From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of discussions on User:JDoorjam's talk page. Please do not alter this page. Thanks, JDoorjam Talk.


Two things

1) Sorry I wasn't there to help at your VfD. See My talk page.

2) This may sound a bit rude but its not meant to, its just a piece of Wikiquette. Do not remove things from your talk page. (i.e. my welcome.) You can always make User:JDoorjam/Archive01 and post old discussions there. thanks,

Redwolf24 22:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Nikki Hemming

I have rewritten this article in order to establish notability. I would be grateful if you could have a look and see what you think. Capitalistroadster 05:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Mark H. Pritchard

I think it needs rather more radical rewriting... See [1] - © 2005 Gnosticweb Inc. All rights reserved. Tearlach 04:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Restoring the NPOV edit on Bush


Thank you for restoring the spirit of my:(NPOV about the petro/oil issue which has come to the debate on Bush's policy(s) in Iraq.) It please's me to see that you saw through the ruse when the NPOV about the petro/oil issue on the Bush page was taken out shortly after.. only because someone somebody somewhere.. did not like the implication(s) if any that it might bring upon George Walker Bush our 43rd U.S. President.

best regards, Cathy (Cathytreks 21:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bush Sydney J. UK Optometrist/Researcher/Inventor: Introduced Cardioretinometry December 2002.

Please revisit the discussion. Uncle G 12:06:31, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Cornell and Western Union

Hi! Regarding the last edit where you have included that Cornell was the founder of Western Union, I think it's much more appropriate and accurate to put that he was a founder or co-founder. Or even better, some statement like, "He was a pioneer in the telegraph industry who was instrumental in the founding of Western Union" would be nice. Perhaps that's a little too weaselly, but it avoids taking sides in what I believe to be a more or less ambiguous and unclear situation. Let me know what you think. I think it's best to avoid overly antagonizing people. --C S 13:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: I think the source I found and you cited in your edit is not really appropriate in the article. It was meant to show the anon that yes indeed some reputable source did construe the historical facts in a different way than the anon does. But I don't know if I really would agree with the Columbia Encyclopedia. A more careful analysis would be required (e.g. how large was each company before the merger, how important were Cornell's telegraph lines in terms of location, etc.) in order to conclude that one side was the founder and the others were just add-ons. It might be that the proper conclusion is that it was a stand-off and both sides got exactly what they wanted in which case it's not justified to pick either Cornell or Sibley as the founder. --C S 13:22, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I wholly agree; let's do it. JDoorjam 13:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Language choices

"a band is a type of ensemble -- no difference between the two words should be implied" - I don't agree with you there, the two words have very different connotations. Few if any of the groups listed on the a cappella page would consider themselves an "ensemble" - they're pop groups or bands. "Ensemble" may be dictionary correct, but in practice seems overly formal. (I didn't change it back, I just wanted to reply to your comment -- I'm new to editing wikipedia and trying to get a feel for how these things go.) Snackwell 14:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. I agree with your contention that "ensemble" is overly formal -- what do you think of using the word "groups"? I also agree with what you said about a lot of those groups thinking of themselves as bands, rather than "ensembles," so I would suggest an expansion of the article to talk about modern a cappella. It might even make sense to talk about the change from more classical, formal groups to what I've largely heard referred to as vocal bands in its own article. I can probably crank out a paragraph and/or a stub for vocal bands, but if you're up to the task, you should definitely plug that info in. Again, welcome to Wiki! JDoorjam 15:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome! I agree that the a cappella page could use some tweaking to differentiate between classical and modern. I'll take a stab at it -- I'll start writing and see if it feels like a para in the existing article, or a new page. Snackwell 15:18, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Done. As you suggested, I just added a bit to the main a cappella page -- no need for a separate vocal band page when contemporary a cappella already exists. I also added external links to some of the big organizations. And again as you suggested, I changed the header to "groups." Here's a question -- should this page really list groups like it does, when there is a category for a cappella musical groups? Snackwell 15:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
See my changes (and similar changes to collegiate a cappella). JDoorjam 16:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for the cleanup. One last tweak from me -- added 'contemporary' link to the See Also. See you around. Snackwell 17:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Harvard: Thanks.

A definite improvement. Thanks. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ohio State changes

As I said in the edit, I agree with most you've done except for the ranking (which I edited). The section on noted programs (linguistics, political science...) needs improvement and I thought I would see what you thought. It needs referenced, though I would prefer not to string together various rankings that are less widely circulated. Any ideas? PS - Your edits to Public Ivies are very good. Rkevins82 23:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! The way this has been handled on other, similar pages is through linking with footnotes to articles that make reference to the assertion being made. Not everything has to be a ranking; just finding a reliable source that says "X department is really good" should be enough if you put in a link [2] like so. Sorry if I was overly hasty in deleting swathes of OSU -- in trying to fix NPOV stuff I often get a bit overzealous. Cheers, JDoorjam 23:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Southern Ivies

JDoorjam, did you redirect the Southern Ivies article? That article had been put up for a vote, and the consensus was "keep". I may be misunderstanding your role in that, but if you did delete it that seems very unfair. (unsigned comment by Vandy)

I did redirect it. The consensus was not keep; there simply was no consensus. The article, IMHO, should be deleted. I set up the Redir a while ago and no one seemed terribly kerfuffled by it. I wasn't trying to be sneaky about it; I left a comment explaining what I did and why. To be frank, the only reason I didn't AfD it is because there was already a deletion log in that name space. JDoorjam 12:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Vandy, redirecting is not deleting. AfD outcomes don't carry any special weight regarding what should be done with an article that is kept. Redirects, merges, etc. are ordinary edits that don't require a sysop's intervention and are hashed out just like any other edits, on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Deletions can be accomplished only by a sysop and are irreversible by non-sysops, which is why they get special treatment. You can happily edit-war with JDoorJam and flip the article back and forth from a redirect to an article just as you can with any other edit... or you can talk and build consensus, just as you can with any other edit. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Blazed a different path

