User talk:J.smith

J.S (User talk:J.smith)

Please sign your message with ~~~~ and place new messages at the bottom of the page. Thanks! Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

Mr Smith

Can you please email me ASAP pollyfodder@netzero.com Thank you.

Spam whitelist

I think I'm going to drop a note on Meta about this and ask someone to be e-mailed about it. It's only a matter of time before someone tries this... Grandmasterka 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That'll be better than what I was going to do. Thanks! Grandmasterka 22:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WHITELIST

Hey J.smith, I suggest that we not modify the title, but instead use the templates {{done}} ( Done) and {{not done}} ( Not done). This will allow existing links to titles (such as link#section to not be broken. By the way, great idea on trying to knock this one down... I've been recently the guy who has been adding alot of these on to the blacklist... so if you see me say something, but not accept and or decline something, thats because I likely added the link on the blacklist to start with... and I don't want to have any issues with conflict of interest. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I did manage to bribe another editor into archiving what has been done ;). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving a bunch of comments without saying they are done or not, I'm leaving that up to someone else. ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Ah, ok. Thats cool. further information is always useful.

I guess I can use the {{done}}/{{not done}} from now on. I was just making things up as I went along. :) Good point about the sections... I was borrowing an idea from WP:AN/3RR. Now that it's a much more reasonable size it's not really that important. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

artnet.de link whitelisted

Thanks for that - great work you're doing there Johnbod 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Online video game rental

You were the deleting admin for online video game rental (log), which appears to be in the process of being re-created (whether intentionally or not I can't yet tell). Just thought it might be something you'd want to know about. - David Oberst 04:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Serafin blocked

Is Serafin blocked from editing ? --Lysy^talk 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Youtube

Hi J.smith. Just saw your message in Talk:4′33″#YouTube_links regarding YouTube videos. There's a very interesting video of 4′33″, performed by the BBC Symphony Orchestra, which was I broadcasted, and I think offered as Real Player download at the time. What's Wikipedia stance on these kind of clips? The video is in here Cheers. AxiomShell 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:SilentHunterIIIbox.jpg

Image:SilentHunterIIIbox.jpg is replaceable by a more free image. Granted, it could never be freely licensed under the GFDL, a CC license, etc. because the art itself is copyrighted, but it could be replaced with a non-promotional image. Please consider putting the tag back in. --Iamunknown 00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam Whitelist

Hi, you added two of Voltaire's blog entries (on MySpace) to the whitelist for me, so I have just come to say thanks. However, I am not great with how URLs work, and I am not a MySpace user, and you picked me up on adding a 'userID' or something to the URL. Basically, what I am asking is, would it be possible to put his whole blog on the whitelist, or would I have to request individual unblocks every time I want to use an entry as a source? Thanks. J Milburn 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the myspace ID is your personal number. I learned that the hard way when trying to view the link you sent. No problems.

Well, MySpace has a retarded linking system. I can't just whitelist one blog without whitelisting every blog on myspace. So yeah... just keep sending the requests over. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, will do! J Milburn 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

JimmyTrump79: Broken promise?

Hey, I think JimmyTrump79 is editing anonymously to avoid a re-block. Check out Special:Contributions/68.42.62.185; that user is adding the same attendance info that JT had been adding repeatedly. I thought you and I should discuss it before we take any action, but I think a re-block of JT is in order here, since he has gone right back to the behavior that got him blocked in the first place. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He did it again, twice today. I've reblocked JimmyTrump79, as it seems obvious to me that it's him (it would be a strange coincidence for a vandal to show up and make the same edits right now, no?), but I'm listing here to keep you in the loop. Let me know if you disagree. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you keeping me in the loop on this. I haven't had a chance to review their edits so I don't have any objections yet. However, the way you describe it, it sounds fairly rock solid. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi

WikiMan53 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

March Paranormal Project Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Paranormal WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. InShaneee 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt AfD #13

Hi J.S. - I was cleaning up the Daniel Brandt AfD #13 and noticed that the reasoning you provided does not include a vote. You may wish to add a Keep vote. -- Jreferee 01:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the wikipedia AFD. It's not a vote, It's a forum to share opinions and build consensus. I have shared my opinion and have chosen not to sum it up in one word. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Katana

Its really hard to read Japanese upside down. Why are did you display the picture of the Japanese writing upside down?

