User talk:Jachin

Welcome to the talk page of Jachin

To ensure that your communication is recieved in order and replied to, a certain code of conduct must be followed -- which for most people goes without saying and it is not neccesary to state this, but for some it is unfortunately required -- please ensure that you do the following: -

sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
use headlines when starting new talk topics by inserting ==Subject==
be signed in, all messages by anonymous users will be disregarded.
attempt to use proper spelling and grammar to convey your message accurately and concisely.

Your message will be syndicated (ie: copied) to your talk page in reply including the response, please reciprocate likewise to maintain efficient communication and general politesse. Thank you.

Start a new talk topic.

Votes for Deletion: White Supremacist list

Hey Jachin. I've put the List of White supremacists on votes for deletion. You might want to vote since you've expressed a strong opinion. Hopefully this link will work; if not, there's a link on the article page itself. Here goes:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of White supremacists NoahB 05:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:BelgarethTS: Vandalisation of Freemasonry

I fail to see what you define as vandalism for my editing of the freemasonery topic. You messaged me and told me that I did something I did not, and I would like proof from you so that I may learn what I did wrong although I highly doubt I did anything 'bad'. Belgarath TS 10:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure to look after the Freemasonry page while you sleep. (On the other hand, I will be on vacation from 1 to 22 September and hope not to touch a computer during that time. (Why the heck learn Arabic? I have little need for it and find the distinction between Modern and Classical VERY confusing!) Paul, in Saudi 17:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be keeping my eyes pealed, MSJapan seems to be doing a good job also, don't know much about them or their involvement in the brotherhood. A holiday that involves being away from the internet sounds scary to me. The internet is my primary source of at-home entertainment though. ;)

As for Arabic, it's one of the hardest languages I've dealt with, although I'm slowly getting a better grasp of it. It's come in handy with a fair bit of my (masonic oriented) research, as has Ancient Egyptian for that matter, which is a whoooole new ball game. Unfortunately the template for Aramaic isn't functioning as it should be, it's another language I'm struggling to master, although I'm failing at most of late due to not enough time on my hands. But alas, such is life. :) Jachin 17:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you guys are all just ganging up on people to bully wikipedia into having only the information you want on the entry in question. The fact that I now seem to be stalked by your group is proof of this enough in my humble opinion. Stop bullying people. Belgarath TS 22:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, it's a global masonic conspiracy to hound you. You're entitled to your opinions and paranoia, but likewise I'm entitled to not really care. I don't know who you are, or why you're making a song and dance. You got caught out being a douche and defacing a very well written article and were asked to stop. So here's a tip, stop. Jachin 22:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again your taking it out of context in an attempt to amke me look like the bad guy. I was nto 'being a douche' I was doign what millions of others have done on wikipedia: Shareing what I know with others. If I was wrong you could have said that instead of acting like a douche yourself. I personaly have nothing against you, its just your actions and the bullying nature you show that gets to me And just because it says what you want it to does not mean that it is well written or even factual, it just means your own NPOV has been currupted and your own bias is for the current version without the added information.. Belgarath TS 22:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of others do not update articles with lies, ignorance and hate speech propaganda. You can have a problem with the way I go about things, as I said, you're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled not to care.

Perhaps I'm being snappy because your post contained rubbish and coincided with another user (ie: the user who is whinging below) who was vandalising and/or making updates based on his opinion with no hard fact, but regardless, the facts remain your edit was erroneous and quite immature.

Please see the Freemasonry talk page, you have quite a few people keen on seeing your references in relation to your above allegations of 'masonite' conspiracies. As an aside, Masonite is an erroneous term in itself. Although I must admit, I did get a really good belly laugh out of your additional paragraph of: -

"'NOTE: Reading any further could spoil the secrecy. This is wikipedia, not something controled or filtered so it may contain information that the Freemasonry would not want you to know about. If your a freemason and you disagree with this, tough."

In future just try and keep with the verifiable facts. Or, as you so elloquently put it, if you disagree with our reversions of your defacement / drivel, tough. :) Jachin 23:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lapinmies: Vandalisation of Freemasonry

Stop bullying/harashing Lapinmies. I can't tolerate this anymore. PacoCrunz 21:27, 29 August 2005

To begin with, the word is 'harassing'. I believe you are refering to my request that the user refrains from vandalising and defacing the Freemasonry article. I am assuming the bullying and harassing you refer to is my initial request he doesn't deface the article, his subsequent offended response that I pulled him up on it, my further explaination as to why he is a vandal and his later hurt and saddened feelings about the matter.

I suggest you read through those links before you start having a cry as though I have targetted some random innocent person and abused them. I also suggest that you take heed of your own words, Lapinmies hassling me because he's not bright enough to understand what I was saying to him is one thing, your getting involved totally crosses the line into harassment. Of me, that is. Jachin 21:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue pouring sand in my mailbox, I will get very angry. Lapinmies 19:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what're you on about? Jachin 02:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Latin writer italian list

Dear Jachin,

I have just completed a big list of Latin language ancient writers, (from III BC to VI AD circa), and I'm in the process of extracting it from my sandbox. Before the final step I was looking for interwikilinks, but in en.wiki I found only a tiny list of Latin language poets... have you any news about a list of Latin authors in en.wiki.

I sent this message also because if you need a ready-made list needing only simple search and replace adaptation for en.wiki we have one!

Grazie per qualunque risposta. Mi scuso per il povero inglese

Da it.wiki Edoardo.

Native Latin speakers?

