User talk:TheOldJacobite/Archive 7

Revert here too

Why did you revert Scam ? Totse tells people how to create and execute various scams, such as "How YOU can be a FAKE church minister and make Million$ doing that", and how to get FREE food and drink at the local McDonalds, Burger King, you name it. There are even scams there in which you can get FREE cable, F*** up your power meter so that you can get FREE power, that kind of thing. Powerzilla (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've even seen a scam in which people can, and do rip off Wal*Mart and get away with it because the security and sales people get fed up with malfunctioning alarms and sales people who forget to burn out those security strips(Those shiny metal, rectangular objects in everything you buy. IF not burned out by a sales rep, it'll set off the security alarms). Powerzilla (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course you realize IF you get caught doing any of that, hope you don't end up in the can for 10 years to life. Powerzilla (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-Reliance

I need your help, if you have a moment. Back in August, Mazarin07 moved Self-Reliance to Self-reliance (essay) and turned the original page into a dab page. This is really not helpful. A dab page with two entries in not a good use of resources, and the original essay article had a dab message at the top for Self-sufficiency. Can you move this back to its original version? Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it myself, as it happens. Let me know if I did anything wrong or forgot anythings. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Main thing I was looking for was a hatnote, which seems to have been done.

Also, I reverted the blanking of the talk page. Though some are perhaps borderline, blanking them all would seem to be inappropriate. - jc37 04:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The hatnote could be improved, probably, as I am uncertain as to the formatting. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonstandard image/TOC use in Mod (lifestyle)

You left the following comment while overriding the placement of the lede image and the TOC in Mod (lifestyle):

Before altering image placement, please read *all* of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images (not just the first sentence) to find out why TOC right and portrait left are correct here

Well, WP:MOSIMAGES isn't actually that long a section, so it doesn't take long to read it. And nowhere does it contain any justification for a left-aligned first image, or for overriding the table of contents to add one.

I'm having a very hard time justifying this change. Please either revert it or explain exactly where our guidelines suggest it; as-is, it makes no sense for an article which previously used a standard and well-worn intro layout. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, TheOldJacobite. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks. Sorry if I came across a bit harshly here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: BIRCH SOCIETY ARTICLE

Apparently, there is no email address to contact you to discuss your message so I have to use this forum. Your message to me states that I should not use the "discussion" page for a discussion of the article. Huh???

My comments were made in order to demonstrate that the comments posted by OTHER people are factually FALSE (not simply an alternative interpretation). So, for example, I focused upon the numerous falsehoods posted by "Publiusohio" under the guise of "improving" the article. Examples: he falsely claimed that Western Islands was not owned by the Birch Society. It is. He falsely claimed that Robert Welch was "President" of the Welch Candy Company. That is false in two respects. First, Robert was not "President" and second, the company name was James O. Welch Company---because Robert's brother (James) owned it. Publius also falsely claimed that the JBS is a "pro-constitution" membership organization when its founder (Robert Welch) explicitly stated that he didn't even believe a republican form of government was possible unless and until "certain favorable conditions" existed -- which he thought DID NOT exist in the U.S. He also falsely identified several prominent people as JBS members--and they were not (or they resigned, after brief membership, in disgust). And so forth.

How can Wikipedia readers understand what constitutes an ACCURATE portrayal of an organization if we cannot use the "discussion" page to point out obvious factual errors? --Ernie1241 (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Your user page is now semi-protected. I didn't notice that the talk page was already semi-protected and accidently upped it to full. I've restored the semi as the page is not much use to you if you can't write on it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Range block

It might be. However, you will need to find someone who knows how to do that, I'd probably screw up a block 65,000 people at once. Ther is some information at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Range blocks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. They should discuss their problem at the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be about for about 3 hours but not sure if longer than that. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 02:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Eliot stuff

No worries about the tone -- it seems the whole antisemitism issue in social-academic politics never gets any less frustrating for everyone involved. I certainly believe it warrants a maximum of two or three well-written paragraphs in the article proper, though it is such a controversy that a distillation from much longer discussions on the talk page seems necessary -- and therefore, of course, those long and frustrating discussions about a subject that is -- without much more intellectual work put in to draw the lines -- tangential at best.

