User talk:Jersey Devil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:NotSuckBanner.jpg

Contents

[edit] Good Article status of Shining Path

As someone who heavily edited Shining Path, you may be interested to know that the article's status as a Good Article has been put on hold as a result of a review of it. The review was part of the "sweeps" of all Good Articles. Talk:Shining_Path#GA Sweeps Review: On Hold contains more information about the whole affair. --Descendall (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking policy

As an admin, you should know very well not to throw your weight around until you've determined what is going on: see [1]. Blocking is not to be taken lightly. Please check Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving things to the discussion page did solve the problem. I probably deserved to go to time out! Thanks for your help.--Random Replicator (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Pedro Pan

Dear Jersey Devil, You eliminated sourced information on this page that was placed there by me in an effort to balance the POV problem on the page. I reverted one of your edits and in condescension to your elimination of my work, I eliminated the sentences that were referenced to NOCASTRO.com. Right now there is one sentence that is left in the controversy section that is referenced to the USCG (United States Coast Guard). That is a valid third party reference that offsets the POV of the preceeding sentence. That sentence should not be eliminated or you make the entire section a POV problem. Please come to the discussion page of the article before you revert my work again and lets discuss. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your block of User:Artsandopinion

Hello, a good-hearted admin has undone your block with the result that this user is now spamming talk pages lobbying to get his link installed; my comments on his efforts at Talk:Palliative care#Link suggestion. I'm also posted a cease-and-desist request on his talk page. Please block this character again, if you are able to do so. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McName

Surnames starting with "Mc" should be indexed as "Mac" to assist category sorting; this has been the case for a long time now. Surnames starting with O'M or O'H (for example) are indexed as Om and Oh. The latter reindexing (O's) has already been completed by other editors, so I stuck with the "Mc" names. I am holding off from doing any more reindexing until I get an admin OK. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:I first became aware of the Mc/Mac situation back in 2006 on Martin McGuinness' article. See [2] from 22:45, 15 April 2006, where the note first appeared about the category sorting (Mac, not Mc). Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I first became aware of the Mc/Mac situation on Martin McGuinness' article. I did the research back and found the entry (see [3]) from 22:45, 15 April 2006, where the note first appeared about the category sorting (Mac, not Mc). Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your warning on Talk:Barack Obama

Re:[4]

Perhaps you should notify the user in question on their talk page as well? Since your warning is applicable to more than just the Barack Obama page, it might be a good idea to make it obvious to the person you're aiming the warning at in case they try to appeal a future block. But thanks for the info. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Controversial_block_needs_review. I opened the thread completely without prejudice (in other words, I'm not saying you did anything wrong or that I disagree with the block) - I just think that, out of respect for a long-time user, this block needs to be reviewed by more than just a couple of people. --B (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for unblock

There wasn't consensus. So based on 3 others opposition (I am not one of the three), I tried to craft a compromise. The compromise was to have the user show how good he or she could be by editing well for 7 days. Instead, you have denied the chance. You are potentially creating a sock problem because the user will have no recourse (other than the unwieldy ArbCom, who is too busy to effectively take on these cases).

I am now becoming more oppose to the indefinite blocking of this user because the process has not been completed. My opposition is not based on the user's behavior but the not following process. Essentially, you are refusing to address the compromise and substituting it for your own punishment. If you didn't want to discuss it, you could have offered a compromise solution, such as 7 day block. Archtransit (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Hill Frontpage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Hill Frontpage.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Street Fight Documentary.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Street Fight Documentary.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Daily Targum.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:The Daily Targum.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was unsuccessful, I'm deeply appreciative that you took some time to once again be supportive of me. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you.--MONGO 17:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peruanismo

Hey, it's me again. I just wanted to say one last thing before I left. I think you might be interested in joining this listserv. While it's technically open only to members of the Peru section of the Latin American Studies Association, I'm almost positive that no one really checks to see if you paid your $8 dues. If anyone questions you, just tell them that you are an interested student. The listserv is extremely low traffic; only a couple of emails a month. Nevertheless, some of the most important Peruanista economists, sociologists, political scientists, and human rights workers (including members of the CVR) subscribe to the listserv. They often send interesting information about upcoming books, conferences, articles, etc. though the list. I've actually made some professional contacts through it. Join up, you have nothing to lose. As always, you have my email, so feel free to contact me. --Descendall (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I see on your page that you recently read Weavers of Revolution. Is that a great book, or what? The last time I was in Chile I talked to an old Communist taxi driver who mentioned that the Yarur family is still as powerful as ever. They got out of textiles and moved into banking a while ago. --Descendall (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Carlos Ferrero.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Carlos Ferrero.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hoy logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Hoy logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hoy newspaper.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hoy newspaper.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:The_Daily_Targum.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The_Daily_Targum.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need your advice on something