Greetings, fellow Latinist. If you have second, please cast your two cents in on the discussion of a category for native Latin speakers who are also Wikipedians. --Flex 13:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry Article Restructure

I just discovered how this User Page discussion works, and it's easier than trying to follow a thread in the Talk section. When you get a chance, could you look over my proposed changes to the article (now in Archive 2), and see what you can do with it, while also incorporating Spinboy's suggestions, especially wrt not linking every Masonic jurisdiction in the world (which was bit ambitious on my part, perhaps)? MSJapan 03:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lightbringer: Vandalisation of Freemasonry

I'm posting this to all people majorly involved in editing Freemasonry. I think discretion is the better part of valor here. Reasonable arguments have failed, and Lightbringer is in fact confusing people (he claimed I edited Taxil hoax, when I did not) and statements (he accused me of deleting sections from Freemasnory that were clearly still part of the article). That being said, I'm sure he doesn't care how stupid he looks, as long as it gets us, "the Masonic editors" to look stupid as well. To that end, I would suggest that we merely follow the revision path, and comment on nothing Lightbringer says, positive or negative. MSJapan 23:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Could you look at the evidence page for the case and add your own material, and make sure mine makes sense? There's so much that it's hard to keep it all straight. MSJapan 03:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean brother, I've had the same difficulty in the past with astro-turfing twats, somehow when they are really obnoxious and leave an evidence trail so huge, it gets overwhelming keeping it all together. If you're on MSN messenger, add me, val@tunnelrats.org.au and we can work over it together. Jachin 04:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC) (Syndicated to your talk page.))[reply]

Catholic Masons

Oh, I didn't realize you were one, too! Neat.--SarekOfVulcan 18:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they'll let anyone in these days! :P I jest, actually, there are quite a few brethren, in my lodge alone, who are RC. Many usually persue trinitarian perfection also, quite a few well ranked RC's in my district. What's the situation where you are? Jachin 21:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know: it doesn't usually come up in conversation. I know that when I joined the new Knights of Columbus chapter at my church, I specifically brought up my Masonic membership and was told it wasn't an issue.--SarekOfVulcan 21:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting chapter name, sounds very rosicrucian actually. Wouldn't mind hearing more about it, feel free to add me on MSN, [lolztehinternets] (new address). :) Jachin 09:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against Lightbringer, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, to which you contributed, has closed. The decision is that Lightbringer is hereby banned indefinitely from editing articles and talk-pages related to Freemasonry (the closeness of the relation is to be interpretted by any sysop as they see fit, regardless of the article's title), and is placed on personal attack parole for six months from now (to expire on the 24 of May 2006). If Lightbringer violates the Freemasonry ban, a sysop may ban them for up to a week, and after five such bans, for up to a year. If they violate the personal attack parole, a sysop may ban them for up to a week.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I’m glad you like the award. Your User Page is cool, and I may “pirate” some of the cooler bits for my page matey, “aghrrr”. Yours F & S ;-) Talk Skull 'n' Femurs 10:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Originality is merely undetected plagiarism! Everything on my user page has been pirated or made from disecting other peoples stuff, so feel free to help yourself! :) Jachin 12:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Notices

Please do not remove notices selectively from the talk page, while this is called your talk page it is not entirely yours and it is a needed tool for other editors to be able to openly read the messages you have gotten as well as communicate with you. If you feel that the messages are no longer relevant instead of deleting them outright I suggest you archive them to a subpage which you link to from your main talk page. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of such policy, could you please cite where it gains it's authority? That would be very difficult to implement and enforce wiki-wide, it also seems rather redundant and a waste of space. Jachin 02:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. See Help:Talk_page#Etiquette, Wikipedia:Removing_warnings#Vandalism, and Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism under "removing warnings". It is neither redundant nor a waste of space, as it provides admins with the very important capability of checking whether a user has been warned before in determining whether or not to escalate a penalty like blocking to a higher level. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess ten grand per term law school is actually worth it, first things that came to my attention were: -

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.

The cause given was obviously not that and the use of the words 'generally prohibited from removing' above indicate that the decision is persuasive not binding. Further to that we have a contrary argument (and interestingly the only argument supporting your case), two conflicting statements in the same 'policy': -

Removing warnings for vandalism, personal attacks, or disruption from one's talk page is also considered vandalism.

However, the above line has too much of an obiter dictum flare to it and is too broad scope to be applied when a matter is still not cemented as policy as Wikipedia:Removing_warnings stipulates that it is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process and not a passed or accepted policy.

Furthermore 3RR does not apply to user talk pages and thus a user may revert your edits continuously to a prior state that they see as applicable to the status they desire regardless of the above yet undecided policy in the making: -

The 3RR is generally not enforced against editors reverting changes to their own user page space (this includes associated talk pages and subpages), on the principle that although you do not own them, your user space is "yours" (for project-related purposes).

I am now adamant that it has been made out that I may remove anything I please from my user page until conclusion is brought about pertaining to Wikipedia:Removing_warnings regardless of the status of the user or the hostility of the action. That being said I do not consider hostility to be an apt method of dealing with anything, nor do I intend any disrespect to fellow editors of Wikipedia, however it is quite clear that the odds are not stacked in your favour the next time I notice how long my talk page is and cut it down in size.

Furthermore, I draw into question the validity of 'personal attack' as the appropriate taxonomy in relation to the matter of your original complaint; that being allegations that a fellow editor--who has a sock-puppet ring in excess of thirty odd users who has incessantly vandalised approximately 18 known articles with hate-speech and general defamation of an organisation outside of Wikipedia--is a suspected of being a goat or perhaps an idiot. The allegations claimed suspicion, not indicative of sustained agreeance or confirmation.