Reading your response, though -- and I'm happy to listen to what you have to say here -- I still don't see how those two little quotes have a place (or at least the place they currently have) in the article. They are somewhat irrelevant under the circumstances, and, worse, misleading. We should of course think twice before removing cited content from the wiki, but I think they do just fine in the talk pages until someone (possibly even myself, though I'm spending all my time lately on phenomenology and theories of violence, certainly not modern poetry) does some more significant and deserved work. --ful cleane (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Radcliffe et al.

Yo, did a little digging and found an anthology with (excerpts from?) Heatwave issues one and two (with discussion of the Provos), as well as Black Mask/UATWM, King Mob, Mod Art and other Anglophone SI material. Let me know if there's anything specific you're looking for or if you want me to transcribe any of the above. Mahalo, the skomorokh 09:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Irish mob

The last two films have not been released and is doubtful wether they are even in production, IMDB offers little detail. Long Good Friday doesn't feature Irish mobsters, only IRA. Nicknackrussian (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Range block

I looked over the list but I can't see any reasonably narrow range to block. I'm sorry that I can't help you. Another admin may be able to discern a pattern better than I can. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice Will Beback's response on this talk page ...but I have replied to you on his talk page, so no worries. As I was saying, Alison is a checkuser and I trust that she was able to help you, but now that she's on a wikibreak, another checkuser should look at this. Would you like me to contact one or would you rather file an RFCU? ~ Troy (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I have replied again. So, if you want me to contact a checkuser for you, just say the word and I'll make sure to do that ASAP. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so as you said on Will Beback's talk page, I have told jpgordon what happened from where I see it. Be sure to add anything I missed, if necessary. Thanks, ~ Troy (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey RJ. I'm just letting you know that as jpgordon suggested, I updated the links on your subpage and even added a section for the proposed blocks. I assumed that you didn't mind because I was somewhat in a hurry, but you can let me now if there's something I did incorrectly. I'm still awaiting the results, for the moment, so all I can do know is limited to monitoring any further edits by the vandal's IP socks. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Harlem Renaissance

Who knows why vandals pick the targets they do? Thanks for the note. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WelcomeShout

I've fixed it into something similar to that of {{welcome}}. bibliomaniac15 04:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

PIRA

I have sorted out the reference on the above article as asked. Sorry it took me a while to get to it, but I've been a bit busy. Hope that addresses it for you. Regards, --Domer48_'fenian' 10:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Greensleeves

Firstly, If you're going to reverse edits, please have the grace to say why.

Secondly, I have never felt particularly comfortable with the use of the two adjectives you are consistently removing, but getting rid of them gives undue credence to the fact that Henry VIII could have written Greensleeves - and this would be completely wrong. The paragraph either needs rewriting or it should stay as it is with the adjectives included. As regards the second edit, once again you have altered the meaning. However, the text you have changed is a direct quote from the referenced book. You may think you can do better, I would prefer that we put our faith in the author - or, at the very least, paraphrase it in a way that matches the author's sentiments.

