. BGC 00:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Smile (Brian Wilson album)

I've reverted it one more time: I can cite policy and guideline all day long too, but this doesn't get us past this conflict/dispute. I would very much like to avoid revert warring, so tell me what I can do gain your support for either a) {{Album infobox 2}} or b) integrating the image navigation "feature" (as an option, of course) into {{Album infobox}}. Feel free to revert the article, just let me know how we can work this out so everyones happy. —Locke Cole 03:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Greek Macedonia Article

I would like to complain about the person who keeps changing references to "Slavic Macedonians" to simply "Macedonians".

May I remind anyone who's reading this that the subject article is on a modern-day region of Greece. Accordingly, it is offensive to Greeks for Wikipedia to refer to this ethnic group as simply "Macedonian". Greeks have a right to read about their own country without being provoked, and I assure you that this is nothing less than an affront to Greeks.

A qualifier to "Macedonian" is needed, and using "Slavic Macedonians" or "Macedonian Slavs" is the least Wikipedia could do in order to remain at the very least neutral. This is actually the most sensitive and/or moderate of Greek positions, and if a more mainstream Greek position were used, the article should refer to "Bulgarians"; "Slavs"; "Slavophones"; or "Slavoskopjans".

In Greece, "Macedonian" means a Greek from Macedonia.

Again, this is an article about a modern region of GREECE...Wikipedia should not have any part in offending Greeks, especially when they want to read about their own country. --PrudenceBumpkin 12:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The Skuds

Does this band look notable to you? I get losts of Google hits for "The Skuds + Augusta", and they've gotten coverage in music writeups. No label deal at all (not even a minor one), and no official releases as of yet. --FuriousFreddy 15:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:TFD

I don't know if it is of interest to you, but on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion there is a vote to delete a template called behave. It is designed to deal with kiddie vandalism and works excellently where a tough message is more likely to drive someone off but a humourous template gets them to be constructive, but by the usual WP mob are trying to delete it. (I'm all in favour of deletions of unencyclopædic content but the scale of deletions on WP is out of control. I'm on the brink of quitting WP at this stage I am so fed up of it. WP has gone to the dogs IMHO.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a WP:TFD vote to delete Template:Irish Republicanism. In my view the template is fatally flawed in a host of areas, littered with inaccuracies and would be a guaranteed source of endless POV battles between SFs, RSFs, 32 County nutcases, etc etc. We only need to look at the POV nightmares at the various IRA pages to see the nightmares that could be caused by a template that tries to describe who is in and who is outside Irish republicanism, who is a key figure and who isn't. Redking made an interesting suggestion in the debate where he suggested that in effect the template is part if a campaign of normalisation of the Provos to make them legitimate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I need some advice

Help. I am having problems with a particular article which I think is very biassed indeed. Whenever I try to redress the bias, anything I do is reverted. I have an admin also involved in this, and it is clear from his actions that he has a personality clash with me. I also think that if I confront him, he will win, as he knows how to play the game better than me, which doesn't mean to say he is right. I think it has also got to the stage that I put a tag on the article to say that it is POV. Is this acceptable/appropriate, and can this also be reverted? I guess what I am really saying is that I would like to know how to confront bullies on Wikipedia. I would really appreciate your advice. Thank you. Wallie 14:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Merry Christmas. Good luck for 2006. Wallie 10:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Unbreakable - the final episode

Hi JKelly

I'd love it if you could spare me few minutes and read my message that I wrote to User:FuriousFreddy.

I also would like you to know that you're the kind of Wikipedian that I wanted to be. I notice how great a job you're doing here and thank you as a user for keeping Wikipedia a better place, especially with the way you're dealing with problems.

Many thanks. --Unbreakable_MJ 22:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Irish people peer review?

The additions and editions made on this page even within recent weeks - especily photos - has vastly improved it, to the better I think. Would you support it being submitted for a peer review, and help tidy it up/add some more? Fergananim 14:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Fluffy Bunny Saga

Hi, it looks like you keep removing my exspantion to the fluffy bunny post on wikipedia, can i ask why this is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.24.36 (talk • contribs)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Workshop. Fred Bauder 21:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I Heard It Through the Grapevine

If you're still online, can you check something for me? For some reason, both sound samples I uploaded played the Marvin Gaye version of the song (although I know i did seperate files, and I even tried to upload new versions). So I had the Gladys Knight version completely reupped under a new name. Can you confirm that both versions play the seperate and correct songs (from what I can tell, they do now)? Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 01:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright images dispute / Vandalism accusations

It was User:24.6.35.54/User:Vitaphone. He's vandalised several pages over the last month, including Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (of all places), User:Pietro's talk page, and now my talk page. Before I break the 3RR rule on my own talk page (can I do that?), can you take care of this for me please? --FuriousFreddy 02:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

B-what (i'm not up on all the WIkilingo, I fear)? And, oh look below, he wants you to be his friend, too! --FuriousFreddy 02:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhh. Cool. --FuriousFreddy 02:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

