User talk:Jerry/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jerry (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email)

EditNavigation bar

Home

About me

My Talk

Edit Count

Editor Index

Sandbox

Userboxes

Tasks

email me

My Web Page

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Welcome, Jerry/Archive 1!

--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 19:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Stroy

Thank you for experimenting with the page Stroy on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Alan Au 07:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jerry, the encyclopaedia gets hundreds of articles on bands and related music items, but most are deleted on sight as not sufficiently notable for a global enc. It is up to the editor to show notability, for example through commercial recordings etc.

Please note that you can sign your messages using four tildes ~~~~ jimfbleak 07:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages

Howdy - Please don't remove others' comments from talk pages as you did at Talk:Pop-Tarts. Even if an issue has been resolved, the comments should stay. Thanks! -SCEhardT 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for joining Wikipedia, Jerry lavoie

Hi, I'm Xiong Chiamiov, another user at Wikipedia. If you ever need some help, please drop a message on my talk page (User_talk:Xiong Chiamiov). If you're wondering how to edit a page, going to Wikipedia:How to edit a page may be useful. Below are some tips which many come in handy sometime:

• When writing a comment or sending a message, adding ~~~~ on the end will add your signature, as well as the current time and date. Your signature can be changed by going to Special:Preferences, or by clicking "my preferences" in the top right.
• If you want to test that you can really edit pages, you may wish to go to Wikipedia:Sandbox, and you can add whatever you want! However, please do not make edits to Wikipedia articles with the intention of ruining them, as such edits are considered to be Vandalism.

Remember, if you need help, there are loads of places you can get it:

• You can post a message on my talk page, (User talk:Xiong Chiamiov), and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.
• You can add {{helpme}} to this page, and another user will try to help
• Or, you can go to Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.

Thanks again for coming to Wikipedia, and I look forward to seeing your contributions. And remember, Be bold in updating pages! -- Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:NavyNuke.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NavyNuke.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot flags images properly licensed with GFDL(self)

I uploaded [[Image:NavyNuke.jpg]] and OrphanBot flagged it as unlicensed.

I properly described that I created the image myself using mspaint.exe and stated that I release it to public domain under GFDL. I also selected GFDL-self in the license selection box when I uploaded the file. The image page displays the GFDL banner prominently, and yet OrphanBot still flagged it as innappropriate.

Please correct the bug in your bot. Wikipedia is not the place to test your scripting skills; your bot has created more work for me, and I do not like it. Jerry lavoie 02:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

When you uploaded the image, you tagged it first as PD-USGov, which doesn't specify the source. You then re-tagged it as GFDL, which again does not specify the source. Both times, the bot correctly identified the image as being unsourced. --Carnildo 22:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, After I uploaded the first image, which was created by the US Navy, and your bot warned me, I replaced the image with one I created myself. Your bot warned me again. In my opinion, the use of bots by wikiadmins to ensure format and content compliance with 'standards' destroys the spirit of 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit'. A human performing due diligence when reviewing the image I uploaded would have undoubtedly found the answer to "who created the image", by reading the upload comments. I have no respect for the unreasonable use of a computer program to perform a task intended for humans. --Jerry lavoie 22:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

Hi, please stop massadding clean up tags. Redlinks don't mean explicitly that the links are broken, but generally that articles do not exist to them yet. You might also wish to read Wikipedia:Redlinks concerning this. Greetings and have a happy new year. ~~ Phoe _talk 17:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC) ~~

Thank-you.Jerry lavoie 17:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Brawl of the Wild

I have removed your {{prod}} from Brawl of the Wild, added two sources, removed unsourced information/woofing, and turned it into a good stub. Thank you for informing me of the prod. --BigDT 00:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent salvage of the article. I went to it, and I like it. I agree it should not be deleted now. Also, I learned a new term woofing from your reply, which I really enjoy. Long live Wikipedia! Jerry lavoie 04:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Coppa Ciano.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Coppa Ciano.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jerry lavoie! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 17:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Round Earth