Hey, I recently wrote an article, Ikhtiyar al-Din Ai-Taq. A central part of the article concerns the individual's governorship of the city of Ray. This fact is also mentioned in several other related articles that I wrote. The source for this fact normally has a good reputation for factual accuracy. However, after viewing several other sources, including the chronicles that the author of my original source used, I now have serious doubts that this individual was ever actually governor of Ray. I believe that the author of my original source was wrong here, but unfortunately I don't know for certain either way. Since a substantial part of the article, as well as several other articles, revolves around his governorship of Ray I can't just edit it out. Would it be inappropriate to put a factual accuracy tag on my own article? I don't just want to leave the article as is and give readers the impression that it is factual. If you could give some advice on an appropriate course of action for this article and the other articles affected by this I'd appreciate it.

Ro4444 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MIR Logo.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:MIR Logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:La_Primera-Maradona_Cover.jpg

I have tagged Image:La_Primera-Maradona_Cover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Wikipedia:Use rationale examples. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mercedes Cabanillas.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Mercedes Cabanillas.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive zeal

You seem to have made quite a few overly eager deletions recently, such as deleting Rupert Murdoch from the CFR article... I suggest you be a little more cautious and deliberate. I have my eye on you. I'll be watching your contributions quite closely from now on, as I don't believe you are a fit administrator, and should this recent trend continue, I shall work toward deadminning you. It only seems proper that I mention it to you first, as assuming good faith requires that I ascribe no motive to you other than those in line with Wikipedia goals, which I suspect you are at odds with. I'd like to be shown otherwise. User:Pedant (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quite simple, informative and respectful reply. Reading your policies regarding recall is reassuring. In future it might be more suitable for me to merely point out what seems to be questionable activity, rather than warn you... overall, I feel that you have deleted bits that shouldn't have been, in your laudable efforts to remove what doesn't belong. Deleting can have worse consequences than including, mainly because wrongly deleted material may not ever be noticed, and replaced... contrarily: Wrongly included material will still be there, asking to be deleted. Please just bear this in mind. Nice to meet you. User:Pedant (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] anti-Semitism, or oversensitivity?

Hi, Sometimes I am afraid I am over-sensitive. The Race and Intelligence article is obviously controversial and I have been highly critical of user:Jagz who I believe has been pushing for inclusion of a fringe, racialist (if not racist) POV in the article - this is just context, not the issue. The issue is, today he made this edit, creating a new section and providing no explanation or context: [5]. If it is directed at me, I wonder if it is anti-Semitic.

I may be overreacting - it may just be one of several disruptive edits he has made, which I should not take personally, and I have left a note at AN/I concerning disruptive edits. But the possible anti-Semitism nags at me. I know that in general you take these matters seriously and that in this particular case you have objectivity I lack and if you think I am overreacting, well, I would respect and value your judgement. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philatelic deletions

I noticed that you made mass deletions of around 30 lists that are part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philately without any apparent deletion notification of such a large number of articles. Such a large number of deletions should have at least been notified to the project that deals with such articles or at least to the assessment team to which those articles belong. Lists of fish on stamps are a very important and popular topic of topical stamp collecting as are other topical subjects which have list too, such as birds on stamps or even people on stamps. What's next, another 99 lists without any discussion or notification? You have decimated the category by your mass deletions. (I post in one place to keep a discussion together, so am watching this page). ww2censor (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I deleted those articles quite a while ago as they were all lists made in 2005 with almost no content aside from tables. Since there were so many of them I felt that an AFD would be overly burdensome and so decided to delete them myself. Since you have objected to these deletions I will take this to WP:DRV in order for the community to decide on a suitable outcome.--Jersey Devil (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Let me consult someone else, a philatelic admin editor, before you do anything. 23rd March, but I only happened to notice when looking through the assessment log. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, these deletions were definitely not legitimate. Lists are a longstanding part of WP, and it is simply incorrect to say that they have no content. The multiple edits by a number of different editors should have been a hint that there was general consensus that they were valid articles. As an admin, you should know better than to delete this kind of material unilaterally. Stan (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I reviewed policy, and restored all the deleted pages. Feel free to nominate for AFD, although I note that Stanley Gibbons publishes a book on the subject, so I think they're likely to survive. As a note for the future, the fact that you had to separately delete talk pages, because they had assessments on them(!), should have been a hint that out-of-process deletions were going to be noticed and challenged. Stan (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Look, I don't want an edit war...

