User talk:RJASE1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.
Please leave a new message.
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:RJASE1/Archive/Apr 2007. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Archive
Archives
  1. Feb 2007 and earlier
  2. Mar 2007
  3. Apr 2007


Contents

[edit] Untitled section

How is it spamming or inappropriate? Me and my mom both suffer from severe anxiety disorder so I made my website because I don't know of any other site compiling articles and medical research like mine to find a real cure. This disorder completely handicaps me and millions of people around the world. I don't care about search rankings or any of that. All I care about is helping anxiety sufferers find answers and get a real cure.

Hi, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a link repository. Please check the policy on external links, thanks. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) - thank you. Cheers - RJASE1 Talk 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
While anxious, 72.134.41.88 still manages to enjoy movies, hip-hop producers and foreign languages:
Thanks for helping with spam. --A. B. (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message from Alderkline

Hello RJASE1, I left you a message on my talk page regarding a deletion you made...please respond to it when you have a chance. Thanks!

[edit] National Underwear Day

Hello RJase,

I see that its really complicated to post info on Wikipedia. Our copyrighter drafted the National Underwear Day text. We are the founders of nationalunderwearday.com

What can I do to make it live?

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yanafresh (talk • contribs) 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry - if your company is the organizer of this, it's probably a bad idea for you to post content about it per Wikipedia's conflict of interest and spam policies. Wikipedia should not be used for advertising or promotion. RJASE1 Talk 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We hired a writing consultant to make the copy as unbiased as possible. It would be fine by us if you edit the draft we posted. We just want to provide the content about this holiday to users who may be looking for it on Wikipedia.

I read that I can ask Wiki editors/volunteers/community to help post this page. How do I do that when National Underwear Day redirects to Freshpair? Yanafresh 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the original article was deleted as the result of an Articles for Deletion discussion, it can't be simply re-posted. The process for having an article such as this recreated is the deletion review process. What I would recommend doing for now is to post the new content in your userspace (such as on the page User:Yanafresh/National Underwear Day) and reference that user page in your deletion review request so that the reviewing editors can see the new content. Let me know if you have any trouble with or questions about the process. RJASE1 Talk 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penguin Links

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and thought that the Penguin page on www.oceanfootage.com would be of interest to users. This page seems to meet the guidelines. I tried to add it to all of the penguin species pages, but I believe it would have been better placed on the main penguin page, but that page was locked from edits. I hope you will share with me your concerns specifically, and consider unblocking me. Thank you.Freeflowfun 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that you were adding links to that site on multiple pages, making it appear that you were a spammer promoting that site. This was compounded by the fact that you ignored four warnings sent to you, and continued to add the links despite the warnings. Your block was only for a short time and has now expired, so you should be free to edit - however, please review the policies on external links and spam, thanks. RJASE1 Talk 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montazh

Thanks for talking to that guy on my talk page. Personally, I think he is screwing around. The website he offered, www.montazh.com, is for a Wisonsin cover band that plays bars and parties. The original article claimed the band was from Ariziona, not Wisconsin. Further, the only thing I can find that matches the information you put in the aritcle is this which makes no mention of a hit and no mention of a tour in Germany. Considering that as of 11/2006 they were still in high school I'm not sure how they would have achieved any of these things. IrishGuy talk 19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the legal threat. Shows you exactly how far WP:AGF will take you in some cases, but I suppose we have to keep trying. RJASE1 Talk 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chai (symbol)

Yes please do, he continued to revert everything I did, I tried many different things, but ultimately he kept just reverting it. I sourced everything I did. Epson291 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK - moving discussion on this to the mediation case page. RJASE1 Talk 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
OK - done, I wasn't sure where to put it. Epson291 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why is this being treated as SPAM?

On the Rays Hill Tunnel page, I have twice been accused of spamming the page. What is wrong with the following link ... http://www.rays-hill.com/turnpike/Web_Pages/Rays%20Hill%20Tunnel%20STATISTICS.htm ... this links to a NON-PROFIT, NON-BUSINESS, personal webpage that deals directly with the history of and information about the tunnel.

That is wrong with this link? I am NOT a spammer and do not appreciate being accused of being one.

Thank you. Ray —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayshillwebmaster (talk • contribs) 18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I forgot to mention in my previous post regarding the accusation of spamming with regards to the Rays Hill Tunnel statistics and information page that ALL photographs are either the personal property of myself or used with written permission (or where appropriate, are confirmed to be in the public domain). No one sells anything on Rays-hill.com/turnpike, except for a link to a book on Amazon.com which is there only for the benefit of it's author. Mitch Dakelman has been most helpful with regards to the turnpike website.

Please reconsider calling the webpage(s) spam. They are not. Could you please confirm that you personally visited the page(s) in question?

Thank you. Ray

The main problem here is that (in my opinion) you are using Wikipedia to promote your website, as evident from your username. Please read this guideline, which explains why the practice of adding links a particular website is a discouraged practice. This paragraph also refers you to policies on external links and conflict of interest. I encourage you to add material to the article in question, and cite reliable sources, rather than simply adding links to your website from every article even remotely related, which is the modus operandi of a link spammer. Thanks - RJASE1 Talk 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need further clarification because I do not believe I am being treated fairly here, nor do I believe that my link(s) were visited prior to being deleted, criticized and called "spam" ...

