User talk:Jmlk17

This is Jmlk17's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5 /Archive6 /Archive7 /Archive8 /Archive9 /Archive10 /Archive11

This page is archived not upon a certain date or time, but rather just whenever I feel as if the page is getting too long. So if you don't see an old discussion, just check the archives!

Karyn Kupcinet protection

Thanks! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very welcome. Jmlk 1 7 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit

Please see [1]. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I meant "semi-protected". Don't know where my mind was when I said "temp full ban". blah! -- ALLSTARecho 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, no worries; we all have those moments. ;) Jmlk 1 7 18:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get on AIM!

Hey man, you there? Hop on AIM when you get a chance, okay? I got a question for you. GlassCobra 17:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection request for Mitt Romney

I think the cooling-off period was effective (there is a mostly polite discussion going on now on the talk page). Given the importance of the page it would be good to unprotect it as soon as possible. Thanks. Notmyrealname 19:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the calm discussions! Not everyday protection and consensus works out so well. I've taken the full protection off, but left the semi on for now. Jmlk 1 7 00:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has not been reached. I go to work and come back and everything has been changed. I am not blaming you but some editors apparently tried to work around including dissenters in the discussion. Please re-protect the article in the same form that you did last time. There is still much discussion to be had. Turtlescrubber 02:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry for the issues. :) Jmlk 1 7 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't mean to be a pain but I was a bit upset that the editors on the talk page tried to circumvent normal process. I think protecting the article is best for the content discussion. Turtlescrubber 02:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no worries at all. This way, you guys can all find a suitable medium. :) Jmlk 1 7 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Jmlk17 about Mitt Romney article

BLP guidelines say that administrators "may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material." Are you taking the position that the final edit prior to protecting the page did not insert disputed material? Seems like several editors have disputed that this material in the "Early Life" section is sourced, neutral, and on-topic (see the RfC). Do you have any recommendation about how we should proceed now? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would like to point out that you have protected the page without removing the disputed material. The following sentence is disputed: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who moved to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879.[10]" This sentence is disputed because it gives the impression that Mitt Romney's religion endorses polygamy, when in fact Mitt Romney's religion has opposed polygamy since the 1890s. This is disputed material, and it should not be in the protected article. While the sentence is factually correct, it is not presented in context and is therefore very misleading, as multiple editors have stated at the talk page for that article. BLP guidelines say that administrators "may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material." Thanks for any response.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. Not this argument again. Tvoz |talk 05:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite obvious that the wrong version of this article has been protected. Notmyrealname (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what version of the article is protected, it will be the "wrong version" according to someone. Nevertheless, as I have quoted repeatedly, BLP guidelines say that administrators "may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material" (emphasis added). No one was citing or invoking that policy at the incident to which Tvoz refers.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns, and honestly, whatever I do is going to upset one side. Has any discussion been going on in regards to the issue at hand? Jmlk 1 7 05:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I made an editprotected request here, but it was rejected. Then, I took this issue back to the BLP Noticeboard,here, but there's been no response yet. I strongly believe that the disputed sentence is highly misleading. None of the reliable sources provide this information without also clarifying that the Mormon Church hasn't condoned polygamy since the 1800s.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling torn, especially as I was hoping this article's issues could get resolved relatively quickly. Since I was the original protector, I am hesitant to unprotect, as I don't want it to appear as if I am choosing a side. I hope you understand. My suggestion is to try the discussion on the talk page with your other editors, and if nothing is getting resolved, we can definitely go from there. Jmlk 1 7 05:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've done an RfC about the polygamy, and there's been a massive discussion by many editors. The compromise position that I advocated was putting the material in the section on his campaign, with context. The frozen page has that material in the "Early Life...." section without context. The third solution is to just leave out the polygamy until there is consensus. Isn't the third solution the preferred option for biographies?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it is just your opinion that a reader would get a mistaken impression about the LDS church from reading this sentence. That hasn't even been the focus of the discussion on the talk page.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you think a reader would not get a mistaken impression, notmyrealname? According to the Chicago Tribune, "It is a common misconception that the Mormon church sanctions polygamy; it banned the practice in 1890."[2] You don't think the sentence about polygamy in the present article is spreading that misconception?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, and even if you believe otherwise, this is not a BLP issue.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the article is spreading a misconception about the religion of a living person, that is not a BLP issue? Come on.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you're not supposed to take the "Wrong Version" article literally, right?Notmyrealname (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the protected article about Mitt Romney could characterize him as Satan personified, and that would not be a BLP issue? BLP policy says that administrators "may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material." Why do you suppose there's a requirement to remove the disputed material, if no one is supposed to take the disputed material literally?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question?

