User talk:Jreferee

---

• Archive

Thanks

Thanks for putting the revision in after my response. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Gustav von Schönberg translation (From a note to YFB)

Hello Yummi,

I hope the following observation is going to be of some use. "Gericht", of course, means "law" (or "justice") and "Assessor", well, means the same thing in English. So the literal translation would be "law assessor" or "assessor of law(s)", in other words someone who would assess what civil(?) law(s) would apply to any given case as it comes to court. I don't know if "law clerk" would do, probably not. The problem here may be that there probably is no equivalent functionary in the courts of the English speaking world. The foregoing is an educated guess.

Cherio, Peter Horn 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cherio again, Peter Horn 16:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Lostpedia

I've already said everything that I have to say about Lostpedia on the LostNav page. Rather than engage in a heated debate for the next several months, which degenerates into emotional and personal attacks, I'd prefer to just let my comments stand as they are. Tulane97 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that this issue of adding lostpedia to the template needs to go to mediation. -Blue Tie 19:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Further more, why did you change Lostpedia to being a "engaging web advertisment" for the Lost Experience??? Its a fan website and nothing to do with ABC/Channel 4/Seven Network's Lost Experience. --217.65.158.118 09:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• My actions were supported by footnotes (now deleted by other users). My reasoning for whatever actions I took are on that articles talk page and in the edit summary to my posts for that page. In particular to your comment, I don't believe I took the action you mention above-- Jreferee 16:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Impossible vault

Hi Jreferee. I saw the listing you made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and your proposal, while uncontroversial, may not be possible. Article histories aren't stored by section, but just one version after another. When you look at the history page, each of those versions is something that could move, or not. There's not really a set of versions from here that contain the history of the architectural information and not lots of other stuff that it can't be separated from. I hope I'm making sense...

If you can see a reasonable way to split off part of the history while keeping the history of what remains in the right place, I'll happily do it, but I don't see it. Perhaps it would be better to leave a note at Talk:List of architectural vaults indicating that the material for your initial version came from Vault (disambiguation), where people can find the GFDL history if they need it. The whole point of preserving histories is so that content can be traced to a particular contributor, so as long as we leave a paper trail, we're generally pretty happy.

Please let me know if I can help in any way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

Edit Summaries

I've noticed a huge improvement in your use of edit summaries. Good job and keep up the good work! Cbrown1023 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Diffs

Hiya, on your post[1] at User_talk:Rebecca, could I please recommend that you include some diffs? For example, it would be helpful to add this diff [2] next to the "psychopath" comment. This assists other editors in verifying the specific incidents, and can make your comments and concerns more effective. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 23:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

• You can join a Task Force.
• You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
• You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
• You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
• You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
• You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
• You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
• You can help reference articles.
• Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
• You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Leisha Harvey

Oh, spare me the rhetoric.

I have no problem with the persondata, but the infobox was completely useless (not to mention factually incorrect in a couple of places), and virtually all of the content you added was indeed worthless - either padding that served no purpose and added nothing to the article, or original research conclusions, such as the vague claims of "her name being used as a political and legal football".

Secondly, I'm almost impressed that you bothered to go through all my archives and message everyone I've ever had a dispute with in an attempt to somehow get credence for your edits, rather than trying to write something which actually added to the article.

Finally, trying to make something out of my response to a stalker who was threatening me offline is just below the belt, and shows that you're really grasping at straws here. Rebecca 03:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's unsurprising to see that you overlooked all of the above before responding. The infobox served no useful purpose, and was factually wrong in numerous places, so it was removed. And yes, all four of these facts were indeed "worthless padding". The statements about Harvey's pension would have definitely been notable if they had been acted upon; the fact that someone put out a press release is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. Similarly, the fact that someone put out a press release associating a politician with a former colleague who was a convicted criminal is hardly notable - it's almost to be expected in the circumstances. It might have been notable if it had some substantial effect on the election (as with, say, the "Guilty Party" ads attacking the Victorian ALP in the 1990s), but on these facts, there is no evidence that it did. It's just including material for the sake of including it. This isn't personal - you made edits that weren't great, and they were reverted accordingly, just as I'd expect people to do if I'd made edits of this kind. You can try to make this personal as much as you like with your rather vicious comments of recent days, and attempts to drag in anyone I've ever clashed with, but I'm only interested in the quality of this article, and I'm not going to play these games. Rebecca 01:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Solicitation and other things