Therefore the 'personal attack' required validation, a personal attack is a statement not a question, thus my application of the 'goat' boilerplate is not deemed a personal attack under Personal attack nor the official policy description of Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks.

In conclusion one may also take into account, aside from the above arguments that cement the facts, the intent that was underlying in my act of removal of the 'warning' left by User:Stifle, the intent was to maintain order and clarity of communications between myself and other editors which is the prima facie purpose of the user talk pages as per the talk page policy; if it could be alleged that my intent was to 'hide an admins warning' or some such, there could be more persuasive an argument put forward on your side, however at the time I was unaware Stifle was an administrator. However according to the above outlined policies that makes no difference to the acceptability of my actions. Jachin 23:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus1138 and Stifle .. you both seem to be able to revert my user talk page within ten minutes of editing, yet five days have passed. Feedback? Criticism? Argument? Something? Jachin 09:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

501st BF2 Clan

HI,

I changed youre 'delete' to a 'nn-group' it seamed more appropriate. Orangutan 18:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries dude, just doing a late night run through the new articles, getting a bit cut and paste happy with the deletes, so much crap to sort through. Appreciated and well spotted. Jachin 18:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (Syndicated)[reply]

I'm sorry Jachin

I thought that was my user page. Sorry. ^__^; Good bye. --Shadow ruler 18:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:SarahKali

Hi. I think placing the final warning template on this user's talk page (SarahKali (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)) is a bit extreme. This was the user's first contribution. I've placed {{test1}} which should be adequate. Please remember WP:BITE. :-) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that she was vandalising various articles (ongoing); thus why there are other vandal warnings and why she has subsequently been blocked twice in the last twenty four hours by two different admins. I'd say that clears up the warrant for the big hand. :) Jachin 06:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Suhag

Hi Jachin, The article on Suhag may not be deleted. It is historical stub on a social group in India. It has been provided with valid verifyable source. It will help to further reconstruct the missing links of History if it is retained. burdak 07:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are only 58 websites that use the words in the article applied in the context they are used in the article which definately would indicate that it is not noteworthy enough for inclusion. Feel free to use your userpage as a means to compile such information into a form of significant quality, content and material before submitting it to it's own article, but 'reconstructing history' through first hand research on Wikipedia isn't a tenet or purpose for which Wikipedia exists. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Jachin 08:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thank you Brother - I do try my humble best :) WegianWarrior 14:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masena Moke

Did you delete this page before reading my answer to your message? Please, do not take controversial actions before accounting for all important information on a given issue. I will rewrite the article now and hope it won't get deleted this time without a discussion. --Cryout 18:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin. I nominated it for speedy deletion as it was not noteworthy information and was merely a one line biography. Jachin 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me then. I will take care to expand the articles. --Cryout 18:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

European Society for Biomaterials

About your note of speedy deletion. I just added some more info. The Society itself is very much alive, although I am not a member... Benkeboy 20:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Alejandro Camara (Vandal: User:Zigz0gger / User:Zigzogger)

Piss off dude. You don't know what you're messin' with. Zigz0gger 05:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article that doesn't fit the Wikipedia standards, is a vanity based biographical that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7) Further the article could potentially be attributed to libel in the manner in which it is presented; assuming you are someone who is out to give the subject-person grief. Jachin 05:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:IAR. Having this article will do wonders for improving the encyclopedia. Now piss the fuck off. -- Zigz0gger 05:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to outline the manner in which this will improve Wikipedia and I will reconsider my request for speedy-deletion. Also, please refrain from using profanity and offensive language or behaviour on my talk page, to continue to do so will result in a ban of your account, something I think based on reading through your contributions and behaviour will be forthcoming in the next few hours anyhow. Jachin 05:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi Camara is the youngest graduate in Harvard Law School history. He was also embroiled in a racial controversy for posting his notes on a website that contained racial slurs. These two points give Kiwi Camara notability because he was covered pretty well by the media (see article). Thus, the article DOES assert the importance of its subject. So please, continue to improve Wikipedia by not adding CSD's where they don't belong. -- Zigz0gger 05:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus every person who makes the media through nefarious means is eligable for a shrine on Wikipedia? I disagree. Further, your redirect of my user talk page to douche was inappropriate, I will be escalating this matter to the administrators immediately. Jachin 06:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you aren't an administrator for a reason. -- Zigz0gger 06:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to my talk page threw about half of the comments out or order. Please don't vandalize my talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you. -- Zigz0gger 06:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vandalism warnings were substantiated, your removal of all vandalism warnings (and you have quite a collection there) to decieve administrators has been noted. The matter is now in the hands of the administrators, it was a pleasure being of assistance in your larting. Jachin 06:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the warnings. You rearranged all of my talk comments, something that I don't appreciate (ie. "Big.P's complaint" was moved by you above the comments box, where it wasn't before.) By the way, referring to me as a luzer through the larting article implies that you're calling me stupid, which I interpret as a personal attack. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Zigz0gger 06:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Jachin 06:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I am stymied by your elegant substantiation for that assertion. -- Zigz0gger 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, your abusive railing at me already has a subheading on my talk page, it does not require another one to act as a soap-box for your agenda. I have nothing further to say to you; this matter is now in the hands of the administrators. [1]Jachin 06:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are two conversations about two different subjects:

the legitimacy of a CSD notice on Kiwi Camara
your demeanor (vandalism on my talk page, personal attacks against me)

By the way, threatening me with administrators is also a personal attack. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Zigz0gger 06:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect on both grounds. There was no threat of 'administrators' (which is not a verb and thus either your grammar is apalling or you intended 'threating me with action from administrators' through implied intent), as my citation illustrates. (Further no vandalism was committed on the users talk page, they vandalised User_talk:Jachin forwarding it to the 'douche' article.) Jachin 06:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, simply calling me incorrect does not make it so. Don't try to soften the impact of your poor editing by compacting these two unique conversations into one. You are deceiving other editors who may view this talk page.

