User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 3

• NOTE: If you leave a message for me here, I will respond to it here.
• NOTE: Given that the Mudkip meme madness still leaves a bad taste in my mouth because of the constant trolling on the former talk page and the anonymous threat on me, I will be suspicious of posts regarding "mudkipz" [sic] or the events that took place on Talk:Mudkip. Understand that I have {{User:Jéské Couriano/UBX/Mudkipz}} on the user page for a reason. However, if you are here regarding information on the meme as it has happened on-wiki, I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
• NOTE: Please direct all queries regarding the disputed Nobel Prize image to Talk:Nobel Prize#Image Debate.
• NOTE: If you need to ask me a question regarding certain users, be aware that I will look into the history.

Confusion!

I'm trying to make character pages for the show "Weeds" but I donno how to make a copyright tag for the images. I asked for help on the Weeds discussion page as well (or someone who knows how to help me provide it), but I don't understand what it's asking for- can you clear it up, since I don't understand the articles on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Join the club. Out of curiosity, did you read any of the links provided to you on your talkpage? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, The articles are pretty confusing, someone who doesn't know how to in advance is lost on them. They need those topics to be written in a lot more accesible format... Plusher (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

HIM Protection

Why did you remove my request for protection on that article? If you want to reject it, then reject it. DO NOT REMOVE IT WITHOUT EXPLANATION. Understand? Iaberis 17:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't you I apologize of course... Iaberis 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even touch it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry then :) Iaberis 14:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

IFD which I'd like your input in

Hey Jéské, I know you're familiar with all the madness revolving around mudkips. That said, could you please provide some input on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 21#Image:CSPC-DONOTWANT-Mudkip.jpg? Thanks! east.718 at 09:01, 10/21/2007

Fred Thompson

Could you please take another look at the debate on the Fred Thompson talk page and make some sort of suggestion as to what it would take to unprotect the page? The regular media might pick up the story on the suppresion of numerous cited articles claiming notability of the age difference, the way they did before with Thompson's talk page. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for me to reiterate myself. Come to a consensus about the issues that started the edit war. I'm not going to unprotect the article and spark a new edit war. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to reconsider, the Fred Thompson article was in the top 100 most viewed wikipedia pages in October. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Consensus, or no unprotection. Choose. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there anywhere that your decision can be appealed? Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the article is to be protected until after the election has run it's course. It's just a lot easier that way. No mess. Turtlescrubber 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, TS, it will be protected until the parties stop wasting time trying to persuade me to unprotect the article and actually go to the talk page and form a consensus on the matter. An unprotection request will likely still be declined, as it was last time, because you haven't been talking with each other. But, if you want to try, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Requests for unprotection and file a request there. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you got it all wrong. I totally agree with the unfounded permanent full protection of the page. I mean, there were almost eight edits over a 24 hour period. My god. Someone almost got warned about edit warring. Almost. Glad we won't have to relive that again until after the election. We shouldn't let anyone edit this article at all because it's just the way we like it. Keep up the good work ;)Turtlescrubber 22:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars need not be within the space of 24 hours. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, you seem to have missed the point entirely. Take a little time. Clear your mind. Think about how huge an overreaction you are having. Then go ahead, do the right thing. You might even enjoy it. Turtlescrubber 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're a fine one to talk about overreacting, TS. You are free to file a request for unprotection if you wish. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OOOOHHHHH. New admin throws a jab. Continues to overreact. A small amount of power still corrupts. Have fun on your two inch high pedestal. Turtlescrubber 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Look, here's the problem; misguided Thompson supporters think that by not talking about the age difference at all that it will somehow help their candidate. They will never agree to putting it on the page. Other users like would like to note the difference, especially since the news media thinks it is notable. We're not advocating the use of the term "trophy wife", nor giving the, say, proportional age difference (she was 54% of his age when they started dating), but just the age difference in years (24). At a certain point, notability must trump a cadre of obstructionist editors. I argue that this point has been reached. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that is the case, file a request for unprotection for the article. I'm not unprotecting it because there is no consensus, and if Turtlescrubber keeps jabbing at me, I'll block him for trolling. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, If you're going to threaten me, then I should probably leave you alone. Also, it is always better to have non-involved admins do that (blocking) kind of thing. Just a little hint. Anyway, I have annoyed you enough and I will stop "trolling" your page. However, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of how wrong I think your decision is. You don't seem to be one that cares to listen. If I were you, I would discuss your protection of the page with an admin that has more experience. If you listen, you may learn. Anyway, sorry to get you all agitated. I'll let you stew in your own juices. Turtlescrubber 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I might do that. But: Is there another place where the inclusion of the information can be considered by more experienced Wikipedians than I? I want the issue resolved, not an edit war with the cadre of Thompson supporters. Or will the people at the request for unprotection weigh in on it? Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and Wikipedia:Third opinion. Go through Requests for Comment first. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I already did an RfC, so it's off to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Am I to be requesting mediation with you? If so, I make the following exacting request; leave the Fred Thompson page protected, but amend the section on his personal life to read: Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn in July 1996, when she was 29 and he was 53.[95] Their 24 year age difference has prompted a flurry of speculation in the news media on its possible effects on his presidential aspirations, with the consensus being that she is an asset to his campaign.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7].[8]

Looking at the sources, I think I'll request the edit to the page at WP:RPP rather than doing it myself - it's clearly sourced, but if I did it I would have calls for my head. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I placed the request. All we can do now is wait. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson edit request...

Hi, I have been waiting for an edit for over a week now. Can you please add it?

