User talk:Juliancolton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Juliaaltagracia (talk | contribs) at 01:56, 26 March 2009 (→‎Russian Jokes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please click here to leave me a new message.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Make it better; donate. (already have?)
Archive
Juliancolton's Archives

March 2008 Archive
April 2008 Archive
May 2008 Archive
June 2008 Archive
July 2008 Archive
August 2008 Archive
September 2008 Archive
October 2008 Archive
November 2008 Archive
December 2008 Archive
January 2009 Archive
February 2009 Archive
March 2009 Archive


David Sereda deserves his own Wikipedia article!!!

When will people get it into their head that this site is to provide information to the public and that the censorship of non-obscene information is equivilent to book burning Nazis. David Sereda is a contemporary genius of journalism, eccology, spiritualism, disclosure and UFOlogy. He deserves his own wikipedia page to help his contribution in the inspiration and evolution of humankind and the censorship of this is counterproductive and Neanderthal in nature. His lifestory is completly varifiable. We must continue to protest and infobomb against this.

Another cookie

Ericdn has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! I see this isn't your first cookie, but, hey, they're addictive, so enjoy!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!


SRP RNA article required by RNA Biology journal

Hi,

I am writing an article for RNA Biology which requires the submission of a Wikipedia article about SRP RNA. (See http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/rnabiology/guidelines for details.) There are coauthors which will contribute and build this wiki over a time of 2 to 3 month. How can I best achieve this without repeated deletions of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRPRNA ? Is it possible to work in a restricted user area which is not seen be the general wiki community?

Best,

Chris zwieb@uthct.edu

===========================

Christian Zwieb Department of Molecular Biology University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler 11937 US Highway 271 Tyler, Texas 75708-3154

tel. (903) 877 7689 fax. (903) 877 5731 skype: czwieb e-mail: zwieb@uthct.edu URL: http://rnp.uthct.edu/rnp/zwieb/ZwiebFac.html

===========================

Apostolic Johannite Church delete discussion

Dear Juliancolton:

I am hoping that you're keeping a watchful eye on the Apostolic Johannite Church deletion discussion. I'm sure that you're following a large number of these discussions and it's hard to give every single one the focus that the participants might want. I think that you would be a good independent evaluator of the discussion, however, since while I certainly can claim no objectivity, and the editor who is actively participating in the discussion seems to have come in with his or her mind clearly made up. I'm not sure that consensus is going to be reached easily, but I worry that some are arguing in what seems to me to be bad faith (e.g. making false claims, ignoring evidence presented, etc.) If you wish to contact me you can do so either at my talk page or via email at wbehun@gmx.de, whichever you prefer.

Thanks in advance!

William Behun Wbehun (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPWatcher request

Hi please can you approve my NPWatcher request?? and thank you for your time Maen. K. A. (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Allot Maen. K. A. (talk) 11:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Juliancolton's Day!

Juliancolton has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Juliancolton's Day!
For being an excellent user who is dedicated to the English Wikipedia,
enjoy being the star of the day, dear Juliancolton!

Signed,
→Dyl@n620

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

Technically, your day's not supposed to begin until 0000 UTC, but since I have to get off the computer, I'll give it to you 43 minutes early. Consider this my way of appreciating you for being a great admin coach (which we should get back to soon), friend, administrator, and editor. :) →Dyl@n620 23:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

You gave the rollback ability to user:otisjimmy on the understanding he wouldn't use it against good-faith edits. But here we have such an event, unfortunately. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, um, WiC may be acting in good faith, but that means his feelings on this issue prevent him from seeing what the sources (often, his own sources) say. If you have time, please take a look my/otisjimmy's citations and perhaps my explanations at Talk:Thelema -- admittedly broken into several talk sections now -- and give us an opinion on this. Dan (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble with Email User for some reason. We could really use a quick response if at all possible. Dan (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And good faith or not, WiC's most recent revert seems to make 4. Dan (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Juliancolton. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I answered your question at the RfA. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Total Access Statistics

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Total Access Statistics. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bog Brook Reservoir pic

Remember how I told you I had gotten that great pic of Bog Brook Reservoir last summer? Well, it's in the article now (and NY 312 as well, since I was just off the road when I took it.