Nevertheless, you would be right in assuming that the threat I was talking about was your threat of action from administrators. Also, thanks for making fun of my grammar skills. Zigz0gger 06:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked him for 48 hours, however, you need to stay cool too. There was no need to add three warning templates at once to his talk page, one would have done well enough (or preferably original text). Broken Segue 06:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. The items being added were reverted by him, thus re-added the three warnings simultaniously, no hotness implied. Based on the mountain of substantial evidence of his behavioural patterns I do not believe a 48 hour ban will resolve anything, but thank you none the less for your intervention with this vandal. I will notify the appropriate user groups so that we may keep a closer eye on this individual in future. Jachin 06:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree. I have reblocked him (both accounts) for indefinite. Broken Segue 07:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, good choice. I'll still inform the counter-vandalism team members, based on prior experience with abusive persons of such ilk I think we'll be seeing him again soon. :P Thanks again for the prompt reply. ;) Jachin 07:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I think you are going too far in questioning notability of every new Korea-related articles. If you read carefully the guidelines, it says you shouldn't tag every newly created article. As far as going to notability, 2 released albums is enough for Korean artists or groups. Being active is a plus, but not requirement. In Korea related articles, record company plays no role, as there isn't well established international record labels in Korea. Monni 09:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the country of origin as having any purpose to your argument, and find your questioning of my motives to be rather inappropriate. Feel free to view my contributions list, you will find absolutely no bias to my editing at all. Furthermore, I do not tag every newly created article by any means.

Your comments aside; on the subject of 'notability' is not in question, it is the lack of importance or significance (CSD A7). I recommend you re-read the CSD's prior to attacking an individual user and suggesting that they are on some anti-Korean rampage, perhaps English is not your first language and this is attributed to your manner of speech. Jachin 10:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attacking individual users. It's the recent practice of people trying to kill Korea-related entries even before users have time to justify existence of the information. In wiki world writing an article isn't done in one single edit... Especially if contributor is trying to write from subject that needs a lot of translations. You are true in that English isn't my first language... I don't have a "first" language... I don't even speak or write my "native language", mainly because my home country doesn't exist anymore. Monni 16:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CSD Rada sub articles

I quite agree that all of this stuff is NN - the two pages you have tagged came from the main page in an attempt to make it less dull - you might want to tag that as well! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 09:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, was going to leave you a message that all that rubbish was just vanity, but you got to me first. :D Jachin 10:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome message and info for User:Jarman86

It would have been more appropriate to place the welcome message on User:Jarman86's talk page instead of on his user page. By placing it on his user page he will receive the info that you are willing to pass on to him. I have transferred the mesages to his talk page.

Cheers, Jean-Paul 10:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Doesn't Matter, Jean-Paul 14:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy {db-nocontext} tag on Jewish meditation

Hi Jachin, I rather think you picked the wrong article or the wrong tag for this one. I can't see any way it meets CSD-A1 or CSD-A3. A {references} tag would have been more pertinant - Peripitus 12:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Rada

I have have afd this article as per another user's request Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, done and done. ;) Jachin 15:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is all very odd - I am now being inudated with nonsensical messages from the great man! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you have a fan. Could be worse, there are some real crackpots out there who go nuts when you tag their stuff, it's even more bizarre when they believe you're actually on some mystical personal crusade against them when in reality you had no idea they or their subject existed five minutes earlier. :P Jachin 01:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

-- Malber (talk • contribs) 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. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

cleanup

You put {cleanup} and {expand} tags on Arkan Mohammad Ghafil Al Karim. Those tags direct readers to the article's talk page to learn why the tags were applied.

If the person who placed the tag doesn't explain the concern that triggered them to place the tag, how can the rest of us know when their concerns have been addressed. For this reason I figure that contributors who place these tags have a responsibility to initiate the talk page discussion.

Could you please take a minute to explain yourself? Thanks. -- Geo Swan 16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I gave you time to explain why you put the tags. Now I am removing them. -- Geo Swan 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cryout's BG football players articles

Why have these been speedied? They're well-known players in the country. I don't see how English Football Conference players can have their articles and not Bulgarian top division stars. Is that some kind of bias? Popov is even an established Macedonia national football team regular! This is silly... If the articles lack information on the importance of those people, you put the {{cleanup-importance}} tag, you don't speedy them. Todor →Bozhinov 17:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see either as relevant. If an English or Bulgarian one came up my position on the matter would be the same. It is not encyclopedic material, period. Jachin

20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 17:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Anus Opinion

What the fuck is a "civil decency complaint"? To what agency does one submit such a complaint? 68.0.118.116 05:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Approach the words in context. Jachin 05:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting and freemasonry

Hi Jachin!

You made some remarks on Scouting and freemasonry on the Talk:Scouting page. While it is obvious that there are some similarities in symbolism, much more needs to be discovered on the relationship between the two. Do you have any source, or any news on this issue?

--Lou Crazy 04:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition of the stupid

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Erechtheus 06:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to assume good faith when I've systematically seen anything contrary to our alliance of nations or depicting it in anything but POV light immediately AFD'd (and I mean immediately, the second anything, no matter how well known or used (for the record, it's the most common phrase expounded in conversations when on the subject I've encountered), it's nerfed or outright removed).

