User:SJP/Archive 7

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

Contents

Re: Barnstar[edit]

Thanks you for the barnstar. btw I'm really busy in this week so i will contact you within few days. until that, happy editing!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Hi, I wasnt trying to vandalise that page on Eric Bogle, I felt the page is compromised by weasel words. Thanks, please assume good faith --144.132.216.253 13:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked by an editor who had it in for me and took advantage of my lack of knowledge about WP deletion policy. I have copious good edits. Please do not be impulsive. --144.132.216.253 06:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In fact another editor has agreed with me on that edit, [1], I am a relatively new wikipedia user, so if our paths cross again, by all means point me out when I am wrong, but please assume good faith. For the record, what I was blocked for deleting was in fact deleted soon after that, it is just that I did not know the proper way to go about it. --144.132.216.253 06:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The simple fact is however that I did not vandalise Eric Bogle. --144.132.216.253 09:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar[edit]

Thanks a lot. I'll keep going at it as long as MedCom will let me :-) ^demon[omg plz] 15:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Smile[edit]

Thank you for the greeting and, "Happy editing," to you as well.

Brother Francis 15:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

biting (Continued)[edit]

Yeah, but if you look at the edits they were useful. Also, IP addresses switch often. You can't just assume edits from a month ago are from the same person. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

I didn't vandalize. Read the talk page, I removed copyright violations.

The text is copied word for word from the back of the cards themselves

Well the best I can do is point out that in the intro it says on teh back of each card there is a brief bio, quotes, and major works listed and in the profile of each person in the version I reverted those three things are present. And hypothetically even if they weren't copyright violations (which they are), the page doesn't need a biography, major works, and quotes of each person featured. The biography of each person is what needs to feature the history of their life, their major works, and quotations (or quotes could go on Wikiquote), so either way my edit would be valid as far as I can see. As the guy on the talk page said, the article should be about the cards themselves, not the people profiled. Regards.

Thanks, I appreciate the understanding.

No, it wasn't an act of vandalism[edit]

On the article Godess, I have removed the interwiki link to the French article, because it was incorrect. —147.210.22.149 21:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir James Paul, these seems to be a continuing pattern. Please take some care. The mistakes you are making are becoming disruptive. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "Organisation" is not vandalism[edit]

While it wasn't my edit, the change from "Organization" to "Organisation" [2] strikes me as right for consistency within the article, especially as it is about a British-born man. Please remember to assume good faith Kaid100 23:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Being an american I do not know british english so I thought the person was misspelling it on purpose. --James, La gloria è a dio 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Kaid100)

Thankyou for responding. The edit in question[3] did specify that it was British English, and that the same spelling was used earlier in the article (which you did not change). Please don't forget to read the edit summaries properly, as there are quite a few complaints about unfair claims of vandalism on this page. Even so, genuine vandalism needs to be watched out for- so for that, thanks :) Kaid100 23:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sir[edit]

Keep up your great work too,Sir. May God give you the courage and blessing to defend your values and principles. Iwazaki 会話。討論 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution[edit]

It may help with your edits if you were to read the Talk:Evolution/FAQ. This would explain why you are being reverted. TimVickers 02:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Evolution. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Orangemarlin 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who's watched this sort of situation happen more times than he can count with this article, I can tell you that nobodies going to let you get anywhere with the kind of thing you're trying to put in the article. Plus, the sites you linked actually aren't formatted correctly, and the fact vs. theory thing I think was moved to some other article. Homestarmy 02:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching the evolution talk page for many months, and i've seen this same discussion before, quite annoyingly, it never seems to go anywhere, no matter how long the discussion is. It doesn't help that much of the time, the person who isn't satisfied with the article does something disruptive that makes everyone else never trust him again, and so I think many editors of this page are tired of people trying to bring up objections right after they've done something that breaks policy. (It looks like you broke 3RR, but the warning didn't come right before you broke it, so you might not get blocked.) Plus, to be honest, when the content in question was moved to another article, I think it actually was done with a serious eye towards improving the article, because it had gotten terribly long. So i'm not sure if there's much point in starting the discussion, they can get pretty technical and they can suck up large amounts of people's time, it might be better to try editing something else, i've noticed that any article related to Evolution or Creationism really is terrible in terms of things getting done to change the articles quickly or easily. Homestarmy 03:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think that what you're proposing is a good idea, I think its very likely that many editors may see the Evolution article's lack of a theory and fact section as a good thing not because they are opposed to the existance of such material, but that because Evolution is a top level article, that it is only logical for the theory and fact section to be moved to some other more specific article. There are far better places to spend time concerning things that you believe in, I don't know what your beliefs are of course, but have you thought about editing things like Christianity or Jesus? (The Jesus article in particular is relatively close to FA status, I just need to start a debate about the parts of the article dealing the apocrypha and I think that's mostly it). Oh, and also, the ArbCom committee traditionally refuses to hear content disputes :/. Homestarmy 03:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia's policy on Canvassing, particularly as you are posting on the talk pages of many editors who do not ordinarily edit the evolution article. TimVickers 03:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir James, you've been blocked for precisely these actions before. Please stop. Not a dog 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Going through all the history here, I felt it necessary to file a 3RR violation here. Not a dog 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Kicking back a gear[edit]