The one on the right hand-side the first three characters (from the bottom up) are: Thousand-Autumn-Rain

The fourth character is illegible as it is punched out with a whole.

Most of the rest seems to be names of people. Takada, Fujiwara are names that I can read. Its not like it says anything in Japanese (like a sentence or a poem), as its all chinese characters.

You should ask someone who is familiar with antique Japanese art in general or old Japanese swords in particular. Sorry I am not of much help. Naerhu 14:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the pictures were up-side-down until someone pointed it out. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfAB

Thanks for your vote of support. I'm really at a loss as to what to do here; I really don't have many diffs to cite as to my actions, and honestly, I don't want to make this an indictment of Worldtraveler if I don't have to, either. I've never been in this sort of situation in my almost two years here, and I must say that I am quite frustrated. At the time of this writing, two of three Arbitrators have voted to accept, so Arbitration seems inevitable.

I really don't want to do this, but I'm really afraid of the alternative more. Should I be unable to edit following this, or should I simply feel that leaving the site be the right thing to do, is there any way you might be willing to take up the monthly maintenance of WP:PARA? I'm sorry to impose, and I hope this is just paranoia, but I do feel it would be best if I prepared for just such an eventuality. --InShaneee 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you, that means a lot. As I said, there's no need for you to worry about that right now, but regardless, I was planning to put up an 'Administration' page detailing the monthly maintenance chores and how to go about them, anyway. --InShaneee 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel Bryant 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

Thanks for the help.--Nirajrm ^{talk ||| sign plz!} 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To J.smith for diligence in the tireless battle against Spam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 17:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 17:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow! Thank you much! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Just wanted to say a thanks for commenting on my Rfa, and I just wanted to say that I didn't comment on my Rfa with regards to your comments because I didn't feel it was right to justify my actions, but since its over now - I'll comment directly to you. The copyvio concerns were serious, and they were only highlighted to me in the Rfa, I thought because I had attempted to source the copyvio's in, it was OK and although I acted in good faith, I now realise that this was wrong and I'm so sorry for what happened, everythings sorted now, I've gone right through my contribs and there have been no other ones. Please be assured that these actions will never occur again and I promise I won't abuse the tools. I hope that we can put this behind us now, and work together in the future. Cheers again Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations)

There was an edit war at Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations). That's why I protected. All pages you fully protect are default protected indefinitely, and are unprotected once the edit war is over, or when someone requests and provides valid reasons for doing so. Thought you might want to know, because I was a bit confused when you gave a list of situations when to apply full protection indefinitely. Nishkid64 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipedian64

Unblock him if you like, I don't mind. I suspect he's learned his lesson now. I wouldn't have minded him having the sockpuppet (I have one) but if you read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sockpuppets you will see why I blocked the sockpuppet. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CN

To give a quick answer to the unique purpose of the board, no other venue is a readily accessible place for discussing and archiving community bans. Try hunting through the WP:AN and WP:ANI archives to cite some particular community ban discussion. It's maddening. When WP:CEM gets off the ground WP:CN will have more to do, but at present it serves its purpose nicely. In a broader sense it can serve as a location for community decision making in situations where no better venue exists. Not every user knows what those options are, so sometimes it acts as a point of referral. The board regulars have been diligent about referring mistakenly posted threads to WP:RFC and other venues. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always wondered why WP:RFC couldn't serve purpose of discussing community bans... The discussions always end up being massive. *shrug* but whatever.. if people find it works then I'm not gonna rise a stink over it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

sandbox page in mainspace

I've moved your "subpage" of Electronic voice phenomenon to User:J.smith/Electronic voice phenomenon/Temp, since the article space doesn't support subpages any more, and to avoid it showing up in special:uncategorizedpages, and such like. Alai 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

From the Li Hongzhi talk page

You said:

Please mark Talk:Li_Hongzhi/Edit_request_2007-02-14 as an archive. The GFDL requires that we keep an detailed history for any edit we make. ---J.S

Agreed, but I'm not sure if I should do that. Also if I should do that ... how can I do it :) ? --HappyInGeneral 09:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Critical Material from Li Hongzhi page

