User talk:JPD

Block of 209.80.153.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi. May I politely ask if 24 hours is enough for this vandal? I hate to seem too harsh (WP:DICK), but I think this type of block is not protective enough to the encyclopedia. In fact, just yesterday, I complained to an admin about only blocking it for one hour, and in fact, the same person returned today to vandalize more. It seems that the successive blocks on this IP are not getting any longer. I realize it's shared, but please remember blocks are preventative, not punitive. I hope this is not too harsh. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 15:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Evil Spartan. I understand your concern about the length of the block placed on this school ip, but I wasn't convinced that the ip is likely to reoffend in a hurry. I am inclined to see whether a block of a decent length will act as a deterrant before coming down with a harsher block and preventing not only further vandalism, but constructive editing from others at the school. If the vandalism starts again on Monday, then a longer block should be imposed, but apart from the trouble in the last few days, met with a much too short original block, it has been quite a while since the last persistent vandalism from this ip, and there is no reason to think the same people are involved, so their vandalism may not be as persistent as you fear. JPD (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Your ..UK and 15 other... edit was good. Too bad it was reverted, this dispute may be heading for a Mediation hearing. GoodDay 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like things have cooled down. Thank goodness. GoodDay 17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural listing

I note you voted for deletion of both Aquinas and PSA in the Aquinas MFD - just letting you know PSA has now been separately listed. Orderinchaos 18:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block 168.8.72.206

He has vandilized again to Guns N' Roses, please block him. Skeeker 19:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh. This IP is probably used by more than one person, so the person vandalising yesterday may not have seen the warnings on their talk page from 2 weeks ago. Because of this, and the fact that there has been no vandalism from that IP since Spebi put a warning on their page, I don't think it would be appropriate to block them just yet. If they keep vandalising, then it will be a different matter. If you notice more vandalism, I suggest you report it at WP:AIV. I don't mind doing the blocking, but I'm not always online! Thanks, JPD (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

What in the world is wrong with Image:Class 309 NSE & Jaffa Cake.jpg? (Look at it in action here.) --RFBailey 12:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The image is there, if you click on all the links. I remember this happening before, but I don't remember the reason. I suspect it will be ok again by tomorrow, or something like that. JPD (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snow in Melbourne, Sydney

Dear JPD, ok you can replace and put the previous WRONG data if you want, it is up to you. The data was wrong and I just corrected it, I am sorry for the readers who will read incorrect information. The 1951 snow event in Melbourne was WITHOUT STICKING to the ground in Melbourne city, there was snow, yes, there was,but no accumulation in the city center, just to the hills and surrounding areas, you are free to ask the Australian Bureau of Metereolorogy as I did .Anyway, I have made years of studies regarding snowfalls (and I wrote a book about it) so I know what I do. Regarding Sydney 1836 snow events, well, this is more difficult to prove it wasn t real snow but ice pellets, it is not important to mention it. It is a very technical meteorological discussion.

Sorry for the american terms (I didn t know they were not ok for Australia), I am not familiar with aussie words, I will try to take care for the next time.

Cheers by Max

Hi Max. Thanks for your reply. I don't think the information that was already there was wrong, it was simply not as detailed as what you added. If you have sources for your information, definitely add it in, just include the references. If your book includes this information, you could use it as the reference. If you don't add or change the references, it implies that the references already given say that snow has not accumlated in Melbourne, which probably isn't true. JPD (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said "SNOW HAS NOT ACCUMULATED IN THE CITY CENTER". I got the records of all the meteorological stations (of all the world, not only in Australia) with the observations made hour by hour and these are official data. Plus,I have hundreds of stories regarding that 1951 event, even lots of direct witnesses describing the event very clearly,with snowflakes "stamping" on the coats with few seconds, and briefly covering the metal parts (cars,some metal roofs,...), but no accumulation on the ground ,not officaly nor unofficial.Obviously, only 100m a.s.l. and few miles from Melbourne there was snow-covering, but people tend to confuse hinterlands with cities and it is not correct. Cheers. Max.

Yes, I understand that you mean snow has not accumulated in the city centre, and I find that very easy to believe. My point was that your version implied that the article in The Age claimed snow has not accumulated in the city centre, when it actually says the opposite ("enough fell to be gathered up on city streets", speaking of the CBD). This inaccuracy is unacceptable, whether or not the article is correct. If you have published, reliable sources claiming that snow has not accumulated, then you need to include them as references in the article. Having said that, I am really not sure whether the distinction between the city centre and a few miles away is so important. The article is about the whole metropolis, not just the city centre, and in Australia the general notion of a city often includes areas that might be considered hinterland in the US. JPD (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC cloak request

I am jonpd on freenode and I would like the cloak wikimedia/jpd. Thanks. --JPD (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 207.81.56.49