I think we could add it to the HVNY selected picture rotation if you want. Daniel Case (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPW

Thank you for granting me NPWatcher. I'd like to know, which version is the latest one to use? --Whip it! Now whip it good! 22:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm having trouble staying logged in when I use NPW (I log in using the secure server). What's up with that? --Whip it! Now whip it good! 23:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 00:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terang College

Please remember when closing AFD's to remove the AFD note on the article and to add notice of the discussion to the article talk page. I've just done this for the above article, from a debate you closed as keep some two weeks ago. Pedro :  Chat  23:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coaching

Hello, I just was looking at the WP:Admin coaching/Status page, and saw that you had room for another coachee, if that is a word. However, there is a tag at the top saying that it is inactive, so I was just wondering if you would be willing to take me on. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 23:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Juliancolton. You have new messages at Genius101's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Genius101Guestbook 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presto Linux Xandros

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu

Instead of Deleting the Page I created about Presto Linux: why don't you do something useful and create one that mirrors or follows the Ubuntu style article above.

If you do publish such an article; please let me know. I am just about to try Presto; and naturally I looked to wiki for an article before downloading it, and only published what I did because there was nothing!

I am a newbie; you could have been a little more friendly!

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priusblack (talk • contribs) 03:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More deletion requests

Mind using the magic button?

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback in the watchlist

Whilst doing my usual talk page stalkering I noticed you find the rollback in the watchlist to be annoying. Did you know that you can easily turn it off? See [1]. best, –xeno (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem =) I must admit that I didn't like the links at first, but I've grown accustomed to them. To each their own, though... –xeno (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I've had a misclick or two. Usually catch them, but there'll be one day. . . –xeno (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PD review

Posting to several FLC regulars, maybe this program would work, see [2] — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for giving me... MY rollback rights. Talk to you soon,--Michael (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion templates

Isn't there an image deletion template for use as "request by the author"? I didn't see it here. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-author}}? —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it's still all G7. Thanks. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback permission

You recently granted rollback to Michael93555 (talk · contribs). This user is new and has demonstrated that he is not capable of discerning vandalism as demonstrated here [3] He reverted those edits because someone (who is even worse at discerning vandalism) claimed the edits were vandalism. Michael did not bother to check whether or not the edits were valid though he claimed he crosschecked the edits with sources. While I do not ask for you to remove his rollback, I do ask that you keep an eye on his use of rollback. Feel free to ask for more evidence, I try to keep this post simple --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I wasn't clear the first time, he made the edit 4 days prior to you giving him the rollback feature. Sorry about the confusion. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just want you to know, I only reverted 3 of Yamanam edits on March 20, 2009. I regret doing this. I'm Sorry.
  • I only use rollback for blatant vandalism, Like This or This.--Michael (talk) 07:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RedEye semi-protection

Just a comment about the move to protect the page: was that really necessary? After reading the wiki description of living person bios and semi-protection, I wonder if any meaningful threshold has been met.

After reading up, I registered. I did so to continue making changes to a few different pages. None of my contributions have been removed on valid grounds (I've reverted the removal of my changes on a different page a few times now). The majority have passed critical inspection by users and vandals alike.

Now, two of the pages are semi-protected and I can no longer contribute. What's the point? CanuckMike (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As I stated, I'm aware of the protection guidelines. I'm questioning the usefulness of your action - the guidelines say you're to err on the side of continued contributions. I was contributing. I also used the appropriate template to request two edits be made. One has been done. The other, on the page you protected, still awaits. It's been waiting since before you suggested I make a request. CanuckMike (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


My disdain? :-) The reason for the new editors and vandalism is a currently unfolding event in Canadian media. By semi-protecting, you've removed informed input exactly when it's needed. I'm not suggesting that we're tracking earth-changing events but, well, we're talking about something that's infuriated a nation known for taking it on the chin. That's saying something, dunno what, about Canadian society and values. CanuckMike (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Red_Eye_w/_Greg_Gutfeld#editsemiprotected CanuckMike (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Shaahin Mohajeri

Hi freind
I noticed that you deleted shaahin mohajeri:
Aren't these some important references :

And as Phil Bridger (talk) Commented :
"Has anyone checked out the Persian language references and links in the article? Or looked for any other Persian sources? If not then we can't claim that this lacks sources.(14:06, 8 March 2009)" (UTC)
Please find someone who knows farsi to check out the Persian language references and links and any other Persian sources.
And some other interesting things:
-Gets <300 Google hits . Is google hits one of the most parameters to delete?may be yes and may be no (-;
-This article is top heavy on self-promotion, see[4].If this is a problem so i can delete the picture (-;
Anyway , thanks your efforts for great wikipedia


Acousticsoftombak (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"keep" or "no consensus"?

