Jump to content

User talk:Jasynnash2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jasynnash2 (talk | contribs) at 08:07, 14 May 2008 (→‎Quantifica: - response to author - pointing them in the direction of the policies around deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

February 2008

Regarding this edit, well played for moving the comment to the talk page, but be sure not to remove the {{hangon}} tag accidentally, as you did this time! gb (t, c) 13:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Hayley Griffin, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. remove comments from articles by all means, but DON'T remove a valid hangon tag Mayalld (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information about the {{hangon}} tag gb. Mayalld please accept my apologies for not understanding what the tag was and therefore not realising it was legit. Also, Mayalld I know it is probably considered a small thing but, please in future don't use all caps unless you mean to be seen as "yelling" at me. Thanks again to you both. - Glenn

Using all caps is indeed considered yelling. Capitalising a single word for emphasis isn't. Mayalld (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misunderstood the capitalisation. Perhaps the comment itself could have been better phrased. As I said I was unaware the tag was valid until seeing gb's comment above and have apologised about that already. I'm learning this stuff as I go along afterall. On a different note, how are you getting your user information to show up. Have you set-up something to do it automatically or are you needing to type it individually for each comment? (I'm just cutting and pasting stuff at the moment) - jasynnash2
It is always the case that anything anybody writes might well have been expressed better, but such is life. Your apology is accepted with thanks BTW.
As to user details, just type 4 tildes (~) at the end of your contribution to sign it. Mayalld (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Thomas Lyford

A tag has been placed on Thomas Lyford requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had five days once a speedy deletion tag was placed. Went to place the hangon tag and reference why the person was notable and found the article already deleted. Have I missed something?
Being a published author makes Tom Lyford notable but, perhaps instead of having a full article a stub article or grouping him with other notable alumni/faculty of Foxcroft Academy would make more sense. I'm fine with either of these but, just deleting him without giving me the chance to explain and or expand seems a little hasty. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The PROD process is the one that has five days. Speedy Deletion is different. Yes, you can place a hangon tag, and then immediately explain your reasoning in the Talk page. I am sorry you did not see it. It might be a good idea to do what you said about the Academy. If there are any independent reliable sources about this person, then the article on him might be written in more detail. The original article was totally unreferenced and just said he is "a poet and a poetry presenter". It mentioned books published, without any external references or anything either. I checked ghits and there is little if anything on this particular person. Alexf42 12:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just getting used to the way things work on here really so my apologies about that. What sort of external references are best for published works? What is ghits? Is there a way to mark articles as "Work in Progress"? I ask that last one because I only have limited access to the web and have to fit stuff in between real world work bits. If I could mark something as "WIP" it might keep stuff like the deletes from happening before I get a chance to go back to them. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ghits is shorthand for "Google Hits". Please read: WP:REF, WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:OR. See also: WP:TEM and Template:Underconstruction. Alexf42 16:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alcalde and Fay

Hi, I've removed your PROD tag from Alcalde and Fay. I think that an issue like this deserves a full discussion rather than being tucked away on a PROD tag. If you think it really should be removed, then go ahead and open an AfD. Corvus cornixtalk 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that was what I'd done. Would you take care of it or tell me here how it is done. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

