User talk:Johnleemk/Archive3

The Bogrolls

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and AfD then instead. Thanks! -Parallel or Together ? 11:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Rock

Tumbling Dice on WP:FACYour concerns about the fair use picture have been addressed. I removed the live photograph and put in something better. Also, you were right about the Live section. It's a lot better now. In regards to your objection about length and comprehensiveness, I would like to note that "Dice" is not Imagine by John Lennon or Layla. It has no interesting story about it's inspiration and did not come to Jagger in a dream. The song's most notable point is it's status as a concert favorite. And that it kicks ass. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 06:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Australian invasion of ASEAN

Consensus vs community decision - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Impaled_Northern_Moonforest

Okay. Maybe I misunderstood what he word "consensus" means. I thought that consensus meant 100%. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFB

FAC comment

A random thought regarding some of your recent comments on User talk:GmaxwellBalles' Law: If enough isolated individuals pursue the same goal, the effect is indistinguishable from a conspiracy.

Seemed relevant.
→ Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 20:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfaction

Okay, let me tell you why I ask. (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction doesn't use all of it's references in the text. Those references are all web references. It seems like some kind of standard is the REF and NOTE tags which I think look awful (and I don't wanna have to learn. :P ) So, just frustrated that's all.

Paula Zahn reverted to your edit

Hardly Athletic F.C.Hi Johnleemk! Sorry to bother you. You've just closed the AfD on Hardly Athletic F.C. (thanks!) and I've just realised that I forgot to mention on the AfD that the article originally had a duplicate - Hardly athletic - that I crushed by redirecting it to Hardly Athletic F.C. at the same time as I put the other article up for deletion.

Of course, that redirection still exists, pointing at nowhere. Do I need to AfD it or <ignorance>is there a process for speedying dead redirects?</ignorance>.

Thanks for your help and apologies again for not listing it with the original AfD. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much again! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFD: List of Caucasian AmericansHi Johnleemk,

I am contacting you because I feel Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Caucasian_Americans was interpretted incorrectly. Here is my analysis of the 18 VFD and 7 votes to keep. There were also several votes to edit, as I did.

• Caerwine and Durova voted to delete the article under the premise that Americans of the Caucasus region should only be listed (which they were not at the beginning). However, this is not the traditional definition of Caucasion as per Whites in North America.
• mikka, Antandrus, Dentarthurdent, Calton, Tonywalton (the AFD nominator) and even my original vote were on the premise of WP:POINT. However, I took the initiative to heavily edit the article anyway.
• 147.70.242.21 voted and commented that the article only had 5 entries, therefore it must be deleted. This was before copious edits on my behalf.
• Haeleth and Andy Mabbett VFD with the clause only if the other "List of * Americans" were deleted.

The edits made to the article should negate the WP:POINT VFD. I had no bias in the editting of this article and I thought it was clearly encyclopedic. The VFD on the premise that the article only had 5 entries is also moot as I had over 100 entries added. Haeleth and Andy Mabett both had VFD that could have been interpretted as deletion but their context does not indicate so. There is also the business of a sock puppet voting in the AFD which is documented in the comments.

Thus I do not feel there was a consensus to delete. The majority of the VFD revolved around WP:POINT, article size and content direction were all negated by edits I made to the article over the course of the AFD.

Thank you,

HackJandy

• Thanks for notifying me of your concern over the article's deletion. While consensus is not a supermajority nor unanimity, it is not strictly decided by votes per se (something I've learnt from WP:FAC). I noted several delete votes, such as Turnstep's, that cite rational and reasonable reasons to delete the article, and I took this into account instead of blindly counting (and discounting) votes. I do not feel there was sockpuppetry going on - sockpuppeting by definition has one user pretending to be many. Anon votes are not sockpuppeting, but they are discounted nevertheless. If you feel my deletion of the article was reasonable, feel free to bring it up on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Johnleemk | Talk 09:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I can understand some of Turnstep's position, I think some of his points were very off base. I do not mean to attack his opinion, but I think of his 5 bullets:

• 1.) Even if we all descended from Africans, we are politically and culturally separated by thousands of years of history.
• 2.) Races are not mutually exclusive. I am Chinese and I am British - I do not need to be one or the other.
• 3.) This point is pure lunacy - WP only keeps track of those noteable.
• 4.) I am not sure what point he is trying to make up here - having a list of German Americans would be a partial list of Caucasian Americans. It is implied that a list of Swedish Americans (for instance) only applies to Swedish Americans that are noteable.
• 5.) This point merely iriterates point 1.).