Nice to meet you, JPD! Thank you for your review of and assistance with the blocking of 207.81.56.49. I am not sure if I am going about this in the right way, but I would like to draw your attention to this anon. IP. I am concerned that the person behind this anon. IP may been a user called Mayor Quimby who engaged in similar disruptive behaviour and was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. I have requested a comment on 207.81.56.49 and the hypothesis that I make above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan. I would appreciate your input if you are so interested. Thank you for your time. Mumun 無文 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mumun Man. I don't have time to look into it now, but I have mentioned it on WP:AN/I. JPD (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you!!^-^ Mumun 無文 18:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a little presumptive and circumstantial. Are you attempting to silence any and all discussion that is counter to your POV ?--207.81.56.49 03:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Regina Neghbourhoods mediation

In an attempt to find common ground, I have proposed an alternative posting that should satisfy any objections. I hope that your promise of mediation after the block is genuine and you or another admin. can take a look and make a ruling. Thank you in advance.--207.81.56.49 04:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise Regina Neighbourhoods

I have posted a compromise to the issues in the Talk:Regina Neighbourhoods. It is my hope that this will lead to a solution over the disputed figures and edits. I also hope that this will eliminate future accusations as to my identity and/or relation to other banned users. I would appreciate that you read over the compromise and comment on it. I just want to find a solution, that will satisfy all parties.--207.81.56.49 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help out

Please place an edit block on Lamb of God (band) people keep messing with the genre in the infobox but they arent supposed to i dont know where I read it but it is against the guidlines to have a sub genre in the infobox as it is in the article. please keep the genre in the infobox as just Heavy metal. Skeeker 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skeeker. Sorry to take so long. I have left a message at the talk page, and will do mmore if the warring continues. JPD (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Council House Fight

JPD Thanks for removing the copyright vio tag - I was very careful to attribute sourcing, and not to exactly quote. Nonetheless I "tweaked" the wording some more. Thanks! old windy bear 10:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whinney Banks

You recently removed a speedy which I had initiated on this article . That's great but I am looking for guidance as to the criteria for this type of article. I have seen numerous subdivisions/communities within larger centres removed on the basis of notability which I didn't think this one had so I flagged it. Where can I go to learn more about this type of article? I'm certainly not a deletionist and spend significant time saving articles from that fate. I just want to get on the right page in regard to communities within communities. Thanks in advance for your assistance. --Stormbay 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stormbay. The main reason I removed the speedy is because there is no speedy criterion for removing settlements on the basis of lack of notability. Some areas are indeed so so small/non-notable that they are deleted (usually through AfD) or merged into larger areas. I don't think there are any general guidelines, but the main question is usually whether it is possible to get enough material to write an article on the subject. Whinney Banks does seem less significant to me now than when I first looked at it, and there may be an argument for deletion/merging, but I think it would be good to get some local input. It is described as an area within a ward, but wards have varying significance from city to city, and Whinney Banks has been listed as a suburb at Middlesbrough for quite some time, while the ward isn't. Hope this helps, JPD (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks for the detailed reply. I try to do some patrol work most days by dropping back into older new pages and picking up on articles that definitely need attention. That requires a wider knowledge than I have at times. I am never annoyed by a disagreement from an admin when I understand the criteria used. Schools as well as communities do not seem to have rules either; evidently if someone became famous after attending a school, the school becomes famous. Go figure! Thanks again and happy editing! --Stormbay 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I wish to complete an overhaul to simplify this, but I am not well versed in category deletion. The umbrella noms are not my area of expertise, but I will CFD soon.Baka man 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_22#X_by_descent.Baka man 16:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Library of Australia links

Hi JPD. While I agree that NLA PIC's contributions should not be signed, I think the addition of links to resources held in Australia's National Library is not spam, despite NLA PIC's username indicating that that is the sole purpose of the account. I've re-added the links (without the signature) where I think it's appropriate (but not in those cases where it was probably not appropriate, like Boxing), and I have moved many of them to below the existing links, and simplified the format. Thanks for being vigilant about linkspam though! Cheers! - Gobeirne 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on closer inspection, many of the contributions were only peripherally related to the article (more than I'd first thought), and were spam-like, so thanks for reverting them. - Gobeirne 19:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In popular culture" of Sydney Opera House

I am curious as to why you constantly remove this section when it isn't really forbidden (if sometimes/often discouraged), and will really undoubtedly come back anyway. Do you think it might be better to accept a place for this information and make it a bit more orderly than the hesitant lumps that get added every few weeks? Miscreant 11:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We (including myself and all the others who have removed that section) have a choice between repeatedly removing hesitant lumps and repeatedly trimming and reorganising a massive list of trivia that doesn't really add to the article in order to keep it orderly. I don't see why the second option is better in any way. JPD (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use - DVD cover