Dear RJASE1:

Please visit the link on the WikiPedia page that follows and explain how it is "different" than the link that I had posted ...

http://www.gribblenation.com/breezewood/laurelhill.html

This one further discusses Laurel Hill Tunnel and does so without citation of specific fact sources. This one was probably posted by the author of that website as well, as was the link referring to Ross Seiber's pictures (of which I have permission to use them on portions of my Laurel Hill pages). I fail to understand why some people's websites can be mentioned and linked to but mine cannot be. Seems on the surface to be a double-standard. There sites are also non-profit and non-business related.

My website is entirely a hobby -- there is no money in it! There is nothing but a lot of time and effort that go into it.

To clarify something else -- I needed to think of a name to use on WikiPedia to register and so I thought up my user name quickly and made it something that I could remember without much difficulty. That is not intended as a means of self-promotion or publicity.

Question: did you REALLY visit the link I posted for Laurel Hill Tunnel or not? If you really visited it before deleting it, you would have found it to be in line with the guidelines that you gave me to read: it is factual, has authentic photos and maps, does NOT sell anything or promote a product or service, all sources that are not "common knowledge" are indeed verified and even mentioned where appropriate and most importantly, the statistics page on my website IS just that -- statistics and further information about the tunnel that is NOT currently included in the WikiPedia entry page.

My website in general is very inclusive of the works of 20+ different authors and people who are directly in the know about the three abandoned tunnels. There is very little "opinion" throughout any of the three tunnel information pages on my website. I can understand your concern to posting links to the "main page" of the site. I did not repost those as I can see your school of thought that they could be confusing to a viewer who is looking specifically for one tunnel but not the history of all of the tunnels on the turnpike. We agree on that part. I went back and linked to pages specifically related only to the tunnel that each WikiPedia page was about. To go back as you suggest and copy information and facts from each of my webpages just to duplicate them to WikiPedia would be a LOT of extra work and there is no guarranty that they wouldn't be pulled down or deleted for some violation.

I would appreciate you taking a little time to evaluate my pages and links based on their own merit and not on a "one size fits all" rule or opinion that you have about my attempts thus far. I am very new to WikiPedia and would like to offer my research and knowledge (of which countless hours of time have been already invested) for a common good. Encyclopedias should be written for the common good of anyone who wants to learn more about a topic such as the rerouted turnpike and the tunnels they left abandoned. If you truly read the links that I have wanted to post, you will indeed see that they are not without factual information, are indeed unopinionated, and are indeed full of useful information that will interest viewers. What really troubles me about this whole matter is that I am trying to add to an encyclopedia more information (which is more factual I might add than some things I have read on Wiki about the three tunnels) and my ideas are being deleted without being personally reviewed. Furthermore, it troubles me to know that in the past, two of the three tunnel pages have had links to my website posted by outside sources. Even though they referenced pages that were not "main pages" and focused on minor information, they have now been deleted as well. They were not posted by me.

If you will not allow me to connect links to existing webpages JUST because they are on MY website, then will you choose to deny a third-party editor on WikiPedia to post links to my website in the future? In the future, if you continue to deny ME the ability to post links to useful pages on my website just because "I" am posting them, does that mean that someone else not affiliated with me or my website will also be denied posting such a link? Pages that offer similiar information to what I was offering are still posted and allowed on WikiPedia, but mine are not. That is a double-standard that troubles me. I really sense that you as a Wiki representative have something against me because you are accusing me of spamming and of self-promotion, without fully reviewing my intentions before judging them. I want a fair chance to add information that I have gathered from many sources throughout the past couple of years and Wiki is becoming a much-used site now. If my links are so violating the rules of the site, them why are other people being allowed to have their sites referenced on the same pages without punishment. My work goes a lot deeper into the subjects, but this is three times now that I have been denied and that is most frustrating. I will be happy to work with you to clarify any concerns, but I honestly do not appreciate the cold shoulder that I feel like I have been given thus far. I don't have to offer my time and energy to helping WikiPedia, but I chose to because I believe in what I taken up as a hobby.

Honestly, I don't need to use Wiki to be a "promotional" for my website ... Yahoo, Google, DogPile, etc -- they all are doing just fine at bringing visitors to my website for me and without asking either. Wiki is an opportunity to promote the abandoned tunnels for visitation and exploration, as well as for bicycling and nature/outdoors kind of people. Naturally such promotion of the tunnels is only for the tunnels and areas that are "legal" to visit. Each of my tunnel pages clearly spells out what is and is not permitted at each of the tunnels and abandonded roadways. To clear up any confusion that may exist: I am NOT in any way connected with the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, the Southern Alleghenies Conservancy (who own two of the tunnels and the adjusting roadway) or the Pike2Bike non-profit commission who oversee the tunnels' future plans. I am just a hobbyist who took an interest in the old tunnels a few years back. There is no self-promotion or money in this for me or anyone who has contributed knowledge and/or pictures to my website. I get no commissions or money from anyone. All expenses of the site are mine personally.