I don't know whether you're joking, or whether you don't understand that literal meaning of "blazing" here isn't to set fire, but to mark a trail by with light-colored patches by chopping bark off trees; hence, figuratively, to pioneer. I agree with you that it's unnecessary embellishment... Dpbsmith (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, yes, that was a joke. Hyperbole seems to be an effective method of highlighting puffery (and Jefferson the arsonist is an amusing mental image). Especially on that page, there is a lot of very small, systematic embellishment creep -- the best example off-hand is at Public Ivies, actually, where User:Uris switched from language that implied U.Va. was copying Dartmouth, to neutral language... back to the old language but in U.Va's favor this time. After I changed it, he put in more language implying U.Va's superiority, at least in terms of a timeline, this time in a parenthetical. I end up being pickier than I like to be... but otherwise both U.Va. and Public Ivies will become property of the U.Va. alumni association. JDoorjam 16:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
There's "embellishment creep" on every university page. The thing that's particularly annoying is that it is contagious. AFAIK the first university article to mention Washington Monthly's rankings wasMIT, just possibly because MIT ranks first on that list and fifth or sixth on a lot of others... now Washington Monthly rankings are showing up everywhere.
The commonest objection to removing any of it is that "well, [rival] university's article says this..." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I must guiltily say, letting your alma mater off the hook, that I believe I started the Washington Monthly rush, actually -- I put Cornell's #4 ranking up the day before the mag came out (I have a friend who works there). This was about when I realized I couldn't be a conflict-of-interest-free editor of that page. JDoorjam 17:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
For the record you have, perhaps accidently, misrepresented my actions on that page. First I said the buildings at UVa "echoed" some of those I have experienced at Dartmouth. That was me. Then I removed it when I started to doubt it wasn't the other way around. After I researched it and realized that the UVa buildings were built first, I used "predate", which is factual and neutral (compared to "echoed" that I used in DARTMOUTH'S favor). Uris 18:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that you have a tendency to present facts as skewed toward U.Va's favor wherever that is possible, including here. This is an example of where the age of the place was completely irrelevant but seems to have been included because it was an opportunity to talk about U.Va's age. I have no doubts whatsoever that you edit in good faith; however, your edits are quite prone to U.Va. boosterism, a point I was trying to make earlier. I have never seen you intentionally add something to Wikipedia that was false; indeed, much of the content I've seen of yours has been not only factual, but pertinent and interesting. I have, however, seen many edits of yours that were clearly from a non-neutral standpoint, and especially at Public Ivies, have seen edits that seemed to have little actual bearing on the subject, and were there simply to call attention to the accolades of your alma mater. JDoorjam 19:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Again, I inserted the "irrelevant" part about age in Dartmouth's favor to no objection. Only when I realized that UVa's buildings were older and made the wording more neutral did you object. Also, we are all prone to this phenomenon here, as your edits are probably similar regarding your own alma mater. You seem to be very defensive about the public nature of Cornell's contract colleges, for instance. Your wording related to Cornell is always positive and not entirely neutral.
And on that subject, is it easier to gain admission to Cornell as a New York resident? Do NY residents pay lower tuition? Something about these facts, whichever way they are, probably needs to be included instead of glossed over as "Cornell is 100% private", which you always seem to want to leave it at and move on.
Uris 19:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I want accuracy for my alma mater, but I wouldn't call it defensiveness. You're absolutely right, though: we're all prone to defending those institutions (and people and things and places...) that we care about. That's why I largely avoid editing Cornell: I know I'm biased.
I'm not sure, to be honest, whether it's easier to get in as a NY resident. In the contract colleges, yes, tuition is lower for in-state students. I want to leave it at "Cornell is 100% private" not because I don't want to mention the contract units -- shout it from the rooftops! -- but because the point of the "Public Ivies" page isn't about the peculiarities of any one college (sound familiar?), but is about comparing a specific group of colleges with another specific group of colleges, at least in the first paragraph. If you want to create a new section exploring the peculiarity of Cornell's arrangement with the State of New York, and can do so in a way that is in the context of talking about the "Public Ivies" and isn't already fully explored at statutory colleges and Cornell, both of which link off the Public Ivy page, I'd fully support that. I just think it weakens the impact of the article to go in the very first paragraph on a tangent about Cornell's administrative arrangement with NY.
Oh, I'd never suggest anything of the sort in the first paragraph of Public Ivies. That would just be silly. I am in complete agreement that the footnote is most appropriate. I hope you and other alumni do edit Cornell University however. Afterall, the rest of us probably don't know as much about the subject. Uris 20:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Oh, there's a whole gang of 'em who maintain the page. It's part of the reason I feel comfortable not trying to puff up the page -- I know there are plenty of alumni willing to do it in my stead! ;-) JDoorjam 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS, JDoorjam/Archive01! A well deserved pressy!--Santa on Sleigh 22:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.

Hi, I'm the article creator and I'd like to thank you for urging not to merge. Would you like to offer productive suggestions about the article now that it's nearly finished? I'm deciding which of several potential redirects is best for the main title and considering where to categorize it. Also, since you look like you know the subject, I'd appreciate content feedback. I've done my best to treat this sensitive topic in a balanced and tasteful way. Durova 19:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely; I'll take a look and add it to my watch list. I should mention that this will probably not be the last time it's sent to AfD; things with "Hitler" in them that people are not immediately familiar with tend to get a knee-jerk reaction like that; people assume there's some sort of hidden anti-semitic message. JDoorjam 19:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
In this case it was just a trigger happy new article patroller. I've been having problems with my computer and need to save frequently. The article was about two paragraphs long and had three references when it went up. Doesn't seem to have been a bias issue. Thanks for the advice. Durova 20:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


When you removed the example of Festivus out of the secularisation paragraph in War on Christmas, it made me very sad. I feel that it is an appropriate casual reference, but more importantly, it is funny. And humour is neccesary in articles such as that. Please be a good sport, and put it back in! --sansvoix 06:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC) P.S. You could also check the talk section debate for that section too if you have time! Thanks.