André Carson

Don't you think the note was put there for a reason?--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • yeah any number of reasons. I've commented on your talk page if it helps. Maybe put the note or something on the talk page. If I'd seen something on that page I wouldn't have taken any action. Again you have my apologies if I offended you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Page protection is more trouble than it's worth. I put it in all caps to make sure people see it... do you want me to fix that?--Dr who1975 (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • like I said all caps seemed out of place. I'd prefer it not be in caps and that a note be placed on the talk page explaining the note but, it's really up to you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • IP people who don;t normally update wikipedia aren't typically looking at the talk page. These people tend to come in, make one big change, and then never bother to come back again. I'll fix the note for you.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks. The note on the talk page would mostly be for us responsible (or at least trying to be) editors. Probably the one's most likely to pay attention to the note as well. Just out of curiosity what prompted this whole thing? Is it a POV type thing or more about being encylopedic and factually correct? You know the start date thing and all that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've been working each new congressman's page as they are inaugurated and this is always the patter... the problem is, the person isn't officially in the position until they are sworn in. Carson is a good example, I';ve read one story sayong he expects to be sworn in today.. but that doesn't make it a given. The story has no quotes from Nancy Pelosi or any other congressional officials who are in charge of such things. He's not a Congressman until he is sworn in... anything can happen (and on occasion it does). Somethign similar happend with Bill Foster just a week ago.--Dr who1975 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah I had a look at your userpage (after I'd placed my last comment) and thought it might be something like that. I definitely agree with the not a congressman until he is sworn in thing. It works the same way with any public office in my mind but, no doubt as soon as the election is over in November people will be doing similar with whomever wins the presidency despite them not officially being president until much later. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USER PAGE

wats the matter with you. don't touch my user page.

Ozzaroni (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You blanked it out without any reference. My understanding is that blanking a user page is against policy. If I'm wrong on that I apologise. Out of curiousity why are you blanking it? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the point of leaving it that dumb stuff there about the RFA. For your userpage I was just trying to get a template. Yes, i need help. If you can leave me a message. I have to go rite now. so I can't mess with it...yet.

Ozzaroni (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks.

Ozzaroni (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have left the messages on your talk page. The stuff about RTA really should stay as that is the sort of thing that the talk page is for. The talk page doesn't effect what appears on the userpage by the way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Rogers

sorry, i had that mixed with the genereal section above about whether it was an article for Steve rogers or all who used the CA moniker. ThuranX (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • No problem. Personally, I think the Captain America article should focus on Captain America itself (you know sort of like other characters that have had multiple people under the mask. With a paragraph or two about each one where possible and links to the more expanded articles where appropriate. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cap

It just doesn't come off as being a particular proper way to title that section of the article. Reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28comics%29#Heroic_name_disambiguation, maybe something like "Captain America (James Barnes)" would work better? I dunno. I'll put it back if necessary. Th 2005 (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expanding further (and rereading what I linked), it seems that that doesn't really apply to subsection titles in articles. I suppose the next time I have a chance I'll change it back to "Bucky Becomes Captain America". Th 2005 (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Thank you for making a report about Jamesmajury (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood something. I thought the AIV was simply to report acts of vandalism as they occur. I wasn't trying to get the person blocked unless that action was deemed to be needed by the appropriate people. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eep. I'm sorry I missed this question. There are many easy cut & paste templates to put on user talk pages that are specialized according to the nature of the vandalism. There's a collection of them here: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. The simplest template to place is the {{uw-vandalism}} series. On first offense, especially if you're unsure if the editor meant to be disruptive, you'd use {{uw-vandalism1}}. If blatant or second offense, {{uw-vandalism2}}. This moves to {{uw-vandalism3}} and then to {{uw-vandalism4}} before heading to AIV. If vandalism is extremely blatant, you can adjust accordingly. I have on occasion started directly with level 3. Note that not all disruptive editing is technically vandalism. If you run into something like additions of material without sourcing, you are better off referring to the list for a more specific response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Dick's Cabaret

An editor has nominated Dick's Cabaret, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick's Cabaret and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure where the bot got the idea that I created the article or worked on it but, hey. I just added to the AfD discussion saying it should be deleted. Maybe the bot is broken or overworking itself somehow :o) Jasynnash2 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROD on Talk:1974 in India/Comments

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Talk:1974 in India/Comments, which you proposed for deletion, because the page you proposed for deletion was not an article, user page, or user talk page. If you still think the page should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it, as proposed deletion is only for articles, user pages, and user talk pages. Instead, consider using Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion for this page. In some cases, a speedy deletion criterion may apply. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: User_talk:Acalamari#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FTalk:1974_in_India.2FComments. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AfD's

