User talk:J.delanoy

My wheel-warring policy:

Admins: If you see me make a logged action that you think I should not have done, I will not consider it wheel-warring if you undo it without asking for my permission. However, if I marked the action as being done after running a checkuser query, or as part of a sockpuppet investigation, you should ask me or another checkuser before undoing it. In any case, if you do revert one of my actions, I would appreciate it if you tell me that you did so. Thanks!

Chess, anyone?

Make a move...
View current game and archives

J.delanoy vs. World
Chessboard	Moves
a b c d e f g h 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 a b c d e f g h
	J.delanoy to move...
	# J.delanoy World 1 e4 e6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Bd3 Bb4+ 4 Bd2 Na6 5 a3 Bxd2+ 6 Qxd2 c5 7 Nf3 O-O 8 e5 Nd5 9 Nc3 Nxc3 10 Qxc3 cxd4 11 Nxd4 Qg5 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Joe the plumber

The joe the plumber page should be discussed in the discussion page do not revert

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I am not in violation of the three-revert rule. You are. Your edits are also in violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding biography articles about living people. I would advise you to stop re-adding that content. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

U dont run wikipedia, i changed it and i dont care what that dude says that you are taking up for, you are colluding because u have the same point of view... let the people choose and stop trying to be a WikiTyrant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.63.139 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Colluding"? "Let the people choose"? As far as I'm aware, J.del is a "person" as well. --King Öomie 17:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello J.delanoy, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Astronomy Australia Limited, by User:DGG, with summary '(very likely to be notable; cleaned up pr talk)'
• PROD removed from Tania, the Woman Che Guevara Loved, by User:DGG, with summary '(possibly notable)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

User:Chaching1223

..is our good friend JarlaxleArtemis, who apparently doesn't feel like studying tonight. Could you check for more? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Already done :-) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Really stupid of him to go back to explicit death threats -- that's what got him in trouble last spring. It'll be worse for him now. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One more, User:Lrn2read, digging himself deeper. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious sleepers. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ty Cobb and User:Tycobb1000

The IP you banned a few days ago for repeatedly removing text from this article appears to be back with a real account. He is now reverting my copyedits as well as the valid info on the disputes regarding Cobb's records. -Dewelar (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you for removing vandalism from my user page. Do you think we need to Semi-protect my user page. I know that user pages are rarely protected, But I think it’s a good idea to protect. --David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 19:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's just one time, so I don't know. If you want, you can ask on WP:RFPP. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks--David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Pioneercourthouse and Sfagadgad

No edits, but one attempt at an edit that was blocked by the filter. It's Pioneercourthouse, I am sure of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse block

There is a discussion regarding your two week block of Mattisse. Your actions are within your discretion, however there is a feeling that blocking without warning may be a bit harsh, especially given that in the ArbCom agreed plan the wording for "Consequences for failure to adhere to plan" are: "Short blocks after a warning". Mattisse has acted inappropriately here, and the exposure of what she has done will attract enough criticism to punish her - a block on top of that, preventing one of our more able and valued contributors from building the encyclopedia, is perhaps rather unhelpful and excessive. Would you be prepared to reassess your block now that you are more familiar with some of the background? Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I commented further there, largely in support of your actions, but I would appreciate some clarification. Geometry guy 21:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you response and your rationale. I disagree that blocking in this instance was a more constructive way of dealing with the situation than discussing the matter with the person responsible, but that is just our differing philosophies. I accept that you did nothing inappropriate, and I appreciate that you gave Mattisse a lesser block than you normally would have. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 23:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wondering if you could post an image for me

This file, a model of a methane molocule, is hosted on Commons.

Hi there - I'm a huge fan of the Cancer Bats and I noticed a fairly shoddy image of them on the main Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Bats). I just uploaded a proper image of the lead singer on Commons, but alas - I can't upload an image to any Wikipedia entry yet. I noticed you made some changes to the page recently and was hoping you could upload it for me. I took to image myself at a show in Barcelona last year - you can find it here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LiamCormier.JPG

Thanks! Been using Wikipedia for years but have finally decided to start contributing as opposed to purely being a mooch. Not even sure this is appropriate so let me know if I'm out of line with this request or posting on your page....

Thanks a mil!

- Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumbleman (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you're perfectly fine :-) Welcome aboard!

With regard to the image in question, images on Commons are automatically available on Wikipedia as soon as they are uploaded there, so there is no need to upload it twice.