I agree, Festivus is pretty hilarious. I disagree, however, that the War on Christmas -- or any article, really -- needs humor (humour?), especially given the naturally ridiculous nature of that topic. I suspect that what might come out of this is an article about the secularization (secularisation?) of Christmas, and on such an article, a mention of Festivus might make sense. Until then, IMHO, it belongs (beloungs? no, that's just ridiculous) where it is currently mentioned: on its own page. Cheers, JDoorjam 16:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

University of California, Irvine

While I agree that most of the edits you made to the article are a definite improvement, I'm afraid I have to take issue with your removal of the UCI related jokes. While I certainly agree that taken alone jokes are not encyclopedic, the jokes are notable in the context of shedding light on the student culture and attitudes at UCI and are discussed at length on the talk page along with references documenting their widespread use both among students and the surrounding community. -Loren 18:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Cool -- feel free to put them back. I was just being bold as I went through, but if there are references for 'em somewhere, slap the humor back in the article, throw in some links, and it sounds like it'd be good to go. Cheers, JDoorjam 18:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

University of Arizona

JDoorjam: Believe me, I greatly appreciate you taking the time to supply input on the UA article. However, by making such radical changes without first utilizing the article's discussion page, you are insulting many contributors (not including myself) who have taken the time to add citable information. It appears you are on a "rampage" and not working for the good of the community so to speak. Of course, exercise your editing judgment as you wish, but know that other people will as well. It is much better to reach an understanding BEFORE an entire overhaul of an article. I do appreciate your time. AZCactus1 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, they haven't taken the time to add citable information, or at least they haven't cited it. The page reads like a college brochure, which it shouldn't. I'm trying to bring it to a neutral point of view. You're personally invested in the page and I understand that, but by the same token, that means that you're probably not the most neutral judge of the content on the page (which is why I don't edit my alma mater -- I'm not very good at speaking with a neutral tone about institutions I love). So yes, let's talk about the changes, but uncited, non-neutral statements really don't belong on the page. JDoorjam 00:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree, but I would be hesitant to assume that UA is my alma mater. I (along with most contributors) am a rational person who can understand another editor's POV. However, it needs to be discussed first. I agree aspects of the UA article include "puffery" but many of your edits I do not completely support. That does not imply that I am "right", but more people need to discuss the issue, not just you and me. I can guarantee almost all of the info in the article can and will be cited. AZCactus1 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to add one more thing. I think what you're trying to do is noble, making college articles more NPOV (because we all can see how out of hand some can get). But because I can see that you're a reasonable and valuable contributor, just keep in mind you're fighting an uphill battle. The biggest contributors to college articles are, as you mentioned, alumni/faculty/community members themselves (not exactly the best neutral editors). That is how it will always be, and as more people discover Wikipedia, they will find their most beloved school's articles and naturally "puff them up." The most Wikipedians can hope for is that we can eventually move contributors toward citing all questionable or seemingly puffy statements and trying to be more objective in their scope. At any rate, happy new year and happy Wikipedia-ing! AZCactus1 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Secularization of Christmas

It doesn't really seem to be POV; I don't always agree with what I wrote a few hours ago. I've cleared the tag. Stifle 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Morris Bishop not notable? But... he's my fave!

No, I wasn't the one who put him into the Cornell article. But I do have two cherished second-hand volumes of his hysterically funny verse. And I looked him up in my library's database to make sure it's the same Morris Bishop, and it is: "Morris Bishop gained a great deal of respect for his scholarship as a professor of Romance languages and literature at Cornell University and for his poetry, often published in the New Yorker and other magazines." He did other stuff, too. I didn't know he was a Cornell professor, and I didn't know he was the author of a book, "The Middle Ages," which is still in print. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Then please, please help me flesh out the absolutely pathetic stub I wrote for him this afternoon. (I know you didn't put him into the article -- I've never taken you as a red-linker. ;) ) JDoorjam 05:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow. So, you totally beat me to even asking. Well done, sir. JDoorjam 05:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Couldn't you have waited until the Warren AFD was over before AFD'ing the others? I fail to see how AFD'ing a series of similar articles was constructive. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather have them looked at and considered separately and individually as being notable or non-notable than have the argument stretched that there's a precedent for keeping ALL AUSTRALIAN CONVICTS, a point not being made now but which I fear, frankly, might occur. Do you consider every convict inherently notable, by the way? JDoorjam 02:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
No. Only those who have been researched and written about in reputable academic publications. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine. I'm trying to think up a reason why Wikipedia should not be a Repository of Biographies About Long-Dead Australian Convicts, and I frankly can't really think of a wholly compelling reason why not. It also puts me in the awkward position of arguing that there's some sort of knowledge that doesn't belong in Wikipedia, which is entirely antithetical to how I feel about the project. You're clearly passionate about the subject. I still don't find them terribly notable, but if Acroneuria Lycorias gets a page, I suppose there's a lot of room. JDoorjam 03:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You are, however, wasting everybody's time when it's patently obvious that this AfD, as with the others, is not going to succeed. The one outcome of this, it seems, is just to piss people off. Ambi 03:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Spare me. They'll be kept because they're perfectly worthwhile articles, just as the first one was before you came along and thought you'd waste more of our time. Ambi 03:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ambi, please be civil and assume good faith. Your abusive criticism of JDoorjam serves little purpose but to antagonize. --C S (Talk) 06:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

two thumbs up

thanks for de-puffing the L-W article. --SeanMcG 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the rv

On my user page. What a random vandal.... Cornell Rockey 20:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


What the hell? I worked on this page over the past couple of days, I wrote, and rewrote vast swathes of it, and I don't even READ Yahoo. You can walk through the step-by-step in the whole history of the page. - Beowulf314159 03:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

OK - I see it. The whole second half. DAMN - I've spent three days off and on fine tuning all the facts in the first half and the info box, and someone tacks on copyright material and sinks the whole damn article? - Beowulf314159 03:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Nah, sinks nothing -- I took it out, and she's "floating" again just fine. JDoorjam 03:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sorry if I sounded owly, but it suddenly looked like three days of research, writing, re-writing, and arguing was about to go poof - Beowulf314159 03:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I totally understand. It's obviously an interesting topic, and it would have been very disappointing if it had simply gotten snuffed out; I'm glad that it turned out to be mostly a completely legitimate article, and so was easy to fix. Cheers, JDoorjam 03:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

An Esperanzial note

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Loaded parenthetical phrase

Sorry about that. What a minefield this is. I had put in the phrase "which characterizes, or once characterized," the Ivy League Schools. The point I was trying to make here is that the Ivy League schools absolutely once had and in my opinion still do have but to a reduced degree--a privileged connection with the U.S. power structure, one which no public university has. I was trying to weasel the implication that they still have this connection, because it's less obviously true now than it was, say, a century, or even fifty years ago. And because people have always hated to acknowledge this, and a statement that it was true is less likely to be challenged than one that it still is true. This was true and easily documentable from, say, about 1870 to 1970.