So please forgive my initial skepticism, but without a doubt, the AFD will be one sided as only those motivated to nerf or remove it would be bothered to add their two cents. Bit problematic as far as censorship goes which is why I'm standing behind it so strongly. Jachin 17:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (Syndicated to your talk page for your viewing pleasure.)[reply]

George McCarthy article

Hello, Jachin -- back in May (ages ago, I know!) you tagged the George McCarthy article as needing wikification and clarification. I've done both those tasks to the best of my abilities. If you'd like to take a look and give me feedback, I'd more than appreciate it. Thanks, Emmegan 23:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Emmegan, on review of your article revision you seem to have done a splendid job bringing it into shape. Whilst I'll admit I don't see this person as purposefully encyclopedic nor a POI as such, content control and quality is always an admirable thing in all articles. I don't recall flagging the article, back in that period of time I would spend all my free time working through articles until semester break ended. Oh, how I miss the Wiki freedoms! Interesting linkage to Ernst & Young, aren't they one of the primary firms with assets stashed at the Cayman's as far as offshore banking goes? Or is that another company? Thanks for the follow up by the way! :) Jachin 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (Note: This has been syndicated to your talk page also.)[reply]

No problem, Jachin. Thanks for your response. I, too, am not sure what importance George McCarthy may hold, but perhaps in terms of Cayman Islands government/history he is important, so we might as well make the article look good. Thanks! Emmegan 13:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

It was tagged as I3 because you didn't add any copyright or source tags. See WP:Images for more. You'll need to add tags on the image. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Uploading images. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the tags appropriately fit it, which is why I explained it's release in detail in the description. The only near viable tags are US oriented (ie: made by the us government) and thus are moot as it's Australian. What's the normal proceedure for that? :/ Jachin 15:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the tag/rationale used at Image:Periscope rifle Gallipoli 1915.jpg? Looks like that picture might be from the same source. Alternatively, there's {{PD-Australia}}. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Periscoperifle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Periscoperifle.jpg. 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:

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. 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to AoG confused post

Hey Jachin, I know you wrote this post awhile back in the Assemblies of God article but here is my response a member of an AoG church. To simply put it salvation comes from only the belief the Jesus is Lord and that we confess that we are sinners. That is all what salvation is and all that is required to get into heaven. Thus, we believe that any Christian who believes in this will enter into heaven. You do not necessarily need to be baptized. However in the AoG Baptism is a public proclamation of faith. This is just a brief synopsis of the faith. If you want to get into more detail about Baptism of the Holy Spirit or double baptism feel free to e-mail me at crkurian@gmail.com. I hope this answers some of your questions.

Moving pages

On 27 August, you manually copied and pasted the contents of Bangs (hair) to Fringe (hair) and made the former a redirect to the latter. This is not the correct procedure for moving a page. As you did with the associated talk page, please click on the "move" tab to transfer the actual page with its revision history intact. For more information, see Help:Moving a page. Thank you! —David Levy 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Storm

(thanks for the friendly link over to Punk'd; very helpful :-)

Given your comments on Metal Storm, I thought you may be interested in an ongoing Afd for Terence James O'Dwyer. John Vandenberg 08:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry

In the WP:GAC you've put that you've passed the above article's GA nomination. When an article is passed, you remove it from the list. Additionally, I looked that the talk page of the article and the template is still a nomination template and there is no review. Please see WP:GAC#How_to_review_an_article for the steps to review an article. Regards, LaraLove ^T/_C 06:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new messages

God this shit is dumb. --P4k 22:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. But hey, it's his user page! Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 17:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the insinuation that the above is vandalism, as per your comment at my talk page. If you look at my user contributions, you'll see that virtually all of them are to revert vandalism. My comment above regards your joke new messages link on your user page, which I find somewhat unamusing. However, as I said, it's your user page to do with as you like. I would also point out that this is not a personal attack as it was voicing my opinion of one particular element of your user page. I apologise for any offence you may have perceived, and assure you that there was no malicious intent whatsoever in my above message. As such, I would kindly request you remove your vandalism warning from my user talk page, commenting in the edit summary as to what you are doing, because I personally feel it is unwarranted and shows a lack of assuming good faith. I do not know you, have no particular wish, need or desire to personally attack you and as a result have not done so. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 10:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there's no reason to adopt such tenor with me in relation to what I posted on your user page, it was a legitimate question with a vandalism warning splash, which is common when people vandalise another users page. Secondly, the reason I stated the above to be vandalism is that you both appear out of nowhere, having edited no pages in common with me, to rant inanely without subject, context or prose. 'God this shit is dumb.' does not stipulate, "This users punk'd new messages template annoys me." To somehow randomly percieve that something I have had in place, unnoticed or at least uncommented on, in the past four years, is suddenly the topic of hot discussion amongst you and your associate would be far fetched and fanciful to say the least.

Thank you, however, for clearing up what on earth you were both talking about. However, in future, please ease up on the use of format modifying tags, as it makes your words appear out of context and gives them a random urgency and adds to the nonsense feel of this entire matter; and please, for the sake of many users sanities, when randomly starting a thread on a page of someone you don't know, try and state something a little more in depth than 'God this shit is dumb.', 'Seconded. But hey, it's his user page!'. There's no other means to take that into context other than you were both insinuating my user page is somehow 'shit' and 'dumb' simultaniously. Jachin 10:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I forget why I came by this page — probably I saw an edit by you elsewhere that interested me enough to look at your userpage. I will concede that perhaps my message might have been better worded, but I assumed, given the heading under which I was posting referred to the new messages text on your page and that comments on this had arisen in the past (there's a comment a couple headers messages up from here, albeit that particular user clearly did appreciate your humour), that you would understand the general idea of the messages. I will not, however, take any responsibilty whatsoever for what the original poster said (which, agreed, could have been said better — but it is not my job to tidy up the messages to which I'm replying). Also, he's not my associate, and to word it as such strikes me as odd. The general idea had been that my message was lighthearted to hopefully avoid any offence being taken or the instigation of any feeling of being 'targeted'. Clearly, I failed in that endeavour, and can only blame a combination of myself and the tiredness I would have felt at the late time I was editing after a long day.

