User talk:J.smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please sign your message with ~~~~ and place new messages at the bottom of the page. Thanks!

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5

[edit] Spam whitelist

I think I'm going to drop a note on Meta about this and ask someone to be e-mailed about it. It's only a matter of time before someone tries this... Grand master ka 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That'll be better than what I was going to do. Thanks! Grand master ka 22:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WHITELIST

Hey J.smith, I suggest that we not modify the title, but instead use the templates {{done}} ( Done) and {{not done}} ( Not done). This will allow existing links to titles (such as link#section to not be broken. By the way, great idea on trying to knock this one down... I've been recently the guy who has been adding alot of these on to the blacklist... so if you see me say something, but not accept and or decline something, thats because I likely added the link on the blacklist to start with... and I don't want to have any issues with conflict of interest. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I did manage to bribe another editor into archiving what has been done ;). —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaving a bunch of comments without saying they are done or not, I'm leaving that up to someone else. ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Ah, ok. Thats cool. further information is always useful.

I guess I can use the {{done}}/{{not done}} from now on. I was just making things up as I went along. :) Good point about the sections... I was borrowing an idea from WP:AN/3RR. Now that it's a much more reasonable size it's not really that important. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] artnet.de link whitelisted

Thanks for that - great work you're doing there Johnbod 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online video game rental

You were the deleting admin for online video game rental (log), which appears to be in the process of being re-created (whether intentionally or not I can't yet tell). Just thought it might be something you'd want to know about. - David Oberst 04:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serafin blocked

Is Serafin blocked from editing ? --Lysy^talk 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube

Hi J.smith. Just saw your message in Talk:4′33″#YouTube_links regarding YouTube videos. There's a very interesting video of 4′33″, performed by the BBC Symphony Orchestra, which was I broadcasted, and I think offered as Real Player download at the time. What's Wikipedia stance on these kind of clips? The video is in here Cheers. AxiomShell 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SilentHunterIIIbox.jpg

Image:SilentHunterIIIbox.jpg is replaceable by a more free image. Granted, it could never be freely licensed under the GFDL, a CC license, etc. because the art itself is copyrighted, but it could be replaced with a non-promotional image. Please consider putting the tag back in. --Iamunknown 00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam Whitelist

Hi, you added two of Voltaire's blog entries (on MySpace) to the whitelist for me, so I have just come to say thanks. However, I am not great with how URLs work, and I am not a MySpace user, and you picked me up on adding a 'userID' or something to the URL. Basically, what I am asking is, would it be possible to put his whole blog on the whitelist, or would I have to request individual unblocks every time I want to use an entry as a source? Thanks. J Milburn 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the myspace ID is your personal number. I learned that the hard way when trying to view the link you sent. No problems.

Well, MySpace has a retarded linking system. I can't just whitelist one blog without whitelisting every blog on myspace. So yeah... just keep sending the requests over. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, will do! J Milburn 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JimmyTrump79: Broken promise?

Hey, I think JimmyTrump79 is editing anonymously to avoid a re-block. Check out Special:Contributions/68.42.62.185; that user is adding the same attendance info that JT had been adding repeatedly. I thought you and I should discuss it before we take any action, but I think a re-block of JT is in order here, since he has gone right back to the behavior that got him blocked in the first place. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He did it again, twice today. I've reblocked JimmyTrump79, as it seems obvious to me that it's him (it would be a strange coincidence for a vandal to show up and make the same edits right now, no?), but I'm listing here to keep you in the loop. Let me know if you disagree. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you keeping me in the loop on this. I haven't had a chance to review their edits so I don't have any objections yet. However, the way you describe it, it sounds fairly rock solid. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

WikiMan53 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.

[edit] March Paranormal Project Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Paranormal WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. InShaneee 05:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt AfD #13

Hi J.S. - I was cleaning up the Daniel Brandt AfD #13 and noticed that the reasoning you provided does not include a vote. You may wish to add a Keep vote. -- Jreferee 01:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the wikipedia AFD. It's not a vote, It's a forum to share opinions and build consensus. I have shared my opinion and have chosen not to sum it up in one word. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katana

Its really hard to read Japanese upside down. Why are did you display the picture of the Japanese writing upside down?

The one on the right hand-side the first three characters (from the bottom up) are: Thousand-Autumn-Rain

The fourth character is illegible as it is punched out with a whole.

Most of the rest seems to be names of people. Takada, Fujiwara are names that I can read. Its not like it says anything in Japanese (like a sentence or a poem), as its all chinese characters.

You should ask someone who is familiar with antique Japanese art in general or old Japanese swords in particular. Sorry I am not of much help. Naerhu 14:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the pictures were up-side-down until someone pointed it out. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfAB

Thanks for your vote of support. I'm really at a loss as to what to do here; I really don't have many diffs to cite as to my actions, and honestly, I don't want to make this an indictment of Worldtraveler if I don't have to, either. I've never been in this sort of situation in my almost two years here, and I must say that I am quite frustrated. At the time of this writing, two of three Arbitrators have voted to accept, so Arbitration seems inevitable.

