User talk:Jmlk17/Archive13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Vandalism?

Hi there, rather than just simply yelling at me for so-called "vandalism" it would be nice if you could tell me exactly what this so called "false information" is that I seem to be adding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trip Johnson (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a link on your talk page. :) Jmlk17 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Neighbours Page

Hi again, can you please lock the Neighbours page because of Vandlisim it's been going on for ages because instead of writing long-running some on keeps writing anti-male or. man-hating it's really annoying coz. me o someother member have to change it like 5 times every day.Please Help Thanks Glamgirljaspreet101 (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Done... semi-protected for a week. This should definitely help, but if they come back after a week, just let me know and we can figure something out. Best! :) Jmlk17 02:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay Thanks :) Glamgirljaspreet101 (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course... glad to help! :) Jmlk17 02:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, me again the Neighbours Page is still be vandilised as soon as the ban came off the person just started doing it again. Glamgirljaspreet101 (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Help to revert

I put a lot of multiple "citation needed" tags on both Miss Universe and Miss World articles for the purpose of improving the verifiability since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which is based on reliable sources not truth. I can see that you have reverted the changes made by an unknown user to Miss World article into my previous edit, If ever you can restore the same thing to my edit in the Miss Universe article. I have also provided multiple needed citation tags in the Miss Universe article, but the same user from Miss World made several unreasonable edits to the Miss Universe article, so far it was reverted already by DerHexer, however, it did not go as far as the last edit in the article history on the 24th of December 2007 (05:24, 24 December 2007 by Alice) containing the multiple needed citation tags edit that I have put. I need your help and to revert and also your opinion on the matter. I have put the explanation in the discussion page of Miss Universe article why there's a need to put the multiple needed citation tags to the existing info about Miss Universe. Honestly, I'm not proficient enough to do the revert when there's a lot of intermediate edits. Thanks. Ped Admi 16:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have already been done and fixed. :) Jmlk17 02:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. No, not yet, the citation tags that I put on December 24th was not reverted yet; please refer to my last entry in the Miss Universe article history.

Ped Admi 23:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Dan Carter Page

Um there something wrong with the page coz i can't edit it and only certain parts of text show up can you please try and fix it thanks

Glamgirljaspreet101 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Done... :) Jmlk17 02:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Glamgirljaspreet101 (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course... glad to help! :) Jmlk17 03:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Hey mate, sorry about the nonsense article. Still testin Wikipedia... was about to delete it myself..thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphire999 (talk • contribs) 16:43, December 19, 2007

Not a problem buddy. Welcome, and happy editing! :) Jmlk17 23:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would you delete the MetroHorse article?

Hello, why did you delete the MetroHorse article. This article is credible. You can go on Google and search for Metrohorse. You will see over 1100 results. Please recosider your decision as MetroHorse is a real and credible website.


Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexk201 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Very true, yet that alone does not signify notability. Jmlk17 01:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider the Kanzen Maid Sengen article

Why did you delete it? It was deleted 2 seconds after it created. It has its own Japanese wikipedia article too. Dasomcafe (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Kanzen Maid Sengen (JAP:完全メイド宣言) is the name of an all-female Japanese music group of seven members, who are all employees of one of the popular Akihabara maid cafes, @home Cafe. Their music is labeled under PINK BUNNY RECORDS. They made their first debute in 2005 and released one album called Kanzen best sengen 1 (完全ベスト宣言1). Their single, Kanzen meido no rokkurisumasu (完全メイドのロックリスマス) ranked 2nd on Oricon's indies chart.


ja:完全メイド宣言 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dasomcafe (talk • contribs) 02:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am having problems finding much of anything to signify notability however. Jmlk17 02:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey...."buddy"?

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or trying to kill me with kindness. Anyways, calling a random collection of people a "cult" is just asking for an attorney, briefcase and all, to file a class action lawsuit against Wiki. Then Wiki wont be free anymore...:( I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just being friendly. And honestly, while I can understand your concern(s), Wikipedia isn't going to be sued over an article like that. Jmlk17 03:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A vandal disrupting articles for over a month

Hello. I just noticed your response [1] to mmy RFPP [2]. I have been reading the page protection policy. I refer you to my numerous WP:AIV complaints against what is, in all likelihood, a single user with multiple ips from the same domain [3] (previous complaints cascaded in the previous diff). I am uncertain as to which wikipedia policies apply in this case. A single user has been switching ips to attack/vandalize multiple articles over the course of a month. Please see the revision histories of the following articles [4][5][6][7]. Could you please look into this matter and take whatever action you deem necessary to stop this user? Thank you and happy holidays. Ghanadar galpa (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an administrator. I paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better admin. I am going to take things slowly for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. I sincerely doubt you'll see anything controversial coming from my new access level. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, though I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. If you do ever have any concerns about my activities as an administrator, I encourage you to let me know. My door is always open. --Elonka 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck! :) Jmlk17 03:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I'm not quite sure how to process the logic of the statement that you're confident in my abilities and you're pleased that I made admin, and yet you still opposed.  ;) But, thanks, I guess.  :) --Elonka 18:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Just saying I have faith in the RFA process and since you passed, you have my faith as well. :) Jmlk17 19:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sakic