Mr. Smith: I wanted you to know I've just done a posting on the Falun Gong Arbitration Evidence page concerning a deletion you did on the Li Hongzhi page at the request of Happy in General. [1] Specifically, I have asked the Arbitrators to make a ruling on the deleted sentence concerning Li's award and honors. The sentence is based on reputable published sources and IMHO should be allowed to stand, since all it does is report that there is some debate about the significance of these awards and honors. Certainly there is no libelous content in that sentence. I'm doing this cross-post because I am not sure whether you are aware of the evidence page for this arbitration case. --Tomananda 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi J. Smith

I just noticed that you have made major changes based on the request of one editor, Happyingeneral. This edit is impropriate in so many ways. First of all, other editors on this page have not been informed about this version. Secondly, there is a mediator on Falun Gong related pages, your edit bypassed him. Third, there is an arbitration case open for the edit conflicts on Falun Gong related pages. Lastly, some of the material you deleted is perfectly appropriate. For all of these reasons please undo the changes you made and let the conflicts be solved through the proper channels. Thanks, --Samuel Luo 06:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This stuff was only brought to my attention recently by Samuel. Although I am not an anti-FG person, I find it worrying that you'd approve an edit request on which nobody else made a single comment. Moreover, a biography is aimed at being specifically about the person and should not be set at a criticism-free level. Sure, there shouldn't be libel or slander, and the page does need modifying, but not in the way HiG has suggested. Procedure also matters as much as content, as I'm sure you're well aware of.

I.E. Let the consultations and debates take place before editing unilaterally. After all, that's what the pro-FG side has been ordering the anti-FG side to do (and based their entire ArbCom case on) so the least that could be done is 'vice versa'. Jsw663 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well consider this[2], the change of the page was done at 16 March and at 14 February, I added the following:

I read both the Li Hongzhi page and the Biographies of living person policy and I notice several things that are not in accordance with this policy on the Li Hongzhi page, so I started making a draft here: Talk:Li_Hongzhi/Edit_request_2007-02-14.

This shows that there was no communication for more then a month. I would ask that since the page is protected the proper channel is to provide clear short diffs with the required changes, just like when making a draft with all the changes that you want to make to that page. Also have it public and give it enough time for discussion. This way there is the possibility to discuss and get consensus on the changes. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral

Umm I'm confused. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Li Hongzhi and Mediation

Wow, this is awkward. I am fairly sure we have interacted outside of this mediation. However, the mediation is currently on hold due to the Arbitration Committee proceedings.

Perhaps, if mediation continues after the ArbCom reaches a decision, and you are still involved, I can find another mediator to handle the Li Hongzhi part of the dispute. Knowing you, and therefore liking you a bit more, I am afraid I could not be neutral whilst you are involved.  : )

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the warm sentiment. :) I'm not really involved in the dispute other then stumbling into it via an edit-request, so no worries. I guess that does make me involved... dammit! hehe... All I'm trying to do is offer a structured forum where the editors can discuss the topic without the urge to stray into personal issues. I hope it works! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Arbitration will probably take awhile, so I guess we'll see where the chips fall.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

blacklist touregypt

An FYI - Looks like you forgot the remove this site when you stated on the talk page that you were going to remove it. I was looking for the diff so I could mark the white-list request closed. :) J.smith 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, I did See http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagle_101&diff=548359&oldid=548356 . It works for me. Are you sure that you waited long enough before re-adding the site? The blacklist does take some time to propagate. Eagle 101 06:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. if there are problems, let me know :)

Oh, I see. I was looking at \btouregypt\.net and not \btour-egypt\.net. Threw me off. Thanks for the clarification! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

bowiechick talk page

I wasn't completely sure how to handle notices added to discussions, but I figured someone would let me know if I did it wrong. Thanks. However, I also wasn't clear what you intended by the changes (that link to the history), so I changed it to a normal archive link, and archived the original linklist text (if it was intended as "assigning homework", I'm not sure if that was efficient). At some point, if that linklist project becomes active again, it might be better to have a tag to display a box that can be inserted instead of posting comments. Thanks again. x 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV overturn

Responded on my talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding deleted article (MARC_Research)

Greetings. I’m hoping you can help me with some information. Recently, an article about M/A/R/C Research (which was started by user Dscannon), was tagged for speedy deletion as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dscannon . The URL for the original article prior to deletion was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_research
Dscannon is no longer associated with the organization.