Over to you... David T Tokyo (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

PIRA

RJ I'm being absolutely genuine here. No messing about. It is a perfectly legitimate set of observations on my part. The name isn't official when applied to PIRA, only when used by the IDF. The article won't benefit from the inaccuracy.Thunderer (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thunderer (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you really believe that this diff [1] is reverting "vandalism"? I mean, unencyclopedic, maybe; cruft, maybe; but I don't see that as a bad-faith edit. What's your thinking on this one? Gladys J Cortez 03:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a hidden message might help. I can certainly empathize--I've dealt with more than a handful of those "I'm gonna put my trendy little piece of info in here and tell all my MySpace friendz how KEwL I am!!!!!111!" types. A few good stern "stop that"s and a hidden message generally scares them off--though I'll admit I haven't taken on the emo crowd, who seem a bit more...um, likely to persist. :) Just wondering what your thought process was, is all. No harm done, and thanks for the reply!Gladys J Cortez 03:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bill B

See [2] This user is mono thematic. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am topic banned on that page see[3]. There has been a suggestion that this be removed but my suggestion was that the ban remain just on MMO joujouka/Jajouka as the editor involved (now indef blocked ) may be allowed back and he is best left off the project.See [4] and [5]. I think that I can make useful edits on [Brion Gysin] [William S. Burroughs] etc . We will see. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO it would be best if you avoided any more back-and-forth edits with User:Insearchfortruth, as your edits themselves could constitute reverts. The matter has been listed at WP:AN/3RR, my suggestion is to let that process run its course. My $0.02, thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to comment

Hi RJ you might want to comment here it was set up as part of the AE and mediation that myself and Thunderer are going through. I have not been involved in this disscussion so I am letting you and O Fenian know about it in case you wish to comment. BigDunc^Talk 17:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalker?

See [6] and [7] this anon ip has been active today and yesterday. I note they are now copying your signature. You might make an AN/I or CU request. I imagine it is related to the Bill B issue. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dashiell Hammett fix-ups

You removed the two Hammett novels (The Dain Curse and Red Harvest) from the list of fix-ups. A creditable Hammett bibliography shows the following:

The Dain Curse

   * as part 1: "Black Lives" in Black Mask, November 1928
   * as part 2: "The Hollow Temple" in Black Mask, December 1928
   * as part 3: "Black Honeymoon" in Black Mask, January 1929
   * as part 4: "Black Riddle" in Black Mask, February 1929 

Red Harvest

   * as part 1: "The Cleansing of Poisonville" in Black Mask, November 1927
   * as part 2: "Crime Wanted - Male or Female" in Black Mask, December 1927
   * as part 3: "Dynamite" in Black Mask, January 1928
   * as part 4: "The 19th Murder" in Black Mask, February 1928

Other sources that indicate the novels were created from short stories: detnovel.com, and Dashiell Hammett website which states

     Between 1923 and 1930 there were 36 Continental Op stories published, almost all in Black Mask.
     Four of these stories were combined and reworked to become Hammett's first hardback novel, Red
     Harvest. Four others were retooled to become The Dain Curse, Hammett's next novel. 

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Thanks. Mhhutchins (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent Stalker edits

Hello RJ. Two updates on that vandal, mentioned above: firstly, the recent edits by that user were pretty negative (as said on your sub page). The user was impersonating you and that's certainly unacceptable. Of course, I understand that you would never make such vile comments, but in case that user does trick someone, I'll make sure to tell him/her about that. As for a possible rangeblock, the user was most recently operating in the range of 72.154.191.0/24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), and that has been discussed here. A block on this specific range is currently, as you can see, the most ideal of all the said ranges and it was set for 72 hours (and I certainly can't argue with that; it's hard to set rangeblocks for much longer than that without the possibility of collateral damage). So, we will have to make do with that, it should be fair enough now ...but if there's absolutely anything suspicious, either report the vandal on ANI, ask for a checkuser's help, or feel free to go on my talk page. Thanks :) ~ Troy (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Day of the Dead

You removed an appropriate image from the above-referenced article, noting there being "more than enough" images but that is subjective.

• Is there an established standard regarding how many images are appropriate per article / topic / sub-topic?
• If so, how does one determine which images are more appropriate? The image that you removed is a real altar and references an existing article.