Nonetheless, I realise that this has been, at best, a misunderstanding with perhaps not the best action on my part and not the best response on your part. I'll leave the vandalism warning on my page (it's against policy for me to remove it anyway, before a suitable period of time has passed, as I'm sure you would be only too happy to point out) and leave you with my wholehearted apology for raising this entire matter. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 11:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Knight

I have replied to your messages on mine and Talmage talk pages. Also, issuing warnings for removing suspected copyvio and calling it vandalism is in violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPA. If you wish to continue this debate please make use of the article talk page and the AfD. Also please reread the policies mentioned in my response on my talk page. Thank you. MartinDK 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't deleted hardly anything and I find your comment inflammatory and offensive. Check your facts before making accusations. Look: History. I'll expect a forthcoming apology. Talmage 16:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On using the amnesty report for Patrick Knight

I have removed the two sections from Patrick Knight again. Note that my careful removal of the copyright violation was not vandalism - this text should never have been in the article and it needed to be removed as soon as possible. I did integrate a few of the salient points from the Amnesty report into the main article, but I did not spend a lot of time on it because it was a copyright violation.

When you re-introduced the text, slightly reworded, you undid the improvements I did as well. This slightly reworded version is also not acceptable because it is still plagiarism to copy and reword someone elses work. Again, this needed to be removed as soon as possible in order to ensure that Wikipedia is not seen to be accomodating of copyright violations (a legal matter) or plagiarism (an integrity issue).

Please be aware that the text you seek to have in the Wikipedia article will not assist in the ongoing Afd. Any text that does not have inline citations is dubious, and the people at Afd are concentrating on the appropriateness of having the topic on Wikipedia. Afd participants can read the Amnesty report themselves by clicking on the link.

If you wish to bring some of these details back into the Wikipedia article, please do not only use the Amnesty report as your source. Using only one source to write large slabs of text isnt ideal, because it means that the text is dependent on one report; if Amnesty is wrong, so are we. So, for every sentence you want to add to the Wikipedia article, look for two or more sources that reported the same detail, and use inline citations (see Wikipedia:Inline citation for details). Also, dont follow the flow of the Amnesty report, and dont try to restore it all at once. Add one fact at a time, with inline citations, and distribute them throughout the article in your own writing style.

I will be busy for about eight hours from now, however this evening I will return to this. If you have taken my advice here, I will jump in and help you restore the text that I have removed. John Vandenberg 23:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Talmage. I am definitely not anybody else. Accusations of that are insane; the fact of the matter is that there are a number of people who all disagree with you. Please reflect on that. John Vandenberg 00:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, because we have POV pushers jumping up and down over an article because of a political agenda, regardless of content, we have to bust our balls and cite every paragraph? I think that's a bit much. But if that's what it takes I'll do a re-write tonight. I appreciate your offer to assist, by the way. As an aside, I'm sure it'd be easy for someone to say it appears to be a 'reworked version,' even then, of the amnesty report based simply upon the fact when dealing with something in a concise and chronological manner it's impossible not to address the same things along the way. In actual fact, I might leave it a fortnight or two until the attention dies down from POV obsessed folks, because it's a decent article that raises a very contemporary issue in jurisprudence in relation to the degradation of civil liberties and human rights as a whole over the past decade. Really interesting stuff, IMHO. Jachin 03:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patrick_Knight. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Talmage 14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you would consider it a personal attack as it directly addressed your negligence as a fellow Wikipedian. There is a difference between complaint about ignorant behaviour and intense POV pushing to that of a personal attack. I'm sorry you feel that way, however it would be consistant with the complaints mentioned. Jachin 04:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

late comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knight

You added a comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knight after the "close in progress" notice was already up. Please don't do that in future -- it is virtually certian to cause an edit conflict on the close, as it did. Perhaps you didn't notice the banner at the top of this long discussion.

As you will see from my clsoe, i do think that the trial issues are where this article should focus. However, it will help a lot to have several sources to cite, and to be able to cite news coverage not realted to the "joke contest" including non-US coverage. I expect that this will be p\put back on AfD bfore long if notability is not more clearly documeted. DES ^(talk) 05:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, I'll be working on that, probably in a fortnight or so when zealous defence of the article to retain as little viable content as possible has relented. Jachin 18:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not think that there has been "zealous defence of the article to retain as little viable content as possible" and if well-sourced content is being removed, there are ways to deal with that, which i would be glad to assist with. DES ^(talk) 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and motives