I really don't want to do this, but I'm really afraid of the alternative more. Should I be unable to edit following this, or should I simply feel that leaving the site be the right thing to do, is there any way you might be willing to take up the monthly maintenance of WP:PARA? I'm sorry to impose, and I hope this is just paranoia, but I do feel it would be best if I prepared for just such an eventuality. --InShaneee 01:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you, that means a lot. As I said, there's no need for you to worry about that right now, but regardless, I was planning to put up an 'Administration' page detailing the monthly maintenance chores and how to go about them, anyway. --InShaneee 01:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/InShaneee/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel Bryant 23:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a lot!

Thanks for the help.--Nirajrm ^{talk ||| sign plz!} 14:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To J.smith for diligence in the tireless battle against Spam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 17:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 17:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow! Thank you much! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

Just wanted to say a thanks for commenting on my Rfa, and I just wanted to say that I didn't comment on my Rfa with regards to your comments because I didn't feel it was right to justify my actions, but since its over now - I'll comment directly to you. The copyvio concerns were serious, and they were only highlighted to me in the Rfa, I thought because I had attempted to source the copyvio's in, it was OK and although I acted in good faith, I now realise that this was wrong and I'm so sorry for what happened, everythings sorted now, I've gone right through my contribs and there have been no other ones. Please be assured that these actions will never occur again and I promise I won't abuse the tools. I hope that we can put this behind us now, and work together in the future. Cheers again Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations)

There was an edit war at Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations). That's why I protected. All pages you fully protect are default protected indefinitely, and are unprotected once the edit war is over, or when someone requests and provides valid reasons for doing so. Thought you might want to know, because I was a bit confused when you gave a list of situations when to apply full protection indefinitely. Nishkid 64 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wikipedian64

Unblock him if you like, I don't mind. I suspect he's learned his lesson now. I wouldn't have minded him having the sockpuppet (I have one) but if you read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Sockpuppets you will see why I blocked the sockpuppet. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CN

To give a quick answer to the unique purpose of the board, no other venue is a readily accessible place for discussing and archiving community bans. Try hunting through the WP:AN and WP:ANI archives to cite some particular community ban discussion. It's maddening. When WP:CEM gets off the ground WP:CN will have more to do, but at present it serves its purpose nicely. In a broader sense it can serve as a location for community decision making in situations where no better venue exists. Not every user knows what those options are, so sometimes it acts as a point of referral. The board regulars have been diligent about referring mistakenly posted threads to WP:RFC and other venues. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always wondered why WP:RFC couldn't serve purpose of discussing community bans... The discussions always end up being massive. *shrug* but whatever.. if people find it works then I'm not gonna rise a stink over it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sandbox page in mainspace

I've moved your "subpage" of Electronic voice phenomenon to User:J.smith/Electronic voice phenomenon/Temp, since the article space doesn't support subpages any more, and to avoid it showing up in special:uncategorizedpages, and such like. Alai 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the Li Hongzhi talk page

You said:

Please mark Talk:Li_Hongzhi/Edit_request_2007-02-14 as an archive. The GFDL requires that we keep an detailed history for any edit we make. ---J.S

Agreed, but I'm not sure if I should do that. Also if I should do that ... how can I do it :) ? --HappyInGeneral 09:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Critical Material from Li Hongzhi page

Mr. Smith: I wanted you to know I've just done a posting on the Falun Gong Arbitration Evidence page concerning a deletion you did on the Li Hongzhi page at the request of Happy in General. [1] Specifically, I have asked the Arbitrators to make a ruling on the deleted sentence concerning Li's award and honors. The sentence is based on reputable published sources and IMHO should be allowed to stand, since all it does is report that there is some debate about the significance of these awards and honors. Certainly there is no libelous content in that sentence. I'm doing this cross-post because I am not sure whether you are aware of the evidence page for this arbitration case. --Tomananda 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi J. Smith

I just noticed that you have made major changes based on the request of one editor, Happyingeneral. This edit is impropriate in so many ways. First of all, other editors on this page have not been informed about this version. Secondly, there is a mediator on Falun Gong related pages, your edit bypassed him. Third, there is an arbitration case open for the edit conflicts on Falun Gong related pages. Lastly, some of the material you deleted is perfectly appropriate. For all of these reasons please undo the changes you made and let the conflicts be solved through the proper channels. Thanks, --Samuel Luo 06:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This stuff was only brought to my attention recently by Samuel. Although I am not an anti-FG person, I find it worrying that you'd approve an edit request on which nobody else made a single comment. Moreover, a biography is aimed at being specifically about the person and should not be set at a criticism-free level. Sure, there shouldn't be libel or slander, and the page does need modifying, but not in the way HiG has suggested. Procedure also matters as much as content, as I'm sure you're well aware of.