A degree from the University of Vermont is not the same as a degree from Yale. In a situation where only academic merit matters, yes, they can be comparable. When it comes to getting in to a job where social discrimination is practiced, they are not comparable. One good example of a job where such connections matter would be "President of the United States." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Cap and Gown Club

I reverted to an earlier version, which should address the copyright issue. Andrew73 21:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! JDoorjam Talk 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The Metamorphosis

Hi! I reverted your change because the "non-existant" section in question was lost after vandalism. It has now been restored. Thanks. --AySz88^-^ 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, I just didn't want you to wonder why I reverted you. Happy editing! --AySz88^-^ 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

corinth vermont thank you

Thanks for doing some nice tidying on the Corinth, Vermont article. I've been trying to get the Vermont town articles consistent in terms of quality and that one was giving me some trouble (unsure what to do, unsure how to fix) Even though you just did a little bit, it was really helpful. Thanks. Jessamyn 01:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually edited Calais, and not Corinth, but now you have me curious about that one, and I'll take a shot at that, too! Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 01:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
and I appear to have confused the two! I've been going through the VT towns alphabetically trying to add town official home pages where appropriate and adding the Vermont template/banner at the bottom. I think Corinth is probably okay (though there was a goat hoarder who lived therre recently, I actually live near there) Thanks for your work on Calais! Jessamyn 02:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm now really curious how a town in Vermont got named after a town in Greece, when nearby areas don't seem to follow this pattern (or maybe it has Biblical roots?). I think I'm also going to try to put something brief together about the old copper mine near Corinth which was designated a Superfund site in 2004. I know, not a terribly happy thing to mention... but I do think it's encyclopedic content, nonetheless. JDoorjam Talk 02:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The Superfund siter is, sadly, one of Corinth's only claims to fame other than the goat hoarder. Information on where it got its name can be found here. Jessamyn 15:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

UVM - Tim THomas

Is a 1996 graduate of University of Vermont and is the current starting goalie for the Boston Bruins in the National Hockey League. Check your facts before removing stuff.

The "B" in "B-school" stands for "boosterism"

An anon asked me to look at

I wish I hadn't. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oy. Bringing articles from brochuredom back to reality somehow reminds me of The Game: once you remember it's out there to be done, somehow, you lose (a few hours of your day, at least). I'll dive on in. JDoorjam Talk 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

U of Florida page

Thank you for pointing that out. I should not have referred to them as former doormats, was merely trying to flesh out the information on the football teams rise in the 1990s, as the article didn't seem to reflect just how sudden their change of fortunes was. It appears that someone has changed it to a more neutral wording. Havardj

Fact tags

Thanks for adding the fact tags to Brad Pitt and for adding a comment regarding the date when you added them! It is good to see. --Yamla 18:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about creating a Template:Fact-date tag that would say something like "Citation sought since (date)" -- any thoughts on the best format/language for such a thing? JDoorjam Talk 18:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

St. Albans School

Thanks for correcting that comment. I've had to do that so many times before. It used to be worse: he actually posted the college acceptances from the class of 2005, possibly the worst class ever, IMHO (full disclosure: I graduated from there in 2004, but so what?). Donbas 03:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Eek. Yeah, I've been paring down similar stuff all evening. I live in DC, so bad edits to St. Albans strike too close to home. ;) JDoorjam Talk 03:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- I'm an alumnus of Porter-Gaud School who, back in the day, served as, among other things, Student Archivist, and have discovered that you and another fellow are having some sort of tiff over the site -- what's all this about, and how can we clear it up?

He declared and attempted to enforce total editorial control of the site, I responded stupidly, then we resolved it. I don't foresee any further conflict here. JDoorjam Talk 09:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks.

A cappella

I must say I was surprised to discover that my old group was one of the original items in list of collegiate a cappella groups. I'm curious how you compiled those, since we weren't exactly a well-known group. In fact we were obscure even compared to other a cappella groups on campus. Isomorphic 21:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I must confess that, while I did start the list, it was an offshoot of collegiate a cappella, on which a list of college a cappella groups had begun to grow. Some member or fan must have put them on that list, and then I scooted them on over. (Incidentally, the list at puts the list on Wikipedia to shame.) Btw, which is your group? JDoorjam Talk 22:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I was in Mockappella, a comedy a cappella group and U of Maryland. To be honest they probably don't deserve a mention; they've existed for about eight years and are still around, but they've never recorded an album or sang in a competition. Nobody's ever heard of them off-campus. Fun group, but... encyclopedic? Nah. Isomorphic 04:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks, those are particularly good ones. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

you're welcome! JDoorjam Talk 01:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the words of encouragement. I'm eager to dive in. I've just been a little hesitant because there is such an active community here; I don't want to be presumptuous so I've been treading lightly. I've already involved myself over at the Deconstruction entry, and once I'm back from vacation and have access to my journal archive and books, I'll roll my sleeves up and try to do a little good at existentialism. Thanks again for the kind words! Freddie deBoer 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Deleting German-Russian relations

Hi- Why is it you suggest to delete this article

I proposed its deletion because, when I first read it, it appeared to be original research rather than an encyclopedic article. If you feel you can flesh the article out beyond general statements of opinion (e.g., "German Sates... hold excellent relations to the Imperial Russian Empire"; "current political issues... characterize a relationship with many open questions), then by all means, remove the {{prod}} tag, and fill the article in. JDoorjam Talk 05:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Honour and Justice Alliance article

I see you have proposed the deletion of this article ( I would like to know:

a) How I can access the discussion on the proposed deletion of this article. I have searched in several places, but it is not very easy to find anything unless you know all the terminology used here.

b) Why exactly you think it should be deleted.

Thank you. --Kombucha 02:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Frank Feather

Frank.Feather 02:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)I submitted the page Frank Feather, which is a biography page about myself. I notice you may be watching/editing this page? but can't find a note by you. It seems that somebody thinks there is a copyright error on the "Frank Feather" page, which appears to relate to a book listed there, and authored by me, entitled "Future" but the so-called infringement merely links to a page of some organization which has a review of my book and its book cover, which clearly shows me as the author. I don't know how such a potential infringement could possibly be contemplated, unless it is somehow computer generated. Can you please resolve this issue? There is no copyright infringement on the "Frank Feather" page. Thanks!

