User talk:Jesse Viviano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

[edit] Wraparound deletion

Hi i posted a wiki for "wraparound" which was apparently deleted due to copyright concerns. This makes no sense, there was nothing copyrighted in the entry nor is the concept of providing "wraparound services" to youth and families a copyrighted concept. The information i posted was based on descriptions of the concept as defined and specified by a national consortium of service providers and researchers who wish the information to be publicly available. (see www.rtc.pdx.edu/nwi)

Please advise how to restore the entry. The children's services field and others will benefit from the description of wraparound being on wikipedia.

Thank you

Eric Bruns

_________________________________ Eric J. Bruns, Ph.D. Assistant Professor University of Washington School of Medicine Division of Public Behavioral Health and Justice Policy 146 N. Canal Street, Suite 100 Seattle, WA 98103 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ebruns (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC).

We administrators are a bit paranoid about copyright concerns due to the actions of some massive copyright violators like a vandal who calls himself Primetime. Please follow the instructions that were left for you in your talk page at User talk:Ebruns. I can agree about this information being valuable, but it needs to be free of copyright violations, or have its material be licensed under the GFDL. There are many methods to restore this page. They are listed on the instructions left on your talk page. Jesse Viviano 21:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A friend of yours?

Viktor Yushchenko (talk · contribs) -- check out the deleted page... — Scientizzle 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh. I saw User talk:Toomas Hendrik Ilves and blocked Viktor Yushchenko. Who is playing this game? — Scientizzle 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking User:Toomas Hendrik Ilves. I'm still concerned that this user has assumed the name of the president of Estonia. I followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names and placed the message on his talk page as requested, but now my comment has been removed from that page and his username, although blocked, is still extant. Is there something else I should do? This is my first experience with this sort of situation. Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer. Accounting4Taste 19:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not block User:Toomas Hendrik Ilves. I declined his unblock request and left a blocked notice to wipe out the user talk page in about a month. By the way, due to GFDL concerns, we cannot delete any accounts. They can never be deleted if they have made one or more contributions (even if they have been deleted). We can only block these names. Jesse Viviano 20:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that -- I'm satisfied that everything that should be done has been done, and also thanks for your efforts. Accounting4Taste 20:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Antandrus blocked the account named Toomas Hendrik Ilves, by the way. The real Toomas Hendrik Ilves probably has no connection to this account. Jesse Viviano 20:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what game you are talking about, Scientizzle. There seems to be a troll abusing Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 20:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I simply meant that there's an obvious troll "playing" at being high-level European politicians that is attacking Wikipedia admins. I was curious, since you had been targeted, if you knew of the "real" account behind this (some long-term vandal, maybe? -- I saw that you were likely picked on as a target based upon your declined unblock of Toomas Hendrik Ilves). Nothing more, just curious if you had further information. Maybe the IP check will turn up something... — Scientizzle 18:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know anything more about this incident, but I have filed a CheckUser request because the quick return of the vandal made me think that there was an open proxy in use. Jesse Viviano 18:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Cristian Ávila Uruburok

Sorry about that, i don't think i've used the db-notenglish tag before, i assumed it was just for tagging articles that weren't in English. Won't happen again. Jac16888 18:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shoutwire

I noticed you undeleted a version of Shoutwire for GFDL compliance. It's been deleted again so presumably there is a compliance problem again too. Kappa 13:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone reposted it, so I had to restore the deleted versions for GFDL compliance, which requires the history to be present to credit the page's authors. Someone else speedied it per CSD A7. Jesse Viviano 15:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

(Personal attack redacted)

My father is of 100% Italian ancestry, and my mother is from Vietnam. My mother's people are poor because they have been exploited and are still exploited by many different other peoples like the Chinese, French, and now the Communists. I do not enjoy your personal attacks, and too many of them will get you blocked. Jesse Viviano 06:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice attacks... pure crap by the way. I got them indef blocked, and I wish you the best :). Jmlk 1 7 22:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Jesse Viviano 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ohio U Engineering scandal