Please take a little time to read into what I am writing here and PLEASE actually visit my page(s) before passing judgment. I do not think I am asking too much here. Please work with me to make this situation right. You are entitled to your opinion, but I should be allowed to voice mine as well. Please reconsider your decision.

Thank you. Ray

PS ... if my user name is the real problem here, I will re-register under a non-assuming name that won't agitate anyone. I am sorry if my quick thinking is what is really to blame here. My intentions are pure and not for self-glory. With all due respect, I take offense to being accused of that.

PSS ... I posted my request to have my "offending" username changed to something that will not offend or give the impression that I am only here for a self-serving, spamming interest which I have been accused of. I am still upset about that accusation. Ray Rayshillwebmaster 06:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.29.195.37 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

First, thank you for changing Your username per the Username policy. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Your contributions to wikipedia under Rayshillwebmaster and IP 71.29.195.37, consist mainly of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the majority seem to be external link related only. Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not always about commercial sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not. Hope that helps clears up the policy issues. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?--Hu12 08:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I still do not agree with the way the representatives of WikiPedia are handling this manner. Regarding my links that I have added -- they DIRECTLY relate to the articles and do not duplicate much of the information within the articles. They are the result of A LOT of research and countless hours of work. They also represent data and pictures gathered from a variety of sources, and most are identified on the web pages themselves unless it is easily obtainable from many sources or common knowledge. The idea of picking apart existing web pages and piecing them together in a totally new format to add them to an existing web page on Wiki does not make good sense. Wiki and most website d not format information the same. I would not be able to import existing JavaScript and ASP into these pages without a lot of modification. Such hours of additional work would not be worth it just to duplicate the existing web pages into Wiki. If you moderators really had reviewed my submissions to Wiki instead of classifying them immediately as "spam" then you would have seen clearly that my submissions do NOT simply "duplicate" other peoples' websites. In fact, those pages that already exist with the same detailed information are simply "linked to" rather than re-worked (e.g. maps, travel information, how do I get to the tunnels?, and so forth). Such information would not have been worth my time to duplicate or re-write in my own words. The request that I am seeing from Wiki representatives here is that I should duplicate existing work just so as not to appear to be a "spammer." What a waste of time and an insult to any hobbyist! Anyone who puts forth a good effort to create and maintain a website should never been pushed aside by Wiki because they believe that re-doing existing Wiki pages is more important to the "rules" than allowing links to existing pages that very nicely would broaden a Wiki visitor's horizon of information. Short articles on Wiki act in the same manner than a 24-volume printed encyclopedia set used to serve: find some basic information on a subject, then look for other resources to further your knowledge. High school and college English teachers would never accept an encyclopedia entry as a complete source. Information is always being updated.

Two final points:

First ... I was visiting Wiki to add to visitors' knowledge base by providing another source of information for their exposure. I was NOT spamming. I was NOT self-promoting. I never claimed my resources to the the "end-all" and final authority. My resources that I attempted to share linked other people's off-site pages together as well, to form a broader well-rounded information source. I want my intentions to be made extremely clear to anyone who cannot figure them out without it being clearly stated. I put up more than what I consider to be a good argument, but RJASE1 did not even answer my argument that I recently restated. Someone else did.

Second ... prior to my attempt to add links to the three key abandoned tunnels Wiki pages, previous links DID EXIST to my web pages. However, they have been removed! Why is this??? I asked this question and no one has bothered to answer me, so I will ask it again ... Bold text''Italic textwhy were those previous links deleted? AND -- if someone else who has an interest in the abandoned tunnels and chooses to visit WikiPedia, sees the ability to post links, and links to anything on or related to my website, ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO DELETE THEM? I am not expecting anyone to link to me but if they do, ARE THEY ALSO GOING TO BE ACCUSED OF SPAMMING?Bold text

That is all I have to say on this subject. I truly believe I had the best of intentions and I have met with nothing of opposition over the past week while trying to expand the knowledge base of visitors to Wiki. I do not have the time to re-work my web pages to "fit" them into Wiki, only to find that SOMETHING on them is "wrong" according to the moderators here. One final thought -- throughout the course of the past week, I have been accused via "the rules" of having UNCITED sources on my web pages --- read them again --- all "not common knowledge" sources ARE cited. I got all A's in high school and college English composition classes. I KNOW HOW TO CITE SOURCES PROPERLY!

Thank you! A very discontent Wiki user ... RAY

[edit] I'm sorry.

I do think that my choise in username is inappropriate and if you would allow me I will change the name immediately, I'm just not clear on how to do it. If you could give me clear instructions on the process or just use administrative powers to change it yourself. My choises would be Skip, Jester, Mammoth, or The Black Dash (all my nicknames). Once again I sincerely apologize of my lapse in judgement and hope that you continue to allow me to use the service of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DugeHick (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

No problem - thanks for the gracious reply. You don't have to change it if you don't want to, the decision at WP:RFCN was to allow it. If you still want to change it anyway, the instructions are here. Cheers - RJASE1 Talk 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not an admin, just an editor like yourself. RJASE1 Talk 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous post much longer than intended ...