I considered nominating it as soon as it reached FA. I was thinking though of either April 9 (start of the playoffs, of which Sakic should be part of again), or July 7, his birthday. Open to suggestions though. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking his birthday might be a good one... so that gives us plenty of time before we actually have to act! :) Jmlk17 03:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi there! Just a quick note to say "thanks very much" for your support on my recent, successful RfA. I'm humbled by the support I received, and will do my best to use the tools with care and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course... best of luck! :) Jmlk17 05:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Rant

YOU CANT STOP DUDE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SO DONT TRY....WE WILL BE BACK NIGHT ALL—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cougarspride (talk • contribs) 00:06, December 21, 2007

We shall see... goodbye! Jmlk17 07:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Classwipe

Hello, may I know what's wrong with the username? --King Edmund of the Woods (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be a play on words of "asswipe". Jmlk17 19:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rachael Bell Music -- Why Deleted? (Continuted discussion from archived page)

Thanks for your prompt note, I just saw it. You asked "what you could do" to work this out. If you're looking for further evidence of "notability" other than what is already there, you could go to www.SoulTracks.com and see that, as of today, she has been selected as the "Featured Artist" a ranking higher even than spotlight artist, which this month they are giving to Mary J. Blige, Boys II Men, and other major-label artists who already have Wikipedia pages. SoulTracks is the number 1 soul music website in this country, so it doesn't get much more "notable" than that in Ms. Bell's genre of music. Please put her original Wiki page back up and add this new information? Or we will add it? Kind regards.

R. Patryk

I'm believing that I have made a mistake with the deletion. :( Jmlk17 19:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


I'm glad to hear that. Would you please restore the page??

R. Patryk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.54.11 (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello, just checking in again. Would please restore the Rachael Bell Music page? Kind regards.

R. Patryk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.54.11 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi, I saw you were the admin who blocked the vandal who was removing templates from a bunch of D&D articles last night. He's popped up again under a new IP, doing the same exact thing. My recent edit history and talk page will show you I'm trying to fend off this vandal single-handedly, and I need help. Thanks much. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nvm, the same minute I posted this another admin took care of it. Have a good day. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad they're on top of it... happy editing! Jmlk17 02:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


P Bze

Hi my name is Anthony Lindsey you have just deleted my page P Bze not to long ago but now you prevented me from creating it again. I understand what i did wrong but now i can fix it so can you please allow me to recreate this page? (Bigboytony (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

Hey there Anthony! First off, welcome! Secondly, I deleted the page due to a lack of notability. It appears that the page had been deleted several times for that ver reason by other administrators before I even got there. Is there anyway you could show that P Bze is a notable rapper or person? Jmlk17 21:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed successfully with 44 support, 4 oppose, and 3 neutral. I will work hard to improve the encyclopedia with my new editing tools (and don't worry, I'll be careful).
  jj137 ♠ 01:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Good luck! :) Jmlk17 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You're so quick!

I think you got that before I finished my AIV report, lol. Thanks dear! Ariel♥Gold 02:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I try my best and sometimes it even works! :) Jmlk17 02:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate it, very much. Ariel♥Gold 02:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course! :) Jmlk17 02:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Response

Maybe not all of them. But new users certainly need a guideline on what's appropriate to say around here and what's not. But, I compromise and made the page more "family friendly".--M.O.L.L.Y.I..I.S.MY...GYRL (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, the guidelines are on the page already. Jmlk17 02:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sort of , but the list is incomplete. For example, the block bots have a definitive list. What new users need is a also a definitive list, and I'm the man to do it! My dad's a truck driving former Marine and would be happy to help.M.O.L.L.Y.I..I.S.MY...GYRL (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Right on; you are always more than welcome to help around here. But honestly, a list of inappropriate words isn't necessary. The article itself gives the guidelines, and what you were adding doesn't do much more than just list curse and attack slurs. Jmlk17 02:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Antonio Lopez

New users don't even check that thing --Antonio Lopez (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I know... I don't think I ever even have, 2 years into my stint here. :) Jmlk17 02:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

the irony... --Antonio Lopez (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hurts even. :) Jmlk17 02:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

it sure got User talk:M.O.L.L.Y.I..I.S.MY...GYRL. he/she/it got blocked... Antonio Lopez (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Three-revert rule

shoot I almost broke the three revert tool. that was close one. Do you now if there is a tool that warns you about that you did three reverts

--Antonio Lopez (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so... what didja do? :) Jmlk17 02:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting vandalism, but luckily Bowbowbow stopped. It's not really considered edit warring since I did not made a fourth edit --Antonio Lopez (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, when it comes to reverting vandalism, it really isn't as stringent. But good to be on top of it. :) If you're concerned about continuing to revert vandalism beyond a 3RR, just let AIV know. Jmlk17 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


you mean reporting myself (along with the report of the other user) that I was reverting vandalism, but broke the rule because I was reverting vandalism. --Antonio Lopez (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not at all! An admin is certainly not going to punish an editor for getting rid of vandalism... just reminding you of the option of AIV if/when someone won't quit on an article. :) Jmlk17 04:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
aww I remember mow, report them of the 3 edit rule before I commit it. how could I forget.--Antonio Lopez (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 :) Jmlk17 04:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

New Liberian page

Hello,

You deleted the Wikipedia page for the New Liberian while I was in the process of adding citations and outside references and altogether Wikifying it. Otherwise it meets the guidelines.