Paulo Fontaine

Forgot to say, I blocked the account indefinitely, since it seems to do nothing but vandalise. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 11:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 13:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop disrupting DRV. This is your only warning. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Or what? I've broken no rule, and you don't own DRV. If you remove the debates about Bush again, you will have violated WP:3RR; as it is, you've already violated WP:CIVIL. You're deleting huge swathes of debate text; you are being disruptive. JDoorjam Talk 18:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The point is, the discussions have gone on for too long already. At this point, adding new discussion items is just limit testing behavior. I've removed the discussion for templates that are gone and which no amount of debate will bring back. There's an end to every debate, and the debate on those items I've removed ended a long time ago. You've happened to stumble into the line of fire there. That doesn't mean your other comments aren't appreciated, especially since you've managed to keep a rather nuanced position. Cheers, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Reason for deletion?

Please provide reasons for suggesting for an article to be deleted.

Thank you for reminding me about this article. AfD3, the listing of the article for review by other editors, has now been completed. In the future, please do not delete AfD boilerplate from articles that have been nominated for deletion. You clearly did see my reasons for nomination, as you responded to them before leaving this message. JDoorjam Talk 20:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Chan-Ho, you consistently continue to be on my "cool people" list. And I'll leave it at that. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 02:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Hey, my first barnstar! Thanks! JDoorjam Talk 17:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Due to your kind, intelligent, and well thought-out remarks on the Deletion Review/Userbox debates page, it gives me great honor to award you the Outspoken Barnstar! Congratulations! --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 17:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


I was mainly concerned that Kelly Martin was being singled out, when she was far from being the only involved admin. For my part, I speedy deleted several dozen userboxes which had been tagged T1. Mackensen (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

protecting my userboxes

Tell me how!Cornell Rockey 21:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you, my friend. Having those buttons again could come in really handy in situations like those, and i'll going to need all the help I can get, the cabal is going to be active on that one. Karmafist 00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Jooler

T'was Curps.

one more thing, userbox wise

If you could change my atheism userbox to just have 'ath' on the left instead of that ugly image, I'd be greatful. Cornell Rockey 04:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You're the man, thanks! Cornell Rockey 05:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Formatting help

Sorry to bug ya, but I saw you leave a few helpful comments regarding userbox formatting (which I promptly stole ;P) on another user's page, and figured you could help me with a question. On my userpage, all my userboxes are stacked in a neat column on the right side of the page, but between two of the userboxes (the WikiProject Computer and Video Games and the PlayStation 2 boxes) there's a bit of white space that I haven't been able to get rid of. Doesn't seem to be involved in the height tags of either userbox. Ideas? TKarrde 05:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You had a couple extra carriage returns in there -- the spacing should be uniform now. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 05:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks man :D Rawk on :) TKarrde 05:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the bug report

Thanks for giving me the heads up about the issue with my script. [3] There are actually quite a few more unused userboxes than I'd found originally, so yours might stick around for a bit. --Interiot 23:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No prob! JDoorjam Talk 23:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


It's a bit late but thanks for reverting vandal on my user page and updating vandal count. Cheers--Ugur Basak 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sure thing. You broke into double-digit vandalism to your page, congrats! ;-) JDoorjam Talk 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Jimbo help

Hey, thanks for that. I got a bit carried away after learning that my userbox had been deleted, and that NPOVs weren't being used when it came to them. I was pretty angrey, almost to the point where i thought, 'They want to ban me? Let them ban me!!', but i'll choose to try and help the userbox situation instead. Once again, thanks a lot.

The Halo 22:55 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again.

JDoorjam, can you help me subst my userboxes? I'm worried about them being deleted, and that concern is the thing that's keeping me from getting back to writing an encyclopedia.

I know it was cheap to just copy what you wrote, but, you know. I've already deleted the ones that i guess i don't really need. Anyway, whenever you get a chance to help me with this it would be much apriciated, and i thank you.

The Halo 23:26 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I'm just flattered someone actually read my note and took me up on the offer. JDoorjam Talk 04:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Now the only question is what to write next ;p

The Halo (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Labour/Co-Op Userboxes (UK)


I have added the Labour Party box to your list if thats okay? I am about to add the Co-Op one.

I am a member of both parties, sorry! Fkmd 02:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

no prob, though it's really just an archive... I thought that if nothing else it was interesting to have a list of political parties from around the world, so sure, feel free to add away. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have added the Co-Operative one now, the Labour Red box isnt the right red. But its similar to the old one. Fkmd 04:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson headshot answer

see Jernejl 14:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Peppers

I have unredirected the article. Jimbo asked that it be deleted and that it stay that way. Redirection is inappropriate because we do not wish to include information on the subject anywhere in Wikipedia due to privacy concerns. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me: as I said on the talk page, after putting the redirect in, I quickly regretted having done so without more discussion on the matter and went back to change it, but the page had become locked again. For the record, Jimbo said the article should not be re-written; a redirect is not a rewrite of the article. It seemed a reasonable compromise to list him as a notable internet meme rather than a notable individual. I do wonder whether and how the internet phenomenon page will be protected against the addition of Mr. Peppers' information. But again, I would have undone my actions on my own had I been able to do so. Thank you for letting me know you pulled the Redir out. Truly, JDoorjam Talk 21:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Secularization of Christmas

You'll want to fix some double-redirects I made. Darwiner111 01:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC).