But I wrote what I feel needs to be said. Think about it -- if I was doing this "all for me" then why would I have put up an honest fight for what I believe is something that I should be allowed to contribute. Spammers are in the business of harrassing people for profit. I am NOT a spammer. I need that to be made very clear, as well as it needs to be made very clear that I have some really informative web pages that will be of interest to visitors to Wiki. Such pages are very factual in nature, not opininated or pushing an agenda. The way things have been responded to thus far from Wiki staff makes me feel as if I posted something political or offensive to the Internet community at large.

That's all I wanted to say. I deserve a fair shake here and not to be treated like a statistic or a spammer. Ray

[edit] National Underwear Day

An editor has asked for a deletion review of National Underwear day. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Yanafresh 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the review? I looked for it in the log, but couldn't find it. RJASE1 Talk 15:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
An alternative would be to include your information in the article Freshpair. National Underwear Day has been locked in as a redirect per the AfD discussion I already referenced. RJASE1 Talk 15:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Military history 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.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username "Gay Media Matters"

Hello and thanks for your welcome to Wikipedia. As per your question, my username and account was created specifically to build, contribute and edit entries pertaining to United States. To my knowledge there is no website related to my username (I checked the .com and .net addresses and nothing came up). I hope this assuages any concern you might have. Thanks again for the welcome message and editing tips! Gay Media Matters 23:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi - the main problem is that username policy prohibits usernames that refer to or imply sexual acts, genitalia, or sexual orientation. I still recommend that you change your username to one that omits the sexual orientation reference. RJASE1 Talk 23:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Two questions - separate topics

Has anyone noticed the vandalism for the featured article on the front page about George Washington?

There are normally quite a few people watching the front-page featured article, so vandalism get reverted quickly. The article doesn't get protected per WP:NOPRO. RJASE1 Talk 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of the links for the Friends of the Five Day Weekend -- www.fivedayweekend.org -- at what point would a link to the site deserve inclusion in Wikipedia? Just trying to understand the process.

Sorry, addition of links to a site in multiple articles is a discouraged practice - it makes you look like a spammer. The policy on external links explains how to get consensus for adding links to articles. This site is a blog, right? Those normally are not accepted as reliable sources per WP:SPS, though there are some exceptions. RJASE1 Talk 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll work on the link policy. Just was overly enthusiastic and kept finding places where it seems the site added something.

[edit] WP:POINT accusation

On Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Policy_tweak:_excretory_functions, you appear to be accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If this is true, I'd like an immediate retraction and an apology. If not, you need to clarify exactly what you're saying. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I felt your inferences (both at WP:RFCN and WT:U) that a ban on usernames involving "breathing" was desired or implied to be both silly and disruptive. Nobody except you ever suggested or proposed that. RJASE1 Talk 03:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:POINT is an extremely serious charge, and absolutely inappropriate. On RFCN, we're discussing the appropriateness of names, and my disagreement with you is not "disrupting wikipedia to make a point". The dictionary definition presented by Cascadia defines excretion in a manner which absolutely 100% includes breathing, and I've drawn attention to that to show why it isn't a good example to use to disallow the user name in question. Your assertion of WP:POINT is, once again, absolutely inappropriate. Before we enter a formal request for comment or external mediation, I'd like to ask once again that you re-read the policy and withdraw your accusation. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll go fix my comment if it'll make you calm down. RJASE1 Talk 04:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite calm, but I'm concerned that you might be making accusations like this without understanding how serious of a charge it is. If you honestly feel that I've disrupted the project to make a point, the fact that I'm an administrator makes this a pretty darn big deal, and a Chairboy RFC is probably immediately required. I'll gladly participate in any such inquiry, of course, but we're talking about an inquiry into your actions as well, because I'm quite familiar with the policies and confident that you've acted inappropriately by making this claim. I worry that you may have done this to other users less familiar with the relevant policies in the past. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I withdrew the WP:POINT statement, did you want something else? For the record, I did feel your argument was disruptive as an attempt to draw the topic off the point...but you're right, at second thought it was not disruptive enough for a WP:POINT accusation. As for doing it to other editors, feel free to investigate my contribs and RfC away if you feel it's warranted. Later - RJASE1 Talk 04:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Butting in, please see my comment. I reacted in somewhat the same way. It seems everywhere lately that I see too many instances of people throwing around the alphabet soup as an expression of ... frustration..., distaste..., and, yes, sometimes simply trying to squelch the discussion. Please use words, rather than tags. Somehow I think a plain "that seems too far-fetched to be useful to the discussion" would be understood much clearer. In fact, it might elicit a better, more useful argument? Shenme 06:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. RJASE1 Talk 07:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Busting cancer