168.103.120.25 (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


````

D. Maass Sat. Dec 22, 2007

Hello there D. Maass. Unfortunately, I deleted the article due to a lack of notability. Do you believe this to be a mistake on my part? I have been known to make them! :) Jmlk17 04:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


Hi Jmlk17

I think it might have been a mistake. If there can be entries for the Minneapolis-St Paul Star Tribune, then I think it makes sense to also have entries for news media outlets in Liberia, especially as history is being made in the West African country. These Liberian newspapers are all intertwined in a greater culture of conflict and exile, and as such, very notable.

If there's something I need to do to add to the page, just let me know. In the meantime, can be reinstated so I can add to it?

Dave

67.131.72.210 (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Heya Dave. If you have a registered name here, I can restore the page to your personal sandbox, and that'll give you the ease of working on the page without anyone scrutinizing or deleting it. This is usually a good way for people to save deleted articles, building them up for keeping and eventually restoring them to an actual article. Just let me know! You can also email me if you like, so we don't have to keep playing talk page tag. Jmlk17 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Maassive (talk) 23:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You know that sounds okay. My username is Maassive.

Right on. I have restored the page to it's pre-deletion state at your personal sandbox here. If you can find some outside sources and expand upon the article some, it should be good! If you'd like, when you are finished or have done some work, I'll be more than happy to stop by and take a look at it for you. Just let me know! Best of luck, and happy editing! :) Jmlk17 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

NHL Standings...

Actually, I did not fix your edit, I created my own. I am completing an excel spreadsheet that imports the NHL Standings on ESPN and wiki-codes the standings so all I have to do is refresh, and do 6 copy/paste operations to update the entire league. After I complete it, anyone who has Excel who might want it I will be more than happy to share. --Pparazorback (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice! Good idea... Jmlk17 05:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that beyond Points, fewer games, and wins, I cannot at this time break any ties any other way, so there will be instances such as on Template:2007-08 NHL Northwest Division standings where I cannot automatically break a tie between Colorado and Minnesota as they have equal games played and the exact same record. While I could obviously use goal differential, I could not easily gather the common home-home record (which in this case is tied too) which is the first, so it will simply show the tie and sort in the order that it was posted on ESPN. This particular edit anyway will only be critical at or near the end of the season anyway. --Pparazorback (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I agree it'll only be truly important at the end of the season, but what about just for correctness? :) Also, ESPN has been known to mess up with NHL stuff sometimes, so I go with the official NHL.com website's standings. Good job on the templates by the way... Jmlk17 08:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Normally a good plan to check NHL.com, except I have even seen them break ties incorrectly during the season. tsn.com too for that matter. ESPN's method of presenting the standings is the only one of the three that allow me to create a consistent web query, plus ESPN updates fairly quickly, while TSN and NHL take forever. I'll make attempts during my updates to check for correctness whenever possible. --Pparazorback (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good buddy. Jmlk17 09:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

re. Confused

I am the sexy one. Duh...— Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 06:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! :) Jmlk17 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record

As I've repeated elsewhere, Ceoil does more helpful things on Wikipedia one day than Betacommand has done in his entire time editing Wikipedia. Your block was punitive as Ceoil said, and censorship of free speech as far as I am concerned. He's been very helpful to me on Wikipedia, and has been helpful to a lot of others. He's penned several FAs, and saved several FAs at FAR. Also, he's done his fair share of copyediting which I am the first to admit has helped me through four FACs. Thanks a lot for driving away a very good contributor, and one that contributes a fair amount of content. On the subject of content, feel free to take a cursory glance at how much content Betacommand has contributed. I'm not too sure what good things you did to gain adminship, but this is certainly not reflective of them at all (I'm hoping). If it is reflective of how you go about on Wikipedia, then the 41 people that supported your adminship are frankly mistaken. Trying to initially block Ceoil indefinitely was utterly disgraceful, and even the 48 hour block doesn't rank too high either. He isn't the first, and certainly not the last, editor to tell Betacommand what he truly is. I 110% support Ceoil's words, and echo them. I might be only one of a few brave enough to say that, but dozens others agree with Ceoil's comments. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

that was not a good block. It was perhaps not a polite as desirable, but not truly a violation of WP:NPA,. Please remove before it goes further. Your colleague admin, DGG (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Another user has now brought it to AN/I. DGG (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to congratulate you, and apologise if the message I made above caused offence. I definitely feel this isn't reflective of your usual edits, and the 41 people who supported you were right to do so. Thanks for your time, and good luck being a decent administrator. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries and all... thanks for the wishes. :) Jmlk17 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
and i too apologize if I implied anything beyond a simple error. keep up the good work. At least this did spark a useful discussion of a serious problem elsewhere involving someone else altogether. DGG (talk) 00
45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries at all. :) Jmlk17 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

re block of User:Ceoil

Hi. I am advising you that I have unblocked the above editor following consensus arrived at the discussion here. Your comments are of course welcome. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Kudos on your apology to Ceoil, and the manner in which it was given. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Thank you for the unblock while I was gone. :) Jmlk17 22:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by 116.14.1.232