I noticed that you asked about non-admins closing AfD's. The answer is yes, a non-admin can close an AfD under certain circumstances. Please read WP:NAC for the guidelines. Happy editing.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User warnings

Hello Jasynnash2! Thank you for warning the vandals. You might want to take a look on this page - there are already some templates made specifically for warning vandals. If you use those instead of the custom warnings, you will save some time and make the warnings readable for bots, which can report vandals to the AIV. Thanks again for fighting vandalism on Wikipedia! AVandtalkcontribs 14:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I tried to be polite by putting a more personal message. I think I'm probably just going to have to create a word doc with the various templates so I have them very quickly to hand. I've got the v4 template ready if I see it again from the same user. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:AFD

Hey, hey, no worries! :) I have no soul to offend, haha. And in terms of the non-admin close, I would have done so myself, but I tend not to participate in discussions I've already partaken in. I'm fairly sure a ton of other admins would've closed as keep, so H20 is safe. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MEGAN

Metagenomics software is an obscure field. This particular package has got some press and interest, it is easy to use, free (I think), and works fairly well for what it is designed (environmental shotgun sequence comparisons with NCBI genomes). I removed the copyvio and rewrote the article and feel it should stand. However, if you or someone decides to delete it, please paste the text on my talk page. I don't have time to work on it more right now, but think it is notable enough to have an article. --Blechnic (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think that's necessary. The article looks fine as it stands, it's a notable enough software development, probably become much more notable in the not too distant future, but I don't have a vested interest in whether it's kept or not. I also don't have a schedule for when I can work on it, I'm merely home sick. Hopefully for not much longer. I think I can create a user subpage with the text in case it gets deleted and I want to work on it some more. --Blechnic (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV Part 2

Just letting you know I got your message, I'll reply to it in a minute. I just got vandalised quite severely, just fixing it up. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I noticed the tag and at first thought it was because of my question. Take your time getting back to me, I just wanna make sure I'm doing what's best for Wiki and approaching things properly. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. I was vandalised like 7 times in 5 mins. Anyway, I consider a few things before I mark a report with-

User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently.

  • The amount of previous warnings
  • The correctness of warnings (eg a level4 warning at first I will reject the report)
  • The space between warnings, whether warnings are stale (old warnings, eg a report saying "Vandalised after last warning, but "last warning was 4 days ago")
  • Whether the IP is shared.

Generally, I think rather clearly on these, and if I'm in doubt that they warrant a block, or if they have been warned incorrectly, then I'll issue the above notice. However, 4 warnings in a row, in the space of a short period of time, will not be touched by me, I can't block (yet). I probably declined the block because it would have been a shared IP, and the gap between the warnings could mean that the edits were from different users. I hope this answered your question, feel free to chat or ask me a question any time. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks. So the "final" warning thing isn't really the issue then and the templates that are used aren't as important as the above then? Can't IP only users be blocked but, someone logging in at that IP still have editing priviledges? As opposed to blocking the whole IP? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about the delay, was updating my talk page. I generally prefer a final warning to be issued, but this can vary, depending on the severity of the infraction. Some require a full set of warnings, others don't. I use my judgment on AIV when I'm clerking, it's yet to fail me. And, yes. Thats the standard IP block, its referred to as AO ACB, which means Anonymous Only, Account Creation Blocked. It means already registered users can login and edit, but new accounts can't be created until the block expires. Details are here. I hope that helps. Cheers, Steve Crossin (talk to me) 16:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

As a fatter of mact (wait, WHAT?), it WAS a mistake. Thanks for the pointer, and no, I don't think I was inline with ANYTHING there. 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Although the whole thing looks a bit screwy now. I wish I'd never gotten started with it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions

Hi, I noticed that you used the vandalism template for warning about a speedy deletion on this talk page. I took the liberty of replacing your warning with the one generated by the speedy deletion. regards LittleOldMe (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Basically the user created an attack page and therefore needed an actual warning of somekind. I wasn't sure if we had one about not creating inappropriate pages so used the vandalism one instead. I suppose really the user should have both tags. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I Know