I think that there was some good debate in general about the topic, but the majority of the VFD were before the major edits or under the (non-english speaking european) presumption that Caucasian means something different than what the majority of North America considers it to mean. Turnstep's points were actually the weakest ones I saw in the AFD -- I still think the WP:POINT was reason this article should have been deleted. On the other hand, I think my edits to this article may have negated WP:POINT which is why I raise issue.

I would actually be interested in submitting this to the deletion review, but I am fairly new to WP and I am not really sure how to do so. Do I just edit the AFD onto the page? Or is there a specific tag I need to add like AFD?

HJ

Petals around the rose and your user page

Cantemireşti

Many thanks.Dahn 09:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in reverting vandalism

lol thanks

Thanks!

Deconstruction

You are, of course, completely right, sorry for not discussing it, the intro to this article, however, reads as pure gibberish. --Jahsonic 19:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankable star

Los Wages

Edits on Darth Vader

Thank you for the welcome! No, you're the first.  :) DrKC9N 15:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called bitter fighting.Mr. Sauchny (sp?), a newcomer, was badgering me contstantly over a link I had on Template:Morning Musume for a mash-up album of that band's material, refusing to accept any answer I gave him, using bad faith while falsely accusing me of doing the same thing, and talking down to me despite his relative inexperience, "informing" me of policys I was already well aware of.

I made no delibrate personal attacks against him/her/it (the complaintant has yet to expend even a fraction of the energy he used to badger me in creating his user page, so I don't know or care what gender he/she is at this point).

Against my better judgement, I removed the link that he challenged. I am more than prepared to put it back at some point in the future, quite frankly, because I am not about to let myself get pushed around any further by an arrogant newbie.

For the record, I am also prepared to file a complaint against him/her/it if said user harasses me again in the future.

I have been a loyal participant on Wikipedia for about a year, starting with a profile on Whiteberry that I had composed before I knew I could register on this service. Never before have I had anyone harass or badger me in this manner. -- Cjmarsicano 16:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rv commentThat was an accident.

That message is usually directed, semi-facetiously, at anonymous vandals. I use Mozilla Firefox on a Mac OS X Powerbook when I do anything online. When I was reverting the complaintant's deletion, I was at work and I had started to type "rv" only when the rest of the usual vandal-salute sentence up. Before I could delete it, my attention had been diverted at work and in the process the rest of the sentence ended up there. I thought nothing else of it until the compaintant brought it up, and I apologized for the error at my next immediate opportunity. The complaintant did not seem in retrospect to accept the apology and may have used the unfortunate error as an excuse to further badger and harass me over the existence of the link in the template.

-- Cjmarsicano 16:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I had done that subpage for my own amusement and as parody of the situation, and had added a disclaimer stating that it was such before I recieved your latest message. I'll rename the page to something funnier. -- Cjmarsicano 17:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Cjmarsicano 17:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response to a few thingsI noticed the apology and accepted it, but I felt that his use of that edit summary in the first place (even though the one towards me was a mistake) violates the official policy of No personal attacks. His response to this was that he will continue doing it. [1]

The parody excuse that currently is at the top of his user subpage that's still insulting me was added after I filed a request for mediation. Just like he conceded the link on the template after I made a Wikiquette alert, he grudgingly concedes or amends his statements after he is reported.

The discussion isn't properly archived at the subpage that the user has created. Among all the stuff he deleted from his user page, a few things didn't make it to his archive, particularly where I have tried to reason with him. [2], [3]

If you want, I can compile a list of diffs that show the full picture of the discussion that happened across multiple pages.

Re: I'm glad to see something of an agreement on the article has appeared- he states on his subpage that he's simply going to re-add it later. --Sanchny 17:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

?!?As you can see, the complaintant apparently has nothing better to do than continue his campaign, which I still see as out and out harassment. The complaintant is trying to rewrite history to make himself look like a hero and me look like an asshole. A check of his user contributions reveals that he has concentrated not on normal Wiki contributions (as I have managed to have done during the past two days) but on trying to... well, quite frankly, I don't know what the hell this person wants anymore and I don't care.

I have the right to edit my user talk pages as I see fit and feel that I do not have to let an outsider dictate what I can do with them.

I no longer wish to deal with the complaintant in any way, shape or form because in my eyes, he/she is nothing more than an attention whore. I am trying to be a rational human being and walk away from a matter that he/she exacerbated. This edit war started with him/her, not with me. -- Cjmarsicano 18:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the above...his campaign, which I still see as out and out harassment.