Seems to be an autoblock that is attributed to you, although the log shows no active blocks nor any in the past. Can you look into this? Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, it's from the block of 116.14.0.0/16 (talk · contribs) (block log). Who is the puppet master? This is a long block for such a huge range. --B (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Crap... I believe my rangeblock went a bit out of control. As per the history of my talk page, a sock was IP-hopping through that range. I ended up under attack from them for some time, and tried a rangeblock to fix it. Seems I'm no good at those. Jmlk17 21:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Unblocked. Jmlk17 22:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A holiday wish

You know, I sincerely believe that we all make mistakes and as humans we cannot be expected to do otherwise. I'm in no way asking for someone to be perfect. What I am asking for is that when mistakes are made, the person responsible for that mistake apologizes. If you truly see yourself as just another editor, and not some sort of WikiGod, then I would encourage you to really and sincerely apologize to User:Ceoil. If I may speak frankly, Ceoil has done more for the encyclopedia than 99 percent of the editors on this project -- you can look at his contributions to verify this. And to indef block, without even discussing as far as I can tell, (even if you changed it to 48 hours, he still has an indef in his block log) is really an unfortunate way to treat such a valuable user. As you say, we all make mistakes, but it's clear that Ceoil isn't even remotely close to a serial offender who deserves such a massive block without a good faith discussion first. We could, conceivably, lose one of our best content contributors because of your action. I'm sure you don't want that to happen, and I think that a really sincere apology would be a gesture of good faith quite appropriate for the season, which would help restore the morale around this place a little bit. We've lost a lot of good content contributors lately; let's not allow that to happen again. Happy Holidays! --JayHenry (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, here's a really beautiful article that you might enjoy reading: Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion. I remember when it appeared on the Main Page. I was incredibly proud to be a Wikipedian that day. Are you ever overwhelmed by the beauty of the content that we sometimes create? I find myself filled with wonder on days I find articles like that. Cheers again! --JayHenry (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Seconded (actually fourthed, after DGG and Lucifer). Either you did not check the quality and quantity of this user's contributions or you did check and decided to block anyway. In either case, it was a serious lapse in judgement as an admin. Marskell (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Everybody makes mistakes (probably me more than others); Im not angry at you at all, I said these things happen, It was the reaction after. Your apology is appreciated, and my last number of posts have nothing to do with you. Actually, I was only angry with you for a few minutes. So, peace. Ceoil (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad to be on more peaceful terms. :) Jmlk17 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
To be clear Jmlk, its a wider issue im bitching about, not really anything to do with your account or mine. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries man... I can sympathize with many of the issues around here. :) Jmlk17 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Jmlk, I really admire your straightforward and sincere apology. If that bot person had a similar tone and attitude, there might not have been a problem (and I think I now see the source of the friction). You have my respect. Happy holidays and best wishes, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy holidays to you as well! :) Jmlk17 22:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Marskell (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to say, my impression of you as an admin, Jmlk, has always been very favorable and now I remember why. You're one of the good guys. In an ironic twist, I think it's me that owes you the apology now ;) The tone of my initial post was actually pretty nasty, and you definitely aren't the sort of admin who thinks he's a "WikiGod". I apologize for making such a stupid and undeserved insinuation. --JayHenry (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

116.14.0.0/16

I see you've unblocked this range. I must wonder about the wisdom of this. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_2_range_blocks, where I just got another range blocked by the same vandal. If there was ever a need for a range block, this was it; we have used range blocks for far less vandalism. We have a user on this range who has been relentlessly vandalizing userpages and user talk pages. If you do not wish to block this range, then please be willing to watchlist all the user talk pages I listed at that discussion, as we have been suffering vandalism on them for days (including the talk pages of the vandal, as he likes to go back and vandalize his old pages). I believe you will find the task far more arduous than is worth the effort. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been the target of the IP's wrath lately myself. I had the range blocked, but per the thread above, it seems some disagreed with me. Do you have a recommendation beyond that? :) Jmlk17 23:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It's wise to unblock. Cause your also blocking countless others. The so-called "vandalism" is justified. What do you mean? Vandalizing HIS OLD pages is also not allowed? This is really totalitarian. -116.14.30.51 (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Uh, okay... :) Jmlk17 04:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that you are totally unrepentant and that you are still reverting others user pages while at the same time accusing others of editing their old user pages. Have the "shared IP" notion gotten into your head? -116.14.30.51 (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