Your comment, during the Afd that "Also, dealing with narrow minded southern state American pro-execution right wing types who're far too set in their way to take a step back and view something impartially" was IMO a clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. What is more i think it was factually incorrect. I think that a number of people wanted to delete this primarily because of the recent changes in WP:BLP and related changes in how notability is being perceived. IMO these changes are often leading to an overly strict view of notability, and an overly deletionist approach to biographical articles, but I think they are attitudes held in good faith, and have little or nothing to do with the death-penalty debate. At least two of those opting to delete stated personal opposition to the death penalty, and i see no reason to assume that they were being deceptive. Please refrain from such personal attacks and assumptions about motives in the future. They are far more likely to harm than to help a case at AfD or on a Wikipedia talk page, they violate Wikipedia policy, and IMO they are simply wrong. DES ^(talk) 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion. But he was clear in his comments. Even in his deletion reason, 'the guy has had his 15 minutes of fame, he's just a typical texas inmate who was executed', or words to that effect. Some people have believe it to be AFD worthy, I accept that. They're welcome to nominate it properly at some point. But he arbitrarily nominated it based on his point of view alone, without even attempting to follow any of the earlier steps of AFD per the policy. Jachin 17:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that the emphasis there was on "15 minutes of fame". Many people have been pushing to have all articles on people famous for only a single event deleted, including crime victims as much, or perhaps rather more, than criminals or alleged criminals. Even if he was acting in bad faith (which i do not believe) that does not justify personal attacks, nor does it make them helpful. You also seem to misunderstand the customs and policies counted with Wikipedia deletion. There is no requirement to go through other steps before an AfD -- I myself have nominated numerous articles for AfD, or tagged them for speedy deletion, within minutes of their in ital creation. There are a number of alternate routes suggested, but if an editor believes in good faith that a topic is not notable -- not merely that insufficient sources have been found but that they can't plausibly be found -- then it is perfectly in order to start an AfD with no preliminary steps at all. The same applies if the topic violates any basic policy. The general rule is that the burden of finding sources and making an article worth keeping lies on its creators and editors, not on those who favor deleting it. I disagreed with the nominator's judgment, but the Afd was in no way improper. DES ^(talk) 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the simple practical fact is that making personal attacks during a policy or deletion debate often backfires, distracting attention from valid arguments that the attacker has made and often resulting in the loss of the debate. DES ^(talk) 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at these recent comments by me on User talk:Talmage. In particular please note my statement that "I will only say now that WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL apply to all editors, and that prior provocation is not a good reason for anyone to violate them, neither do subsequent tit-for-tat violations excuse the initial ones." Please also note that User:John Vandenberg is an active and well known editor, and User:Talmage is fairly well established. I find it highly unlikely (albiet not impossibler) that they are in factr the same person. Note also that suggeting that two accounts are really the same person without fairly persuasive evidence is genrally considered hostile and impolite, and is rarely productive. DES ^(talk) 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for PK

One problem is that many news stores are only online for a relatively short period, or are after a short time only available on a for-pay basis, and so are not found by google and similar searches. If you know of significant coverage focused on the trial and particularly analysis of the mitigation issues and quality of defense issues, please provide citations. You said that you are a law student. Has this case been mentioned in any law review articles? those would be very good sources indeed. Note that there is no requirement that cited sources be online, those are just easier to find and cite. DES ^(talk) 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are definitely in the works, I assure you. They will also be the primary sources I'd use as references IMHO, as they don't time out like web articles, et cetera. Jachin 18:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A show of good faith and reconciliation

In light of DESpiegel's response on my talk page I do apologize if my responses to you have been excessive or even uncivil. For your information I do strongly oppose the death penalty as do 99% of all Danes (I'm not kidding!). I'm also a firm believer in anyone's right to a fair trial and qualified good faith defense regardless of their financial situation. That's as far as I will elaborate on that given that I also strongly believe that politics and Wikipedia do not mix. My arguing and one edit to the article was at least intended to be based solely on policy, specifically WP:EL, WP:BLP and WP:N. I look forward to see what sources you may be able to dig up from offline or password protected resources that you may have access to. The best of luck with the article and happy editing, MartinDK 14:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Patrick Knight 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Patrick Knight 3.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F. Thank you. Delivered on behalf of user:xaosflux 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Darwin

The next time you feel impelled to add nonsense to an article, as you did to Charles Darwin, please read the article first and try to find a proper source for whatever assertion you wish to make. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially given that Darwin was agnostic. Good bit of a difference between atheism and agnosticism. Really, there is. Jim62sch 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to offend your sensibilities, my local friendly fundies. However a mere google search yields a mass of information, including some from fundamentalist christian / creationist sources,[2] but suit yourselves. Again, my apologies, I wasn't aware there were guard dogs of agenda on the prowl on such a low key article. :) Jachin 21:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh! Amusing how most of the history in that seems ok, but spun by the apparent belief that anything other than YEC literalism is atheism. Some obvious errors or distortions, such as "Though studying for a degree in theology, Darwin put his greatest energies into geology", "FitzRoy was an opinionated conservative Anglican. It is interesting indeed that on the long voyage young Charles maintained a reputation for being a biblical literalist" – at that stage FitzRoy was ahead of Darwin in supporting uniformitarian geology, and the CofE scientific establishment was not biblically literalist: OEC is closer. The mix of theological ideas was much more complex than our literal freinds seem to think. And "he delayed publication of the Origin of Species for 17 years"– eh, it took him that long to research and write it. Just as well that our article is based on credible biographers, such as Moore: it's worth reading Evolution and Wonder - Understanding Charles Darwin. To cite from your link, "We Christians must as a part of our faith boldly reassert the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all things, including science." And, it would appear, truth. .. dave souza, talk 08:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Prestige

Wow, great comments on the talk page. If only I could find sources, I would add your opinion to the article, word for word. Very impressive. —Viriditas | Talk 04:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you. Chaos theory and quantum mechanics are an academic fetish of mine, so the duelity paradigm issue involved in that matter was pretty simple compared to other paradox one encounters. I didn't mean to soapbox too much about my frustration that no one else understood the implications involved, so I apologise if it came off preachy in any way, or frustrated. :) But thank you for the feedback, logic issues are my favorite. :D Jachin (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Patrick Knight 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Patrick Knight 3.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Tunnel Rats

I have nominated The Tunnel Rats, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tunnel Rats. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Globalize

Please refrain from performing cut-and-paste moves, which interfere with the maintenance of proper edit histories. Please also refrain from changing content from one English variety to another unless this provides a specific advantage beyond satisfying your preference. (Examples are establishing uniformity on a page containing mixed uses, reflecting the nationality of an article's subject, or eliminating the need for disambiguation.) Thank you. —David Levy 23:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your change left behind sixteen double redirects (broken redirects to Template:Globalize from other names), some of which appeared in numerous articles. —David Levy 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Tunnel Rats article.