Despite being told by an admin that I don't think Sanchny could really be said to have harassed you. [4] If he really thinks I'm harrassing him, why won't he go through the proper channels for it?

The complaintant is trying to rewrite history to make himself look like a hero and me look like an asshole.

The history is very clear in the history pages.

I have the right to edit my user talk pages as I see fit...

User pages are still bound by Wikipedia guidelines. Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere.

A check of his user contributions...

My contributions to the rest of Wikipedia have nothing to do with this, thanks.

I no longer wish to deal with him and am trying to walk away from a matter that he/she exacerbated.

I walked away from the matter, but you exacerbated it by creating this page. --Sanchny 18:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the baloney aboveThe history is very clear in the history pages.

I guess the holocaust never happened either, didn't it? Who do you think you're fooling? Not me.

My contributions to the rest of Wikipedia have nothing to do with this, thanks.

Oh yes they do. While I've been continuing to edit normally, you've continuted to cause or attempt to cause trouble.

If he really thinks I'm harrassing him, why won't he go through the proper channels for it?

Watch what you wish for.

I walked away from the matter, but you exacerbated it by creating this page.

Apparently you can't take a joke. I never expected the page to be found (it was hidden, which I admit to) by the complantant, which now suggests to me that I am being cyberstalked. -- Cjmarsicano 18:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence of events

Walking away

All it will take for me to walk away and drop everything is for Cjmarsicano to remove the personal attacks he has made against me on this page. --Sanchny 14:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still see those comments ("dumb motherfucker", a "little smartass", a "no-life-having piece of shit", and a "little scumbag") as very blatant personal attacks, which I understand are not allowed by an official policy. The policy states that there is no excuse for them. No? --Sanchny 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an official Wikipedia policy, and he is clearly violating it. What's the point of having an official policy if we're told to ignore the situation when it's violated? I will continue responding to it properly. Like I said above, I will drop everything and walk away when he removes the personal attacks and stops violating that policy.

Thanks for your time and help. --Sanchny 15:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove them on the following conditions: that Mr. Sachny removes his own subpage, and that he agrees not to monitor the Morning Musume template or any of my other Wikipedia contributions. --Cjmarsicano 15:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

Since we both agree and this is solved, can we also agree to remove both of our requests for mediation? --Sanchny 16:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

how do you protect a page from vandalism if you are not an administrator? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 220.247.253.61 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_Soza_2 redirect

I see his name in the article so that seems fine. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pebbles_For_People_Foundation

I did check and they were sock puppets, so that's fine then. I also checked the site and its now a 404 does not exist, so it was obviously a hoax. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Friday_Harbor_High_School

Please read Wikipedia:Consensus and note this excerpt, "two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion WP:AFD". 80% is only for RFA votes. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that you've been deleting articles that were 6/5, yet putting "no consensus" when it was 10/4 in favour of keep. You are not applying the same rules for deletion as you are for keeping. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. That is as good as saying "unless you're the closer, your opinion doesn't matter". Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey High School Hockey

listing so much individual all-state stuff is totally irrelevant and makes the article way long. I'm just taking out gratuitous all-state listings and keeping truly historical stuff. this is kind of my area of expertise. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Jyardley (talk • contribs)

The Buffalo Skull of Diligence

Kmart & Kmart Corporation

Blanking an article

I had created that article, which was flagged as for deletion, so I mistakenly thought that would delete it. Guess I'll leave it to a mod :D —the preceding unsigned comment is by Alarchy (talk • contribs)

What's with "test" warning?

Edits

I have added links to 3 different sites and none are commercial.

But your complaint that I shouldn't only be adding eternal links to all the pages I read is valid.

I will read more about protocols here and how to contribute. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 209.5.241.161 (talk • contribs)

Succession of states theory

You best remember that wikipedia is an international endeavor and your particular dialect of English and associated Christian-derived norms are not necessarily consistent with others. My fucking language is ordinary to me--we don't have wikipedia indian english now do we? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs)

You are way to overzealous. Grow up kid. Just cus you don't know a few biblical words here and there doesn't mean that they're not used by English speakers round the world. Use fucking google and google wikipedia for any word you think is offensive. It's around more than you think. And I didn't put it in the text, only that's the way I talk. And by the way, you also didn't read the article or the comments carefully. You're not helping with Wikipedia's current controversy, I mean, just another example of some overzealous, uninformed sysop with power beyond his ability to edit. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs)

Talk:Book of Job (moved from main user page)

RFC against KDRGibby

Vandalism

Hi, sorry to bother you, I'm one of the network admins at a school - it seems one of our pupils has been vandalising Wikipedia pages (as we see "please stop" messages on the anonymous login home screen). If you could provide me with the exact times this has occurred I should hopefully be able to track down exactly who is responsible using our proxy logs and put a stop to it. Thanks.