Could you please review the "vandalism" you revert carefully? You ended up unnecessarily alienating one user today. Peace, Samsara (talk  contribs) 03:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This one[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=134198151&oldid=134178162

Samsara (talk  contribs) 03:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass talk page spamming[edit]

Please try to avoid doing that in the future, it's call internal spamming. Thanks. Voice-of-All 03:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

Hi, Sir James Paul! Thanks for reverting my talk page so quickly... I've allowed the picture to stay for now (I should upload some pics of the cattle I work with, that would be good) because I think it looks good once it's cut down to size! :) Cheers- CattleGirl talk | sign! 10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the smile! :) Sorry I replied a little late, but internet access has (very unfortunately) been limited... thanks again, God bless- CattleGirl talk | sign! 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Adopt A User[edit]

Just to let you know there is something called adopt a user. In it you can apply to get adopted by a more experienced user. I am wondering if you would like me to adopt you? Just for a little background information on me, I have been here since November and I have almost 6000 edits here. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Adopt a user ? what is that ? if it is something like basic wikipedia lessons, I don't think I'll need it as I have been editing Wikipedia articles for around 1 and a half years. You too have a nice week !! --Flexijane 10:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

I am not a vandal. Please read my edits before you jump to conclusions. Moron. 141.211.120.130 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you've earned that label. Look at your talk page; look at how often you incorrectly revert non-vandalism. Judging from your talk page, you've been misidentifying non-vandalism for months. To me, you look uncharitable and judgemental and like a, well, you know— 141.211.120.130 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You too. :-) 141.211.120.130 23:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Marla Maples[edit]

I removed that content - completely unsourced - under the policy WP:BLP, which states quite clearly: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. I'm removing it again. Please don't revert this as vandalism unless you can point me to a policy that you believe supersedes the policy on biographies of living persons. | 209.6.213.236 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiKids[edit]

I hope you solved the problem about the IP addresses; otherwise, it'll just get shut down again. · AndonicO Talk 23:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

This edit summary is completely unacceptable. Please refrain from unnecessary personal attacks. Not a dog 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Please note that editors can be blocked for edit warring or tendentious editing even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule, and that uncivil edit summaries are similarly unacceptable. Continuing to insert a controversial edit when it becomes clear that there is no consensus for it is not acceptable behavior. Instead, please stop to discuss the matter with the editors who object, or seek dispute resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

(from my talk page) Please don't say I was blocked when I was not. Thanks.--James, La gloria è a dio 11:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Look here. You were blocked twice for 3RR violations on Evolution in March. Perhaps you didn't notice, but it happened. Not a dog 11:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
And you openly acknolwedge and discuss/dispute your previous blocks here and here. Perhaps that will shake your memory. Not a dog 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bksimonb[edit]

youd better tell me what is going on because it is not at all clear right now Green108 18:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention to detail[edit]

Since you seemed to have mis-read my message above, and many many editors are pointing out that you are often mis-labeling edits as vandalism, might I suggest you slow down your use of that new TW toy and relax on the automatic labelling of virtually any IP edit as vandalism. Remember, assume good faith. Not a dog 13:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 09:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

RFA[edit]

On my RFA you left a comment to Infrangible - was it directed towards Infrangible or myself? --Ozgod 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

haven't had acsess to my comuter for a couple days. Yeah, but i only know about colors. Lazylaces (Talk to me 18:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok[edit]

Sure, but it will be hard. Im on a Wii. Lazylaces (Talk to me 03:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the smile. Thats a good philosophy to have, and i will pass on the greeting to other editors. IP198 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Thanks! You've been doing a good job too. Well, see ya around! *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 22:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

?[edit]

I wasn't vandalizing it i was edeting it, i created that page and someone else keeps changing it.

vandalizing[edit]

The Used discography and it has been reverted back again

Thanks for reviewing me[edit]

Just to say thanks for reviewing me over at editor review. I was starting to think no one would. Just to say I'm currently using WP:VF and WP:TW to help revert and detect vandalism. — Taggard (Complain) 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok[edit]

I can do it now. Lazylaces (Talk to me 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Sir james paul! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. «Snowolf How can I help?» 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalproof waiting list[edit]

Why did you erase my name on the vandalproof waiting list and add your own? Especially since it says you were already approved? -N 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello there Sir james paul. I'm The Random Editor. I have seen you on recent changes a lot, and just wanted to say hi, hi. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 Wikiproject Christianity Newsletter[edit]

June 2007 Automatically delivered by HermesBot

YechielMan's RFA[edit]

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 22:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dayton, OH edit[edit]

Greetings. You recently reverted one of my edits to the Dayton, Ohio, entry. What I had done was merely include the year of Wright State University's founding, which is already noted in the WSU Wikipedia entry. As someone who lived in Dayton for several years and attended UD, I have an interest in that community, and I believe my edit was constructive. Hope this helps explain the edit. Kind regards, and keep up the fine work with all of your work to better Wikipedia.

Thanks for the quick reply and the smile, James. Best regards to you as well!

Thanks for the smile James[edit]

Much appreciated and more for you. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok.....[edit]

What's the link? Lazylaces (Talk to me 16:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Translation[edit]

Thank you again for your job ! Alithien 07:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

TheRingess[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you have volunteered to mediate between TheRingess and Ganesham re their apparent disagreement. I would like to give you my perspective.

Ever since I started doing articles, I have found that TheRingess has been following me around and turning up at my articles and chopping chunks out of them. She denies following me but manages to turn up immediately I finish an article and even before. With the last article, Gurudev Siddha Peeth, I could not finish it in one sitting, so I put a notice on it saying it was still being written; The Ringess turned up the very next day and started chopping the article up before I had even finished it.

I discussed these things but she either denies things or just ignores them. Then I got a message from Ganesham, saying that he has had the same problems with TheRingess and had to change his name to shake her off. Ganesham reckons TheRingess watches people's work if she doesn't like the person, and follows them around, chopping up their work.

Perhaps you could keep this in mind when you are mediating between them. I am taking further steps with coordinators. Just thought you might like to know more about TheRingess's activities.

Sardaka 10:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I requested that they bring their discussion back to this discussion thread. FYI. ~a (usertalkcontribs) 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that this mediation has been accepted, and am unsure how to ask the following question about it, so I will just ask it here. Can you provide links to any specific Wikipedia policies that seem to apply to the charges of stalking? I have not followed a case involving charges of that nature before and so look forward to learning more about the issues that apply. The Wikipedia procedures outlined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam and Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol specifically recommend checking a user's contributions once one problem edit has been spotted. I am a member of WikiProject Spam and also a Recent Change Patroller, so as a matter of habit I always examine the edit patterns of a user when I identify a problem edit. Since these are standard procedures, I assume that the behavior being referred to as "stalking" must have some other defining factors. Is that correct? Buddhipriya 18:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ief[edit]

I formatted your comment so that it's correctly recognized by the autonumbering function. —AldeBaer 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation case[edit]

I want to thank you once again for agreeing to mediate my case back in March. Apparently the other involved editor has chosen to discontinue editing Wikipedia permanently rather than engage in an informal mediation. You can see their final reply to my requests here. I am perplexed by my fellow editor's disregard for Wikipedia's formal dispute resolution process. I respectfully request that we leave the mediation case open for another 3 months. All questions of whether or not I am engaged in disrupting Wikipedia through stalking another user aside (which probably could be resolved through another case or different means altogether); Ganesham's contentions that I have deliberately used Wikipedia to harm the subject of this article have not been addressed (in their words, I carried on a personal vendetta against the subject of that article). Since those allegations are of such a serious nature, I wish to keep the case open in hope that Ganesham might return and allow yourself to review his case. I would understand fully if you wish to remove yourself as a mediator but hope that you might stay on. Once again, I thank you for agreeing to mediate. TheRingess (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The Shining[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but I'm responding to the message you left about "The Shining". There was an obviously unencyclopedic section that took up about 1/3 of the page. I deleted it. Problem? 66.167.233.102 10:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A Request[edit]

Hi SJP/Archive 7, Can you help me with WP:TW? I don't know how to do monobooks so could you help me? Regards,--Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 16:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you look at my monobook to make sure it is ok?Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 17:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you know where this revert button is at?(I'm a noob at this:))Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 17:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I did and I didn't see it just undo and edit:( is there like a FAQ for this?Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 17:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok Thanks a lot!Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 17:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

?[edit]

You there? Lazylaces (Talk to me 19:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What kinds of templates do u need? Lazylaces (Talk to me

User:TexasDex[edit]

I meant to add a barnyard star, but my finger slipped. Oh wait. No.

UAA[edit]

Sir, why did you remove my report from UAA? It was not vandalism, and the name listed was later blocked by an admin. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohhh... you reverted an edit by that guy to the last revision by me. Sorry, my fault. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Sorry i accidentally edits an earlier form of the article and saved it.

TW[edit]

When I revert vandalism it doesn't say "using TW", but yours does. How do you that? Thanks, --SWEETCARMEN 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I already have that in my monobook, but I don't need the using TW in it. Thanks, anyways. --SWEETCARMEN 21:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm smiling back :). Thanks, --SWEETCARMEN 21:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hordak's Powers[edit]

Sir, you threaten to ban my IP? Why? I have not stated anything incorrectly. Hordak DOES have a wide array of powers. I personally feel that no more needs to be said on the matter. I have a degree in English and a degree in American History. What makes you more qualified than me to expound on Hordak's powers? I eagerly await your response.

About that revert[edit]

My apologies for reverting that. Went a bit far with that, at least it was a legitamite question from a vandal hehe. Momusufan 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary Revert That Was Not Vandalism[edit]

If you are using a bot that reverted my simple edit it should be reworked and reprogrammed. If you reverted it yourself then please spend a little more time thinking about what you are reverting. This is a trivial thing to complain about but the principle of it stands. Not only was my edit helpful and more grammatically correct but it also was clearly not vandalism and labeling it as such is dentrimental to the community. Thank you.

I'm not trying to be a jerk about it specifically to you but I've seen this kind of thing a couple times to other people's edits so when it happened to me it got a bit frustrating, but no hard feelings. 24.147.232.4 03:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)24.147.232.4

Re. Thanks[edit]

You're welcome. Keep up the good work! :-) Regards, Húsönd 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa[edit]

Thank you for contributing at my recent request for adminship and supporting my run for adminship. A few issues were brought up there (which you really didn't seem to care so much about, but anyways...). I would like to tell you that I am not anti-gay. The creation of the userbox was for other users. If I was, I would have used the userbox within my own userspace. Nor do I seek power; just more ways to help the goals of Wikipedia. Thanks for the support. Maybe I'll be more successful in the future. --Wikihermit (TalkHermesBot) 04:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your userpage is nice. --Wikihermit (TalkHermesBot) 04:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Coats of arms of US Infantry Regiments[edit]

Hi-- I really appreciate your vigilance against vandalism, but the changes you reverted to the subject article should not be considered vandalism. I created the page in question (not claiming ownership, of course), and it was soon filled with galleries of things that don't properly have anything to do with "Coats of arms of US Infantry Regiments." It's really great that they're there, though, so I created "Division insignia of the United States Army," "Corps insignia..." etc, to move the galleries to a more appropriate space. I waited a little while to see if it would take, and apparently an anonymous user tried to move them to the proper page last night. Hope you'll understand and let the pages be separate. No content is lost, just reorganized. Thanks! Hammon27 05:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:thanks[edit]

happy to help keep up the good work :} ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile. You could ask a admin to protect your page from vandalism to stop the troll's. ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)[edit]

Check mark.svg
Thank you, James, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page.

Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Gnome Week![edit]

Gnomes, unite!
German garden gnome.jpg Hello SJP/Archive 7 you are invited to participate in Gnome Week, a mass article cleanup drive between June 21 and June 28, 2007.
This week, backlogs will be cleared. Articles will be polished. Typos will be fixed. Bad prose will be edited. Unreferenced articles will be sourced. No article will be safe from our reach! The more people who participate, the better Wikipedia will become as a result.
I would love it if you would participate! - Arnon Chaffin (Talk)
Edit message

Take a look![edit]

Sorry for stopping you from vandal-whacking, but I thought you might like to take a look at User:Sir james paul/Barnstars - Your barnstar page. Keep up the good work! Stwalkerster talk 19:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Pete Price[edit]

Hi. Please can I ask what, specifically, in my revision to Pete Price constituted vandalism? I tidied up the information re. the banner and put a working link for "2005 Champions League Final".

Thanks.

Thanks[edit]

... for your efforts in combating the sockpuppetry of Light current. Rockpocket 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks![edit]

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page! Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 01:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey! :-)[edit]

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Looks like somebody's been edit-conflicting me far too often tonight! :-) Keep up your topnotch vandalfight! Regards, Húsönd 03:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, thanks for just reverting vandalism to one of my subpages. :-) Regards, Húsönd 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

My RFA[edit]

Admin mop.PNG
Hello SJP/Archive 7, I just wanted to thank you for giving your comments at my recent RFA. While it didnt pass (I withdrew after it became apparent that the RFA was "sinking like the titanic" =]), I will try to focus on and build upon your comments, and the comments of all the other Wikipedians who participated. Thanks again for voicing your opinion, and I wish you very happy editing! Anonymous Dissident Utter 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Hello![edit]

Hello Sir James. I noticed that you reported an anon IP address on WP:AIV[4]. This IP has only one edit as of today, which was reverted. Next time when you report vandals, please check the contributions before reporting them, see also WP:BITE. Thank you for your efforts on keeping Wikipedia free from vandalism and happy editing! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. If you take a look on the users talk page, it says that he can be blocked without further warning. I believe that if a user gets a warning like that, and he decides to vandalise again, he should be blocked from editing. When warning editors I believe they should get warning 2,3, the 4, but as I said above, if they vandalise after they get a warning that says they may be blocked without further warning, I think they should be blocked. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 13:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is a shared IP and there would probably be multiple number of mischievous children editing it randomly. One of them might want to create an account with Wikipedia, but would be discouraged as the IP gets repeatedly blocked. It actually pays to be patient with the vandals, they are human beings, and they might want to join the project and help us. Kind regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

Thanks! Sometime back in February I think. Unfortunately I've been busy with other stuff and haven't had much time to contribute lately. See you around hopefully. Peace, delldot talk 16:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MJHS[edit]

I was wondering why you keep editing what I write about MJHS back to the small paragraph. Everything I write can be verified and hasn't been cruel or intended to be harmful. Could you tell me what parts of it you think are vandalism? I haven't mentioned any names or been hurtful. Our name is changing, our administration is changing and we were drastically surprised by teaching positions being cut. If this is inappropriate, could you please tell me what I could possibly write that wouldn't be "vandalism"?

Thank you, any explaination would be greatly appreciated.

-MrsMomma

Vandalism?[edit]

Spare me. Cougar as a term for older women with younger men is well known in American/Canadian culture. Keep on power-tripping, Jimmy.

Yes, but you included no source. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA[edit]

I've posted an optional question for you. –Pomte 03:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

About your user page[edit]

Have you considered having at least semi-protection on your user page? After looking at the edit history, it seems you have gotten alot of vandalism on your page. Just a suggestion to stop the vandalism. Momusufan 03:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA[edit]

I have withdrawn your RfA per WP:SNOW. It had 12 opposes (several of them strong opposes) and 3 supports, so I didn't think there was a chance of it getting through. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 05:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for agreeing to take on this case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-28 Guru Gita, but I have decided to close it. The only participation from the other editor, in the months since I opened it, has been to leave a rather vitrolic, accusatory note on the page, harassing not only me, but a fellow editor. I've concluded that this editor is probably not going to change his mind about polite discussion. So I've decided that if they continue to harass me, I will simply have to file incident reports. I was hoping that it wouldn't come to that, but I think 3 months is long enough to wait for someone to discuss their concerns politely. Thanks again.TheRingess (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page[edit]

Pop-cult[edit]

We're ready www.pop-cult.org

-The Architect

Reverting vandalism[edit]

Thanks for reverting vandalism of my talk page - Skysmith 06:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

For the barnstar...cleaning up vandalism is more or less a mindless thing that I have been doing as almost some sort of meditation. Watching the few try to take down what is being built by many others. I get less and less upset about vandalism the more that I see of it. I use the lightweight warning tags, as I notice people often lose interest in vandalism and even start to contribute. Gaff ταλκ 09:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)



My user page[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. 91 Boy talk

Vandalism?[edit]

I haven't even visited the pages you've sent me that I have allegedly vandalized...

Are you sure your bots are working correctly?

Sorry about that[edit]

Hey I'm sorry about that warning, I thought he was a sock of a user that is edit waring and attacking me, so I was stern in my warning.--trey 03:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile. =) --trey 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Biting newbies[edit]

Don't bite the newbies: you've been putting up new user's user pages up for MFD becuase they provide personal information. That's no huge deal. Feel free to point them to the userpage policy on their talk page and ask them to remove the content. There's no need to put their page up for MfD. That's biting, my friend. --130.15.219.160 04:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal information in that regard is not allowed on a userpage. and I suggest you stop trolling on Sir james paul's user talk page and my user talk page or you will be blocked for trolling. Momusufan 14:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You both might be interested in the wise words of other admins regarding this MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JimmySan. --130.15.219.160 11:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit]

Hello :-) Just some advice that you dont have to MfD all the userpages which have spam in them, you can tag them with {{subst:User:MER-C/Prod}}. Cheers --The Sunshine Man 16:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your message[edit]

Hi, you send me this message: Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive content to Wikipedia, as you did to Richard Rorty. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. James, La gloria è a dio 18:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

What I did was to enter the death date to the article from Richard Rorty (in fact taking the information from the German Wiki); and somebody else reverted it. (for whatever reasons; and some ours later somebody made exactly the same changes which are no longer deemed "vandalism")

Re-introduction of vandalism[edit]

Please be more careful when you revert vandalism. You re-introduced vandalism here. Have a nice week and God bless:)--James, La gloria è a dio 01:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Very easy to do when multiple people have vandalized the page. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fuzhou[edit]

Why was my edit to Fuzhou reverted? [5] --70.131.218.145 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


but if you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fuzhou&diff=138264010&oldid=137017599 , you can see that user:125.77.120.18 added needless information about Fujian in the article. --70.131.218.145 04:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ok then. thank you, i will. --70.131.218.145 04:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA[edit]

Thank you visiting and commenting at my RfA, I have tried to expand on my philosophy and answers, and hope that these address your concerns. Even if they don't, thanks for stopping by. DrKiernan 14:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

It looks like my Request for Admin has closed successfully at (58/8/2). I am very grateful for your support. I consider it my duty to try to live up to the trust that you and others have shown in me. SirFozzie 17:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Query re: reversion[edit]

Thank you for your message regarding the reversion my my recent edit to Michael Savage (commentator). However, I would like some clarification as to the grounds of the reversion.

In your explanation, you describe my edit as "not constructive". Reference to the Wikipedia help page on reversion does not yield any such terminology, and so I am currently lacking a useful definition that would permit me to understand why the present action has been taken.

Instead, the help page on Reverting lays out several core principles, including the following: "(1) Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously. (2) Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism. (3) If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.:"

If "vandalism" (or conduct with similar effects) is the touchstone of a proper reversion (and particularly one that has been undertaken without meeting the principle of pre-reversion notice and discussion), I fail to see how my edit comes anywhere near meeting that threshold. Vandalism, according to Wikipedia, "is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." (emphasis in original) Moreover, "[a]ny good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Thus vandalism, by Wikipedia standards, requires deliberate detrimental conduct, and a charge of vandalism can be wholly rebutted by an affirmative good-faith defense.

I assure you that the aforementioned edit was certainly made in good faith, and with no intent to deliberately harm the integrity of Wikipedia. To the contrary, the edit was based on a current development that was (1) truthful, (2) material to the content of the relevant Wikipedia article, and (3) cited to accurate references as well as could possibly be done for this particular development. My characterization of the development as a "controversy" may be viewed by reasonable people as a "controversy" involving Michael Savage, given that Michael Savage's actions stimulated a reaction from his radio audience, and a counter-reaction from C-SPAN, that objectively could be viewed as "controversy."

Reasonable people can disagree about whether this development was de minimis in the larger scheme of the article, or whether sufficient sources yet exist to fully flesh out the nature of the development. However, these disputes should be matters for discussion, and certainly under Wikipedia's standards are not grounds for unilateral reversion without notice or discussion, particularly given the "seriousness" with which Wikipedia urges its users to regard this rather severe form of editing.

Thank you for your time, and I await your response.

Quixtar[edit]

Hi, How is it that if I remove blog sites, which violate wikipedia guidelines, it is vandalism and when Eskog deletes corporate website it is not? The reference deleted was http://www.thisbiznow.com/quixtar/statistics.html

Lol[edit]

Sorry buddy, just had to laugh. I've been patrolling AIV and VP, and you've been doing a great job...but I saw your personal pages being vandalized. That's always a good indicator of you doing a good anti-vandalism job. Keep up the good work! Jmlk17 07:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC? I do on those rare occasions, but I use a server dedicated to the downloading of South Park episodes and the like...why ya ask? :) Jmlk17 07:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh right on man...I used to use it exclusively for stuff way back in the day, like over a decade ago, but I just whittle my time away here now lol. Jmlk17 07:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Right back at you[edit]

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For almost impossibly fast revertion of vandalism, and much of it, I award you, SJP/Archive 7, with this barnstar. Wear it with pride! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 07:53, 16 June 2007 UTC)



You say that I put in a lot of work into reverting vandalism -- I'd put in about threefold if you werent around! :) Keep up the excellent work. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 07:53, 16 June 2007 UTC)
Hey no problem. You deserve it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 07:56, 16 June 2007 UTC)
Speaking of vandal-fighting -- I just installed twinkle, and while most things are working, I cant seem to make the 'restore this version' or any of the 'rollback' features in the history work. When I click on any of the above, nothing happens - they appear to be dead links. I see that you use Twinkle. Any idea on what could be happening? I would be extremely appreciate if you could help me out. (my monobookjs. is here). I hope you can help. Thanks, Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 08:21, 16 June 2007 UTC)
Yes I am. Why? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 08:22, 16 June 2007 UTC)
Ahhhh. ok. thanks. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 08:25, 16 June 2007 UTC)
Know of any other similar anti-vandalism programs I could use that do work with internet explorer? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 08:28, 16 June 2007 UTC)
(new indent) I just dwnloaded Firefox just now. Have to say I prefer the look of IE, but I'll definitely use FF when vandal-fighting/reverting -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 09:04, 16 June 2007 UTC)
Its actually better tha I thought. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk -- (dated 09:06, 16 June 2007 UTC)

Comment[edit]

First of all, I am using a one user laptop, and I am the only one who uses it. And FYI I have no interest in Singapore, and I didnt even enter that page. Please check your sources before accusing people. Thank you.

You did edit Singapore here --->[6], so he was right to revert your edit. If you wish to make test edits, please go to the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Momusufan 14:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please note that test edits are not vandalism. Take care in the labels you use to describe reverts. --65.31.143.47 21:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
IMO, test are vandalism if the person has made a test, been warned, and does it again. The warning I used says that his edits where not constructive, and they are now, they are a test. If he does it again it is vandalism.--Sir James Paul 21:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, the user had not been previously warned, and your edit summary identified the edit as vandalism. Please try not to bite our new users. --65.31.143.47 22:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow[edit]

I just vandalised Smart and Smarter. If you look in the edit history you can't even see a difference in the time when I did that and the time you reverted it. If I had an account, I would definitely support your RFA. Too be honest, I just wanted to see what would happen if you made a page redirect to something that redirected to it.

Yeah he is fast, look at my vandalism of A-10.
--206.116.195.125 22:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)