Jeremy221 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Read above - anything I add can be seen as admin abuse since I'm the protector. Ask another admin or go through WP:RPP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

DBZ

user:sesshomaru is still at it. He still completely ignores everything anyone says about what he's doing. His rantings have, so far, devolved to pointing at policies and some article about a guy named DL Hughley. And he reverts all attempts at fixing the damage he's done.--Marhawkman 11:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you requested a comment on him? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not sure exactly what that did, but there were a lot of other users that came to the page to express their opinions. But regardless of what people say he continues. :( --Marhawkman 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to request comment on what I'm doing, though I'm afraid you won't get very far. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson (2nd)

I'm a little confused. What issue needs to be ironed out before you can remove the protection from the Fred Thompson article? And who needs to iron it out? Remember 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The people on the talk page need to come to a compromise about the subject they were edit-warring about. I can't remember exactly what it was that led to protection, but I think it had something to do with age. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know exactly who and what the edit war was about then how will you know when its done?Remember 18:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I do recall the edit war was over age. I've been eyeing the talk page and all I've been seeing is {{editprotected}} and complaints towards me since I protected. I am willing to unprot if and only if there is absolutely no way the edit war will start again. If you disagree, request unprot at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: remembrance day notice

Hey Jéské, The notice is not only for Canadians or those who observe Remembrance Day, but to remind people about the wars (doesn't really matter which one or which side) and the people who fought in them, who live through them, and who suffered because of them....I am trying to be as ambiguous as possible with this notices, which means that anyone could see it differently...some people might see it as a reminder of how Canada "became" a nation in WWI, or of how many people died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or of the attack at Pearl Harbor, or of the Holocaust, or of the killings in Darfur, or of the Rwandan Genocide, or of the Nanking Massacre....its up to those who receive the message to define what it is a reminder of...but if you choose to have it removed from your user talk page thats fine with me. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant no offense, and I apologize if I offended you by removing it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No offence taken :-P ... nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for semi-prot of Buddhism

And I'm very impressed by your Dhammapada quote! Bravo for your swift and judicious action. Thanks so much! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are very much welcome. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yukon semi-protection plea

Sorry to push this, but the vandalism overwhelms the real contributions and I didn't see anywhere that said it had to be every single day..., at least a week or two, to discourage the kids doing it, pleeeeeeeease --Tallard 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If the vandalism isn't constant and is quickly reverted, protection is unnecessary. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Image

Hi there Jeske! I am not exactly sure why the image on the Nobel Prize page has been commented out and orphaned. I think it has been established in about 5 different discussion pages that the image is completely usable. In fact, you yourself have said, "It's becoming clear to me that NYS doesn't have a case for wanting this removed, under law or policy". It, therefore, seems somewhat wrong to remove it because one OCD user is still writing pages and pages of nonsense over this issue and can't move on. I don't wanted to touch your edit but I hope that you can restore this based on what has been reached by overwhelming consensus. But, then again, I might be wrong??? Thanks. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I commented it out to try and keep from kindling an edit war over the image (which got the article protected in the first place). The last thing I want to do is hand out 3RR blocks.-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry man, just wondered where you moved my question about the Pokemon articles too. regards --Tefalstar 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the talk page of WikiProject Pokémon. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

IP vandalism at Red Flag (band) has immediately resumed, now that your semi-protection has expired

Hello Jeske. This edit shows that the IP-hopping vandal is back at Red Flag (band), less than 24 hours after your three weeks of article semi-protection expired. What do you recommend we do? EdJohnston 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

His second edit summary suggested a willingness to negotiate, but then he spoiled it by leaving insults on my User talk. EdJohnston 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'll look at the history here, you'll realize that he just blew any chance of me listening to him. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no intentions to negotiate. Certainly not with either one of you. After all, it takes a certain kind of person to abuse his editorial muscle by deliberately keeping false information locked on the page. On the other thought, maybe I should just quit wasting my time on that nut ball Chris Reylonds and let him sleep well knowing that his embarrassing secret is safe, thanks to your effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.71.157 (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not The Truth^TM. Welcome to Wikipedia. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. Wikipedia is a sac of lies and facts mixed together. And this means that reliability and wikipedia are antonyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.71.157 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See Fox News - it's just as bad and has an obvious bias. Either you show up with citations from reliable sources documenting your arguments in re Mark Reynolds' demise, or you don't. Blogs, other Wikis, MySpaces, etc. do not count because they are easily alterable. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

He has returned...

Dear Admin, you blocked 86.155.215.165 from editing for a week on 11th November, after the little exchange [[9]], having said that if he shows up again under a different IP, you might consider semi-protecting the page. If you look at Talk:Hakka, you'll see he's back again, as 81.157.100.12, same old tactics, same old abuses. I leave the entire matter in your hands! InfernoXV 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He has not edited the article itself, but I gave him a stern warning for the personal attack (I didn't block because he's engaging in civil discussion at Talk:Cantonese (linguistics). They do, however, both resolve to England. I'm keeping an eye on the article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• tip of the hat to you* InfernoXV 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario Galaxy semi-protection

Hi Jeske,

Thanks for stopping by the Super Mario Galaxy article in response to my page protection request. I noticed you remarked about the high level of IP vandalism here, but the log says you actually unprotected the already unprotected page. Since the next edit has you adding the {{pp-semiprotected}} template, I just wanted to stop by and check to see if you actually intended to protect it after all.

Sorry if this seems rude; I not an admin and don't know enough about how the actual page protection interface works, so for all I know it could be the first salvo in a brilliant, sweeping protection strategy :) Thanks for your help! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a mistake on my end. I'll fix it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done Article is semi'd now for the length of time as stated in the RPP report. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your help, and sorry for bugging you! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 05:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nolle perspiration, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)