About a year ago you commented about this at Talk:Ohio University. there are now some more references, and I left a comment there if you would care to write it. I started a section on the College of Engineering that would make a good place. DGG (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am unfortunately burdened with many school projects now. I would like to write it, but I don't have time now. Jesse Viviano 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

What do you mean no vandalism? I count 10 acts. How much damage are you going to allow them to do before you act? You're wasting the time of the editors who have to revert this stuff. (Caniago 09:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

There was no vandalism after the final warning, which is the warning after the warning notifying the vandal that he can be blocked. We are not supposed to block unless they vandalize past that warning. We do not block straight away unless there is a dire emergency (e.g. someone is uploading child porn). We block only after the final warning is isssued and is ignored. Jesse Viviano 19:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a bunch of vandalism before my warning, but when I checked the report, there was no vandalism afterwards. Maybe the vandal came back after the warning, after I had to leave to take care of more urgent business. Jesse Viviano 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the vandal came back after the final warning, and therefore got blocked. Jesse Viviano 20:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BloodyEddie back in April [1]

Hi Jesse Viviano, sorry for the invalid report of this user. I will certainly know now that usernames with "bloody", or even "blood" for that matter are OK. I also don't think there's a need to even take it to WP:RFCN, since the user has made made no edits.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 05:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Won't happen again.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 05:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad usernames need to be taken care of, even if they never edit. I would say go for it and take it to WP:RFCN if the name seems somewhat inappropriate. If it is blatantly obvious, it should be taken to WP:UAA. Jesse Viviano 05:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Maize Question

Could you advise on my comment at Talk:Maize#Lost_history_of_talk. If not a full history merge, how do we reconnect this material? Please respond on the there. Thanks--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repost of Koalisyon ng mga Pulitikong na Maka-Administrasyon

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Koalisyon ng mga Pulitikong na Maka-Administrasyon, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Koalisyon ng mga Pulitikong na Maka-Administrasyon was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Koalisyon ng mga Pulitikong na Maka-Administrasyon, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 06:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Compromised account

Template:Compromised account has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Maser ^(Talk!) 06:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jesse! I remember you from ECE at MSU. Glad to see you helping out Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.161.94 (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Jesse Viviano (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prairie Street (Metra) tagged for deletion by mistake

I tagged Prairie Street (Metra), and two other Metra Station articles by mistake, and revived this one. The other two, that are tagged now, are the sandboxes I wanted to delete(somebody already deleted one of mine), so you can delete those. ----DanTD (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my ip is blocked

5 years is way too long to block my IP, it's a public terminal IP and that of a set of public terminals too... please reduce the block to maybe expire in a month or so... it's annoying. it locks out those good people who cant get an account. --Ashford1982 (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like your computer is connected to a misconfigured proxy server. Could you please contact your networ administrator to tell him or her to lock out all computers that are not part of the organization that owns those public terminals from using the proxy? Idiots like to abuse open proxies like that proxy server your public terminal uses to dodge blocks Wikipedia administrators impose to continue vandalizing Wikipedia. We need to see the poster's real IP address so that we can block it if it is being abused for vandalism, personal attacks, and other misbehavior. Open proxies hide such IPs, and therefore must be blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Open proxies for why we block such servers.

One other possibility is that someone infected the proxy with malware, turning it into a zombie proxy. In this case, your administrator needs to clean it up. Jesse Viviano (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Awbrey Sock

Can you comment on this (I'd rather you reply directly to User: LookingGlass who seems to be ignoring my point. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting material because someone was banned is a good thing, but only if the material was created while the user was banned. Since the original author of the deleted article, Dmccreary, is not banned, the article was mistakenly deleted. A rollback to a previous revision or deleting revisions created by the socks and all revisions afterwards to maintain GFDL compliance is all we should have done as administrators. After that, you can get involved in the article and roll back to the revision you want, but you lose the right to act as an administrator due to a conflict of interest. Jesse Viviano (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:GFDL-self-no-disclaimers/doc