Read the note I left, and then they'll get fixed later. JDoorjam Talk 02:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes we are trying to rival Brittannica, but we will never beat Britannica at its own game. What sets Wikipedia apart is its openness and the fact that all can edit. Its bureaucracy has spawned massive problems, largely over what is and is not "notable". For example, minor Canadian highways and webcomics have articles while articles on other subjects of substantially greater interest are deleted. Why? Because of the whims and arbitrary decisions of administrators. Wikipedia has, sadly, as a result, devolved into a series of fight and political maneuvering dominated by entrenched factions that resent the contributions of newcomers. To this end, we must abolish administrators giving their rights to all, and end arbitrary discussions of article notability. For more see, TJWhite's page. LaRevolution 15:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, articles are discussed in AfD by anyone who'd like to talk about them, so deletions are a community decision. It's true: administrators literally do the deleting. But it's a community decision. They're not based on "whims and arbitrary decisions," but on discussions on the merits of articles. You make it sound as though the "edit this page" button has been removed from Wikipedia. It's still the encyclopedia anyone can edit.
You're arguing that we should give everyone administrative power? I don't think you're clear on the roles administrators play. If everyone had the ability to block and unblock users, and delete and undelete articles, it would be sheer chaos. It would be detrimental to the project, and nothing could get done. It sounds to me as though you tried getting articles published on a certain topic, it didn't work out, and now you're trying to change how the entire project works to get your favorite topic into the encyclopedia. (And part of me strongly suspects you're a sockpuppet for TJWhite anyway.) JDoorjam Talk 16:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I am clear on administrator roles, and perhaps I should have made this more clear: Yes, if everyone could block and unblock, Wikipedia would be intolerable. However, giving the ability to all to delete and undelete would work as it did originally. Yes, I have had many articles rejected over the years, but I honestly don't care much for them, many of them were rather unimportant by any standard. While I am a sock-puppet (which is contrary to convention, I know), I am not a TJWhite sockpuppet. I must admit that my relationship with him is more than just a Wikipedia one (we know each other on the "outside"), but my views are my own. LaRevolution 16:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah. So you're saying people shouldn't have all the abilities of administrators, but that deleting/undeleting should be available to everyone. Are there particular examples of where havingsuch a policy in place would have, in your estimation, improved the operation of Wikipedia? That's where you're losing me. And sockpuppetry isn't merely contrary to convention; it's usually rather frowned upon (though more in situations where it's being used to simulate multiple voices). Why not simply use your original user account? Why the masked bandit approach? When your Contribs say that all you've done is try to start a "revolution", it really doesn't give you much credibility. Instead, I'm afraid you come off as a troll. JDoorjam Talk 16:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverse Osmosis A Cappella copyright

Hey Buddy, this site provides a great service. Thank you for the work you do. I was in the group Reverse Osmosis, and I was responsible for creating the Wiki page yesterday. You can email the site's current officers: to ensure that they have no problem with the material from that appeared on their Wiki info page. You can also email me if you have any questions. Thanks. -John

I updated the info on the page. Thanks. --Johnherbert 01:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I re-uploaded the pic and I like the changes you made. Johnherbert 21:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem Reaction Solution

I dont get it. Why is this geting deleted, but not any other random article? I really dont get it. --Striver 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please comment

Please comment on my counteroffer on the talk page of Doc's userbox proposal. --Dragon695 05:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice comments on that suggested-policy's talk page, btw; and on getting back to editing. +sj + 06:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox archive


Do you have any other userboxes saved somewhere? I'd like to find the codes for my religious boxes... :) Alensha 13:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: James Scott Richardson article

Can you please read my response to your comment on the James Scott Richardson talk page? Also, is there a way to put this issue to a 3rd party? Imstillhere 23:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi Jdoorjam. Before I make an offcial nomination, I wanted to ask you whether or not you wanted to be an admin. You seem like the kind of guy that Wikipedia needs to be an admin, and, to be totally truthful, you act more like an admin than a lot of the admins do. Your repeted contrabutions to the Colleges of the USA and generall tidy up of wikipedia, not to mention how you handled the userbox deletion episode shows that you have what it takes. So, should I nominate you?

The Halo (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's really kind of you to say! Yes, I would accept a nomination -- just don't say "I'm nominating JDoorjam because I think a lot of admins suck." ;-) Thanks! JDoorjam Talk 20:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Right then!! I'll get on to that right away!

The Halo (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Well, you're nominated as an admin! Please go here Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jdoorjam to accept. It took me a while to get the reason for Request For Adminship bit quite the way i wanted it, but i think it's okay now, and i meant every word. I'll be the first to show my strong support. Good Luck!

The Halo (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! JDoorjam Talk 21:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mathbot tripped on a typo

Hey, I got nominated for adminhood, but Mathbot said I have 0 edits. I realized why: my nomination is mis-capitalized! (I'm JDoorjam, not Jdoorjam.) I was wondering if you could run the Mathbot by again. Also, is it as simple as correcting the spelling error in the nomination to fix this issue, or is there somewhere else that I have to change my name, some sort of nominee registry? Thanks, JDoorjam Talk 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now. This kind of issue happens rarely, so my bot is not trained to do anything about it, I need to do it by hand. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! JDoorjam Talk 22:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverse Osmosis update

I updated the info on the page. Thanks. --Johnherbert 01:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hey man, I want to let you know I support you in spirit, I just think there might be a conflict of interest with me voting on RFAs right now. I'm sure you'll make it without my vote though. All the best of luck to you, Cyde Weys 03:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally understand. Thanks for the support! Hopefully—knock right here—we'll both be rolling back vandalism and closing out speedies in no time. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 04:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

user boxes

Nice collection.Mikereichold 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your plaque

Hey, I saw your plaque idea. It's a good start, but I'm guessing "pwnd" is a joke, and the primary part that you were hoping people would edit? Hilarious stuff, but obviously not quite right for an official plaque. :o) Keep up the good work, and good luck on your RfA! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I put that in there to guarantee it would get edited. I could see people getting shy about changing suggestions, so I made a suggestion that obviously requires modification. After all, if this comes to pass it will be our first "real-world" edit, so we'd better have a lot of input! Thanks for your support on my RfA! Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Britney Spears review

When I first saw your edit summary I thought "Not censored for anyone," then I read the review. I really want to move the review to BJAODN. Is that an even graver sign of wikiholicism than merely wanting to edit it?—WAvegetarianCONTRIBUTIONSTALK EMAIL 17:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the review was absolutely hilarious, but was a little too ridiculous to be citing. I should have explained better in my edit summary and I can totally see how you'd have that reaction—thanks for taking the time to read the review first before considering putting it back. (So long as you didn't try to find the "edit" tab at the top of the review, you're not too addicted... maybe.) Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 17:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My vote in your RfA

Thanks for clarifying that. I've struck out my vote. I'm not really familiar enough with you to support and I'm sorry, I'm in an internet cafe on holiday and don't have time to check out your contribs or anything. So please don't take lack of support vote as a negative, just a reflection of lack of time. Grace Note 03:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I completely understand, and to be honest, a neutral vote from you was all I was hoping for. Thank you for taking the time (during your vacation!) to look again at my RfA, JDoorjam Talk 03:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Cyde.png This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, at least it's subst'd ;) Congrats! JDoorjam Talk 04:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia 20:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap that's a lot of buttons on the top of the page.  ::does nerdy passed-my-RfA dance :: Thanks! Off to say thank you a few dozen times..... JDoorjam Talk 20:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to congratulate you on your advancement to adminship. You have no idea HOW jealous I am! ;) --D-Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 20:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I wish you all the best now you're an admin. --Tone 21:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations JDoorjam, good luck --Ugur Basak 22:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure, and congratulations! Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, JDoorjam. Please use your new powers boldly, but also even-handedly and with self-reflection.  :-)    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! I am really happy for you and good luck for the future! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!? 00:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GDFL.