I *think* our proxy is being seen by you as 217.23.225.120, but I'm afraid I can't be sure - our internet traffic goes through several layers upstream of us.  :( Your messages to this addy were on 9 Dec at 10.31 and 10.32 if that helps at all. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 217.23.225.121 (talk • contribs)

MoveapagePlease moveapage

• Talk:Succession of states theory — Succession of states theory → succession of states – succession of states is the much more common and accurate way to refer to succession of states... not really a theory either Moveapage 10:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- This is a simple move. I'd do it, but apparently I'm too new. See the following sets of results from Google [5] (over 10,000 hits) versus [6] (over 1,000 hits, top hits are wikipedia and wikipedia "syndicators").

62.6.139.10

I would think yes... Refdoc 17:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article 153

BlockHey - I am Doktorbuk, using lovely trusty old AOL, and I appear to have been blocked. I was trying to continue my edits to, amongst others, United Kingdom general election, 2009/10 and connected others, but find 195.93.21.33 has been blocked for vandalism.

I know the problems Wiki has with vandals, and I have been trying to root them out. Saying that, I am only here for good - I know the block was made for genuine reasons, so could you tell me when this block is expiring in case I can get back editing, or if possible could you reverse the block in this instance?

I am going to have to press "edit" every time I log in I think !! =D Many thanks, doktorb 19:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you Johnleemk for your welcoming message to me, and for saving my time by the links you provided. I'm just getting started here with my shy little steps but would love to contribute a lot more and be called a Wikipedian like you. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Unbreakable MJ (talk • contribs)

The West Wing is now FA

Geoff

Two of the delete votes cited the article as vanity and "nn-bio". However, it was neither, as you yourself pointed out. So, seeing as AfD is emphatically not a vote, I decided to close it as a keep. I have also substantially rewritten the article and chucked out everything that the AfD was voting on (so essentially it's the same as deleting it, except that the stuff is still in the history) and moved it to Geoffrey. Johnleemk | Talk 12:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply but you don't seem to answer my questions: why did you close to keep when there were (yes of course ignoring the irrelevant votes you mention, at least one applied to a much earlier article) still twice as many votes to delete as to keep, and what value does (or did) the article have? However, I suppose this is now academic, since having first kept the article you have now effectively deleted it by changing it to it to a redirect to Geoffrey. While I agree with that action, it does seem like a reversal of your decision to keep the article in the face of a two-to-one consensus to delete. First you imposed your opinion without explanation, then you effectively changed your mind on the basis of a message from me. So while I think you've done the right thing, I do respectfully suggest you should put a little more thought (and transparency) into the matter of closing AfD discussions. Incidentally, since you mention the page [[7]], I don't understand why I can't see any of the previous edits there, before your edit changing it to a redirect page. Am I missing something? Have they been deleted, and if so why? That would mean no-one could see whether there was anything worth keeping in the old Jeff article or not. Thanks again, Flapdragon 12:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the new article was moved to Geoffrey, where the original page history can be found. And while I agree that the AfD process should be more transparent, the fact that it is not a vote means there will always be subjectivity involved in interpreting consensus/community decision. Depending on how the discussion goes, different or even the same admins can make different decisions in different debates with the same number of "votes". So my interpretation of consensus in this case was "no consensus; default to keep". I know that's a bit shady, but I think for many people (or at least for me), like the famous US Supreme Court justice who discussed profanity, "I know it when I see it". Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

By "transparent", I wasn't referring to the AfD process itself, but to your actions in it. I fully accept that AfD is not a simple vote and that there will be some subjectivity involved, but I still don't see how a two-to-one majority in favour of deletion could possibly be interpreted as a consensus to keep, when it was in fact a consensus to delete. It looks as if you just imposed your own opinion -- but without explaining why you were doing something so strange and undemocratic. I thought at first it must be a simple mistake. Now you say it was "no consensus [really?]; default to keep". But you didn't say that at the time, or explain any of this until asked -- that's what I mean by transparency: being clear and upfront about what you are doing, and taking responsibility for your decisions. If people get the idea administrators just go around making whatever arbitrary decisions they feel like, the process will lose all credibility. There will certainly be no point in voting on AfDs, if the vote has no bearing on the result. Best wishes, Flapdragon 13:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnleemk/Archive3&oldid=1088031799"