User talk:Jtkiefer

??? (header by me)

Many of the items I edited are NOT Point of View. How is stating that she "cut funding" a POV statement!?Since when did stating facts become POV?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.171.178 (talk • contribs) 16:12, November 4, 2005 (UTC)

I do a lot of work on wikipedia, what exactly is this in reference to? Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

to this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southeast_Raleigh_Magnet_High_School&action=history

Boothy443

Thank you. Boothy has been a pest on RFA as well and I believe your action has been long in coming. Please let me know if there is any negative feedback from the community with regard to the block and I will do what I can to assist. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

IRC

"People were fired from jobs and had themselves and family members physically threatened if they were unfortunate enough to be accused of supporting Communism. There was a nationwide “Red Scare”. " http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/2410.html

I think you would agrea that people should not be punished for being accused of just thinking of supporting communism, it could never be proved if they did or did not.

This is linked to the situation we have, I lost my access 10 because you thought that I would kick someone easily. If you asked others and had a look at what I do with the powers you will see that I always ask people before acting even for things easily reverted. I would never abuse my power. drini mop and computer2 were doubling up (the only time I ever kicked)

[10:02] adam1213:  time to kick drini mop?
[10:03] Titoxd: yep, /kick DriniMop
[10:03] adam1213: let me do it asking cool_cat 
[10:03] *** DriniMop has been kicked from #wikipedia-en-vandalism by adam1213: Kick

Can everything just go back to the way it was (access 10 for me) and we can foget about this. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 01:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

---

You're not getting the point. You asked me if it would be a good idea to kick the other inactive mop so your bot could run, and I said yes. But the thing that got your access removed were the celebratory antics that you did, the ones that irritated Drini, RobChurch, Essjay et al. Drop the whole problem, Essjay already told you you're not getting the access back. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I agrea that I should not of made the comment that I made after that but taht small issue has been sorted out with drini a long time ago. Drini even vote for me and I voted for driniWikipedia:Counter_Vandalism_Unit/Elections#User:Drini --
I think I will get access back as Jtkiefer seams to be smart and will realise the small mistake and fix everything up --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 01:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You were told that you wouldn't be getting them back and told you'd be kick/banned if you didn't drop the issue and since this isn't dropping the issue by any means I have banned you from the channel. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

irc

Please unban me

I dont see why we cant discuss it. Where can we discuss it? If we go along with the idea that you are right and I am wrong why dont you discuss it and prove this if you believe its right which you do.

--Adam1213 Talk+ 03:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Because I already discussed it with you several times and stayed with my decision and after being told to drop it several times by not just me but by quite a few other people you still won't drop it, that's why you were banned, and that's why you will remain banned. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Note

No problem. Have a nice day!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]
04:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

RE:

Well... With only 1 comment about the access other that when asked what was going on I dont think you can count that as over discussing it. My time:

[10:32] * adam1213 hoping he will come on soon and fix it for me
[10:33] * adam1213 I don't understand why it needed to be removed
[10:33] * adam1213 but I don't think this covo is getting anywhere

I stopped discussing it. then. When you blocked me because I kept discussing it I really dont see how you can get to this reason. I kepy discussing it when I did not.

Your reasons for me not having access (your ones are [what I think they are]):

1. comment in #wikipedia room on IRC - agread that it was a joke.
2. May misuse power I never did anything to misuse it and I always ask before I do a thing. Proof: #IRC
3. Maturaty about keeping discussing it (overdiscussing it) - I think you have just about agrea that I did not at the time before I was banned, and that we should of discussed it.

--Adam1213 Talk+ 04:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Adam maybe if you dropped this we would have given you another chance, but you keep going and going... I'm a mediator and I'm at the end of my rope here! To be blunt, most of us don't understand why you ever had ops. You never made good use of them, and in fact you didn't know how to use them. I've protected you from being banned before as you were a newbie, but you're not a newbie anymore. Don't blame Jtk for the ban, it was a channel consensus one =-/ Redwolf24 (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

RE:

I had opps for showing cool_cat a big big big flaw with the channel regarding his bot.

Just to comment. It wasn't a flaw on the bot. Cool Cat accidentally left his NickServ password on some file he sent you and you took advantage of his mistake by using it to identify at Nickserv like you were CoolCat and therefore gaining access. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 12:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont think you have helped me that much but thanks for the help that you gave. I did know how to use my powers, I used to use IRC a lot in the past and I knew a lot of the commands relating to what you can do with ops that you cant without, I just I rarly felt the need to and if I did I asked. I also had some references of commands.
I do not think that it was a channel consensus. I just spoke to jtkiefer briefly, your a member of esperaza your not ment to make things stressful .

--Adam1213 Talk+  04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a channel consensus, if there wasn't, you wouldn't be banned. You were making things stressful for a majority of the room, I defended you in the past, but I see no reason now. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The only comments I want to make is that I was given access by cool cat. --Adam1213 Talk+ 07:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Are you sure that it was not in all versions of the bot? I did not want to mention what the flaw was as I did not know if the password has been changed and I did not want people using cool cat's bot's username and maybe even changing its password and do a lot more. --Adam1213 Talk+ 07:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I like your layouts on your pages

You layouts are very nice. They are outstanding. --Actown 07:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Adam Situation

I've banned Adam from the channel for thirty days. Assuming that he drops this now, he will be unbanned on December 6. If I see so much as one more word about this from Adam, I will ban him indefinitely. Everybody, drop it! -- Essjay · Talk 05:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the revert to the vandalism on my user page. I just now noticed it! How did you catch that particular bit of vandalism? Regards, ♠DanMS 02:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

you're right

He's persistent if nothing else. Rx StrangeLove 03:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Eh, garden-variety troll. They have no clue that we don't run according to the First Amendment here, because this is a multi-national project. Ignore and block on sight. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for the edit revert =] -User:Sicarii

Shur'tugal.com deletion

You deleted Shur'tugal.com's article calling it a blatant advert, give a search for "Mugglenet," this is the same thing Shur'tugal.com did, why hasn't Mugglenet's been deleted for being a blatant advert?