We would like to take whatever steps necessary to reinstate the article and resolve any issues that resulted in its being tagged for deletion.

What would you recommend? Should we start over, or start with the content Dscannon provided and attempt to resolve any issues that resulted in its deletion?

Any insight you can provide would be most helpful.

Thanks for your time and attention. Tfsummers 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the original article (Formerly found at M/A/R/C Research was that the article was written as a way to promote the business. As an encyclopedia we try to cover all topics from a "neutral" point of view. To that end we largely prohibit editors who have a "conflict of interests" from creating article.

How do we resolve this issue with your company having an article on wikipedia? Well, there are a few ways you can go about doing this. One... you could wait until an uninvolved editor makes a new article. A quicker option would be to create an article yourself and request a peer-review of the article and asking an unbiased wikipedian to post the article for you.

If you wish to create the article yourself, I can point you to the policies and standards that apply.

Thanks for understanding,

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's most helpful. I have a few questions, but I'll start with one. Am I continuing the dialog on this topic in the appropriate place? Thanks. Tfsummers 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a centralised place for this yet, but the peer review section might sufise. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That actually answered one of my questions, which was how to initiate a peer review. And yes, if you could point me toward the policies and standards that you mentioned in your previous post, that would be helpful as well.

And one last question (for now, I think) Is the peer review a place where I might find an unbiased Wikipedian who might post an article that passed peer review? And how is that done? Would one typically tap an editor who responded to and participated in the peer review?

Thanks. Tfsummers 14:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you could simply mention that your looking for someone to post it for you after you post the peer review.

Here are the basic policies any quality article will pass:

• Wikipedia:Attribution - There is a way to verify everything in the article
• Wikipedia:Notability - The subject of the article is noteworthy enough to include here.
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - The article is written from a neutral point of view... In terms of both tone and content.
• Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content - The content is released under the GFDL or under the public domain.

I hope that helps. Give me a ring when you get everything ready and I comment at the peer review. Thanks! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been most helpful. Thanks for the information. Tfsummers 16:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Warrington map... wrong?

I've replied to your message on Talk:Warrington. but I reproduce it here for your convenience:

If you mean the map on the article whose talk page this is, then I don't see any problem with it. It is a unitary authority abutting the northern boundary of the shire county of Cheshire, and that is where it is shown on the map. However, if one could see the actual message in which the complaint was made, perhaps my own lingering bewilderment over the nature of this complaint could be clarified.

 DDStretch  (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The email was only two lines and I gave you all the information It contained. Sorry I don't have any more information to clarify the request and thank you for verifying the accuracy for me. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Which ticket, please? I am an OTRS newbie, forever losing things. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Michael Davis publisher.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael Davis publisher.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I substed the tag since I needed to play with it a bit. Go away bot! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

username

Hi, I realized that you have blocked this user, who's username I thought was too long, and that you have confirmed it.(You sent the user the {{Usernameblocked}} template, which I thought is used in cases where the user is still invited and allowed to create a new account, but you also blocked the account creation on the block log.)--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to add that I changed mine recently.User:Wikipedier->User:U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your right. I screwed up the block. It should be good now. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(editconflict) Wow, that was fast! Thank you so much!--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Boris Allen

 Note that your friend Boris Allen has been banned.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.232.69 (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Forgot

 You have obviously forgotten that you have ever taken action favourable to banned 

Boris Allen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.232.69 (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

 See "User talk 81.158.206.83", where you took action favourable to Boris Allen. Note that I use twenty different 

computers. Boris Allen has been banned for trolling, double editting, supporting vandals, sock-puppetry, etc.

Hmmm

Thought you might want to see this. John Reaves (talk) 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I didnt realize you were an admin *quivers* dont block meeeee! Can you speedy close the mfd please?

Please ignore this message, the user has repeatedly placed {{helpme}} on his Talk Page to request speedy deleion of MfD's. Tellyaddict 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to ignore someone just because they are new and don't understand every little practice on wikipedia. Infact, I plan to do the compleate opisite of ignoreing them. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam whitelist - what do you think?

At User:Eagle 101's request, I have gone to various editors seeking a consensus on this discussion, as I personally know the artist whose site it is - therefore, there is a small issue of WP:COI. Please take a look and leave your thoughts there.--Vox Humana 8' 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Break.com

I am trying to investigate a complaint on WP:COIN. I don't understand the allegations, but maybe I'm just thick. What is going on with this article and User:Pollyfodder?

• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

Feel free to email me, or leave comments at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Break.com. Thanks. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 08:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

for the Barack Obama picture Tvoz |talk 18:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I don't understand. The original image that we had, of Obama in front of the Capitol, is from his official Senate website http://obama.senate.gov/about -- why do you say that this is not a usable image? I don't see anything on those pages that says otherwise. PLease leave an explanation more than "copyvio". My understanding was that pictures on official government sites are usable. Thanks Tvoz |talk 17:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - isn't it odd, then, that the Obama official Senate site (not his campaign site) continues to use the picture? But I suppose perhaps the photographer gave permission for that use. It's strange though, as I did think anything on an official government webiste is in public domain. Tvoz |talk 18:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ernham

Point taken. In fact point already taken before you repeated it. Mark83 15:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. And sorry if the above seemed a bit abrupt. I agree my last few edits were ill-advised, however I believe I showed admirable restraint in dealing with the user in question over many months (he deleted it all, you would have to look at the history). I put up with many many abusive messages and many edits being labelled as "vandalism" when all but Ernham agreed they weren't. In summary I got no credit for trying to work with him, pointing out where he was going wrong and pointing out WP policy; in contrast I got very quickly jumped on for "taunting". Best regards Mark83 18:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the warning. Always appreciate my mistakes being pointed out. All the best. Alun 01:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

RFAR/Paranormal

Unless you are a party to the editing dispute, your statement should be added to the talk page, not the main case page. Thanks. Thatcher131 00:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some talk on the Li Hongzhi page

I've noticed that you recently engaged in trying to resolve some disputes on the Li Hongzhi page. If you don't mind, I'd appreciate your opinion on a comment I made a few days ago concerning the validity of a certain section of that page. Just scroll down to the bottom of the talk page, and you'll see it. Thanks! Mcconn 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

banned?

Hello,

You have banned my account, M.posner, as a supposed sockpuppet first of "WatchDog07", and then of "someone else" (you did not state whom). Could you please e-mail me? I'd like to get this resolved as soon as possible. I only have 1 account and the only time I posted under an anonymous IP address was once before I created my account. I also would like to know who I'm a supposed sockpuppet of. Needless to say, this is completely bizarre to me.

My preferred e-mail address is idlehandsdistro [at] yahoo [dot] com

Thanks,

200.106.68.57 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OOPS, I just realized that there is a more formal process for requesting unblock. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. I would still appreciate an e-mail, however.

200.106.68.57 01:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you also operate the accounts of User:M.posner User talk:Akliman, User:Annejaclard & [User:Marxian Lurker]]... or they are editing on your behalf. Either way the same rules aply. I am currently in the process of blocking all of the account indefinably and then I will figure out which is the main account (I'm assuming M.posner) and then reduce the block to a simple temporary block for edit waring and puppetry. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello again: I think you shall find that all of these claims are false as you look into the issue further. Marxian Lurker, for example, is clearly not me, nor Akliman, nor Annejaclard, nor is he even on the same side of the edit war that took place.

200.106.68.57 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

M.posner (talk · contribs)

Hi J.smith, this user argues that he/she is not a sockpuppet, and is requesting to be unblocked. Can you possibly run a checkuser case if you don't agree, to technically prove the answer either way? If the case is confirmed by a checkuser, then that will prove your point that the user is a sock, and if the case shows unrelated, then the blocked user is innocent of sockpuppety.(Unless that was already done, or you think the evidence is significant enough.) I'm suggesting to open a case, to assuming good faith in the user.--U.S.A. cubed 02:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and why are single purpose accounts considered sock puppets?--U.S.A. cubed 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you might as well ignore this message, being that the unblock request has been declined, anyway, and the declining admin. aaying that the he was acting suspicious. I thought that how suspicious should stop someone from assuming good faith, and that the case should have been opened before blocking.--U.S.A. cubed 03:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had logged off for the night. (I was tired and needed some sleep.)