When you stop adding nonsense messages (that are wrong and ill-informed), I will stop reverting them. Jmlk17 05:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Read through and analyse everything. They are not nonsense, not wrong and they are justified. What rubbish is this? Of course you can't revert when there are no additions. Merry christmas, nows a good time to repent. Maybe I will put it clearer: Nonsensical templates on the talk pages are unwarranted and unfair to others using the IPs. -116.14.30.51 (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why there are the usual "shared IP" notices. I have nothing to repent my friend. Jmlk17 05:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I have another nonsense left on my talk page. See it before I delete. Surprisingly you are not responsible for it. Must be one of your lackeys. -116.14.30.51 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Enough. Please do not post on my page again unless it is on another issue. Your complaint(s) have no bearing, and you deletions of proper warnings are unwarranted. Jmlk17 05:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have to say I am so sorry for you elitist and stuck up admins. -116.14.30.51 (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. :) Jmlk17 05:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Closing request

This message has been addressed to you because you happened to be around at the time. I've sworn not to close fiction AfD's, and will likely get yelled at even if I do so purely on procedural grounds. It's on the latter that I ask you to speedily end Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rod of Seven Parts (2nd nomination) as premature if that's in accordance with your own judgement. The article was just nominated for deletion twenty-nine days after the last nomination ended, for the very same reasons as the last time around. Yes, "consensus can change", but in a month? Renominating rapidly with the same arguments in the same situation bases decisions on tenacity and luck, rather than article merit. That's not something that Wikipedia can withstand.

Neither would a month have been a reasonable amount of time for a cleanup and fix - that tends to be a slow process, this being a voluntary organization - if there had been such a provision in the last closing, which there wasn't.

Neither can local experts - volunteers too - be expected to improve our coverage if they must rally to the defense of their surviving articles monthly. AfDs are non-trivial in their costs of time, effort, and morale. Improving includes making sure that our the coverage of their subject remains good in light of AfDs, and fixing the problems identified that led to AfDs. I've sadly seen plenty of evidence of WikiProjects being run ragged in recent times, and D&D is the foremost. --Kizor is in a constant state of flux 07:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Kizor. I can easily understand your concern(s), and if the consensus had been for a "keep" before, I would close this one without hesitation. But I am a bit reluctant to do so in this case, especially since the previous AfD was so heated and ended without any result. Jmlk17 07:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
True, that's a point against it. Note, though, that the heat (such at it is, but 'so heated' is a subjective term) emanates almost entirely from one editor and arguments against him, and that whether the outcome is a nc or a keep doesn't affect that concern about editors' limited strength. Some offers about looking into finding more sources have been made, too - I see one statement about those being findable snuck into the second statement as we were talking. --Kizor is in a constant state of flux 07:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Man, you gotta "love" those sort of debates huh? I've watchlisted the debate, and I'm going to keep a close eye on it for the time being. Sorry not be to be more of an immediate help, but if the debate goes nowhere, I'll close it. Jmlk17 07:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A reasonable, more conservative, approach. I personally would've closed it, but then my senior class voted me Most Likely To Become A Revolutionary Leader, so I'm open to the possibility that my views on action may not necessarily always be the only optimal solution. Thanks for your help and attention. --Kizor is in a constant state of flux 19:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Glad to help. :) Jmlk17 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please assist Nancy Reagan

I am in an edit war with user HappyTalk22 over the Nancy Reagan article. My edits are not vandalistic, do not offer any poor info, and only improve the flow of the article. Please assist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.106.239 (talk • contribs) 01:44, December 24, 2007

I am not so sure who is "right" in this instance my friend. It seems as if you and Happyme22 need to talk about your differences on one of your talk pages (either yours or theirs). Jmlk17 08:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merrill Lynch (again)

Hi Jmlk. A few days ago, I requested semi-protection for the Merrill Lynch article due to a disruptive IP user. You suggested reporting him to AIV, but the situation has become more ambiguous than vandalism per se, so I'm considering requesting semi-protection again, or whether you'd be willing to arbitrate/weight in. The section at hand is this one, which, at present, is my version (although that might change by the time you read this). Discussion begins with my poster here, though it took a while before the user would use the talk page. Also, here's the article's history. I appreciate your efforts; thanks.--DMCer (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again my friend. I'm not entirely sure who is right in this instance, but unless the IP starts to talk and help us figure out a common ground for the article, I might have to block them or protect the page. I've left a message on their talk page (along with yours), and we'll have to see if this final one takes. I'm keeping on eye on the article on my watchlist for now. Merry Christmas! Jmlk17 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard thread

Hi Jmlk17, there is a thread on the admin noticeboard here, discussing your recent protection of an article. Addhoc (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to explain why I raised this; as a daily monitor of the article, it has been my experience that it has not been protected, so your one-month semi seemed excessive; we usually seem to manage with reverting. Having had similarly protected articles pointed out, I don't know why I didn't ask for protection before for this article. Seems to make sense. Happy Christmas. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan 3RR

I appologize for my misuse of the editing privilege with the 3RR I committed. I was trying to reverse all the POV, pointless, non-MOS edits that were recently made to the page because it is "today's FA." I was in a minor edit war with an anon who continued to put his own POV about the good of the article, yet he think was told on the talk page by a few other editors to quit it. I applied for protection twice; twice it was denied. Sorry though. Happyme22 (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No need for the apology my friend. When another editor just won't quit, head on over to AIV. If the page is overwhelmed, RFPP. But just an FYI: we usually try and avoid protecting the Featured Article for the day, as it is our most visual and visited article, often has a bunch of people keeping an eye on it to revert vandalism, and allows new visitors to try their editing skills out. Merry Christmas! Jmlk17 21:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin

What's up? Thanks for the consideration again. After thinking about it, I've decided against it. I'm too inconsistent when it comes to editing. There are times when I edit a lot and there days or even weeks when I don't edit at all. Real life gets in the way! =) Although it would be nice I'm quite happy with what I'm doing right now: cleaning up articles, reverting vandalism, checking facts etc. Thanks again. You're doing a great job as an admin. Have a wonderful Christmas! ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 20:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Right on buddy! That's pretty thoughtful of you as a matter of fact. Real life definitely does get in the way sometimes! Hope all is well, and have a Happy Holiday! Jmlk17 21:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merrill lynch page discrimination section

I revised the post leaving DMCer style mostly intact. I am making a big compromise here. He is over the top. Talk some sense to him. Thanks.

I'm not going to take sides my friend. All I would like is for the both of you to stop reverting and re-adding your respective materials without talking to each other first. Jmlk17 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to add that blog in. I am leaving the rest intact but have to get this one in. Thank you. Not sure what you mean by controversial. Anything I add is part of US Government law suit. The names I added last time are mentioned in the law suit. I'd like to add them to the test.

JMLK17 I am waiting for DMcer response! Were did he go? YOu have kept his version and claim neutrality my friend!! That is not fair!! Please call him up. I have made a major compromise but I need to get a couple of items in. pls let me know.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.31.212 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is on the article's talk page it seems. Please be patient, as this is Christmastime, and I am sure DMC is busy offline as well. Jmlk17 03:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jmlk 17, Can you explain why you deleted Keith Qi Luo article?

Hello Jmlk 17, Can you explain why you deleted Keith Qi Luo article?

Keith will represent US Congressional Trade Delegate to visit China and meet top China leaders. Would you please kindly recover the article about him?

Happy Holiday!

David Louvre —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLouvre (talk • contribs) 06:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello David! Happy Holidays to you as well. I deleted the article due to a lack of notability. I understand he may represent the US in a visit to China, but upon a search, I am having problems finding any sources on him. Is there anyway you could provide these third-party sources? :) Jmlk17 06:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

why was my page deleted?

Why was the page "manik patil" deleted?

The individual has been referred/quoted on a corporate website (http://infosysblogs.com/managing-offshore-it/2007/10/big_sourcing_deals_and_managin.html). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanik1 (talk • contribs) 23:43, December 24, 2007

Sorry for the confusion, but I deleted the article due to a lack of notability. Please read through that page, and it should explain! :) Jmlk17 06:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

undo Punkbuster

I undid your undo of that edit to Punkbuster by the anon vandal IP. I hope you do not see this as a challenge to your judgement, but I reviewed the edit and found that it was not in fact Vandalism. The information about the hardware blocks is allready mentioned in depth in the section above. Thank you for banning the ip though, I dont question your judgement on that, he was obviously a vandal. 203.135.27.242 (talk) 07:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol... I'm a regular editor, so anyone is more than free to disagree with my edits. Thanks for the heads up, and happy editing! :) Jmlk17 07:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Iklan

hi. you speedied the article as "foreign language." It obviously had to go, but I wish to know under what criteria that is. I tagged as "no context." It didn't seem that right, but it was the tag that made the most sense under the circumstances. Is that the tag that one supposed to put on foreign language articles?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Your tag was just fine, but since it was in a foreign language, I went ahead and just put that down as the reason for the deletion. I believe there at least used to be a tag just for that (there still may be, but my level of activity had been off and on recently, and I seem to have missed out on some changes). Hope this helps, and happy editing! :) Jmlk17 06:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Template

I see what the problem was. The IP user was warned twice for the first edit he made, including one "final warning." So when I reverted him/her and went to the talk page, it appeared that they had been adequately warned. Thanks for clearing it up. :) faithless (speak) 06:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the congrats! Cheers, faithless (speak) 06:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem at all buddy. Hope you're enjoying the new tools! :) Jmlk17 07:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Conten page

Hello! Please do not delete the page. I think i made a misteke by just creating it and editing on the go but still. Do not moderate it untill u see a finished product, ok?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Strory (talk • contribs) 00:11, December 26, 2007

I'll leave it up for a bit for now, but I fail to see any notability, and as such, the article should probably be deleted. Jmlk17 07:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is pathetic

All right, what the heck? I was trying to create a page (admittedly, it probably would have been considered a stub, but it was a start), and a legitimate page it was (admittedly, about a conspiracy theory, but a legitimate conspiracy theory), but almost before I got back to look at it, it was gone! I know this was done to fast to be human, so I call it a VERY flawed system, that just deletes pages and threatens users who create them, regardless of the pages' true significance. I trust that you will get on this soon, but in the meantime, I'd very much appreciate it if you would not count these occurences as warnings, and if you would at least reestablish the page (Azerbaijan does not exist). --Aztruth (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I did delete it, but honestly, it was due to a lack of notability. There are COUNTLESS conspiracy theories out there, many much more credible than claiming that an established country does not exist. Also, I did not threaten you, but rather warned you, asking you to not recreate a page that should not be here. Jmlk17 07:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright then, out of curiosity, where is "lack of notability" in wikipedia's policies? Where do you draw the line? And given that I was unaware of this, how does it merit a warning? --Aztruth (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not mean to bite. Just click here, and read on through. :) Jmlk17 07:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thank you, with 75% more pizazz!