I accept your offer

In your RfA thank you note, you offered your assistance. I could sure use some help at Wikipedia:Tip of the day. We launch on April 20th, and we need lots of tips stocked up before then. If you go to the project page and jot down your favorite tricks on how to use Wikipedia and get things done here, that would sure help. --Go for it! 22:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that looks like a great project. I'll scratch my head on that one. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 22:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Rfa Success

Just a little note to say how glad I am to see that your Rfa has passed! I think that you’ll make a really good admin, and you definitely deserved it!! Once again, congrats!

PS, don't forget to put up an Admin userbox on your user page! That should brighten it up a little!  ;p

The Halo (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Best wish!--Jusjih 08:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Slowing me down

I'll get you for that ;)--Shanel 01:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


As you can see by studying WP:VIP, Flipper3 is the third user name of a person to vandalize Little Girl by removing its Afd tag. I think it is possible that he might come back with another user name. Georgia guy 01:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


You are welcome.02:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


what's with your reverts. I've actually been adding real material to history articles. Rjensen 02:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized after that last edit that I had rolled back more than the Questia drops. Sorry. JDoorjam Talk 02:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you have encountered the very stubborn Rjensen. Flooding articles with links to Questia is something he has been doing for some time, and a lot of users have a problem with that, but he continues. Your comments are welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. --JW1805 (Talk) 03:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please Help Us Clean WP from Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath and His Crony

Hamsacharya Dan is back with his usual vandalism. Adityanath, the sysop on watch, is going on a holiday. Please see my Talk Page, Mahavatar Babaji Talk Page, and Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath Talk page to understand the situation that led me to you. We need your help and other sysops whom you might know.

Thank you so much.

No To Frauds 23:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hamsacharya Dan's Vandalism i.e. Ballistic Insertion of His Bogus Cult Leader's Name and Website

Thank you for agreeing to help us, bro. He is really persistent. The pages he is concentrating on vandalizing are Kriya Yoga, Mahavatar Babaji, Adi-Nath, and Nath.

NoToFrauds 00:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Djoorjam
I would definitely be happy to have you look at the aforementioned talk pages. My feeling is that the vandalism is coming from this individual, not from myself. Please see my list of evidence on my personal talk page that I had addressed to the moderator CambridgeBayWeather. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and have been learning as I go along, and I have attempted to include informative knowledge and list my sources. I have made some mistakes along the way, but the egregious and constant vandalism of my edits by this person No To Frauds are unjustified, and his edits have been reverted by moderators before - please see for example March 8 of Mahavatar Babaji history. Thank you for your time and please do take a look at my list of evidence as it outlines as many as I could find of No To Frauds remarks of bias, his edits, and his vandalism. Thank you!

Hamsacharya dan 00:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Again, I read your comment on CambridgeBayWeather's post about monitoring Mahavatar Babaji post for blatant vandalism. Thanks for that. Would you also be willing to do the same for the pages "Kriya Yoga" and "Nath"? Also, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on how Wikipedia defines vandalism versus an legitimate edit. For example, I created the page "Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath" and there was a user (who I believe to be NoToFrauds), that added vulgar words and changed the graphics to vulgar graphics. His edits were reverted by moderators almost instantly, and that seems to be Blatant vandalism. On the other hand, what about if someone is changing the wording of your edit or deleting large chunks of a text on a page created by several editors over time? Where is the line drawn? I'd appreciate any clarification. Hamsacharya dan 04:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Hello how are you? :)

One question... why did you edit the Jentina page? I was updating it because there are many many wrong parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanV (talkcontribs)


Ok :) thanks a lot for answering. ^^ will try to do my best for the next time then. Regards, DanV ^^

==Deliverance Deletion==

Hi...I'm a newbie but trying hard to help out...I monitor the Recent Changes and notice that you keep reverting the Simpsons this because the person doing it doesn't explain how the Simpsons do the parody? Thanks... KsprayDad 01:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Re..deliverance... what is happening is that the Simpsons part is being caught by the rollback (I installed godlight so I could to rollbacks)...I'll go in and put the Simpsons in with a {citation needed} tag...does that make sense?

Stole your click here box at the top of the page

put it on my page too...gave you credit infront of the rest!

KsprayDad 02:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Mahavatar Babaji

What do you make of this? I had a message asking me to watch this page. Why don't they just protect the thing? Thanks, Dlohcierekim 04:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (aka user:Mikereichold)