"Hi. May I suggest that to avoid some conflict on the above page that you provide a reference/link for the quotation that seems to be in dispute for inclusion." But did you bother to look at the discussion page in which I said I was tired? I asked basically for someone else to go find the references. Was that too much to ask, and now your asking me to do it back? Why are you putting everything on me? Come on, isn't this supposed to be about sharing the work load? Damn. And that Lyonscc guy appears to have a person thing for Hank in keeping his image clean. And I heard Hank say that on the radio himself, which is how I knew to look for it in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestar777 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm putting the onus on you because you are the one that has added the quote. Like I said I don't know anything about the subject matter and to be perfectly honest don't much care. I was just trying to help someone I perceived as a newer editor than myself stay out of a sticky situation. You are more than welcome to ignore my advice. I meant it in the best most friendly sort of way. I am sorry if you did not see it that way. I will refrain from commenting on it in the future as I'm not willing to get "stuck in the middle". Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master Chief (Halo)

Good catch, I've reverted it back before the latest bout of vandalism. Thanks for letting me know, Gwernol 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Erinn Harder

The {{hangon}} tag is intended for the use of the article's creator, who is not allowed to simply remove the speedy deletion tags. Articles with reasonable assertions of notability are not candidates for speedy deletion, even if those claims are thereafter found to be unprovable, or hoaxes. The AfD process is intended to both incite deeper evaluation of the subject matter and to lay out the necessary points to be used to keep or delete the article. Even in obviously hoaxy articles, the discussion is necessary, as the decision to delete will give future editors the freedom to speedy-tag with {{G4}}, AfD-deleted recreated material. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would take this to AFD now, as you have already done the research. If you need help, drop me a note. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that. I'm just trying to get all the processes down better (learning as I go). I don't want to use AfD as cleanup though so I'll probably just wait (as maybe there are other better searches that could be done than my rudimentary googling). Is it okay for non-authors to palce inuse or underconstruction tags? If so I'll probably just pop on to the article (I'm really just an inclusionist at heart probably). Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two for the Money (film)

Hi, I've reverted the vandalism to this article and protected it in a version that doesn't breach WP:BLP, and also warned the two editors involved. In time, I will review all contributions to see if there are grounds for blocking. Hope that helps. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 08:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tex bronson

You posted that the suject post of Tex Bronson was a recreated article; nothing was recreated and the only thing I did was edit it so that it fit the criteria for wikipedia. Spend your time outside. --Adrenaline-pulse (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I only posted what shows in the logs. You can verify what I said by looking at both the deletion logs and the article history. If I am incorrect than I'm sure other editors not directly involved with the article will notice and correct me. Please remain civil on here your comment about spending time outside is not appreciated and doesn't in anyway discuss the actual subject at hand. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie sheads

Hey, I just wanted to drop by and tell you that I replied to you on the discussion page of Carrie sheads. I am in my best intentions, and still learning this thing. Thank you! Bobber0001 (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSWS

I've requested protection for the page DarthShrine (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Was too busy trying to ged rid of the vandalism to answer earlier. I think nearly the whole history of the page needs to be reported to AIV. Just gonna try and get started now unless there is a better way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Fuck you dickhead!

The preceding act of vandalism/personal attack was brought to you by User:124.190.180.26

Rfc - RobJ1981

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of RobJ1981 (talk · contribs). I myself have added an outside view. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobJ1981Template:Highrfc-loop]]. -- Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding trolls

It was nothing personal, but the Wikipedia essay on the subject of trolls explains it better than I can. The paragraph I was referring to is titled Please don't feed the trolls. Regards LittleOldMe (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I placed the warning I did not realise it was part of a long history and thought it was simply a onetime occurence. I would gladly have put an "inappropriate edit summary" warning on instead (if I could have found one). I don't totally understand how issuing warnings for behaviour is "feeding the trolls" but, be assured after your above post I won't take the "troll fodder" comment personally. Thanks for responding back. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have messed up just like this soooo often...