There are many articles on Wikipedia which contain only "happy" "positive" facts as opposed to the entire picture. Can you please explain to me why Censors and Public Relations people always get the upper-hand? Facts are not always pleasant! That is life!76.105.183.246 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain what you mean? I'm a little confused... Jmlk 1 7 02:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like the revision you just did to the Nancy Cantor article. Furthermore, you never gave a reason. You admins and registered users DO NOT have a greater right to YOUR WATERED DOWN, CENSORED Version of Wikipedia. 76.105.183.246 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I removed your edits for glaring reasons: they are completely POV and biased, and link to a petition website. We don't need that junk here. You are more than welcome to add a bit to a controversy section or what have you, but those edits from before are unnecessary. Jmlk 1 7 03:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

We are having different thinking. Vandalism in Byzantine articles has not been for blocking but changing text in article Serbia with words "Vidak Is The Best :)" is in my thinking reason for blocking user without warning ... Rjecina 04:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sometimes that may be warranted, but I don't believe blocking a new user right away for one vandalism edit is right... per WP:BITE. Jmlk 1 7 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Joy

Marlith ^T/C has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

KITTIES! Lol, thanks! :) Jmlk 1 7 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kitteh!

Thank you! Hope you're well :) ~ Riana ⁂ 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I am, hope the same for you! :) Jmlk 1 7 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me too! Just what I needed, honestly. Was afraid someone was complaining about my spree of sock banz0ring and semi'ed targeted pages!! :P hugs ~Eliz81^(C) 07:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! You are very welcome! :) Jmlk 1 7 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:!! user page

Hi. FYI, I protected User:!! and only just now saw that you had previously declined protection at WP:RFPP. I protected because it is on my watchlist and I noticed people kept changing it for some unknown reason. The user is gone and I assume wanted his page kept the way it is so I protected. You're welcome to unprotect if you want. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good... not a problem. :) Jmlk 1 7 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD discussion of potential interest

There is a thread here that may be of interest to you. Just thought you should know... Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! :) Jmlk 1 7 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sampo Sheep: Joe & Joey - Deletion

Rights to keep the article: :'(

Joe & Joey is on Youtube
It was created in 2006.
My article had no copyright, just cameos.
If you want the truth, I'll be more than happy to type it in on the article and if it is approved, I will remake the article. I'm being polite! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampo Sheep (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Sorry about the confusion with your article; unfortunately, it was deleted for failing notability. This is not to put down your creative work, but we like to keep the articles around here to a high(er) degree of notability. :) Jmlk 1 7 04:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of request for deletion of editor Jmlk17 :)

Jmlk17, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:LaraLove/Editor for deletion#Jmlk17 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). GlassCobra 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. :P GlassCobra 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All good punk. :-P Jmlk 1 7 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Ryan Holle

Please undo that; this article didn't meet the requirements for a speedy deletion. Do you think every convicted felon in Florida gets a two page article in the New York Times? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but every many convicted felons do get media coverage. How exactly is Mr. Holle a notable person? Jmlk 1 7 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See WP:N. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Kendrick on this one, buddy. I went ahead and restored the page, hope that's okay. GlassCobra 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You could try to argue WP:BLP1E, but the article subject isn't simply notable for one event, i.e. "Ryan Holle is a man who lent a car to a friend." There's a whole string of events following that (a murder, an arrest, a one-day trial and the conviction in 2004, and an ongoing discussion about the man's fate, i.e. the NYT source, 3 years later, is still bringing it up. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a mistake on my end... I apologize. Jmlk 1 7 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just remember to measure twice and cut once! -- Kendrick7^talk 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Links Hollywood redux

Just an FYI that a page that you had previously been involved with discussion-wise has returned from deletion: Radio Links Hollywood SpikeJones (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Jmlk 1 7 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Genocide

With regards to you protection to the Bosnian Mujahideen page. Please have a look at the history of the Bosnian Genocide article which is also under mediation and consider if it too needs protection. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs protection at this time, but perhaps a little nudge towards a peaceful resolution. Jmlk 1 7 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RPP for KABC-TV

Can I ask why the request was denied? I am not asking for it to be completely protected, just IP accounts. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing Neutral... from my count, there have only been 10 edits total this month, including the reverts. I'm personally a bit reluctant to protect a page that isn't very active. But if it continues/gets worse, we can always go back on that decision... I'm not a hard guy to work with. :) Jmlk 1 7 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie, that works :) Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing! Jmlk 1 7 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was only two edits (not really a vandalism "outbreak")...but what should I do since they aren't really getting the message? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they're ignoring vandalism warnings, just head on over to aiv, leave a report, and an admin will usually get to it real quick! :) Jmlk 1 7 06:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did that too :) We are just discussing what to do on WP:WPRS and when Rollo suggested RPP again, I wanted to check before reporting again. Thanks for your help, I appericate it. :) Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... glad to help anytime! :) Jmlk 1 7 07:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Antwiler