A tag has been placed on Template:GFDL-self-no-disclaimers/doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agents of good roots

thanks for the roll back, I'm removing the other paragraphs and putting the note in the edit summary with the copyvio URL, is that the best course of action? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You roll back to the latest version without any copyright violations, and then start editing from that version. If every version has a copyright violation besides the usual page blanking vandalism, then it needs deletion. If there are more copyright violations, don't remove them. Roll them back until you get to a copyvio free version. After that, start editing from that version. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

the issue was that the entire page was a copy paste from different bios of the band: sections were from vh1.com, yahoo music, ticketmaster -- all likely originally from the band's now non-existent website. It's now a discography and list of people because it's impossible I think to prove copyvio of a list. They're apparently notable but I don't know where to start as many sources are pay only. Someone more interested in music and or the band can hopefully work on it. Thanks for your help TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow. If that is true, then use either multiple {{Db-g12}} templates or one {{Db}} template with all of the URLs listed in it. I will have to delete this page because there is no assertion of notability now that everything has been stripped bare. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know about using multiple g12s or the general, I'll know that from now on. Thanks. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Petroleum tanker move

Thanks for jumping on that move so quickly! I noticed that the material in Talk:Petroleum tanker hasn't moved. As cut-n-paste doesn't seem the right way to move that material into Talk:Oil tanker I thought I'd mention it to an admin. Thanks again! Haus^Talk 03:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I really do not want to have to clean up another cut-and-paste move, after discovering that the main article was one already. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don Siegelman

I think Siegelman's conviction is highly suspect as well. But considering the case has not even been reopened, how does WP:BLP support removing the criminals category?--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Negative information must be traceable to reputable sources to stay in a biography of a living person. If their sources turn out to be suspect, then those stories must be considered suspect, no matter how good their authors are. In this case, these authors had no fault and were reporting on a conviction. WP:BLP logically should extend to these sources' sources. Since there is strong evidence that his conviction is suspect, we don't know whether or not he is a criminal. Therefore, calling him a criminal violates this standard. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I believe that I was the one who hit him with the label of "American criminal". I did not like him because his ability to hire others is rather poor (many people he hired became corrupt and committed many crimes while Siegelman was in office), but if he was railroaded, he needs to be removed from that category out of principle. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Son of Stimpy deletion

Please see this discussion and undo your deletion. Catchpole (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ore dressing

About a year ago, you condemned the articel ore dressing as 'the worst article ever'. Over the last year, several editors have worked on it. Would you like to reconsider your views on it now? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not review this article. Somebody from another news source reviewed this article and roasted it in his or her review. It looks better, but I really cannot review it. I don't know jack about ore dressing, but if an expert on this topic roasts it, it is probably trash. I removed the tag on the main page because it looks better, but I left the note on the talk page because externally peer reviews stay there forever. Jesse Viviano (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wdille86

I was a little surprised to see you block User:Wdille86. When I saw them on AIV, they had only one warning, so I declined to block and left a final warning. Then I noticed on my watchlist that you blocked them (after my final) although they had made no further edits. Could I convince you to reconsider? They essentially received only one warning, which is generally considered insufficient for less than truly heinous vandalism... - Philippe | Talk 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw the question. I notice you blocked for vandalism only, which was totally appropriate. My apologies. - Philippe | Talk 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pedigree Toys

Hi, I noticed that there was once an article for this company that was deleted by you in March 2007. Are you able to access the deleted text and perhaps provide me with a copy? I'm trying to write an article for Pedigree Dolls & Toys Ltd to remove red links to that and Pedigree Toys, but could use some help, and perhaps some info in the deleted article could be useful, among its "Nonsense and spam"? Thanks, Somno (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I will undelete the junk for you for one week, and then delete it again. I can't just cut and paste the text as that would be a GFDL violation. Please let me know so that I can remove the junk when you are done. Also, if you need more time, leave me a message. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have checked the article out and unsurprisingly, it's nonsense and spam. I had a faint hope that it might contain at least one useful sentence or piece of info I could use in this, but I guess I was too optimistic! It can be deleted again. Thanks for your help, Somno (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