Rather than revert your reversion I am asking you for your input; in the future I would appreciate the same courtesy. Drew30319 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As it may be a while before I receive a response I've reverted the image removal but remain interested in your response. Drew30319 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Again you've deleted this appropriate image. The image in question is more appropriate than the other for that section. Although clever, the "dead sitcom" altar is satire and not a true representation of Day of the Dead altars in the United States.

Again you've not responded to my questions regarding this - please do not continue to remove this image without consensus. You make it difficult for me to continue to assume good faith WP:Goodfaith when I've opened a dialogue and you've opted to instead repeat the behavior in question without discussion. Drew30319 (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for your response.

• You state: "The image is not appropriate, as I made clear in my edit summary."

Your edit summary does not appear to speak to appropriateness but rather that you don't believe that it provides clarification. ("Removed Jennifer Ann Crecente altar; while relevant to her article, here it does not elucidate the topic, which is the point.") If you do feel the image is not appropriate, please explain why, I feel that I can show otherwise and that this may be a misunderstanding.

• "It is for you to prove that it is appropriate, since you insist on adding it."

As mentioned here and in the edit summary, the image in question is a genuine altar for "The Day of the Dead" whereas the other image is not a genuine altar but rather a satirical piece that, while humorous, is not illustrative of the topic at hand. I feel that a genuine altar more appropriately illustrates this article.

• "It seems to me that the purpose of the image is to serve as a memorial for a murdered teen, and not to illustrate the topic of the article, which is already well-illustrated."

By its definition, a "Day of the Dead" altar would be a memorial to somebody that is dead. While the image is of a memorial for a murdered teen, that is subordinate to its purpose in the article which is to illustrate a genuine altar.

Additionally, I'd like to know your thoughts on the following (asked above):

• Is there an established standard regarding how many images are appropriate per article / topic / sub-topic?
• If so, how does one determine which images are more appropriate?

Thanks again, Drew30319 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy

Now, far be it from me to actually give a rat's about it, but I think by attempting to totally block all mention of that (stupid) band's (stupidly named) (stupid) album from an otherwise relevant article, we are totally setting ourselves up for failure, frustration, and a possible lynching at the hands of the emo crowd. I mean, there's a disambig for the X-files episode, and for the whatever-the-hell-the-other-disambig-is-for (can you just FEEL the waves of caring emanating from my keyboard??) I just think if we don't throw them a bone and let them disambiguate, at least, when the album comes out, it's going to become an eternal struggle--whereas if we DO leave the dab there, we can say "hey, it's mentioned...." (Disingenuous, yes, but they tell me that's what happens when I get old.)Gladys J Cortez 03:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Barry

Hi RJ, I think the IP on the article may have forgot to log in, see the talk page? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Big Lebowski guy

Might be pertinent to know that he has already received a final warning for those edits, as well as an attack page which, unfortunately, I was not around to see in whatever glory it may well have had. Badger Drink (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rock

Thanks for that Rock, I just want to work away on the article without any fuss. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry a chara wrong talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of quote

Just to thank you for your recent revert in William Blake: See this link! Best regards --Cyfal (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Art punk. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusations

At the time of writing, that link linked to a specific diff in the history of a redirect. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, the redirect was deleted. To clarify, it was deleted as repeatedly recreated material. Now, I gave the user whom you speak of fair warning of the RFD discussion. On the surface, it looks like he didn't take any heed, but after someone posted in the RFD on August 6th as a delete, two days later the user in question recreated the redirect, although with spaces in-between the words. This too me seems way too suspicious, especially since I had a discussion with this user about the redirect that was RfD'd before it as RfD'd, and he then denies having ever created it(the new redirect) at all.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 23:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The original message was vague because I had assumed that he would remember the only instance he had in conversation with me, and because as said, at the time of writing, the link worked. I didn't expect it to be deleted so quickly, even though it is criterion for speedy deletion, even those articles tagged as such usually take a little while to be deleted. The was was deleted quite fast in regards to my past experiences with CSD. Second of all, I believed he would remember said conversation because it was something he felt strongly about.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 02:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, what precisely was the purpose of this?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 02:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