Hmm. Thanks for giving the user a chance to change it. I agree that it could be construed as a policy violation, but I'm not sure it really is: it's referring to curing the illness, not the actual illness itself. Anyway, we'll see. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peace offering

I wanted to extend an olive branch after the unpleasantness yesterday. It looks like we disagree on some tenets of username policy; however, looking at your user page, it seems we share an interest in aviation. Anyway, just wanted you to know that I pledge to be civil and to assume good faith. Peace - RJASE1 Talk 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, let's edit with happiness in our hearts and a quick submit button that will save us from edit conflicts. :) Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English

"Accusation"; "speculation". The differences are significant. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your speculation to yourself unless you can substantiate it somehow, thanks. RJASE1 Talk 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Doubble Troubble

RJASE1,

I'm not sure what else I need to do to activate the Doubble Troubble Entry. There is a page for jugglers and on that page there are about 20 jugglers listed. If that list is to be updated and accurate, there are many more jugglers to be added.

Doubble Troubble being one of them. I"m also glad to add many others as well.

Please let me know what else is to be done. I've tried to add the page, and can't seem to find out how to make it stay active. If you read the content of Doubble Troubble entry, it is factual and non-biased.

Thank you.

Nick --LasVegasEditor 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LasVegasEditor (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC). --LasVegasEditor 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doubble Troubble Entry

RJASE1,

I'm not sure what else I need to do to activate the Doubble Troubble Entry. There is a page for jugglers and on that page there are about 20 jugglers listed. If that list is to be updated and accurate, there are many more jugglers to be added.

Doubble Troubble being one of them. I"m also glad to add many others as well.

Please let me know what else is to be done. I've tried to add the page, and can't seem to find out how to make it stay active. If you read the content of Doubble Troubble entry, it is factual and non-biased.

Thank you. --LasVegasEditor 01:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks the problem is with notability and with sources. I would try creating the article in your userspace first, making sure it meets the criteria before posting in mainspace. WP:CREATE will get you started. Once again, if this article is autobiographical, I discourage writing an article about yourself per WP:AUTO, but if you're determined to do it, then please do it right. Good luck - RJASE1 Talk 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFCN on TortureIsWrong

I'm sorry if I implied you were acting in bad faith, but I have noticed you and TortureIsWrong frequently disagree on nominations at RFCN, so I think you might be too involved to be objective in this case. I agree that there is justification to disallow the name, but the nom should have come from someone else. —dgiestc 02:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. I probably should have stood back and let someone else make the nom, but done is done. Hindsight is 20/20...anyway, take care and thanks. - RJASE1 Talk 02:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Kind of understandable if you consider that Torture conflicts with almost every other regular participant of that board. It is quite a problem. The Behnam 18:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • After (finally) visiting your talk page perhaps I understand why you object to my username. I'm certainly no longer surprised in any way by your objections. All I can say is that in my private life I've taken an oath to uphold the US Constitution and my username reflects that. I'm deeply, deeply sorry that you don't seem to appreciate that. TortureIsWrong 07:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm breaking my rule of responding to trolling this once, but you should realize that, in my line of work, I'm far more likely to get tortured than to torture someone else. I have a strong negative reaction to the idea of torture, and don't like being reminded of the concept of torture every time I turn around. RJASE1 Talk 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I guess I just don't see how commenting when I'm the subject is "trolling." But I understand some people use "trolling" when they're simply disagreed with. TortureIsWrong 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to my page

Thanks friend, or as we say here in the Southwest, Amigo. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

De nada. RJASE1 Talk 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] warning

Dear RJASE! I dont know whoever is expressing this link (http://getonebyone.googlepages.com/media_h264)as spam. I have noticed the same external links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264 that contains the various papers on H.264. Apart from that, if I apply for this link to be posted officially in the external Links of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264) than what steps should I have to take. By no means I want to add my link at this page as spam-link. My link is genuine and surely contains the right content related to the topic. I need support.

Warm Regards Saad

PS. I added the page again but deleted the entry after seeing the warning ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.147.180.70 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Expressing my discontent with the way I have been treated here. I am NOT a spammer for crying out loud. I have been acting on good faith and principle and believe that Wiki is mistreating me.

I still do not agree with the way the representatives of WikiPedia are handling this manner. Regarding my links that I have added -- they DIRECTLY relate to the articles and do not duplicate much of the information within the articles. They are the result of A LOT of research and countless hours of work. They also represent data and pictures gathered from a variety of sources, and most are identified on the web pages themselves unless it is easily obtainable from many sources or common knowledge. The idea of picking apart existing web pages and piecing them together in a totally new format to add them to an existing web page on Wiki does not make good sense. Wiki and most website d not format information the same. I would not be able to import existing JavaScript and ASP into these pages without a lot of modification. Such hours of additional work would not be worth it just to duplicate the existing web pages into Wiki. If you moderators really had reviewed my submissions to Wiki instead of classifying them immediately as "spam" then you would have seen clearly that my submissions do NOT simply "duplicate" other peoples' websites. In fact, those pages that already exist with the same detailed information are simply "linked to" rather than re-worked (e.g. maps, travel information, how do I get to the tunnels?, and so forth). Such information would not have been worth my time to duplicate or re-write in my own words. The request that I am seeing from Wiki representatives here is that I should duplicate existing work just so as not to appear to be a "spammer." What a waste of time and an insult to any hobbyist! Anyone who puts forth a good effort to create and maintain a website should never been pushed aside by Wiki because they believe that re-doing existing Wiki pages is more important to the "rules" than allowing links to existing pages that very nicely would broaden a Wiki visitor's horizon of information. Short articles on Wiki act in the same manner than a 24-volume printed encyclopedia set used to serve: find some basic information on a subject, then look for other resources to further your knowledge. High school and college English teachers would never accept an encyclopedia entry as a complete source. Information is always being updated.