Oldstylecharm

I have unblocked Oldstylecharm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at the request of Jimmy Wales as the user has apologized. Looked at one edit which seemed ok, but am open to possibility that a serious problem exists. Fred Bauder 23:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration mailing list. I'll look into this more. If all his is doing is linking to his own poetry site, that is useless. Fred Bauder 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thief!

I was wondering if I could possibly borrow the fantastic layout of your talk page for my use. I am astounded at this work of art you have made, and I wish to be able to use such a streamlines and useful talk portal thingie. Thanks - Pureblade | ^☼ 04:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuckfrance

Deleting Fuckfrance speedily is inappropriate. If you think it shouldn't be here, then please list it at afd. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Will do now, everything should be back to normal in terms of page history, though I notice you left a few copies of the history deleted. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

F***france

Hello: This article appears to have been around for some time. All of the sudden it is being repeatedly speedy deleted. Is this appropriate? Given that it has been around for some time, seems an AfD discussion may be in order. I know nothing of the topic, but was witness to the recent shenanigans. Thanks.—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Also: are you aware that you protected the article talk page?—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I only deleted since I noticed it had already been deleted and assume that this was an erroneous page recreation. The talk page protection was a mistake which I have remedied. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem, next time please assume good faith instead of saying things like "knock it off". Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

??? (header by me)

wHY YOU TELING ME THIS THINGS ARENT TRU OFF ME? I AM NOT DOING THIS VANDIOLISM I AM INOCENT PLEAS STOP SIRR (PLEAS) sorry for rengliish iam from armenia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.9 (talk • contribs) 01:09, November 8, 2005 (UTC)

??? (header by me)

sorry, I was just curious what happened when I deleted pages. If it was just for me, or other people. I guess it's for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.57.213.45 (talk • contribs) 22:57, November 8, 2005 (UTC)

Boothy443

You recently said that you still think Boothy should be indefinitely blocked, but that it would need an arbcom ruling now. I think you've missed something that at least I and John Kenney, and maybe Ryan Delaney and Dbachmann are trying to say. I'm going to cut and paste a little bit from my last post to AN, because I actually wanted you or one of the other blocking admins to reply. I'm worried about what has happened here. It would have been clear to me that an indefinite block was never going to stick. I thought (after such an exteme display of your opinion of him) that it would surely go to arbcom if the block didn't stick. What worries me here is that if no one who is so strongly condemning Boothy here feels comfortable enough to take him to ArbCom, then how did anyone feel comfortable enough to impose an indefinite or even month-long block of him. It looks rather hit-and-run. If he needs a ban, or other sanctions, it's what arbcom's for, after all. I'm not out to get him, but after this fiasco (and it was one, with no less than seven admins blocking or unblocking) I would be disappointed if no one opened a case. My point here is not that I want Boothy blocked (though I do think some santions are necessary), but if anyone wants to indef block someone, they sure as hell be confident enough to go to arbcom to get teh block reaffirmed if it doesn't stick. Or they shouldn't be blocking in the first case. Based on what I've seen of Boothy, I can almost guarantee you that a RFAr against him would be quickly accepted, too. (Btw, this isn't meant to be Yet Another criticism, if that's how it feels, but a request for some follow-through is all.) Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 09:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me be more clear: I suggested you first as the one to go to arbcom because you are the one that thinks he should be banned, and tried to do so yourself. Presumably you would not have taken that step without proper evidence of misbehavior. So, tell your evidence to arbcom. If you were to say yhat you acted rashly, and that you don't know if any further action is needed, I would understand. But since you still think he should be banned, why shouldn't you go to arbcom? Your reluctance makes me worry that you acted without proper evidence of misbehavior. Thisisn't arbitrary: you've demonstrated you think he should be banned, and that you think you have the evidence for it. Who else should go to arbcom before you? Dmcdevit·t 18:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"So called Moldovan language" and romanian

Hello Jtkiefer!

I would like in the most polite manner to have a look on the Moldovan_language where I have added some edits on the talk page [[1]]

The truth is that "Moldovan" doesn't exist. It's about romanian with a different name. The fact is that is identical with romanian. Romanian is a latin language like french, italian, spanish, portuguese. The Soviet propaganda and the russians experts since 1812 tried to make a difference on political reasons. Even internationally at the most official level is recognized that "so called moldovan" is nothing else but romanian. [[2]] Please feel free to express your opinion!  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

PS. Somebody is still deleting an important section of the page; the deleted section demonstrates the identity between "so called Moldovan" and romanian. I've seen that once or twice you have reverted these edits, maybe you could do that again and if the problem persists what can be done?

I suggest you mention it on WP:AN/I where another admin can take a look at it, I am somewhat swamped with things to do at the moment sorry. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Centrelink (header by me)

Hi

The text inserted is on behalf of Centrelink. Replaced text holds a lot of inaccurate information on payments and eligibility. The text added to the site is to generalise payments and services Centrelink delivers. For details, people are directed to Centrelink's website. Considering that contributions on Wikipedia can be accessed and altered by anyone, there is no need to elaborate on payments and services as long as there is a link to the official website of the department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennis (talk • contribs) 19:06, November 9, 2005 (UTC)