I always use preview, even when I'm really sure I haven't messed up. (because I still mess up!) (the missing '}') Shenme (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget to the include the 'subst' - not just {{uw-vandalism3}}, but {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}. I don't remember why, but it is something like leaving it as {{uw-xxx}} makes a template reference every time it is displayed, but using the 'subst' actually puts the message text into the page. The load on the servers is less?
Oh, and put your user page and user talk page in your watchlist, because you wouldn't want to someone to get something past you...   ;-)   Good night! Shenme (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The McKinnon Worker

Yes, it was a bit difficult to know what speedy to use. I reckoned the facetious tone was so over-the-top that "nonsense" would stick, but some admins take a fairly strict line and say that "nonsense" is only for "df.k%v#nv a$*&erf.,jk+avd" and the like, not for anything where the words seem to have some meaning. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • my concern exactly. I tagged with Spam because it is blatantly self-promotion/advertising but, am being told now that it only counts as advertising if they actually ask you to buy something or tell you how to buy something. (or so it reads at the moment). I'm trying to verify the "buy" thing by reading the criteria more indepthly but, I don't see it (yet). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • i don't think it should be deleted. obviously just information you dont understand! why get you self into it? just seems stupid and unecessary to me.
hi. Let me start with some basics. You are entitled to your opinion. I offered to help make the article more appropriate for wiki and had no response to my offer. I agree that taking the article to AfD is unnecessary but, that was disagreed with when the tag I originally placed on the article was removed by a different editor. I'd appreciate it very much if you read some of the Wikipedia policies (in particular WP:Civil and WP:AGF). If after you have read these and you would like my help writing an article on the subject that is more inline with what meets the policies of the site I would be glad to help. Lastly, it is considered courteous to sign your comments by using 4 tildes (~). Thank you for your opinions on the matter and I hope the newspaper does well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Jasynnash2 for the quick revert of obvious vandalism to an AfD page and the assumption of good faith message sent to the IP vandal even though it was quite obvious who the vandal was!--Sallicio 10:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Research

removed speedy deletion tag from this section of talk page Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Holford

Hi Thanks for the comments on the article I wrote. Just out of interest, how did you come across it (it was only arounf for 12 hours). BR --Actarus000 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bamblerose

I've responded on my talk page...essentially, the situation is a bit of a delicate one and you're probably just not aware of it. If you need more information I'll be happy to help. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll have a look on your talk page. The situation seems pretty simple to me. You have a welcome template you are using and the IP replaced it. You then reverted back to the original. His actions were most likely misplaced and I'm aware there is a discussion going on. I'm just asking you to help avoid additional drama on the issue. If the IP is a "guilty" party it does no good to "stoop" to their level. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Template?

Welcome to Wikipedia! At Wikipedia, we're all about building consensus, and using critical thinking and rational judgment to decide what the best course of action is in any situation. Although we do have some “policies", with the exception of a few that are necessary for legal reasons (WP:Copyvio, WP:BLP, etc.), you should be aware that the others are not binding. Generally, they are simply guidelines and/or descriptions of what has happened in the past. I would like to encourage you, in your dealings with others on Wikipedia, to resist the temptation to advocate a certain course of action because "the rules say so", and instead would urge you make arguments based on what serves the best interests of the encyclopedia in the given situation. Anyway, I hope you enjoy yourself here, and I look forward to seeing what you have to contribute to our project. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my user talk page.