Great success!
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Lol... much better! Congrats, and best of luck! :) Jmlk17 08:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The British Georgian Chamber of Commerce

—Hi,

As I understood (we are very new users) the article which was deleted is questionable for the copyright reasons.

The organisation is registered at the GB Company House as first in history of Georgia and UK bilateral trading body, webpage is licensed and all copyrights belong to the BGCC and we are trying to make our website and the information about us as accessible as possible.

May be you can suggest the way to be published in Wikipedia?

Thank you very much, Regards. --Abashidzemako (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC) M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abashidzemako (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it passes notability is the thing... Jmlk17 05:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

124.191.88.235

Hi. Please see User talk:124.191.88.235. This user has requested an unblock. I took a look and it looks like his "vandalism" is really more inadvertent than anything just because he doesn't really know what he is doing with the interface. I am thinking a reduction to a 24-hour or 31-hour block would be appropriate provided that he promises to be more civil, and with the understanding that it would be reinstated if he is incivil. I wanted to run it by you first before doing anything. Any thoughts? --B (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - he's just launched into personal attacks. --B (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

An Administrator is I!

KoL images are copyrighted, so I'll use this PD one instead.
KoL images are copyrighted, so I'll use this PD one instead.

Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!

Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.

I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.

Thanks again.

An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear 22:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Dear Jmlk17, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).

Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.

Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ibaranoff24

I've asked more questions. I thought you may want to read his answers. The Transhumanist 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support in my successful RFA. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

User:David171

Hi Jmlk17! I am the one who was trying to get the battle of antetiem blocked. Remember? I need help. I created a page on the book Nothing Like It in the World and i do not know how to correctly list my sources could you help and could you teach me how to make new sections in that article? please do not delete it i will be working on it for a while. David171 (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be around much it seems, but feel free to email me, and I'm sure we can figure something out. :) Jmlk17 05:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

semi-protection request for Brodie Foster Hubbard

Sorry for the confusion! I meant the old page, not the new redirect. Sean-O (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

All good.. no worries. :) Jmlk17 08:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to bring to your attention..

I think your source for IR NHL players is a little outdated. I have all 2 of those players you listed on the IR as recently coming back from their injuries.

Here is my source: http://www.forecaster.ca/hockeynews/hockey/_k7z6y6mp3ten/movements.cgi?NHL&x_option=7 Thu, Jan 03, 2008 Nashville Ryan Suter Missed 3 games (leg injury). Phoenix Craig Weller Missed 10 games (concussion). Sun, Dec 30, 2007 Anaheim Brian Sutherby Missed 7 games (strained groin).

I also double-checked my source and those players have played in their teams last game. Thricecube (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dammit! I've been using the official NHL injury report, but I'm not sure if it's up to date apparently... http://freefantasy.nhl.com/hockey/reports/pp_injury.asp is my source. Thanks for the heads up! :) Jmlk17 08:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding andi-vandalism action on the Battle of Iwo Jima article

High five! --Kizor 13:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol... back atcha! :) Jmlk17 22:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy new year! Sorry I have been generally incommunicado lately - First my computer took a crap and I decided that with the amount of time my family spends online, it might not be such a bad idea to completely eliminate it from our lives entirely for a while. Then just as I finally gave in to my daughter's pleading and bought a new computer, work picked up big time for me and I haven't had any freedom to come back to work on Wikipedia. But now that the new year is starting, things have slowed down and I'm back to business. Hope everything is going well with you! Trusilver (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Trusilver...Trusilver...hmmm, doesn't ring a bell. Lol, I'm joking. Glad you're back and everything is settling down for you! Happy New Year to you as well! :) Jmlk17 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's also amazing that even when I'm not around for months, I still get regularly flamed for vandalism reverting that I did back in July or August. It's almost scary. Trusilver (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Lol, I saw that. Just let's you know that the crazy vandals will always be around... Jmlk17 23:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Adopt

Hey can you adopt me? I'm new to Wikipedia and I am hoping to find out more.

Speedyt77 (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Speedy! I would love to, except I am often not around as much as someone should be if they are adopting. I would suggest trying WP:ADOPT... there are tons of good editors who could help you out. Best of luck, and happy editing! :) Jmlk17 05:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Karyn Kupcinet