Hi Jreferee. Although you may honestly disagree with Rebecca's edits, the way in which you have attempted to dispute them is disruptive. Spamming (vide contribs) 18 different users (and at one stage an article talk page – which I've deleted) is utterly inappropriate and aggressive. Moreover, in assuming bad faith and labelling Rebecca's edit as vandalism (please see that page for a description of what that actually is), which you did in at least three places (diff, diff, diff), you have failed Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please be more aware of these policies when involved in future content disputes. Also, an apology to Rebecca for misrepresenting (diff, diff) an edit summary which related to an obviously distressing (and completely different) issue, wouldn't go astray. Thanks, --cj | talk 01:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Cj - Your conclusion above talk page that my 22:11, 22 November 2006 post to Rebecca violated Wikipedia's Spam guideline, assume good faith policy, and no personal attacks policy, as well as misrepresented administrator and former arbitrator Rebecca's "Actually, fuck this, I won't be intimidated by a psychopath" edit summary.
  Appropriateness of Your Post. Your post on my talk page gives the impression that it is from an unbiased, neutral administrator. However, you and Rebecca appear to have a close friendship and shared political beliefs about Australian politics, something you did not disclose in your post on my talk page. Rebecca is the third user listed on your user page [3], you and Rebecca were the fifth and sixth editors [4] to be added to WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia. Within 24 hours of Rebecca's post to Newhoggy, you also posted to Newhoggy's talk page [5]. You are familiar with administrator (sysop) Rebecca enough to refer to her as Bec. You joined the WikiProject Australian history 24 hours after Rebecca joined.[6] You and Rebecca sided on numerous resolutions together regarding WikiProject Australian politics. Both you and Rebecca apparently share the same Australian political views [7] [8] and corroborated together on the same Australian political articles. [9] Your post on my talk page originated with Rebecca's conduct [10] in an article about Australian politician Leisha Harvey. In addition to not disclosing your close friendship to and shared political beliefs with Rebecca as part of your post on my talk page, you made a permanent record of your administrative Wikipedia violation conclusions without first soliciting my input.
  Validity of Your Conclusions.
  (i) Wikipedia's Spam guideline. To reach your conclusion that I violated Wikipedia's Spam guideline, you apparently needed to mischaracterized my 22:11, 22 November 2006 post (vide contribs) as a content dispute. After editors Seraphimblade and Elonka, I was the third editor within a day and a half both to become concerned about Rebecca's conduct on Wikipedia and make such as post on her talk page under an existing thread called Concerns. I was the twenty-first editor within a few months to both become concerned about Rebecca's conduct on Wikipedia and make such as post on her talk page. Rebecca's conduct had previously affected the 18 editors who took time away from their writing to post their concerns on Rebecca's talk page. [11][12] Prior to my 22:11, 22 November 2006 post, Seraphimblade and Elonka had made the posted concerns of these 18 editors the subject of the Concerns thread and made many of their Rebecca talk page posts the subject of the Concerns thread. My alerting these 18 editors about the Concerns thread did not violated Wikipedia's Spam guideline.
  (ii) Vandalism, Assume good faith policy, No personal attacks Rebecca indiscriminately deleted my numerous changes to the Australian politician Leisha Harvey's article. The reasons for the removal of each content item was not readily apparent by examination of the content itself. Further, her sole justification for her intentional removal of legitimate content was a frivolous explanation in her edit summary.[13] Rebecca indiscriminately deleted my numerous changes to the politician Leisha Harvey's article and left an impression that my edits were low, despicable by labeling my edits as worthless. My statements (diff, diff, diff) addressed the actions of Rebecca. Rebecca's actions constituted Vandalism. I did not violate Wikipedia assume good faith policy. My vandalism comments (diff, diff, diff) were not a personal attack. A review of comments on Rebecca's Wikipedia conduct prior to my 22:11, 22 November 2006 post, including [14] and [15], bolsters these conclusions.
  (iii) Misrepresentation The representation in my posts regarding administrator-and-former-arbitrator Rebecca's July 19, 2006 edit summary -- Actually, fuck this, I won't be intimidated by a psychopath (diff, diff) -- was based on the text of that post July 19, 2006 edit summary. Your expectation that I should have represented her July 19, 2006 edit summary in the context that she identified on 23 November 2006 - five hours [16] after I posted my 22 November 2006 post - is not reasonable.

Re:Nice article

Thank you for the comment left on the talk page of the David M. Gonzales article.

One of the interesting things that I found while writing this article is the fact that according to the news release, Congressman Breman took all of the credit for correcting the mistakes of the subjects photos and decorations, while it was his aide Flores the one who really did all the work. Cheers! Tony the Marine 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• You're right about the image. I've taken care of it. Tony the Marine 17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:50Chaudhary.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:50Chaudhary.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 06:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

On 25 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isaac Newton Van Nuys, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 07:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)