Four delete, three keep, one merge. Given the nature of the article in question, I do not believe one vote in lead for deletion is really grounds for deletion. The organisation in question is currently dealing with the Australian government in various issues which were headline matters. I was working to attempt to add citations to the article shortly before it was deleted. Is there any chance of an undelete, or what is the process to request undeletion so I may continue bringing the article up to wiki standards? Jachin (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the article:

Please see my detailed closing rationale at: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Tunnel Rats.

Upon review, if you still disagree with my determination of rough consensus, you should bring the matter to deletion review.

JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bunker busting

Hi - did you get any definitive answers on the ability of bunker busting bombs such as Grand Slam to penetrate ferro concrete BEFORE they exploded?

Manny thanks

Engineman

Sneaky Sound System

I responded to your query in the talk page of Sneaky Sound System. I hope it is a little bit helpful. PN 57 01:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Can you please reply to my post concerning dog abuse on Talk: Cruelty to animals? -- IRP ☎ 17:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created: Deandre Brunston may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deandre Brunston.

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Deandre Brunston: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)

3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.

4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If your page is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed changes to the Wikipedia article on "Consideration".

Hello, Jachin.

I am a Wikipedia frequent user in Massachusetts. I have just noticed what I think might be some misleading information within the article on Consideration. I have recently finished writing a simple contract for a personal loan between myself and a friend, the research for which writing originally led me to the instant article, and I found myself somewhat confused by the definition, suggested therein, of an individual party's consideration within a contractual agreement, since it seems to disagree with what I have read elsewhere. Seeking assistance within Wikipedia, I found you early on in the history of the page containing the article on consideration, and since your user page seems to indicate that you have a legal background, and my not being a lawyer myself, I wanted to confer with you before I make any changes. The page rightly defines consideration as "value offered and accepted by people or organisations entering into contracts", and is correct in stating that "Anything of value promised by one party to the other when making a contract can be treated as 'consideration'. However, I think that the article errs in its definition of what consideration for a given agreement is for a particular party to that agreement, for it quickly follows with the following examples: "A signs a contract to buy a car from B for $5,000, A's consideration is the $5,000, and B's consideration is the car.", and "...if A signs a contract with B such that A will paint B's house for $500, A's consideration is the service of painting B's house, and B's consideration is $500 paid to A. Further, if A signs a contract with B such that A will not repaint his own house in any other color than white, and B will pay A $500 per year to keep this deal up, there is also consideration. Although A did not promise to affirmatively do anything, A did promise not to do something that he was allowed to do, and so A did pass consideration. A's consideration to B is the forbearance in painting his own house in a color other than white, and B's consideration to A is $500 per year."

Now, the above examples indicate that each party's consideration is what it is providing that is of benefit to the other party. However, the 9th edition of Black's Law Dictionary (I believe the most recent edition) clearly defines consideration as "Something...bargained for and received by a promisor from a promisee; that which motivates a person to do something...", and New Zealand jurist John Salmond, in his famous 1902 work "Jurisprudence, or the Theory of the Law" concurs, indicating therein, that: "Consideration in its widest sense is the reason, motive, or inducement, by which a man is moved to bind himself by an agreement." These definitions seem to indicate the consideration of a particular party to a contract to be what that party receives, rather than what that party renders in the exchange. Given that, should not the examples heretofore noted be changed to read as follows: "A signs a contract to buy a car from B for $5,000, A's consideration is the car, and B's consideration is the $5,000.", and "...if A signs a contract with B such that A will paint B's house for $500, A's consideration is the $500 paid by B to himself, and B's consideration is A's rendered service of painting B's house. Further, if A signs a contract with B such that A will not repaint his own house in any other color than white, and B will pay A $500 per year to keep this deal up, there is also consideration. Although A did not promise to affirmatively do anything, A did promise not to do something that he was allowed to do, and so A did pass consideration to B. In this instance, B's consideration, rendered by A, is A's forbearance in painting his own house in a color other than white, and A's consideration, rendered by B, is $500 per year."

Please note that the portions of text that I have boldened are those portions which reflect the changes that I would like to make to the article. I would like to have your feedback on these proposed changes before I do anything. I realize that it is easy to abuse the power to edit with these Wiki-based software platforms, with it being oh-so-easy to click on "Edit". I don't want to make any edits that are factually incorrect, and this is why I have sought you out. Thanks in advance for your input. I hope that you notice this fairly soon, as I look forward to your thoughts on this small but significant matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.223.164 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Jachin, I'm Glad that you seem to have not viewed this yet! This is the fellow who proposed the changes as shown above. My understanding of the doctrine of consideration was wrong, based upon how I was reading the excerpts by Salmond and others. I now have a better understanding, and would not make the changes that I have proposed. I now reaalize that A is induced by B's consideration, and vice-versa. So, please feel free to ignore my comments above, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.223.164 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]