Hi, you deleted several DVD covers from articles I had contributed to. My understanding was that these complied with fair use as per the wikipedia policies as I had indicated the fair use rationale and they illustrated the section of the article (ie the Leo Barry mark) and the significance of what was being written about. Can you please explain to me your interpretation of DVD cover fair use ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:DVD_covers This had been used previously on articles such as Gary Ablett and Geelong Football Club which no one has disputed. Why did you pick on the articles that had used the same logic only a few minutes following this contribution ? and why didn't you tag it first ? --Rulesfan 23:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rulesfan. I am a bit confused by your questions, as your statement regarding what I have done is a bit misleading. It is true that I did not go searching for all the DVD covers that have been used in this way, but simply dealt with the ones which I came across. If DVD covers are being used in similar situations, they should be dealt with similarly, whether anyone has objected so far or not.

I did not delete any images. I tagged them as not having a fair use rationale, because they did not, and still do not have one. The current interpretation of policy is that each image must have on the image page a rationale for its use in each of the article it is used in, separate from the tag claiming that use of the image may consitute fair use for certain purposes. Unless a rationale is added within 7 days, the image will be deleted.

I also removed the images from articles, as their use does not comply with the non-free content guidelines. Inappropriate non-free content in articles should always be removed immediately - there is no tagging process. It is not even clear that use of the DVD cover is legally fair use, as it is being used to illustrate Leo Barry's mark, not the DVD itself. In any case, it definitely does not meet the 10 criterion for non-free content accordign to Wikipedia policy. I hope this makes the policy clearer. JPD (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Football.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Football.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigΔT 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BlueVelvet86 = Jackp

I saw you revert User:BlueVelvet86. Remember Jackp on Sydney? They are the same. His longest running sock since last year has recently been blocked. Merbabu 15:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union Flag

My apologies! I was checking spelling with the editing pane, I didn't realise it would affect the image. --Gillean666

No worries, Gillean. It's not the first time someone has done something like that! JPD (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troublesome editor

Hi JPD - I was wondering if you could help me out with this one. The user User:202.173.176.175 is repeatedly adding a list of "famous supporters" to the West Coast Eagles article. There are no sources for it, and it is non-notable clutter (at best), so I have been removing it each time it has been added, along with some other users. I have left two messages on the user's talk page and the user is making no attempt to justify the section or why it does not violate WP:V. Is there any way you can do something as an administrator? Appreciate it. Remy B 13:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Remy. I've left another message on the user's talk page, with more explanation, and directing him to discussion and some relevant links. I don't think there's much more to do unless he keeps going. Hope that helps, JPD (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David reese

If you think this article is capitalized correctly, then please allow me a second opinion, by letting me tag David Reese again, and maybe an admin with a different view might get to it before you do. Chris the speller 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Commonwealth_realms. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote!

Hi,

Since you've been involved in the recent discussions at Talk:Commonwealth Realm, your vote would be appreciated on this proposal. Thanks. -- Hux 10:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New England Statehood Movement Flag

Hi JPD - I know you're interested in flags and you came from Sydney originally, so I was wondering if you have a copy of the New England Statehood Movement flag lying around that could be uploaded to Wikipedia? JRG 05:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JRG. Sorry for not answering earlier - I was away from home for a while, partly for a conference about flags. I don't actually have a free image of the New England flag - the closest I know of is a non-commercial use image at http://flagspot.net/flags/au-ne.html . You could email António (see here) to ask for it to be released, but it is probably simpler to ask someone like User:Zscout370 to draw a vector image of the flag. JPD (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF

What the fuck is wrong with you? are you a virgin too huh? cant get a shag? you will be a virgin all your life. --EveninRePose 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 00:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't commercial?

Per above. Timeshift 10:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Wikipedia is commercial is not relevant. It's aim is to provide a free content encyclopedia, and so it has chosen not to use images which are only available for non-commercial use (since May 2005). Wikipedia allows content to used commercially, and so endeavours to make sure this is possible. The limited exceptions to this are outlined at WP:NFCC, and must be accompanied by a non-free use rationale. This is inline with Wikimedia Foundation policy, which is much stricter than any legal requirements. JPD (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou (re: Howard and Bush image)

Thanks for pointing out the issues here - I have to agree with you that this image should be deleted! Please see the image's talk page for my full comment. Swedish fusilier 14:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I'm glad that you've understood the guidelines. Of course, you're absolutely right that a picturee like that would be a good illustration for Australian Red Ensign if it were free! The best free image of the Red Ensign that I have found is a completely different situation, but might still be a good addition to the article. JPD (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your image does look like a good idea. Swedish fusilier 15:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive