User talk:J.smith/archive03

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Note: This is an arcive. New messages should be left on my talk page and not here. Thank you, ---J.S (t|c) 22:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Your copyright notice...[edit]

Thanks for informing me of this. I released my changes to the public domain. Also I believe dual-licensing is fine even if the terms are incompatible, one would be able to pick either; though I'm not sure of this. This may be a WP policy, I dunno...Fatalserpent 01:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

http-->https[edit]

Try accessing any of the old http links. The mandate is by the CIA, which has changed their whole site to https, presumably for security reasons. There's no way at all to access any of the old links. Here's an example: old link: http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ new link: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

The change wasn't elective, it's mandatory and breaking a lot of links (over 1600 links, actually). I'd appreciate if you responded on my talk. Thanks, alphaChimp laudare 23:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

UFO[edit]

Let me finish up with John Doolittle first, but I'll put it on my to do list; just as long as you don't change it to Alien Spacecraft. =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability guidelines for real places[edit]

Actually, there are real places that aren't notable, even though they verifiably exist. The area of grassland to the west of my house is verifiable, from sources that are not only reliable but authoritative no less, but it isn't notable. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Notability_is_not_verifiability. The point where "all real places are notable" was disproven was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danmark (island). One fair criterion for notability of real places is the one that User:Capitalistroadster habitually employs, namely that the real place have a "community of interest". However, the primary notability criterion also works, because it includes all real places that have been the subjects of non-trivial published works, which of course includes histories, geological reports, census reports, demographic analyses, and so forth. Uncle G 20:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Paranormal Collaboration[edit]

Hi, I'm leaving you this message because I noticed you are interested in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Paranormal. We're currently starting a new project which we need the help of our members in, the WikiProject Paranormal Collaboration of the Month. This is an initiative where we can identify articles that need work (especially high-traffic pages), and get the whole project involved with their improvement. Currently, we are in the process of voting for our first collaboration. We'd appreciate it if you'd stop by, vote, and add any articles you may think may be appropriate for the project. Also, you may wish to add the Collaboration page to your watchlist to observe future collaborations. If you'd like, we've also created a category to collect articles covered by our project as a reference, if it helps. So, thank you for your interest, and happy editing! --InShaneee 16:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing time[edit]

Thanks for correcting the link to fainting! Mapetite526 19:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Attack![edit]

M1A1 abrams front.jpg

oTHErONE (Contribs) 07:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Arch Coal[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to let you know personally that I deleted Arch Coal. You did nothing wrong by uploading it, but the situation with MyWikiBiz has deteriorated substantially. I no longer think that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to encourage him in any way.--Jimbo Wales 04:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, J.Smith. I think it's rightly fascinating your upload of that Arch Coal article led to such a brouhaha with none other than the Big Jimbo. Personally, it's refreshing to see that the community essentially overturned his erasure of the article. There are a lot of good, hard-working people at Arch Coal. I took a peep at the other thing that Wales did that day, which was to delete an article about a non-profit org. Given the justified outcome of the Arch Coal dispute, do you think you might do a spot of good by requesting that this Family & Workplace article get a good public review, too? We don't want Jimbo making ALL of the tough decisions, do we? --BeigeBoy 02:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Monkey trainer...[edit]

how did you find out! <gasp>! Binarypower 04:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot[edit]

Hei, thanks a lot for the help. Yes indeed, GENI said that this is such an ad for her, while it's actually not. Well, will try to talk to her.

Thanks for the help. Questfreak 09:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)QuestfreakQuestfreak 09:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will find some other sources and let you know afterwards. Thanks =)Questfreak 13:45, 16 October 2006

Your user page[edit]

You're welcome! :) If you need any kind of content of your deleted page, drop me a message. NCurse work 18:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Friday the 13th[edit]

I saw "Help!" in the edit summary. And I remembered how annoying/painful/frantic it was trying to keep up with vandalism like that while my protection request just sat there being ignored. -- Steel 22:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like something I'd do. -- Steel 22:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial hypothesis[edit]

The edit is supported by link 5, and merely corrects the dates to agree with the source at the bottom. Lowell was long dead in 1985, and 1895 is in the 19th century, not the 18th.

Your question[edit]

Not sure if I understand. If you're asking if my real name and editor's name that I use to do my wikipedia editing with are the same, the answer is "yes". John Broughton | Talk 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now that I understand (sorry, missed the wikilink), the answer is "no" - I've never been to Australia in my life. "John Broughton" is, perhaps surprisingly, actually a pretty common name. John Broughton | Talk 22:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My mistake[edit]

You're right, of course, about the article needing a citation. However, I believe you misinterpret the intention of the guide for BLP. Please read the first sentence of this section: [1]

I feel that a {{citation needed}} would have sufficed, as this is obviously a matter of public record (literally).

With all due deference, demonburrito 21:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Devilmaycares[edit]

Whoops! Sorry, I forgot about this. I'm willing to write something up, sure, but my experiences with the user are rather scant. For the record, I'd like to say that the user is pretty obviously a POV troll account and that he will soon if hasn't already wear out his or her welcome here.

But, yeah, I'll add something to the RFC if it's not too late now. Sorry for the wait. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it's alright if I add my comment as an endorsement rather than as a standalone summary, right? I don't have much experience with RFCs. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My 3RR boilerplate[edit]

Because I created it in February 2005 where as Template:Unblock didn't appear until October 2005.Geni 00:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really do 3RR blocks and more.Geni 00:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)