Hello, I notice that you blocked my ip address with no valid reason. I have had a Wikipedia account for a couple of years and have been editing from this ip address using this account for several months. Coul you please unblock my account as soon as possible? Jonesy (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Jesse, my ip address has been blocked again (I'm editing from work at the moment) due to the issue with TPG and proxy servers. However I had followed your instructions to the letter (ie, changed the proxy server, checked teh revant checkboxes etc and had been editing for the last month or so with no dramas. I tried to revert some vandalism last night only to find I had been blocked again. Any ideas on what to do now (although I enjoy work I don't really wnat to spend any more time here than i really need to). Thanks. Jonesy (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some vandal must have used TPG's explicit proxy and gotten blocked. Please follow the instructions for getting an autoblock removed, because nobody but checkusers can see what autoblock is causing collateral damage to you unless you follow the directions for requesing an autoblock release. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:SWARM GT vs Clemson 2006.jpg

It wasn't a "blatant copyright violation" - the license was cc-by-2.0 and the photographer changed it to all rights reserved because she wasn't comfortable with that. Most of her photos are on commons, so I'd overlooked that one. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think that once something is licensed under a Creative Commons license that such permission should be impossible to revoke. Anyways, the disallowed Creative Commons licenses redirect to {{Db-i9}}, and the speedy deletion message for CSD I9 is "Blatant copyright infringement". This really needs to be changed to redirect to {{Db-i3}}. Jesse Viviano (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent newpage patrols

Thanks for deleting those attack pages! its always nice to meet another aspie on wikipedia. Ironholds (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did not do new page patrols. I was trying to help with the backlog of speedy deletion candidates. Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article deletion

I would like to try and fix my article - could you restore it to my userspace? Thank you. --Latienda (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cheesenstein

This was up for speedy deletion as WP:CSD#G3, not A7. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A7 was the closest that would match this, because this did not look like vandalism at all to me but something that is not notable. Jesse Viviano (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SugarDVD

SugarDVD has been posted again after you responded to my speedy-delete tag. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSD A7

Sorry about that one CSD tag. I thought A7 was for anything that did not indicate the subject's importance. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Normally, non-notable stuff gets prodded or sent to AFD. However, CSD A7 for real people is designed to protect privacy for real people who did not do anything so notable that an article is absolutely necessary for completeness. CSD A7 for groups and web content are spam busters. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion

In deleting the image Image:Ulster Scotland mural.jpg, you used the following edit summary "I9: Blatant copyright violation" linking to the statement that this covered "Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case."

This is factually inaccurate and, to be frank, downright insulting. The image was uploaded, as stated, when it was freely licensed on Flickr, and done so in the utmost of good faith. While there can be no arguing with the deletion, and it was my own foolishness not to upload it to Commons that is responsible, I am not responsible for any variety of copyright violation, nor at any point did I make any inaccurate statements to the effect of the licensing on that image. In making such statements, I'd usually expect a person to ensure they had at least some level of truth to them. --Breadandcheese (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you noticed that on this image's page on Flickr, the license states that this photo has the text "© All rights reserved" in the lower right portion of this page. That means that this photo is not freely licensed and can only be used if there is no way to generate a free version of this photo and therefore can be claimed under fair use. That means that the building or the mural on it must be destroyed or majorly damaged before this photo becomes a valid fair use photo. If the photo was uploaded on Commons, it would have to be deleted under similar circumstances because there is no way we can look back in time, and searching the Internet Archive Wayback Machine did not produce any results agreeing with your contention. Therefore, we are forced to assume bad faith and consider this a copyright violation. Normally, we assume good faith but copyright is one area we must assume bad faith in times where the image was not created by the uploader unless the free license is proven. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Leave me alone

Listen here- if you don't stop locking my account I am going to have to report you to the people in charge, OK? No more of this 'zombie computer' crap from you, I'm sick of it. I have no idea what you mean by that, and Im not a 'zombie'. Stop blocking me or else I'll have to tell somebody about your repeated harassment in blocking me for no apparent resaon, OK?Tentimesone (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Tentimesone