Two final points:

First ... I was visiting Wiki to add to visitors' knowledge base by providing another source of information for their exposure. I was NOT spamming. I was NOT self-promoting. I never claimed my resources to the the "end-all" and final authority. My resources that I attempted to share linked other people's off-site pages together as well, to form a broader well-rounded information source. I want my intentions to be made extremely clear to anyone who cannot figure them out without it being clearly stated. I put up more than what I consider to be a good argument, but RJASE1 did not even answer my argument that I recently restated. Someone else did.

Second ... prior to my attempt to add links to the three key abandoned tunnels Wiki pages, previous links DID EXIST to my web pages. However, they have been removed! Why is this??? I asked this question and no one has bothered to answer me, so I will ask it again ...

Why were those previous links deleted? AND -- if someone else who has an interest in the abandoned tunnels and chooses to visit WikiPedia, sees the ability to post links, and links to anything on or related to my website, ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO DELETE THEM? I am not expecting anyone to link to me but if they do, ARE THEY ALSO GOING TO BE ACCUSED OF SPAMMING? I share WikiPedia sources and links with visiters to my website. I encourage people to visit WikiPedia. But when I want to share information via links from Wiki to a website that I "happen" to have created, then "the rules" are stated without personal consideration given. If you moderators would have truly visited the links before you deleted them, then you would have clearly seen what I am writing about.

That is all I have to say on this subject. I truly believe I had the best of intentions and I have met with nothing of opposition over the past week while trying to expand the knowledge base of visitors to Wiki. I do not have the time to re-work my web pages to "fit" them into Wiki, only to find that SOMETHING on them is "wrong" according to the moderators here. One final thought -- throughout the course of the past week, I have been accused via "the rules" of having UNCITED sources on my web pages --- read them again --- all "not common knowledge" sources ARE cited. I got all A's in high school and college English composition classes. I KNOW HOW TO CITE SOURCES PROPERLY!

One last question: is there ANYONE higher than the moderators of this page to appeal their decisions to???

Thank you! A very discontented Wiki user ... RAY

    • If we cannot reach a fair result this time, then I will choose no longer to support WikiPedia and any links and source references on my HOBBY (meaning: non-commerical, for-fun, no-profit-money-involved) website will be deleted and I will discourage further visitors from using WikiPedia because they are so "rules driven" that they are not interested in listening to people who mean well but are shot-down at every turn ** I honestly never thought WikiPedia would be SO

bent on agitating people who mean well and want to help the causes of non-profit organizations and hobbies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustwind77 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] =====================================

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfume

Please ... do not remove content from Wikipedia without typing a good reason in the edit summary field. It is clear to me that you have not looked closely at any of the links removed from this page and, from the looks of things it's not the first time this has happened.

The link was removed per the policies on external links and spam, as has been explained in several edit summaries. Stop spamming the link. RJASE1 Talk 05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not spamming. I have tried to discuss this with you per Site rules but your scripts tell me your actions say otherwise. I will continue to escalate this matter until we can discuss a consensus. Please stop using your script as it is against forum rules. As I can see from other users, this is not the first time this has happened (removing links without even looking at them). Continued usage of said script without discussion will result in an another escalated warning.

Please see Let's review for summary. If that doesn't shame them, nothing will. Well, at least they won't blame "your scripts". :-) Shenme 08:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That was awesome, Shenme. Thanks. RJASE1 Talk 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

I'm sorry, I misremembered. You're quite right, of course, it was HighInBC to whom I should have referred. I've corrected the comment in question. My apologies again. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Mel - I appreciate the correction, thanks. RJASE1 Talk 15:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Norcomm

I saw you Prod Music & Home Entertainment Show which is one of many pages created by User:Norcomm which all relate to Norris-Whitney Communications and is very similar to the username. All these pages seem very spammy and possibly non-notable to me. What do you think? --J2thawiki 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was about to speedy-nominate but there are some assertions of notability in there (or at least can be interpreted as such). RJASE1 Talk 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear RJASE,

My name really is John Hurt, and I have the web site www.johnhurt.com. I am a Bible software developer, and my contributions will be on Bible related topics.

So that is my real name, and I am not afraid to use it.

Also, if you will do a lookup on Google under "John Hurt", I will be on the first page supplied by that search engine. So, I have a legitimate web presence as John Hurt.

