User talk:JBKramer

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:JBKramer/Archive/Jun06. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Your edits to Sexually transmitted disease

Your change to the page Sexually transmitted disease was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qrc2006 (talk • contribs) .

Quotes

Forums ARE a valid source when you're QUOTING or making REFERENCE to the quote. Lordkazan 18:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that direct quotations are not a reliable source is vandalism, and don't tell me what I can and cannot do - there is no Wikipedia Policy prohibiting me from using popups to do ANY revert i feel is appropriate Lordkazan 19:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Good for them, I am supposed to care about other people's opinion on that because? I use the tools I have to the best efficiency, if you don't like it that's your problem Lordkazan 19:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

So are you Lordkazan 19:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

O'RLY? - by your method of counting i only have two as well (Reverts of vandalism are not counted for 3RR) Lordkazan 19:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, those are valid citations since we're citing quotes on websites which we can confirm the poster is who they say they are. That makes his revert vandalism. Clearly your are not familiar with the history of this article User:Supreme_Cmdr probably IS Derek Smart (that the username he uses constantly), as is a SPA Lordkazan 19:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

DO not remove warnings

Do not remove valid warnings from your, or any other users talk page as (typo correct) you did to User_Talk:Supreme_Cmdr, it is considered vandalism. User:Supreme_Cmdr has been temporarily blocked from wikipedia as the result of his content blanking, making your removal of these warnings improper. See this diff Lordkazan 20:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I remove all invalid warnings. JBKramer 20:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The warnings weren't invalid - an administrator blocked him Lordkazan 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on your duplicitious AIV report. He will be unblocked shortly. JBKramer 21:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Refering to that report as duplicitious is a personal attack against me. Lordkazan 03:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Lordkazan's above comment is correct. I have warned him about incivility and personal attacks but now I see this goes both ways. In the future, focus your comments on article content, not on other editors, and refrain from personal attacks. Thank you, DRK 03:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Students' Association

Hi, I saw your last two edits to Muslim Students' Association. I like these qualifications - partly because it deals with the reliability of the sources while keeping the content. However, I would really prefer if you would source this criticism of Discover the Networks. I you can, please add them as references. If not, I can always change the sources you add to references. Thanks, DRK 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, I just noticed your RfC on Lordkazan's behaviour. I'll be commenting on it shortly, but I just wanted to point out that you need to edit the markup on the CIVIL section. Best wishes, Jakew 09:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article

– ClockworkSoul 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Protecting visible pages

Thanks for the comment, which was actually quoting from WP:PPOL, rather than from WP:PP. I withdrew my request based on a different notice at WP:PP: "Articles linked from the main page should NOT be protected (full or semi) except to clean up vandalism. Protection should be kept to 10-15 minutes in these cases." However, there's a bit of a logical disconnect on this policy, as at WP:PPOL, it states,

A permanent or semi-permanent protection is used for:

* Protecting high visibility pages such as the Main Page from vandalism.

By inference, one might take it that "Today's featured article" is such a high visibility page.

You may be interested in the discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Linked_to_by_main_page

Regards,--Leflyman^Talk 15:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Broken English"

Well I am a native English speaker, I was born and raised in the Bay Area, I'm sorry if its not good enough for you, I am learning disabled I have dislexia and ADHD and perhaps I cannot see the mistakes you see in my writing, but I think your completely reverting of my edits rather than copyediting is destructive and in poor taste, can we please collaberate instead?Qrc2006 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because you make a suggestion, does not require me to accept it. I thank you for the offer, but I write as well as I can and your comments have saddened me much. I have the right to contribute and I don't have to let you add in what I would like to add. You have no recourse here, because I am not doing anything wrong, just because you don't think that I am writing unencyclopedically doesn't mean that "I dont have a place here" sir. The article doesn't even have a copyedit, rewrite, wikify, or even cleanup tag. Allthough go right ahead and add one of you think it is neccisary, I doubt youd want to discuss it beforehand. I also think you have good faith, but in wikipedia and not me, I think you want me gone, because I am "stupid". I am very upset and I am on the brink of tears, did you know teachers used to call me stupid in gradeschool, because of my disabilities. I am quite certain that using such langauge is frowned upon in wikipedia, Mr. "Unencyclopedic". But you will not have your way, nor deter me from participating in this project, please be nicer and tone down your rhetoric. Furthermore the article is better written due to your contributions and copyediting which i have not stopped, that is simply untrue.Qrc2006 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Darrell Anderson

Whatsup? Why did u start editing? i even suggesed some stuff on the talk page, and nothin', i knew it would just sit there and that you wouldnt do anything if i stopped. yawns.Qrc2006 23:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Smart's photo

[1] I fail to understand the definition of "A photo that merely shows what a person looks like" means? Should then a photo of Smart show him naked additionally? Its a very vague clause. The point I am making is that it is from Smart's own site, and neither Smart nor supreme_cmdr who is arguably smart himself or at the least a associate of him has objected to the picture being included on the bio. So it can be considered fair use. Please correct me if i am wrong as i am a new user.Kerr avon 10:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries

Do not use misleading edit summaries. JBKramer 14:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check the history and provide summaries and diffs as to what you feel are misleading. Thank you. -- Avi 14:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Avi 14:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please remeber that civility is just as important a policy here. I am afraid the following examples are not so civil: The word "irony" is OR, the tone was shit, and it is a phrasing that is POV - you imply negatives. I suggest you go edit an article not about a blog slapfest., Edit summary of same "go be useful", Edit summary of article (remove WP:OR, tag content for people in blogslapfests posting about their stupid fucking blogs). Thank you. -- Avi 14:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. Now go be useful. JBKramer 14:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this now. There is no need for this level of incivility, which can very quickly become disruptive. Just use the edit summary to neutrally and narrowly describe your edit. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Please can you help me out! I am quite new here and I think someone has been using my account for evil! I am not a vandal! I have made some good edits, and I am currently spending my spare time re-writing the Sachenspiegel article. I think these people are tarnishing my name, and you are adding to that! Please help! CarlosPauloEthetheth 15:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)