For example, the image to the right is hosted on Commons, not on Wikipedia, but the code to display the image:

[[File:Methane-3D-space-filling.svg|thumb|right|150px|This image, a model of a [[methane]] molocule, is hosted on Commons.]]

is identical to what you would use if the file was hosted locally. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips... don't want to turn this into a help discussion but I am still having a little trouble - I used your code and it works fine, but extra code seems to be appearing. Perhaps I should clarify: I want to change the main article image at the top (the one appearing above the band info). I insert this:

[[File:LiamCormier.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Liam Cormier performing at a Cancer Bats show in Barcelona in June 2008]]

But when I preview, the following appears on the page, above the image:

[[Image: |220px|alt=|]]

Any idea what the problem is? It's strange, especially because the extra code is NOT in the source - it just displays on the rendered page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumbleman (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's because it's inside of an infobox. For those, you just have to put the name of the file, so just File:LiamCormier.JPG or possibly without the "File:". J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing! thanks so much - I omitted the "file:" and it worked great! Even got a caption on there. You rock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumbleman (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again...

Remember how a month or so ago I asked you to delete the Super Mario Bros. Z page because concensus was to delete it? Well it was recreated and I have nominated it for deletion and I was wondering what I should do now. Should I just wait or do the circumstances allow it to be deleted more immediately? Sorry to bother you with this again. Thanks for your help. I Feel Tired (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally, WP:CSD#G4 may be used only when the article in question is substantially similar to the one that was deleted via a discussion. In this case, it is not, so I'd say just leave the PROD tag there and see what happens. If someone removes it, probably send it to AfD again. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but someone else deleted it so we don't have to worry anymore. I Feel Tired (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Whyuen10

This user was (legitimately) blocked as part of a sock puppet case by you. He has contacted via email and wishes to contribute legitimately. I believe the wrong doing wasn't the result of malice, but rather ignorance of how things should work. He has a COI on John Lakian (the article that got him in trouble), but also possibly legitimate BLP concerns. I was thinking about unblocking on the condition he not edit the article, but instead only its talk page. (He doesn't have access to any of the other sock account either.) If unblocked, I would of course keep a very close eye on him. However, I don't really know what is the correct way to handle the situation, so I am asking for your advice.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from The Night I Called the Old Man Out

Hello J.delanoy, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Night I Called the Old Man Out has been removed. It was removed by Moviefangirl077 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Moviefangirl077 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Fixed it

(see filter 52, just letting you know). NawlinWiki (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for blocking those. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

When is it appropriate....

To refactor another editors talk page? [[1]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clarly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the situation if you wish, however the prevailing opinion has been if you make 60,000 edits it's ok to discount others polite opinion because "they have bit a newbie (once) and have poor grammer." This wasn't a personal issue but a disturbing attitude trend.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Impala2009 attack

Impala2009's talk page has been attacked by the 70.245 range, like you said. Additionally, 70.242 and 70.249 and 70.247 are visible too, see the history. I will watch that page. WimpyKid (talk*sandbox) 18:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

...and 70.246 WimpyKid (talk*sandbox) 18:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A request

Respected Sir/Madam,

Since you were involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Heliosphere/Archive so please help

I would like to point towards an injustice which happened in the past. 3 editors were blocked as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1. I along with some unknown innocent editor User: Gurbinder_singh1 were blocked in this RFC, i.e. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gurbinder_singh1 because no check-user investigation was done at that time. An administrator User: Nathan later documented that User: Gurbinder_singh1 was totally un-related to this case but it appears that no one has cared to unblock him and clear out his blocking history.

Actually, User: Morbid Fairy kept violating Wikipedia policies so he was later caught per ‘’’my’’’ evidences and hence a range block was implemented against his IP addresses and his user IDs (except one) were blocked as well .

User: Gurbinder_singh1 was lucky that his user account was finally investigated, and he was found innocent through check-user during User:Morbid Fairy’s new sockpuppet investigationBUT even though it was me only who did days and days of research to expose User: Morbid Fairy aka User: Heliosphere but no one has (check-user) investigated so far if I am sock of any of these guys.

Since a truth has come out, so please do justice and unblock an innocent editor User: Gurbinder_singh1 and please clear my blocking record as well. It hurts me all the time that some injustice had happened with me and other innocent editor and my IP was tagged with a blocking history for life.--98.207.210.210 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)