And, I consider myself the "real John Hurt", and like to joke that this British actor fellow has stolen my name.

Regardless, if you feel I should change my login name, I can do so. This is my first login to Wikipedia.

Blessings,

John Hurt

No, that's fine - if you don't mind, I'm going to make a quick disambiguation on your user page. RJASE1 Talk 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xfer of Discussion TIW to AN from User talk:The Behnam

Behnam, this is something I think needs to go forward now. He's out of hand. I've been collecting Diffs. on the issue. I've got quite a collection already, if you have any to add, see my sandbox. You'll see them. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be time for an RfC on user conduct. However, the three of us should stand aside because I think our history with the user would prejudice an impartial discussion. I think a good idea would be to pass the diffs to an uninvolved party for another opinion. RJASE1 Talk 18:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree on that note. I would really prefer not to take on any more flak than what I have already for taking it all, then finally having enough. I've collected several diffs though that may help in the issue. Should they be needed, they are there fore easy access. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have some of my own, and was going to look at the old username. RJASE1 Talk 18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the goal of looking at the old username? Potentially pulling it from the recycle bin? Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Just the contribs to see if there was a civility problem there too. RJASE1 Talk 18:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
10-4. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, if you get some free time look at the history of User talk:MoeLarryAndJesus. Trolling, 3RR, POV, BLP vio. This user has an extremely contentious editing history. RJASE1 Talk 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
RJASE1, indeed... so how do you plan to proceed? Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I thank you all for your fair-minded and civil interest in my activities. I know what you're doing is in no way related to the disagreements we've had in various forums. Cheers! TortureIsWrong 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I had a rocky start here under my old username, but I think if you look at my contribs on the editing side under this name I've been very scrupulous. But once again, thanks for your interest! TortureIsWrong 19:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
RJASE, I think we've hijacked Behnams talk page enough. Would you mind if I ctrl+C/Ctrl+V this over to my talk page with a link to the subsection? Or yours, either way it doesn't matter. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Move to my talk page, if you don't mind. RJASE1 Talk 19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Please verify that ALL comments are as is before I delete. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 19:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Cascadia, I'll start putting some info together for an RfC on user conduct. I'll make sure to get an un-involved admin to take a look at things before submitting. TIW, please feel free to watchlist my talk page (if you haven't already) so you don't think anyone's talking about you behind your back. RJASE1 Talk 19:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course some might say that the civil thing to do would have been to post that invitation on my talk page when this little tea party began, but I suppose you were under no obligation to reveal that you were, in fact, "talking behind my back." Not that there's anything wrong with that, necessarily, though I never do it myself. Cheers! TortureIsWrong 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I was pretty sure you had all of our talk pages watchlisted. RJASE1 Talk 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
(EC) My very intention was to notify you when it was decided to go forward. I apologize if it seems I was trying to do something behind your back, I just wanted to make sure all of my ducks were in a row first. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 19:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course you were doing something behind my back, Cascadia. That's okay, even if it's the sort of thing Dick Cheney would do. No need to apologize. Cheers! TortureIsWrong 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Some friendly advice - when you know that someone is complaining about your civility, it's probably not a good idea to escalate the incivility - i.e. I think you're kind of in a hole right now, so you should probably stop digging. The outcome I would like to see is for you to become a civil, productive editor, not for you to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RJASE1 Talk 19:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I was doing just that when someone decided to try to kill my twice-affirmed username and embroiled me in a time-killing dispute that has seemingly gone on for a week, with threats to continue it even longer. I hardly think I'm the only one riding the escalator here - but at least I'm willing to admit that I'm doing so.TortureIsWrong 19:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
In reference to the above comments - I'll state that I'll reply to constructive comments here, but I reserve the right to ignore or remove comments that are blatant trolling (I know you're aware of this policy, because you've been blocked for it before)...in other words, I'm not going to reply to blatantly provocative or argumentative posts. Nobody is threatening you - I simply want you to be civil and to stop your disruptive editing. I wish we could solve this with a simple conversation, but your previous interaction with editors who have tried to advise you doesn't leave me with much optimism. RJASE1 Talk 20:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say anyone had threatened me - merely that the discussion on my username seemed likely to continue even after it had been approved twice. I also see no "disruption" in addressing matters on discussion pages. That's what they're there for. Disagreement is not disruption. TortureIsWrong 20:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so that's how you do that! (Re: Formatting.) I had no idea. As for the formatting issue, using one method works best for me because I'm relatively new here and not used to the system and I type slowly - but post a lot here and in other forums.TortureIsWrong 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
TIW, this is the kind of edit I mean by disruption. It was an apparent political POV with little or no relevance to the policy discussion underway. I can't see any purpose to it other than to disrupt the conversation. RJASE1 Talk 20:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah. So any and all asides on a discussion page are "disruption"? Come on. I think it was wholly relevant, and it was my way of pointing out that I thought your claim that every time you saw my user name you thought about torture was disingenuous. We both know that I'm not the only one who thought you brought my name up in RFCN to make a POINT, and not because it caused you any real distress. TortureIsWrong 20:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
RJASE1, just making sure that you know I'm not ignoring the discussion. I'm just refraining from speaking too much. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. RJASE1 Talk 20:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh. I don't know where to begin with this user. It might help to look at the civility warnings on his (unedited) talk page; he has shown that he doesn't consider policy important and that he views WP as a personal battleground, amongst other thing. Of course, his conduct at AN/I and the RFCN page & talk is bad, and also at Talk:Byron Coley, where he contested that adding personal commentary is unsourced POV, and even after I got a third opinion from Bignole he started fighting with Bignole. I believe Bignole characterized him well here [1], and TIW answered likewise [2]. But considering this unedited version of Talk:Byron Coley [3], TIW's accusation is completely unwarranted. Anyway, I'm going to provide actual diffs after I attend to some RL things, but yes, it is about time that this user is held accountable for his constant incivility and disruption. Looking over his contribs shows that he has done little aside from trolling with his account, making only trivial or poor edits to actual articles. For anyone seeking diffs his contribs page is where to start, in my opinion. Really, if this was a noob he would have been blocked a long time ago, and I honestly don't know why he was only blocked for three hours, after which he took his disruption up a notch. Good idea in preparing for an RFC. The Behnam 22:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have stated my belief that The Behnam's edit of my contrib on the Talk:Byron Coley page was of questionable good faith already. Further, I removed some of my comments which could arguably be seen as uncivil from that talk page after being asked to do so by another editor. The Benham and Bignole chose not to do so. The incivility went both ways. I have done something about my role in that. The Benham has not reciprocated.TortureIsWrong 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You haven't brought any issues of 'faith' to me yet, despite the fact that I told you that you should several times. And I don't see how Bignole and I have been uncivil in that dispute so I don't really know what reciprocation your expecting. If you want an explanation as to why I ended up at that article, you can ask me on my talk page. The Behnam 23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
All, I'm away from the computer for a while, but please feel free to continue the discussion here as long as you like. Cascadia, thanks for the reply below. RJASE1 Talk 23:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
RJASE1, how goes the RfC? If I can be of any assistance, please let me know. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 19:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note from User talk:65.77.71.164

