User talk:JuliannaRoseMauriello

Newburgh

Would you like Newburgh Sharks Swim Club to be put up on Articles for Deletion? I can do that for you, if you'd like. -- Zanimum 01:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC

Bruce Gabrielson

Thanks for your message! That may be true, and I'll certainly investigate, but that doesn't make his article - or any other - fit into the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. You're better off using the WP:PROD system or going to Articles for Deletion, as, if something is tagged for speedy delete but isn't covered by the criteria, the tag is usually removed and the article just left. I'm an exception in PRODding and AfDing wrongly speedied articles.

If you have solid evidence of a user using sockpuppets to vandalise, please let me know as it is possible to arrange a CheckUser and permanently ban the offender. Thanks. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 12:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to damage articles when removing what you see as vanity. The majority of the articles don't have external links to the gentleman's website; links to the page on him are okay, even if the page is PRODded. Removing his name and the wikilinks because you have assumed the guy is up to no good is Not Good. You must assume good faith in others: his claims may be true, false, mistaken, malicious or other. Assuming they are malicious without evidence is damaging to Wikipedia. I'd advise steering clear of the subject for the time being. Thanks. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 12:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really advise that you calm down at this point. You are making accusations now along with your assumptions. Please assume good faith in me, as an admin, if nothing else. The accusation that I have done/am doing nothing about this is wrong. The gentleman's articles are on my watchlist. I have done a thorough search for all occurances of his name on the 'pedia. I will continue to watch for activity. I have deleted a couple of articles that meet with the speedy delete criteria. I have PRODded others and edited still more.

Whilst any false articles will not disappear immediately, they will disappear eventually (or be cleaned up so they are no longer false). There is no reason at all why everything or anything on Wikipedia must be done with extreme haste. It is often better to let events take their course: if only because a hasty deletion will be overturned and thus protect the article, whilst a well-thought-out and justified delete will be permanent.

This matter is now in the hands of someone who knows what he is doing and has the power to do something about any problems. You are welcome to keep editing on the subject, but again I remind you to assume good faith in those around you and to not make accusations you cannot back up. Thanks. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 12:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to reconsider storming out at the first sign of disagreement. You've only been here for 2 weeks and have made under 40 edits, the majority about Bruce Gabrielson. I think you've over-reacted to Mr Gabrielson's alleged vandalism and over-reacted to the person who has promised to do something about it. You and I are two of several thousand editors here, the majority of whom are committed to the quality of Wikipedia just like us two are. That quality will never improve if editors walk out at the fisrt sign of disagreement. It would be more practical to stay and to continue to improve Wikipedia in a calm and rational way. Thanks. ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 13:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Adams

Actually

You made 3 edits to Stephanie Adams, no more. Thus, you did not break the 3RR rule. My apologies for mis-stating that you did. Just a bit of advice: refrain from editing the article for a while. I've referred GODDESSY to admin for breaking the 3RR rule. It's probably best if you let other people handle the dispute.--Isotope23 21:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close reason

I closed the AfD early because the reason you nominated it is only due to a content dispute on the article. Please do not nominate perfectly encyclopedic articles for deletion if you disagree with others over the content in the article. We have rules for deciding when articles can be deleted, and "content dispute" is not one of these reasons. Kimchi.sg | talk 21:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with people, open a Request for Comment about them instead of taking the article to AfD. AfD stands for "Articles for Deletion", not "Persons for Deletion". :-) Kimchi.sg | talk 21:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin incident board

I've referred your action of reopening the closed AfD of Stephanie Adams to the administrator incident board. Reopening a closed AfD and adding the tag back to the article is considered vandalism.--Isotope23 00:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- It has nothing to do with WP:OWN; read Wikipedia:Vandalism, specifically the Abuse of tags section. It is bad faith to reopen a closed AfD just because you don't agree with the consensus.--Isotope23 01:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Enough

I usually just assume anything on my talk page is to me... Just for future reference, please don't reopen an article for deletion it has already been closed, even if you don't agree with the outcome. If you have a problem with the closing or think it was not done correctly, refer it to an admin.--Isotope23 12:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username block

You are quite definitely not Julianna Rose Mauriello. Naming yourself after someone else in this manner is not considered a tribute, but a violation of the username policy. Please pick another name. (If it gets hit by the autoblocker, email me with full details and I'll unblock the IP.) - David Gerard 13:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am, and have already proven my identity to 3 of the admins here via email, and one via telephone, it's okay, I will have it removed, thanks for not even asking and just ASSuming.

Get it? JuliannaRoseMauriello 19:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is without a doubt not Julianna Rose Mauriello who is currently in Iceland. If the admins still think this is really her they are lazy morons who dont know how to pick up a phone or check an IP address. This user is also a sockpuppet for user:65.184.17.216 and you can check and see that the ip is from Charlotte, NC and not Iceland where Julianna is currently shooting Lazytown. Birdflu2006 20:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy morons? Please read WP:ATTACK. Up until recently, this user, whoever they are, was editing entirely in good faith. I work on the basis of innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Until she acted as she has recently, there's no reason for me to check her IP address, as she was the victim. Until recently, there was nothing at all to link that IP and the alleged account of Julianna. The very fact you have such phone numbers available to you doesn't boad well. Julianna herself is a minor, and has many creepy people harassing her. The information that was posted on our site before the user claiming to be Juli was a violation of privacy. I mean, how the heck do you even know when she's filming new episodes of the show? -- Zanimum 17:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked WP:RfCU to confirm whether or not this user has ever edited from New York State, California, or Iceland. -- Zanimum 17:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Jmauriello.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jmauriello.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]