User talk:NotJackhorkheimer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Jackhorkheimer

Contents

[edit] Verifiability

You don't seem to understand verifiablilty. It does not have anything to do with "truth" - it simply means that a source can be cited for the fact. Please do not remove cited facts from articles, it may be considered vandalism and you can be blocked from editing for it. I refer to your edits to Kenneth Grant. Thanks! —Hanuman Das 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering if this was vandalism, compare the revision with the Wikipedia policy on what constitutes vandalism. Simply citing something from another source doesn't mean it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Quotes from Wikipedia's policies on vandalism, citation, and verifiability: The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. --Jackhorkheimer 19:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

You don't strike me as a pleasant person. 70.245.71.6 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same user who vandalizes pages and leaves homophobic insults on your talk page? If so, at least you've learned to tone down your personal attacks, so, gee, thanks! You should stick to talking about edits though. --Jackhorkheimer 21:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph P. Kennedy and McCarthy

A very, very minor part of this man's life has been given all kinds of space in this article -- to the point that it appears as if JP Kennedy was a close associate of McCarthy's. This is simply not true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.38.76 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I hardly think it's given too much space. By my count, it takes up ~ 1/20th of the article. But space doesn't matter--do you have any objection to the verifiability of the removed text? Have you read the sources cited? Why do you keep taking this passage out? You aren't even proposing alternative wordings--you just keep taking it out over and over again. Anyways, let's talk at the Kennedy and McCarthy section of the talk page. --Jackhorkheimer 00:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It takes up more than 1/20, and even if it does, that's too much. They had hardly any association. rjensen has a thing for Irish Americans and catholics. You should see his contributins to the Know Nothing party. Let's not be naive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.38.76 (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
Have you read the cited books? The article asserts that those -3- books demonstrate a connection. Maybe you just haven't read the right material to know whether they have an association or not. --Jackhorkheimer 22:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I beg your pardon. "John F. Kennedy: A Biography" gives not indication that McCarthy was the guidling light of J.P. Kennedy of that there was an "alliance" between Kennedy and McCarthy. The wiki article gives the impression that Kennnedy adn McCarthy were some kind of cabal pulling the strings of Irish-Catholic America. Are you really familiar with the history of the Kennedy family or the distortions that rjensen brings to his articles about Irish Americans, not to mention Catholicism. I prefer people NOT to use wikipedia to pursue their agendas, hidden or otherwise.
All the books on the Kennedy family emphasize that the one of the biggest obstacles to JFK's presidential ambitions in the 1950s was the close ties with McCarthy, hated by the liberal Democrats. Our mystery critic certainly does not like my edits--which are very extensive on topics like New Deal, Wilson, FDR, Wallace, ER, Al Smith, Bryan, Cleveland, Stephen Douglas, Polk, and the history of the Democratic party back to Jefferson and Madison. Mystery critic rarely or never adds new information on Kennedy, he just subtracts very well documented history that he does not want to be known to Wiki readers. The article has more material on Kennedy's antisemitism, by the way. Rjensen 09:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poiette

I userfied it -- google says nothing about the name or the goddess, so I assumed it must simply be the author's RL name, or an invention. Your tags ended up going along... Let me know if you disagree. Dina 01:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's gone already...that was fast. Dina 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No, I am not Mod176

No, I am not Mod176. Nor do I know who Mod176 is.

Be aware that I am a student of the modern, Western Esoteric Tradition. My AfD nominations are made based on my knowledge of "who's who and what's what" of the contemporary occult world. I also know that most occultists are blow-hards who have made little or no REAL contributions to the literature of the occult. You will pardon me if I tag articles for deletion based on what I know but isn't that the purpose of the process? Eyes down, human. 09:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 999

I saw your note on Blnguyen's page. I doubt he'll answer you, he wouldn't answer my email after he blocked me. I got blocked while I was moving because I had previously introduced a co-worker to Wikipedia. We edited from work at a large corp. in Boulder, Colorado which happens to route everybody through the same IP address. Since the other user and I edited the same articles and had more or less similar points of view, somebody requested a "checkuser" and we were "branded" as being the same person. Only the fact that I am now in Seattle saved me, and that only b/c when I edited from my new IP, somebody tried to get it blocked b/c it must be me. The new checkuser proved I was never a sockpuppet in the first place. If I'd hadn't moved, I'd have been blocked forever.

I know 999 well and I've met Ekajati's husband once. They all live in Austin, Texas. Their accounts were blocked as sockpuppets, and 999 was blocked simply because he edited many of the same articles and his IP proved to be in Austin also. He asked to be unblocked once and it was denied. He's given up as it seems this Blnguyen fellow seems to be completely devoid of AGF. Them's the breaks, I guess, on WP. Once you are mistakenly labelled a sockpuppet, it is almost impossible to get unblock. Even if you can still post from your IP, they never accept self-requested checkuser requests, and you can't even create on anyway (anons can't create new pages, and the RFCU process requires the creation of a new page). I suspect I'm one of the few misidentified socks who has been unblocked.

The only way for 999 to get unblocked would be for somebody to file a checkuser request against 999 and Ekajati, get it accepted (which is unlikely), and have it show they never edited from the same IP. Even then, he would not automatically be unblocked, but would have to put an unblock request on his user page and point to the result which clears him. There seems to be nowhere on WP to go to be cleared of a false sockpuppet charge! Frater Xyzzy 00:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IASC page and war against blanks

I made a new article for International Association of Skateboard Companies and included the war it wages on blank skateboards. I would like you to review it and it would be a great oppurtunity to cover a first current event in skateboarding in the best way possible.--KoRnholio8 21:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam Whitelist

Hi there... recently the spam-whitelist has suffered from months-long backlog. Eagle and myself have been working on catching up and creating some kind of reasonable response time for the page. We have recently made a request for more information on the request you made a few weeks ago and I thought it was likely you weren't watching the page any more... so here's a link: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.myspace.com.2F101566922. Thanks and sorry for the delay. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, kudos on tackling this page--I imagine it must be fairly daunting, considering how large the backlog was. I'll respond there once I get around to it. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 22:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to bad. We are basically caught up now. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Jim Nobles

(Note: this was in regards to a prod, not an AfD. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) )

Kindly explain why you have removed the nomination for deletion of Jim Nobles rather than simply debating the question? He does not meet any of the criteria for notability. --Thiebes 20:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if my edit summary wasn't clear enough. I removed the prod tag mainly because the reason given wasn't valid, since it was based on a guideline proposed on Feb. 7 that didn't achieve consensus. Also, I think the subject is of questionable notability instead of being of unnotable outright, and thus more appropriate for an AfD debate instead of prod. I'll take my comments on notability to the talk page. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 22:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh OK. I meant to do AfD and din't realize there was a difference between that and prod. I will try to figure out where to find the AfD tag instead. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thiebes (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, there's no way anyone except an admin can remove an AfD so I see why you were wondering. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 23:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

The problem lies in deciding who the relevant authorities would be. Which relevant authority has decided that Stormfront is an extremist source, for example? The point of the sentence is that people have to use their common sense in deciding whether a group is "widely acknowledged" as extremist, and not simply biased. I think it's fairly obvious which type of groups we're talking about. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beaner

Hi. Please don't just recreate AFD'd articles; you need to go to WP:DRV for that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, wasn't sure it was necessary. Going to WP:DRV now. See my note on your talk page. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/t/User_talk%7ENotJackhorkheimer_17fc.html"