I.E. Let the consultations and debates take place before editing unilaterally. After all, that's what the pro-FG side has been ordering the anti-FG side to do (and based their entire ArbCom case on) so the least that could be done is 'vice versa'. Jsw663 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well consider this[2], the change of the page was done at 16 March and at 14 February, I added the following:

I read both the Li Hongzhi page and the Biographies of living person policy and I notice several things that are not in accordance with this policy on the Li Hongzhi page, so I started making a draft here: Talk:Li_Hongzhi/Edit_request_2007-02-14.

This shows that there was no communication for more then a month. I would ask that since the page is protected the proper channel is to provide clear short diffs with the required changes, just like when making a draft with all the changes that you want to make to that page. Also have it public and give it enough time for discussion. This way there is the possibility to discuss and get consensus on the changes. Thank You. --HappyInGeneral

Umm I'm confused. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Li Hongzhi and Mediation

Wow, this is awkward. I am fairly sure we have interacted outside of this mediation. However, the mediation is currently on hold due to the Arbitration Committee proceedings.

Perhaps, if mediation continues after the ArbCom reaches a decision, and you are still involved, I can find another mediator to handle the Li Hongzhi part of the dispute. Knowing you, and therefore liking you a bit more, I am afraid I could not be neutral whilst you are involved. : )

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the warm sentiment. :) I'm not really involved in the dispute other then stumbling into it via an edit-request, so no worries. I guess that does make me involved... dammit! hehe... All I'm trying to do is offer a structured forum where the editors can discuss the topic without the urge to stray into personal issues. I hope it works! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Arbitration will probably take awhile, so I guess we'll see where the chips fall. : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blacklist touregypt

An FYI - Looks like you forgot the remove this site when you stated on the talk page that you were going to remove it. I was looking for the diff so I could mark the white-list request closed. :) J.smith 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Err, I did See http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagle_101&diff=548359&oldid=548356 . It works for me. Are you sure that you waited long enough before re-adding the site? The blacklist does take some time to propagate. Eagle 101 06:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. if there are problems, let me know :)

Oh, I see. I was looking at \btouregypt\.net and not \btour-egypt\.net. Threw me off. Thanks for the clarification! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bowiechick talk page

I wasn't completely sure how to handle notices added to discussions, but I figured someone would let me know if I did it wrong. Thanks. However, I also wasn't clear what you intended by the changes (that link to the history), so I changed it to a normal archive link, and archived the original linklist text (if it was intended as "assigning homework", I'm not sure if that was efficient). At some point, if that linklist project becomes active again, it might be better to have a tag to display a box that can be inserted instead of posting comments. Thanks again. x 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV overturn

Responded on my talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inquiry regarding deleted article (MARC_Research)

Greetings. I’m hoping you can help me with some information. Recently, an article about M/A/R/C Research (which was started by user Dscannon), was tagged for speedy deletion as described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dscannon . The URL for the original article prior to deletion was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_research
Dscannon is no longer associated with the organization.

We would like to take whatever steps necessary to reinstate the article and resolve any issues that resulted in its being tagged for deletion.

What would you recommend? Should we start over, or start with the content Dscannon provided and attempt to resolve any issues that resulted in its deletion?

Any insight you can provide would be most helpful.

Thanks for your time and attention. Tfsummers 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the original article (Formerly found at M/A/R/C Research was that the article was written as a way to promote the business. As an encyclopedia we try to cover all topics from a "neutral" point of view. To that end we largely prohibit editors who have a "conflict of interests" from creating article.

How do we resolve this issue with your company having an article on wikipedia? Well, there are a few ways you can go about doing this. One... you could wait until an uninvolved editor makes a new article. A quicker option would be to create an article yourself and request a peer-review of the article and asking an unbiased wikipedian to post the article for you.

If you wish to create the article yourself, I can point you to the policies and standards that apply.

Thanks for understanding,

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Warrington map... wrong?

I've replied to your message on Talk:Warrington. but I reproduce it here for your convenience:

If you mean the map on the article whose talk page this is, then I don't see any problem with it. It is a unitary authority abutting the northern boundary of the shire county of Cheshire, and that is where it is shown on the map. However, if one could see the actual message in which the complaint was made, perhaps my own lingering bewilderment over the nature of this complaint could be clarified.

DDStretch (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The email was only two lines and I gave you all the information It contained. Sorry I don't have any more information to clarify the request and thank you for verifying the accuracy for me. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS

Which ticket, please? I am an OTRS newbie, forever losing things. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/2E/s/User_talk%7EJ.smith_6ef6.html"