Please do not be trigger happy before I even explain myself. Read the talk page please. This is not about a person I know, it is about a quite popular journalist and YouTube reviewer. Don't threaten to block me before I can even explain myself please. Thank you.--Wick3dd (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came across as bitey: I don't mean to. Unfortunately, a YouTube reviewing critic isn't exactly notable, and fails our criteria for bios. Jmlk 1 7 11:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiven. I just figured he was notable, since he is a journalist and popular reviewer. I am currently looking for a mainstream-ish article and YouTube reviewing, as it is quite the thing these days. If I can come up with more information on these independent reviewers and on Noah himself, is it ok for me to remake it?--Wick3dd (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh definitely; it'd be horrid of me as an admin to discourage your editing! May I suggest creating it here first, then requesting another editor to review it first, so there are no further issues? Happy editing, I'm off to bed! :) Jmlk 1 7 11:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Sorry, this my first article so I am unfamiliar with etiquette. I did read the first article bit though. Thank you for your time and have a good night.--Wick3dd (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. Good luck! :) Jmlk 1 7 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Union, dispute over relevance of sport

I noticed that you protected the above page on the 30th November. This is the second time the page has been locked over the same content dispute on an essentially minor point. Neither version of the page is especially objectionable, or even incorrect. It is simply a matter of how much detail should be included. This is a long standing dispute with the parties essentially deadlocked with absolutely no consensus likely. I did not see that you set a date for the page to be unlocked. Reading the policy on page protection I see that in the case of an edit dispute this is supposed to be temporary, with a set expiry date, and that repeated page protection should not be used for the same dispute. Can you please advise when the page will be unprotected as there are quite a number of people interested in editing the rest of it. Sandpiper (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just hunted out your reply to Lear on the same point. If there is any consensus on the page, I would judge that it opposes Lears desire to add extra information to the page regarding sport. Most people are prepared to let it ride for the sake of peace, but some insist that given the size of the page already and the considered minor importance of this information, it should be removed. My own view would be that the page has other more serious problems, but I oppose Lears wish to add this information. I am not convinced that anything is happening as a result of the page protection except that everyone has a holiday while it continues. Sandpiper (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue at hand has been resolved, then it definitely should be unprotected. If everything has been solved, I can do it, or, since my online time is limited at this moment, a request at RFPP may help. Jmlk 1 7 05:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here because the instructions say to discuss with the protecting admin in the first instance rather than lodging a request for unprotection. No, as I said the matter remains unresolved and is likely to remain so for the forseeable future. Thus the question arises when you intend to unlock the page. However, I shall have a go at posting this issue of unprotection. Sandpiper (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

I know you used to have some really nice pictures and other things on your userpage. Do you think you could go into your userpages edit history and copy all of it onto my sandbox. I really liked how it was before you put that editor deletion thing up. Thanks and happy editing!Swirlex (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it! I'm not sure exactly what pictures you have in mind though! :) Jmlk 1 7 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Blocked User:Giovanni Giove has called for WP:CANVASS against 13 users on english wikipedia and 6 articles. This call is writen on Italian wikipedia ([3]). To tell truth I do not know why I am on this list but .... Can you please give advice about this situation ?? ---Rjecina (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. I have no idea where that comes/came from! Have you tried talking with Giovanni? Jmlk 1 7 05:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:AlasdairGreen27 has been good enough to inform anybody on the list about this stuff. For me there is no problem because he is blocked user number 5 which do not like me ...

It is possible for you to put under semi-protection articles Jakov Mikalja and Croatisation because all other articles from his list are semi-protected ? ---Rjecina (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship questions

I see that you are an admin here, and I am potentially interested in becoming an also becoming an admin. Because of this, I would like to ask you a few questions about adminship and becoming an admin:

Do you dislike being an admin?
Do you suggest getting nominated, rather than self nomination?
Would you suggest getting an admin coach?