No I am not mediating this. I don't have a clue what it's all about. The reason that User:Hamsacharya dan asked me was because on User talk:, which I assume is his logged out IP, I left a spam message. I can see that the lot of them are highly involved in some sort of edit war but like you I have no clue about anything to do with it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that Hamsacharya dan mixed up administrator and mediator. Also I see that NoToFrauds said that User:Adityanath is a sysop but he does not appear here or at Wikipedia:List of administrators. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about my mixup of the terminology. So is there nothing I can do about this except to continue to revert my edits? I've tried talking to them, but they don't really seem to care, especially NoToFrauds...I'm not digging this edit war thing - it's really annoying, but I'm not gonna let them put negative information that slanders the person I'm writing about. Let me know what you think. Hamsacharya dan 07:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Please Help Us Clean WP from Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath and His Crony How'd I get drug into this? I must have reverted something on RCPatrol. It felt like an edit war to me, but I saw they had appealed to you for help as well.  :}. I guess RCPatrollers are easily mistaken for admins. Good Luck. Cheers. :) Dlohcierekim 13:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I am not a sysop and have never claimed to be one. I was trying to educate User:Hamsacharya dan about what would work best on WP. I'm about to leave for a week vacation later today, but I can fill you in on what the war is about. Mahavatar Babaji was the grandfather-guru of Yogananda who began publicising his system of Kriya yoga in 1946, I think. Since then this has been the only or at least major understanding of who Babaji and what Kriya yoga is until recenting. In the mid-to-late nineties this Yogiraj fellow had some vision or something of a Shiv-Goraksha Babaji and then apparently began to claim that he was the very same immortal being as Mahavatar Babaji. He wouldn't be the first to do something similar, but he went on to also hijack the term "kriya yoga" which up until then had been fairly well defined. So that's the background.
User:Hamsacharya dan is a true believer in Yogiraj. He started his WP career by copying the promotional text from his Guru's web site into several articles including Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath and Nath. That was a pretty easy and unambiguous call - I wrote my own replacement for the section in Nath and tagged the article on YGS as a copyvio. Since then, Dan has been attempting to insert his praises of YGS into several articles, including Mahavatar Babaji, Kriya yoga and Nath, maybe others. The way it is written it is clearly an attempt to promote his Guru to the readers of the article rather than to inform of his relation to the subject.
User:NoToFrauds believes that YGS is a complete fraud. He may be right, I don't know for sure. Certainly many of YGS's statements about the Naths don't make sense to me and I am one! Of course, there are several subsects and I am not familiar with them all. But certainly YGS's beliefs about the Naths is a minority one and possibly quite questionable or even bogus. For what I've gathered from the other Mahavatar Babaji/Kriya yoga people, they have the same opinion about the validity of YGS's pronounements on Mahavatar Babaji and Kriya yoga. But when the try to make User:Hamsacharya dan's work more objective and add any opposing views, he claims to own his writing and reverts to his flowery guru-praising text and calls the revision vandalism.
I know, TMI, but HTH. —Adityanath 14:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to keep this succinct. Each of the parties involved have strong opinions of what they believe to be the truth. I've made mistakes, but have made every effort to communicate analytically and come to concensus. Instead of taking discussion seriously, they have decided to pose as Sysops, sending me fake notices and aggressively altering my edits. NoToFrauds was banned already once. NoToFrauds has also gone through the trouble of tracing my IP address and figuring out my identity, in order to reveal it all over the talk pages, and I find it very frightening that he would do that. I've never condemned someone for having their own opinion, but these incessant personal attacks are unnecessary and are hurting the environment of Wikipedia. I honestly have not seen a single constructive edit from NoToFrauds.... FireStar is currently mediating the discussion on the Mahavatar Babaji page. Hamsacharya dan 05:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Spam Cube

My first every article was deleted by this user...but I can see why. It did look like some crazy ad for the Spam Cube, though it wasn't (it was hard making an article that didn't sound like that though, seeing as everything I'd heard about the Spam Cube was positive). I applaud JDoorjam for fighting vandalism in the Wikipedia...I just ask him to not delete anymore of my articles. ;)

Thanks for the context


Thanks for the context for the message on my talk page. It happens occasionally, but hopefully I can avoid it by using more test-n messages like I have been recently. Just as kind of a heads up on a tool that might be hidden, I've been using Kbh3rd's Vandal Warning toolbox and I've been thoroughly enjoying the simplicity. Anyway, thanks for your help, and keep up the good work! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Greetings. I was asked to look in on the Babaji controversy and have posted some comments at the above talk page. Your thoughts on the matter would be welcome. Regards, --Fire Star 21:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my page

Thank you for taking the time to protect my face from an anon vandal. I really appreciate your assistance. Regards Netkinetic 23:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reporting User:Mcorcoran

I responded to a recent change on the Ivy League article at 21:59, 11 March 2006 by User:Mcorcoran where he claimed that he would take legal action "As an administrator of the University (of Pennsylvania)"against a fellow user.[4]. I responded to his claim by pointing out that he should not threaten legal action as an administrator of UPenn especially when he is not one as evidenced by his User Bio. my response (User:Mcorcoran's bio). He has responded to me with a threatening message on my user talk

<<Please do not get upset. You are insecure about the fact that you attend a low ranking state school (ok half state school) . Other than the open green spaces, your campus looks ugly. Cornell's buildings are absolutely awful. Also, hate to break the news but Cornell was not even around during the Colonial period. Just because you could not get into one of the Ancient Four (Penn, Harvard, Yale and Princeton) does not mean you can make rude comments. Grow up. Just to let you know Cornell is named after one of my ancestors. Oh, knowbody uses "UPENN" (only low class non WASPs); its "PENN.">>[5]

I am reporting this to you as an admin.--Xtreambar 00:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I passed this on to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as I think that is a more approriate route. I am trying to figure this complaint process out. --Xtreambar

Thank you for your quick response.--Xtreambar 02:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist on replacing Penn's founding date with an inaccurate date. The University only recognizes 1740.


Sorry man, I forgot about that. Seriously, you replied within 2 or 3 minutes from when I wrote that. You rule! NIRVANA2764 22:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you just revert my edits on my talk page?

Why did you just revert my edits on my talk page? 23:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mr. Shill

I feel that, in most cases, a username that even a few people find troublesome should probably be changed, or (if the subject refuses) blocked indefinitely. A cursory glance at his userpage suggests he just might be here for the purpose of political trolling. I'd say look at his contributions and decide whether you think he should be taken seriously enough for the former option, otherwise invoke the latter immediately. — Mar. 13, '06 [01:10] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Ah yes, prior conflict as always a downer. Post it on WP:AN, see what others have to say. — Mar. 13, '06 [01:11] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Jeremy Waldron // Cdigix

You did not "clean up" this article, you removed true information, verified by one of the sources in the external links section, and left the article misleading as a result. I have reverted your edits. --M@rēino 02:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Source added. And please reread my comments; I did not assume bad faith.--M@rēino 03:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

AABarnstar.png An Award
I hereby award The Abusive Admin Barnstar to JDoorjam for (1) taking on the Cdigix corporation and its over-eager employee, User:Infinitel00p and (2) staying civil even though I got whiny about Jeremy Waldron


Just to let you know, at the request of the creator, I've sent him the content of the article as it appeared prior to its deletion. I've also sent it to User:Henrik, who (on IRC), along with User:That Guy, From That Show! ([6]), has offered to help User:Jtakano turn it into an encyclopedia article worthy of wikipedia. Just to let you know, I've asked them to let me know prior to recreating the article, and that I'd let you know--to help allay any appearance of misconduct. Cheers, Tomertalk 11:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Congrats on becoming an admin! I was hoping you could help with something. In deletion review (and the deletion process for that matter) and article was deleted that I believe should not have been. User:Tony Sidaway agrees. The article was deleted for notability, but the person in question was mentioned in about a dozen different mainstream media articles, included a recent front page article in the New York Times. Can you take a look and vote accordingly? The review is here. Wikipedia:Deletion Review#John Bambenek. Thanks. -- Alpha269 04:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aldeberan whiskey

Aldeberan whiskey has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 17:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)