CoSort article page

Thank you for the feedback on the CoSort article page. You mention the use of other "good" business articles could be used as templates... and I was wondering if you might be able to guide me to 1 or 2 that I can learn from? I admit that I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and there is so much to learn and so many different things to be aware of... that my head spins. Any help you could offer would be very appreciated. Thank you! Dkkrms (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably start with the biggies like Microsoft, McDonalds, Starbucks. Use the basic formating that they use and do your best to remain neutral in presentation. Make sure to point out any bad points of the company/product as well as the good so that you maintain a balanced article and don't end up with something that is essentially an advertisement for a product. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of peace

Am I missing something.. Why is it such a big deal for these dudes from Sri Lanka to delete the dedicated article?

Is there some major political conspiracy that I am unaware of?

Personally I really couldn't care. The institute is a minor organisation that barely deserves a mention on wikipedia..however I don't like to think that people are adding/deleting/merging/moving articles in order to further their own political agenda.

Can you shed any light on the bullshit? Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm probably not the best person to address this to as I have a number of issues with the article (and the BS that is going on around it). Please don't bring any political opinions for or against this article (or its contents) to me. If you really couldn't care I ask that you not behave like what many people term a troll. Personally, I'm beginning to have trouble Assuming Good Faith with yourself or the other main user involved. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I think you may have misunderstood me and my motives behind my edits. Sometimes my attitude is a touch abrasive, but on this particular article there was no bias on my part. I really don't give a fuck about the institute of peace, if it has its own article or not. The only opinion I had about the article was that it didnt seem notable to be on the Diana article, if something of no importance has its own article, I dont really care at all.

I dont mind if you consider me to be rude or a troll, perhaps that is close to the truth at times, however I would be annoyed/frustrated if you thought that I was a sockpuppet or had some form of political agenda, because that is about as far from the truth as is possible.

I was just a little confused/interested in the background of this inter-drama, until today I was not aware that it had previously been deleted...and I was wondering, why do these people care so much? anyway laters. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added more details (Legacy section) Diana, Princess of Wales

I have added some more details with reference as the article "(Sri Lanka)Princess Diana Institue of Peace" was speedily deleted. I am expecting your input there.Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet? moi?

I don't think so. I also think that when I accuse someone, I have the decency to back it up with evidence.

I have "thought" that many people are likely to be sockpuppets, but I have the manners to keep it to myself, until such time as evidence supports my suspicions.

I had an ironic laugh when I read the notice at the top of your talk page, asking people to be civil assume good faith. From the time I asked you an innocent question http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jasynnash2&diff=cur&oldid=209721738 you have assumed bad faith when it comes to me. I have replied in a civil manner, when it would have been easy to respond to your bad faith assumptions, with yet more bad faith.

I really would like you to provide one piece of evidence, either something technical (an IP address etc), something time/date related, some shared grammatical error, similar edit summaries, anything - that points towards me being a sockpuppet, or even points to me being the new account of a previous editor.

Otherwise, I wouldn't mind an apology for your attitude, I have been civil towards you, you have assumed bad faith - just because I am stubborn and I like some of the more controversial articles, does not make me a sockpuppet. When I accuse someone, I back it up, I make an ANI/3RR/Sockpuppet report, and I list the evidence. So either list some evidence, or apologise.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also asked for you and the other user to leave me alone. I assumed good faith from the very beginning (at the first AN/I, the talk page(s), 2nd AN/I, etc. The behaviour of yourself and the other user involved made me change my mind. Perhaps, after I've had some time away from the both of you I will be prepared to re-evaluate things. I never said you WERE any of these things. I simply said it was possible. Not wanting to further the wikidrama I haven't filed a report of any sort and I'll say again please leave me alone on these issues. I tried to help. It didn't work. Please don't make me feel even worse about the whole thing by commenting over and over again. When I've had some time I may look at things again and then I may apologise but, for now I can't. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but it is unrealistic to make accusations against someone, and then request that they not comment on those accusations. I also think that to say "possible" does not make something any less insulting.
I have no issue with you having a different opinion than mine, I do however take great offence to your holier than thou attitude, in which you assume bad faith, you make your bad faith public and then you accuse me of being a sockpuppet.
Shall I phrase this in a manner more suitable for you? I think it is possible that your comments constitute a personal attack. I also think it is possible that you ignoring the fact that you should assume good faith. I also think it is possible that your accusations are absurd. I also think it is possible that it is equally absurd to insult someone, accuse them, and then say you don't want them to comment on the fact - did my use of the word possible, make that all easier to take?
feel free to apologise or never make such comments/accusations relating to me again. Sennen goroshi (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this. I'm sorry I said you may be a sockpuppet or secondary account. I am sorry that you took any of my statements as a personal attack. Please be assured they were not meant that way. As I said before I was trying to help. I assumed good faith from the beginning and I have no doubt this can be verified by other people by looking at my input. I am quite fed up with the whole situation and that is why I made the statements I did. Yes, the other user must accept blame for his behaviour but, I feel it is totally reasonable for you to accept some responsibility for your actions as well. I'm asking you and the other user to leave me alone so that I may have some time to "cool off". I'm asking you to please not comment on here (my talk page)about Diana, the content in dispute, the other user, or matters pertaining to those for awhile so that I may cool off. Be assured that once I've had that chance and no longer feel the negative feelings I am feeling at the moment that the assumption of good faith will begin anew. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Libro0 admits he is a sock puppeter!