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (2nd nomination), did you close as keep, or as keeping because of no consensus to delete? Not the same thing, and it's important when people try to decide if they should nominate again. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offering my unrequested, talkpage-stalker-view, I don't think "no consensus to delete" equals "no consensus" because if there were good reasons to merge, to redirect or to keep but none to delete, it would still be "consensus not to delete" but not "consensus to keep". But whether to merge, redirect or keep are three alternatives that can be decided by talk page consensus and don't need another AFD. So I'd interpret it the way that another deletion nomination anytime soon would be disruptive. But Julian might have intended something different here of course. SoWhy 12:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a difficult close, and I personally thought the arguments to keep the article were stronger than the arguments to delete it. However, I knew it would have been impractical to close it as anything other than no consensus, so I suppose it's a hybrid between the two. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Coghill

How do I start a deletion discussion with you about your decision to delete my entry on grounds of "blatant copyright infringement? Cogreslab (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit info

Hi Julian, I'm considering nominating an editor for adminship and would like to look closer at his edit stat's. Unfortunately the tools I use to check my own stat's no longer appear to work. Could you point me in the direction of a tool. Thanks. — R2 16:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Coghill entry speedy deletion. (disputed)

Dear Juliancolton,

I dont appear to have had any response to my question: What blatant copyright infringement? I have now given permission to Wilipedia to use any text on my www.cogreslab.co.uk website. Does that solve the problem?

Cogreslab (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deleted page

I am trying to create a wiki about the company (Active Motif) I work for and you have deleted this page for reasons I cannot fully understand. I realize the page may not have been completed during my submission, but it will be very similar to the following wiki: [5].

We intend no abuse of wikipedia, we only wish to be included in the community.

As this is my first wiki page, I certainly would not turn down any advice in getting this page moving again [6].

Thanks, Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonen (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate usernames

My understanding of WP:SPAMNAME is that any username which is the name of a company, corporation, organization, etc. is to be softblocked as a role account, since "Accounts that represent an entire group or company are not permitted". I acknowledge, however, that there is some ambiguity there. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Company names not (as yet) being used for spamming, since you're a major presence at UAA. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USMA Astronauts

See Bencherlite's comments and my responses about date formatting in refs. This is going to be an issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

told ya — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm still not seeing where YYYY-MM-DD date formats are prohibited, but he must have a reason for believing so. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 20:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think because of what Sandy said. I'm calling him on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Dates says ISO dates shouldn't be used withing the text itself. Doesn't seem to say anything about references. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 20:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you don't see it directly, I've clearly got egg on my face in the light of SandyGeorgia's explanation - her objection was to malformed ISO dates in references e.g. 2009-3-25, rather than to ISO dates per se in references. So, not only have I caused an excessive amount of heat and light at FLC but I need not have made all the changes I did when the issue was raised with me in another FLC last October! Regards, BencherliteTalk 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was just a bit confused. Glad to see the issue's been cleared up. Cheers, –Juliancolton Talk · Review 21:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job in coolly addressing the issues amid the extraneous conversation. Just another reason I'll be supporting your future RfB. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Jokes

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Russian jokes has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 01:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These were simple corrections. As you do not anywhere claim proficiency in Russian, I assume that you lack such and simply considered 14 instances of fuck/fucking in a single sentence translation to be vandalism. However, the whole point (and humour) of the sentence was in that it consisted SOLELY of forms of the word 'cock' (more obscene in Russian than 'fucking' is in English, and used in such a fashion that 'fuck' and its derivatives would make more sense in the translation). There is really no way to illustrate the double meanings of the sentence using proper vocabulary, plus, similar professions and social classes in English-speaking countries speak much the same way, simply limited by having to use proper subjects and objects besides pure profanity, due to English being less of a synthetic language. Furthermore, the word 'fuck' and other obscenities were already present, en masse, on that page, hence not making me the one to turn a 'proper' article 'obscene'. Please restore the edit, as I am not too well versed in the mechanics of reversions and re-reversions and don't want to muck anything up.
PS I, unlike yourself, am actually an experienced translations professional in said language pair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.100.243 (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


= I was blocked you

Last sunday I was blocked by you. Blocked You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Juliancolton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Your reason here |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Your reason here |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

below.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 05:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I requested to be unblocked based on: "No warning was given to me that editing more than three times will cause auto-blocking my account"

and was Declined based on reason: "You were edit warring with multiple editors over a redirect. Warnings do not need to be given for such actions, and the block was made to prevent further disruption. If you agree to cease the disruption then you may be unblocked. Stephen 21:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)"

I was just reading the page Edit warring noticeboard and it says: If you find yourself in an edit war, ensure that all involved users are aware of the three-revert rule. Use the template

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. to notify new or inexperienced users on their talk pages. Can you please tell me why wasnt I alerted. Thanks. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Juliancolton&oldid=279718073"