I think we can try to unlock Karyn Kupcinet now. A working document has been mostly agreed. Unfortunately one of the editors (User:Dooyar) has been unable to agree the final version as he hasn't logged on since 22 Dec. I was hoping to get a final agreement from him before trying the unlock, but it would be inappropriate to lock up the article indefinitely. Let's see how it goes, and if an edit war starts again we can try locking it again. Cheers SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright... it has been more than a month. Keep my updated if anything changes. Best of luck! :) Jmlk17 07:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

On my talk page, you claim that that user has not yet done the vandalism. However, this diff proves otherwise.-- penubag  08:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

True, but the user seems to have gotten bored or something, and has not edited in the past day. Jmlk17 08:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Just out of curiosoity, if you're in a fraternity, whcih are you in? I've wondered. I think we might be among the only fraternity admins. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 08:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, Phi Delt eh? I'm a Pike. I think you're right though; we are in the extremely small minority. :) Jmlk17 10:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
damn, i knew there was something fishy. can i take back my support? the_undertow talk 10:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Feel free. Lol. Make that three apparently. :) Jmlk17 10:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Disappoint at Boxshaft article deletion

Not sure how the decision was reached that Boxshaft wasn't of significate musical importance, when they are basically Morbid Saint's new band, many of their fans felt a Wiki article was important enough to encourage the creation of it, we're disappointed with decision to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judd93 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry... but from my research and what I saw, it fails notability. Jmlk17 23:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Second Life Music Community article removal

I'd really like to be able to get this article up on Wikipedia. I do really feel the SLMC is a significant representation of the future of live music performance, and it seems to me that Wiki users would enjoy understanding the history and background of the Second Life music scene. There are now close to 12,000,000 people who've signed up for Second Life, with dozens of daily live music shows being one of the big draws of the platform. Is there some way for me to again re-write the article so that it's not regarded as a piece on an insignificant club/group? I'm open to help. I tried citing references and including both internal and external links in my last pass. Thanks in advance for any advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakclaxton (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you like, I can restore the page to your personal sandbox, and that will allow you all the time you need/please to work on the article. Then, when you are satisfied with the results, I'd be more than happy to take a look at it, and give some pointers, or help you transfer it to an actual article. Hope that helps! :) Jmlk17 01:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate that... it beats a sharp stick in the eye. :) I remain convinced the topic is worthy of its own article, and should not only be a subset of the main Second Life wiki page. Thanks for the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakclaxton (talk • contribs) 02:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Hopefully the sharp stick won't happen! I restored the page to your own personal sandbox here. Best of luck, and happy editing! :) Jmlk17 03:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Adil Yahya Zakaria Shakour

There was no reason to delete Adil Yahya Zakaria Shakour he is currently listed in EVERY Computer Security Book EVER written after 2003. His actions in computer fraud and network penitration are segnificant. He also has a pointer on two wikipedia articles! THERE WAS ALSO A HANGON TAG WHICH YOU SEEMED TO IGNORE??? Kdc3 (talk)

How exactly does this person qualify as notable my friend? :) Jmlk17 01:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jake.jpg

Wait, so this is you? *confused* — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Any shiny object would confuse you. This is really nothing new. the_undertow talk 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
A drunk, unshaven, late-night me yes. I don't own a digital camera, so I used my cellphone. :) Jmlk17 01:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Holy... Well at least you look better than EVula... but dude, shave that beard. — DarkFalls talk 01:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Naw, keeps my face warm in winter. Not that you know anything about that... :P Jmlk17 01:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude, you got nothing on EVula. I was just confused by the upload log (especially since the old vers are...cats). w/e — Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats fucking hilarious. And I fucked up the upload and uploaded over someone's cat or wedding photos or something. Haha. Cookies! the_undertow talk 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. This is the best picture ever. GlassCobra 01:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn cats... Jmlk17 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I always knew that EVula was... strange. — DarkFalls talk 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The glasses make us look gooooooooooooooooooood. Jmlk17 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

match pump

Hya.

You just deleted an article "match pump". As written in the article, it is NOT an English expression, it is a Japanese expression, which is sometimes confusing during the conversation. This is the reason I made this article. It does not make sense as an English expression. I made many links to ja.wikipedia.org. While finishing tags for translation, it was deleted.

I know it is a hard work as an admin. However, I do appreciate if you can consider your decision again.

AIEA (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. Have you checked out wiktionary? That's the place where we usually have vocabulary, terms and definitions, etc. Jmlk17 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You remember the IP who kept removing tags, right?

Well, he's back. User:Jack Merriweather. I'm at him right now, and he needs to be blocked now! —BoL 04:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like someone beat me to it... keep up the good work! :) Jmlk17 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say that. Hopefully all those pages get protected. They're still hot at RPP! —BoL 04:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)