Libro0 stated I would like to confirm that Box Benefits is indeed a sock puppet. [1] [2] This confirms the sock puppetry. He admits it, therefore it is true. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Saw it in the original place thank you. That is not what he is saying at all from the context. He simply says that the account is a sockpuppet. He doesn't remotely say it is him. Just because you are in a disagreement with the user in question doesn't make your attack page any less disruptive. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user above has continued to place accusations about me in several places 1 2. He has also gone back and replaced an accusation here User:Omero Tognon. I want to ignore him and have him ignore me but from the looks of those disturbing passages he has written I had to have my user page protected. I was considering putting up a suspected sock puppet case for his current set of socks User:Box Benefits, User:Omero Tognon, User:I Hate CAPTCHAS,User:Baseball Card Guy, User:Bbcardguy, User:Yuck_Flu_By_Road, User:Plate King. I would rather stay out of it and continue to edit unbothered since it seems blocking him has achieved little considering he is connected to several previous cases. Plus the fact that it is tiresome. He has also been using anonymous sock as well: 85.178.49.95, 85.177.45.180, 218.25.101.173, 121.44.172.11 I went to the Village Pump(policy) page to introduce some countermeasure to sock puppets but it appears to be an unpopular idea. Libro0 (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quantifica

Why the speedy deletion tag? What can I do to make the page right? As a model for this page, I used wikipedia articles from companies in the same industry! Quantichristo (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Start by putting the holdon tag and discussing improvements on the talk page of the article. Make sure you establish the notability of the company through the use of reliable 3rd party sources. Have a look at the help pages and some of the wikipedia policies (especially those around notability). Be aware that your username implies some Conflict of Interest as well. I'd also suggest finding ways to contribute to other articles in a constructive manner. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I started doing what you told me, changed my username, that was conflict of interest. And added a link to a reliable 3rd Party source. And now my article is deleted all of a sudden by someone I don't even know. How come??Bebeagrafe (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, all I can say is have a look at the policies. There is one called deletion review that may apply (but, it also has policies about what can and can't be brought back and why). If you look the article up in the deletion log it normally tells you why something was deleted. I'm guessing it was because the article dtill looked way too much like advertising and not an encyclopedic piece on a company. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebra

I think I had a salvageable version of this article here, even adding two references, but I'm not sure the author is keen on anything other than a mirror of the organization's site - they reverted me moments later. Hardly seems worth the bother. I'll see if I can get the editor to respond to me one last time, then the article can be deleted for all I care - I've got other things to do. Thanks for keeping an eye on it, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've started the discussion on the talk page that the author should have begun with the holdon tag. Hopefully, they will feel their charity is sufficiently notable to discuss ways to improve the article and not simply revert to spam type additions to the content. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jasynnash2&oldid=212305828"