I have given M.posner the benefit of the doubt with only a 48 hour block... however, edit waring is inexcusable as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

removing a block notice

You didn't say that I shouldn't remove a block notice from my page. If you look at my user page you will see that I routinely clear the page as it allows me to have a clearer view of the page. I don't think there's anything wrong with that and I don't think that you should assume bad faith because of it. I am not protesting the block as a "time out" - for all concerned - under the circumstances is probably a good idea. - anonymous

(comment moved from user page ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

Letter to you

Dear Sir, I've written a letter to you and loaded it onto my talk page [7]. I look forward to your response. v = 0 22:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and another question

Dear Sir, Thank you for your quick response. I've asked a follow-up question, that I hope you will answer, on my talk page. v = 0 03:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on my userpage!

Can you do one more thing? Can you make my userboxes in a scroll window please? Plus can you make a scroll window to here please? Oh! look what I found! WikiMan53 t/a Review me! 11:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		To J.S. For his great code work everywhere and especially on my page. Thank you! WikiMan53 t/a Review me! 11:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe... thanks a bunch. :) I don't actually know how to do the scrolling windows, but if you can point me to a userpage that uses them I can figure out how to steal the code. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:User no GFDL

Just thought you'd like to know:

A template you participated in a Tfd for (Template:User no GFDL) has subsequently been speedily deleted, and is now under deletion review. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   16:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrative action required

I hope you had a good weekend. I enjoyed the time off.

I ask that read the section which I wrote today on the TSSI discussion page, in particular the section on meatpuppets, and then take administrative action against Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs). Although his was an egregious violation of policy ( WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT ) and although he has been in my opinion guilty of incivility, edit warring and tendentious editing, I ask that the block against him be only for 48 hours. I make this suggestion in good faith in the hope that this entire matter can be resolved amicably in a manner which results in a much improved edit which will finally conform to the Wikipedia policy on neurtrality WP:NPV.

If there are other sysops who have been considering the TSSI dispute, I ask that you pass along this information to them. Thx in advance.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Please acknowledge receipt

Please acklowledge reading the above including reading the section referred to above on the TSSI talk page. Do I need to file a formal complaint concerning the presence of the meatpuppets who were solicited by Andrew Kliman Akliman (talk · contribs)? Of the three meatpuppets identified by Kliman - Alan_XAX_Freeman (talk · contribs), M.Posner (talk · contribs), annejaclard (talk · contribs) - the first has written (on his user discussion page) that he is appealing the ruling concerning his being a sockpuppet and the 2nd was only given a 48 hr. block because you did not have at the time the unimpeachable evidence and confession of Andrew Kliman himself that Mike Posner is in fact Andrew Kliman's meatpuppet. I can provide more evidence, if required. Frankly, I don't understand why Kliman wasn't blocked on Friday since he is the puppetmaster. I guess it must have been an oversight.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Why don't you hold your horses while I try to work out the situation? Ok? Getting people blocked is not a tool for you to gain an advantage in a debate. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And I'm really getting tired of your demanding and condescending tone. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Respect

Sure, I can be patient. I wanted to know what, if anything, I needed to do procedurally. I don't want to appear "demanding" or "condescending" but I ask that you please consider the following: you wrongly accused M. Posner of being a sockpuppet of Watchdog07 and later apologized to him but not to me. You also inferred wrongdoing on my part by saying that I claimed to be a member of sysops. I did not. I simply claimed to be a member of the groups listed on my user page. Perhaps that doesn't qualify as administrative in the technical sense but those committees would be considered to be administrative in the more generic sense. I certainly appreciate that this whole situation with the TSSI and David_Laibman pages must be an unwelcome administrative mess from your perspective. But, I believe that I have treated you respectfully and I respectfully ask that you please reciprocate.

Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Edit War

Hi, I am reporting an editor who is engaged in edit-warring. HappyInGeneralhas done about 34 reverts on ([8]) page alone in the last two weeks. He and I were warned by HappyInGeneralon May 1st. [9] I have refrained from editing that page, but HappyInGeneral has continued edit warning.

In ignoring the warning and 3RR rule, HappyInGeneral has declared himself an edit warrior. If he is not punished for this behavior now, no one will care about Wiki rules any more.

The edit warning on that page is mostly about a provocative and contested image added by HappyInGeneral. Many editors have rejected placing this picture in the intro. In trying to reach a compromise with him I created a section call “Abuses against Falun Gong practitioners” and placed this picture there. But HappyInGeneral deleted this section and moved the picture back to the intro thus starting a round of revert war.[10] --Samuel Luo 06:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)