Thanks for your message. It is appreciated you let me know. Its one of my 'to do' projects from a long time ago to wikify. unfortunately other things get in the way. SatuSuro 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for the reply. I look forward to seeing the improved article. Jerry lavoie 02:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

False Editing

May you tell me why you edited my hockey contribution, which was factual, cited, and of interest? Give a reason before you pull crap like that. - TkTech 01:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Tktech (talk • contribs • count)

Road hockey

In response to your message on my Talk Page:

==False Editing==

May you tell me why you edited my hockey contribution, which was factual, cited, and of interest? Give a reason before you pull crap like that. - TkTech 01:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The content I removed was:

By law, street hockey is illegal in Canada, and numerous charges have been laid. Not one has yet been convicted, most likely to the fact that as reported in CNN news reports, a poll showed 80% of all Canadian judges played the sport at one time.

The reason I removed it was that it seemed to me that it was not legitimate content (I assumed it was article vandalism). Perhaps I was wrong; thank-you for bringing that to my attention. Please understand, that I had only the best of intentions, however, and you might want to review Wikipedia Policy 'assume good faith', before leaving so antagonistic a message for another editor.

Suggestions for improvement of the content you added:

• State whether it is a Provincial law or Federal law, whether a statute or regulation, and Cite the actual proper legal reference (usually a formatted numerical sequence, eg. 1980-81-82-83, c. 111, Sch. I “1”.)
• Use the verbiage of the actual law, not "street hockey is illegal in Canada".
• The phrase numerous charges have been laid is not proper legal terminology. Cite a number or eschelon (eg. 'hundreds', or 'thousands',) and provide a reference to back it.
• Not one has yet been convicted is not proper grammar. Instead, perhaps, say "Nobody has yet been convicted" or "Not one of the charges has been upheld to conviction."
• most likely to the fact is an incomplete idea. You might have meant to start a new sentence here, like "The reason for this is most likely..." But even this is problematic, because without a citation to a verifiable source, this has the tone of being your own research, which is not allowed.
• You cited CNN, a poll they conducted, and the results of that poll. You should include a link to the archived article, the actual name of the poll, and the date it was conducted/ reported.
• the phrase "of all Canadian judges played the sport at one time" seems to indicate that 80% of the judges got together and played at the SAME TIME. I am sure you meant that each judge has previously played. If you use the actual verbiage of the CNN poll, you may find the best way to phrase this.

I suggest you look over my comments, and review the article. I will keep it in my watchlist, and if you can improve it within a week or so, I will leave it alone. If it does not significantly improve in this time, I may remove this content again. I have moved a copy of this dialogue to the article talk page, and encourage you to keep any and all further discussion about this article there so other editors interested in the article may be able to review and comment. Jerry lavoie 05:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

High School userbox

Hi Jerry. My bot actually did not add any userboxes to your page, it simply bypassed a userbox redirect. Your userpage already had a {{user hs}} userbox. —Mets501 (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thanks. Jerry lavoie 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

About my edit

I felt that the particular edit made by the anon, was consistent with POV, ad referencing the wikipedia and faulty bio. _→AzaToth 17:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Righto, my bad. Jerry lavoie 17:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Tonbridge School

Apology accepted - my comment was added in all seriousness and is entirely true (confirmed by B. Orchard in his 1991 history of the school). Personally (and I am an alumnus of the school myself) I think such social engineering extremely distasteful and morally indefensible, but that seems to me all the more reason why mention should be made of it. It is important for people to know the ugly side, as well as the good side, of the modern British Public School.

This unsigned comment was left by Tickleschuckles 14:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tickleschuckles (talk • contribs • count)

Vandalism Patrol

Mr Lavoie I noticed that you cleaned up the Cathedral High School (Indianapolis) page. Apart from deleting vandalism, you did actually erase a good portion of valid information posted by our alumnus. Please don't be so liberal and generous in your classifications of vandalism.