You should have to explain it because it concerns me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't about how this place operates. The fact is the thread title is my username, and points to my editor review, so what was the purpose of the comment. If it is of no concern, you shouldn't have any trouble explaining to me. Do you have reason why you're keeping such information from me?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

So I have strange notions about how a place operates? Do tell me, what is strange about wanting to know the purpose of a comment when one is the subject of said comment?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 05:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd side with Daedalus on this one. If you're talking about another editor behind his back he has every right to inquire why you're doing so, and common courtesy dictates that you should oblige him. Of course, you don't have to, but doing that just seems a bit... malicious, I guess. Anyway, this is your conversation to have, of course. I just felt I should weigh in. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 07:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

Could you give me the code for the Twin Peaks userbox and the ATF one? I can't find them anywhere but on your profile. Zazaban (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC) P.S. The Owls are not what they seem. Zazaban (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Anarchist Task Force. Zazaban (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from Meyer

Hi. Thanks for commenting on my note in the T.S. Eliot talk page.

You have an impressive collection of userboxes, a great diversity of interests and opinions. I can claim maybe 25% of the boxes myself, so I feel like a bit of a kindred spirit.

Science fiction writer? Have you published anything, or have anything on-line I could sample? -- Meyer (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(Regarding your response) I understand your desire to protect your privacy. Best of luck to you. -- Meyer (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mexican Revolution

I see you recently did at least one major edit removing material from Mexican Revolution. Was it deliberate on your part to leave three entire paragraphs on Hermila Galindo which, at a glance, appear to completely replicate the article on her? Seems an odd choice - she is worthy of note, but this seems to give her more space than some far major figures. I know you are also a very experienced editor, so I don't want to second-guess you. Have a look; if you agree with me, please do remove this, too. I suspect this was added recently by the same person who has been adding a lot of other information about women to the article (much of which I've reverted, too), but I didn't check. - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: New Weird America

Why should I have to source anything? Why are you the arbiter of what can be on that page? If you don't like it, tough shit. Prell (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bricolage & Popular Culture

May I ask why you deleted the popular culture section of bricolage, especially the MacGyver entry? Your deletion is here.

If you google MacGyver and bricolage/bricoleur, you'll see he is widely regarded as the paradigm of the bricoleur. I would very much like to add him back. I am less concerned with the video game entry. Thanks ---Nick (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

[Responding to your reply on my talk page] Great! I do have a bona fide academic paper describing MacGyver as a bricoleur, so I'll add it back in with the citation. Thanks. --Nick (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wind that shakes' Ref

Hi RJ, I think that what has been picked up is that the ref is aimed at the Kilmainham Gaol scenes as apposed to the in Cork (Anthony of the Desert (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)).

The Barley

Hi RJ, sorry for not getting back sooner, have been up to my arm pits in it lately, you may have noticed. I may have been mistaken on the talk page but I did honestly think it was just soapboxing. If I'm wrong I say it, but that was just my opinion? --Domer48_'fenian' 23:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for help with vandalism

Greetings RepublicanJacobite - could I request your intervention in reverting edits by User talk:4.255.51.233 who's been going round making date changes and other changes which she/he thinks might go unnoticed. I don't have time today to revert all the edits made. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for yours - I realise that there's not much point blocking this kind of user 'cos as likely as not they'll log in from a different whatchamallit, but as I know you use Twinkle, your reverts are more effective than mine (my PC is too old and short-of-memory for me to install such high-falutin' stuff!). Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mod article title

I totally agree that Mod (lifestyle) should be changed to Mod (subculture). The only reason I haven't made that change a long time ago is that it would lead to many redirects. I will support the name change if you go ahead with it. Since Mod (subculture) already exists and redirects to Mod (lifestyle), you will have to make a request to admins to make that change.Spylab (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)