I can see you've been squatting on the Estate Tax article for a while. I'm going to appeal to your reason and ask you to stop relabeling it as a "pejorative term" created by "Republicans" when a huge nuber of people try to remove your wording. The term was used before republicans existed, OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.130.107 (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Out of Iraq.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Out of Iraq.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please strike your comment

On this, you stated, incorrectly, ". Just went through the user's blocklog. It appears that he has been blocked in the recent past (last month) for making legal threats against users and the Wikimedia Foundation". That is incorrect, and that is obvious from even the block log. Of you read, it says: "22:09, 21 March 2008 Shell Kinney (Talk | contribs) unblocked Ottava Rima (Talk | contribs) ‎ (wait, sorry, he threated to take legal action against me with the WM Foundation, changing back to original length)". Notice "unblock". She improperly blocked me for what she claimed was a legal threat, and it was not. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the ANI. Adding such information, especially inaccurately, is rather rude. Please remove your comment now that you know it is incorrect. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.

Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.

Thank you again, VanTucky

[edit] Imagens de Los fabulosos cadillacs

Hola soy un contribuidor mexicano y estoy trabajando en los articulos referentes a los fabulosos cadillacs, note que las imagenes de los albumes que hay las habias subido tu, asi que utilize el mismo metodo, todo hiba bien hasta que me indicaron que la imagen de El Leon sera borrada, pero no hice nada diferente a ti o a las otras imagenes que ya habia subido, podrias por favor aconsejarme al respecto que puedo hacer para que no sea borrada. Por adelantado gracias hermano latino Zidane tribal (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Te agradesco tu respuesta, y sobre el retraso no te preocupes. Si se que la imagenes requiereun una justificacion para ser usadas pero me declaro neofito al respecto, nunca he podido subir una imagen sin que me llamen la atencion por ella, asi que lo que puedas hacer para que las imagenes no sea borradas te lo agradecere. Zidane tribal (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Ollanta_Humala.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Ollanta_Humala.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Long time no Talk, request for article assistance, and talk page help if you can.

Working on Libertarianism page. The entire thing is factually incorrect ignoring the majority of history on the topic. I've always found you particularly reasonable when it comes to arguments. If you have any knowledge on the topic, or would otherwise monitor the events, I would appreciate it. Thank you. q (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was talking more about the edit warring. I had every edit reverted in a weekend (over 30) by one person. Finally she agreed to stop reverting me after a lot of discussion and reverting of her reverts on my part. You don't really need to be familiar with the topic, I am adding cited and sourced information, citing sometimes twice within one sentence. The majority of the article is uncited and factually incorrect.
I had never seen an article more POV on wikipedia. A group has taken it over, and refused to allow the real history and context to be displayed. This is evident from the talk page and archives as many people have complained about this issue. I started finally taking it on in a very historical way, and have been reverted. Right now, Some of the more important edits have existed for a couple days, so that's promising. I want to add more, but am trying to give some time in between expecting that someone is going to revert the whole thing once more. It takes a lot of time to research and fine meticulous sources on an issue like that, and I don't want all this work to be removed by people who are not concerned by the accuracy of the information, but in that it detracts from their intention of spreading their message of "libertarianism."
The very quick of it is, Libertarianism meant one thing for 200 years. in 1955 a guy with an ideology opposite of it took the word. Now an opposite ideology spreads that no one else can be libertarian except them. It meant anti-capitalist (and still does everywhere in the world but the u.s.), and pro-capitalists took the word in 1955, and the media has been quite open to them because they prefer radical capitalists to anti-capitalists. q (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)