IP-switching

Okay, somehow the user has switched to IP address 212.112.232.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and is still harrassing me and those pages. And I don't know if you noticed or not, but he vandalized your page a few minutes ago, too. I've already exhausted my 3 reverts for the day on all articles in question, so what should I do?--FuriousFreddy 02:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, Vitaphone (that's his actual login name, so we'll call him that) likes pictures. Lots of pictures. He's overloaded articles like Flip the Frog, Willie Whopper, and Beans (Looney Tunes) with illustrations, to the point that they appear garish. Myself and User:Pietro (who appears to have quit the project becasue of it; I know him from goldenagecartoons.com) tried to clean up the entries and improve the quality standard, only to be reverted by Vitaphone, who does his reversions with no warning, no summary, and responds to anyone who reverts them by posting vandalism tags on their talk pages (he posted at least a dozen on Pietro's, and harrased him almost to death). Besides vandalising those pages today, he's vandalised Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress , Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, naming me as the vandal instead. --FuriousFreddy 02:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to mention that we removed the images at Happy Harmonies because they came directly from a copyrighted online website, http://www.cartoonresearch.com/mgm.html. --FuriousFreddy 03:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't look now, but he's back as 213.249.155.239. Perhaps somebody ought to make a move barring unregistered users from editing pages? -- Pietro 20:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Now he's going under 200.125.91.159. He also registered under the username AnimationFanatic in order to avoid me getting my username changed and registered again as PietroShakarian in an attempt to impersonate me. UPDATE: I'm not sure if somebody banned his former IP or not, but now he's using 202.47.247.156 and now he's impersonating contributor BrianSmithson with Brian Smithson. -- Pietro 01:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, Jkelly/Archive02! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

danielalfredsson.jpg

It says promo, meaning promotional, duh! -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I cant find the tag, even though I know it exists, and cant remember its name, so I just put promo, assuming people like you know what I mean. Please be nicer, and read between the lines. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy. However, people who like to go around making sure tags are on things should know that "promo" means to but a promotional tag on it. If some one writes just fair use, then the article should not be deleted, but the words should be replaced with a fair use tag. It's common sense. Don't be buried in bureaucracy. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

69.145.112.94

Hi, you have blocked User:69.145.112.94 some time ago for vandalism. Looks like (s)he is back, making tiny changes to articles, especially to numbers. Should we talk, or just block? --Magnus Manske 20:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Alkhemi and Aladin

Hi, back in October05 you participated in the deletion-discussion about a company called Alkhemi ([6]), which was subsequently deleted with your vote. Now the same deletion question is posed for another article about the man behind Alkhemi, a magician who calls himself Aladin. Despite being a truly bad article (extremely biased, outrages claims are made, and the sources used to back up those claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets that are blown up out of proportion to make the subject sound like the second coming of the christ), the vote is so far flooded with "keep" votes, which might be because of dozens of sockpuppets, so I'd like to invite you to add your vote about this matter to tip the balance. The vote is here. Thank you :-) Peter S. 21:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Vitaphone and user blocks

Hi, Jkelly. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this, but I was on vacation when you left your message on my talk page. I appears that Vitaphone has given up the ghost for the time being. Let's hope he/she got the message that stealing images from non-cooperative sources is not acceptable behavior. I don't think page protection is in order just yet, but semi-protection may be a viable option should Vitaphone come on another offensive. Keep the articles on your watchlist, and we'll take the appropriate action when the time comes. See you around! — BrianSmithson 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

Although it was your intent to avoid incivilty, which I appreciate, I'm afraid due to recent events I wasn't able to take it very civilly. I only hope that you understand that in my comments here as I attempt to return your good will in what may be an abrasive comment.

What you said there was about as against WP:NOT as any comment i've heard in awhile, and if you didn't preface your message with that statement, I would have taken it as an attempt at aggresive coercision, which is against WP:CIVIL. Unfortunately, the aristocracy of Wikipedia these days quote those and other rules while doing the exact opposite, at least when a mob of people don't give them loads of harrassment for ignoring any process at a whim for doing whatever they feel like since they think they can due to their status.

Unless someone's making a profit off it or claiming copyright over something that's copyrighted by someone else, the claims of you and other people in the Fair Use group are nothing short of censorship, and are beginning to start a slippery slope towards censorship everywhere on Wikipedia through group intimidation of those who have opposing ideals.

I have asked repeatedly on the Template:User US Democrat userbox talk page to the Fair Use people to give me actual legal reasoning (wiki-policy means next to nothing these days, and actually nothing in this case) why this would violate U.S Code, and despite all the blind edits by those who disagree with me, not one time have I recieved an answer to this. If I did, I'd probably stop. However, BD2412, who is a lawyer in Florida, where the majority of Wikipedia's servers are, said there that it's likely not a big deal.

So, feel free to keep on reverting for no reason, i'll keep on reverting back as long as i'm on Wikipedia until I get one or you get tired and give up. And for now, I'll avoid 3RR, but if the few solid polices we have left are continued to be shredded to pieces by Kelly Martin, Snowspinner, Tony Sidaway and others, I'll lose whatever little faith I have left in process around here and just keep on going, unblocking myself as I go.

Please don't let it come to that if you can help me avoid it. I will not stop "just because", regardless of how you ask. karmafist 03:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing other's signed comments

Hi. I suspect that this edit of yours was probably some kind of mistake. Please do be careful about changing other editor's signed comments! One can use the "Show preview" button at the bottom of the edit screen to make sure that your changes are the ones that you want to make. Thanks. Jkelly 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm... Yeah, I have no idea how that got there. Sorry. Rogue 9 00:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)