You can reply below or on my talk page if you wish. Thanks in advance! Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I definitely do enjoy being an admin; it let's me feel like I can give a bit more back around here. I was nominated by another admin for my Rfa, but self-noms are perfectly alright. As for the admin coach, I definitely recommend one. I had one, and also coached 2 successful candidates to adminship. Hope this helps! :) Jmlk 1 7 05:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for answering my questions. I have added my name to the waiting list for an admin coach, but I see that some people have been waiting in line since February! Do you think I should just contact a coach listed on Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status? Malinaccier (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! The process there seems to be a little backlogged, but contact someone on the list and see if they'd be willing. Good luck! Jmlk 1 7 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Canova

Hello. You declined my request to semi-protect that page, putting a standard answer "There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time". That's an insufficient claim, while at the same time I'm getting tired of reverting vandalism on that page on daily basis. I'm probably the only user who watch for that article, thus reverting the edits is almost solely my responsibility. In this case, semi-protection would be an an easy and effective way to solve the situation. Julius Sahara (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 12 edits since the beginning of the month. I also notice it seems to be the same IP or IP range. Have you reported them to AIV? Jmlk 1 7 07:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP changes constantly, and there seems to be two separate IP ranges. Before I can successfully report AIV, I need to give proper warnings. At some point I tried to give him/her warnings, with little effect. Instead, he/she started posting the same warnings on my user page (not my talk page). Julius Sahara (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable; dynamic IPs are hard to catch sometimes. If the vandalism increases, we can always protect; it's not written in stone! :) Jmlk 1 7 08:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renminbi

Hi there

I guess we were both looking at the same protection request, because I submitted mine a minute after yours. [4] I'm not sure if you want to keep my protection, or revert to your protection. Either way is fine with me. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, it happens! Yours seems to be more practical than mine however. :) Jmlk 1 7 08:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for deletion of Dwayne fraggon

Please be aware of the following statement in WP:CSD#G4:

This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).

Please stop using G4 as a reason for deleting articles which were re-created after being speedied. Od Mishehu 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K. Jmlk 1 7 08:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your help reverting 68.90.62.202. My 'undo' finger was starting to get stiff! --Kralizec! (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! That sockpuppet definitely went wild for a bit! :) Jmlk 1 7 08:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the note [5] I left at WP:ANI regarding this individual's 100-odd socks. --Kralizec! (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock attack! 68.89.189.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Kralizec! (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good God... Jmlk 1 7 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your question [6], that will be determined [7] here shortly. :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. :) Jmlk 1 7 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mop

hey I wanna run for admin can I have a mop plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill the Non-Notable Articles (talk • contribs) 02:24, December 9, 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, I honestly don't think you would succeed in an RFA right now. Jmlk 1 7 09:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about User:71.156.123.161

I'm curious as to why you fully protected the userpage for only administrators to edit when it was an IP address sockpuppeting. Wouldn't semi-protection accomplish the same thing? — Save_Us_229 11:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did so as the sockpuppet master has been known to use registered names as well as IPs. Jmlk 1 7 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize (song)

Could we get this page protected again? It seems the vandalism is persisting...for some reason people cannot seem to understand why the Timbaland version of the song gets its own chronology....Nouse4aname (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, the article is quite the target now eh? :) I'm not so sure this time, but give rfpp a whirl. :) Jmlk 1 7 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. And as the vandalism is the same as before I am a little confused as to why you can't protect it again. It is not a content dispute, it is a clear case of WP:OWN. This IP user claims that Timbaland should not have a chronology on the page as he didn't contribute enough to the recording (WP:OR). As he is clearly listed as one of the two main artists, he gets a chronology. This is so ridiculous. I don't even like this song or band, and yet I am gettig caught up in some petty edit war. Anyway, I have changed the page to reflect a fair compromise. The wording is altered but the chronology stays. If further disruption occurs then I trust the page will be protected. I will leave it for now.Nouse4aname (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your vote on my RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1.

Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well.

I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely.

Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very welcome. Good luck! :) Jmlk 1 7 00:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~Bonk~

I replied to your reply! Ariel♥Gold 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your return. Hope all is well. Dreadstar † 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Thanks so much for your support in my RfA. More importanly, I hope things are going OK off Wikipedia.
--A. B. ^(talk) 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.

Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.

I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xDanielx's RFA thanks

Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

AKA sisters

The article List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters has been nominated by user Miranda as a Featured lists. Please see List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters; then post your Support of the nomination or provide comments. Happy Holidays!!--Ccson (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 24 support, 3 oppose, and 3 neutral. I promise to work my hardest to improve the Wiki with my new tools.

--Michael Greiner 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Radio Links Hollywood

Hello Jmlk17, it seems you may not have taken the time to download one of the MP3s and have a listen to it before deciding to delete the article [Radio Links Hollywood].

Am I correct?

I was hopping you would take the time to download one and see that it might be a good addition to Wikipedia's data base.

I am still working on updating the website so it is more user friendly. This should be approved in a bit: sample

Lori Lerner's material is unique. She is hired by film studios to produce unique MP3 clips. Her clips are provided to radio stations across the country as a free service.

What do you think? Should I cease trying to get this article accepted? It's just that I'm not understanding exactly why it isn't being accepted. Thank you for your consideration, Courtens (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]