Dear RJASE1 -- I was NOT SPAMMING in any sense of the term - I was simply trying to add a link to the Medicine Park entry of external links that would offer people more information about our little town, it's history, its restoration and what it has to offer. I apologize that it was taken that way and hope that you'll reconsider.

Please sign your comments with four ~~~~'s, and create a new headline for each new message. Thanks Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 23:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi - the links were removed because they were commercial in nature. The message I left on your talk page should have explained the policies on external links. If you weren't intending to promote those particular commercial sites, I apologize for the insinuation, but I don't believe those links were proper for the article. Don't hesitate to contact me for additional clarification. RJASE1 Talk 23:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Userpage

I'm doing some experimentation. I'm good at straight out and out HTML on a webpage, however, getting things to work here where I don't have total control is something I need to work on. It'll be back up in a while. I know some people say "You shouldn't edit your userpage so much, it isn't myspace", but to me, since I don't have time to do heavy research right now, it gives me a chance to, for lack of a better term, "Blow it all to hell" without actually ruining an article, etc. Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 03:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see - cool. Keep in mind I might steal some of your stuff once you put it up, though. :) RJASE1 Talk 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, It's back up. Feel free to plunder! Cascadia TALK| HISTORY 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creed perfume

Do not remove our link from the Creed Perfume page as we are their West Coast representatives. Your actions are irresponsible as you did not even bother to check to see that we are the authorized distributor and information source for this line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.150.157 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fatty etc

There have been two of those today, both of which I did remove. It's a tough call, but I think they are just barely acceptable. I wouldn't protest if they were blocked, but I also don't think they're worth much of our time discussing them until they actually start to edit a lot. Academic Challenger 21:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback. RJASE1 Talk 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] this user

I was going to ask this on the WP:AIV if it weren't for the editconflict. What was the big deal with this user you reported? From what I saw, there was only one edit made, and the user stopped after your warning. What was blatantly unacceptable about the edit?--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk • contribs) 04:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of a longterm vandal who repeatedly comes back under different usernames (probably has around 40 socks by now). Always vandalizes with some variation of "smelly piece of shit" and a link to that blog. Pretty much 'block on sight' when you see those edits. RJASE1 Talk 04:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deep Throat

Perhaps the article Deep Throat would interest you. It is not just a sexual act, but the alias of a historical figure. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I already apologized for that. What can I say - maybe I just need to take a break from vandalism for a while. Thanks, brother. RJASE1 Talk 01:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFCN

Sorry, didn't mean to make your nominations be anything other then what you intended. Just went to remove them but see you have already. I did mean to decline them on WP:AIV as not meeting "usernames which require urgent blocks", but didn't want to lose your work. RFCN is being debated at MFD right now, but seems to work at least some of the time. You can relist these on one of the WP:AN's if you'd like (though you may get refered to RFCN). Thanks, — xaosflux Talk 04:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/j/a/User_talk%7ERJASE1_09fb.html"