This unsigned comment was left by an anonymous user 23:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

68.58.14.215 (talk • contribs • count)

Please sign your posts. As I noted in my edit summary, the article was a real mess; it had been vandalized by several people with good edits in-between. I was unable to determine which information was good and which was bad, since I am not a subject matter expert on your school. So I reverted the article to the last version which clearly had no vandalism. One good thing about wikimedia is that all previous versions are saved, and easily viewable in the history pane, so it should not be too difficult for someone knowledgeable of the school to reinsert the correct information. Please understand that as a member of the Recent Changes patrol, I had only the best of intentions; and the article as it was before I reverted it, was defamatory to your school, and an embarassment to Wikipedia. I hope you understand that I believe in this case I did the right thing, and I believe I would do it the same way in the future.

Jerry lavoie 00:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Siobhan Hansa

(copied from User talk:Fred Bauder) Please review User:Siobhan_Hansa's user pages. I have had complaints from a user who feels his reverts and associated comments have been heavy-handed, and his user pages are threatening and 'over-the-top' per my interpretation of WP:CIVIL Jerry lavoie 23:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Siobhan Hansa (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). He's out playing on the freeway. Fred Bauder 00:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

However, note that he had not edited since October, 2006. Fred Bauder 00:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Two monikers used User:SiobhanHansa is active now.

Jerry lavoie 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette poster change.

I'm sorry, I accidently removed your picture and left it like that because I found the real movie cover on Amazon.com and I didnt know how to get the movie cover on. Go to Amazon.com and retrieve the movie DVD cover if you want! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.152.122.65 (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Actually, the picture that is there is already the right one. Look on amazon.com (since you referenced it), and you will see that the Theatrical Release Lobby Poster is different than the DVD cover. Niether one is better than the other for illustrating this article, so I believe it should remain as it is now. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 03:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Borealis Exploration

May I suggest you look into the pages you tag as speedy? Borealis Exploration has invented what looks like breakthrough power technology... i'm sure you didn't know that. Fresheneesz 22:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asserted significance (the efficiency thing) and sourced it. A7 no longer holds. I'll remove the speedy notices. Feel free to suggest it at AfD tho. Fresheneesz 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. I don't think you understand A7. The article asserts its importance and gives multiple sources for it. If you *really* want to waste your time deleting the article, please go to WP:AfD and start a deletion entry. Fresheneesz 22:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't understand A7. Thought I did. I copied the WP:CORP requirements for notability on the articles talk page. None of the criteria have been met, according to what is contained in the article. If you have more information that demonstrates the criteria is met, then I suggest you include it in the article, or put it on the article talk page. WP:AfD to follow. Jerry lavoie 22:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

One small request. When you mark a page for deletion, please let the author of that page know. Thanks. Fresheneesz 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You put a message on my talk page before I had a chance to let you know. I was explaining the deletion on the article talk page when the you have a new message box popped up. I assume if you send me a message about my proposed deletion, that you are aware of it.Jerry lavoie 22:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little presumptuous. I've had some difficult dealings with deleters in the past. Just a little edgy when it comes to that. Thanks for not blowing up on me. Fresheneesz 22:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Please continue your efforts to integrate wikipedia, and accept my thanks for doing so. Jerry lavoie 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous ambiguous incoherant irrevelant comment

it's not vandalism. it's love.

This anonymous comment was left by 86.132.198.215 (talk • contribs • count) on 09:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In Lip, changing cunnilingus to 'Krasnerlingus' and adding Gerald Krasner to the */See also/*, and in Gerald Krasner, stating that he is entirely made up of lips, is silly nonsense, and it IS vandalism. Jerry lavoie 11:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism KROC-tv

The user in question that I reverted is a sockpuppet of indefblocked user BenH who is known for adding redundant information that often messes up the respective pages...take a look at BenH's editing styles and compare. Talk to Firsfron (talk • contribs) and A Man In Black (talk • contribs) for more. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WOLO-TV&diff=prev&oldid=61051958 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WACH&diff=prev&oldid=61054006 Some examples of his editing style. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 23:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely right. More including apology on your talk page. Jerry lavoie 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)