User talk:JSpung
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. (I will respond on my talk page unless you specify otherwise.) Thank you. |
[edit] Vandals
With regards to your anti-vandal warning: My IP address is for Office Depot. I am not a vandal. --205.157.110.11 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- 205.157.110.11: As stated in my warning: if this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings. JSpung 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Marilyn article--I was about to fix it as I saw your change!--TravelinSista (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User talk:65.199.190.254
I just reverted vandalism by User talk:65.199.190.254; you were the last one to issue her a warning. I don't know much about the blocking process - could you take matters further? Cheers, samwaltz 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have reported the user to administration. In the future, feel free to do this via WP:AIV. Thanks for the help! JSpung 01:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Revert to Heroin
I un-did your revert to Heroin. The user had correctly fixed the date. --NERIC-Security (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oops. It's easy to jump to conclusions after monitoring recent changes for a while. Thanks for catching my mistake. JSpung (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Many eyes make all bugs shallow --NERIC-Security (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I am not a vandal!
I thought we were allowed to edit? Why do you get to decide what truth is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.58.242.51 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, on Wikipedia, anyone can edit any page. However, if new information is added, it must be neutral and verifiable. Your edits introduced information that was neither neutral nor verifiable, therefore the changes you made were marked as vandalism. JSpung (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your VandalProof Application
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, JSpung. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. βcommand 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks...
...for watching my talk page for vandalism. =D the_ed17 15:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly! It was only after I reverted the vandalism that I noticed that it was a talk page. I was going to undo my reversion, but I figured that you'd want it removed anyway. My apologies if you didn't. JSpung (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Juan Castillo
Revert on more version please. Two Ip vandalism instead of one. Matthew_hk tc 06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Father's Rights Movement
The father's Rights Movement webpage that I edited had important changes. You undid them. Should you wish to become informed about the changes, I suggest that you visit the discussion webpage rather than judge works for which you aren't familiar.
One of the leaders of the Masculist movement in Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.24.230 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Matt Sanchez
The last edit I made was substantiated by a reliable source. There's some edit warring going on and Aleta has shown enormous bias. I've submitted an edit and sourced it properly. Would you like to review some of the edits?Brianlandeche (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- JSpung, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Bluemarine and consider re-reverting yourself. This editor is proxy-editing for a banned user, and has been blocked as a consequence. Horologium (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A barnstar for you
 |
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For your awesome anti-vandalism work, I really feel you deserve one! Keep up the great work. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC) |
Since you beat me to the revert button so many times, I think you really should get one :) We need more contributors like you. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Japanese American redress and court cases warning error
As you say that I have vandalized an article. This would be ridiculous since i have never view that article and the ip address has 2 computers. So may you correct your errors —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.101.21 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- The article was vandalized as shown here by your IP address. If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings. JSpung (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit war at KFC
Hi JSpung
Thanks for your intervention. The edit war at Kingstonian F.C. has been going on some little time now, with one particular user repeatedly seeking to add a disparaging item about our little football club. I have tried to point out to him that the point he is making is non-NPOV and out of all proportion to the entry about the Club. (You can see some of the exchanges on my disucssion page.)
I have undone your reverts for the reasons above and wanted to explain my actions.
I would also welcome your neutral adjudication on the dispute.
Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- All involved parties: please see my full evaluation on this issue, available on the article discussion page. JSpung (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- All power to yer elbow!! Many thanks. Prince Philip of Greece (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
With regards the Kingstonian thing I am curious as to why an official statement from the club on the clubs website is deemed "unverifiable"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopandjump (talk • contribs) 11:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I said on the discussion page, the reliable source guideline states that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Kingstonian team website is not a third-party source, nor has it been proven reliable. In addition, the club website statement is self-published, and per the self-published source policy, "newsletters, personal websites... and similar sources are largely not acceptable." JSpung (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Incorrectly Reverted Vandalism
Um? -- Mentisock 16:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Somewhat similar
Not vandalism, but cutting helpful information. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. Not exactly sure what I was thinking here, especially considering that I didn't include an edit summary. Weird. Thanks for pointing it out. JSpung (talk)
[edit] Science Showdown
I was just trying to get that article deleted, as it seems to have no real signifigance.YukariTakeba (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate your boldness in cleaning up Wikipedia. However, the proper way to do that is to either tag it for speedy deletion or discuss the article on its discussion page. Deleting all of the information given and replacing it with "Please, Delete this stupid, crappy article" is a good way to get yourself blocked. JSpung (talk)
[edit] Revertion
The edit I made was very constructive on the Lloyd Kaufman page. The page looked awful with that. MagicBullet5 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletions
Just so you know, you have tagged several pages with {{db-g7}} that should have been tagged as {{db-A7}}. G7 is "Author requested deletion". A7 is "Article does not indicate importance". J.delanoygabsadds 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You tagged The Belcoo Experiment as G7. I couldn't find any evidence in the contribution history of the creator to suggest that he requested deletion. Could you point out where he made this request? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- As far as The Belcoo Experiment, that was an error. However, several ([1],[2]) of the G7 tags were in response to the author blanking the page. This legitimately falls under G7; "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Regardless, I will be more aware of the specific tag I use in the future. JSpung (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- No worries. I was just refering to The Belcoo Experiment though. That's the only one I saw, and the reason I left you this note. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] latest message
i'm sorry about that sir. but as i left the room for the bathroom. one of my fellow classmates used my computer to do this. sorry for the inconvinience. i will yell at him for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.216.2 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Last Edit
Not only is that edit constructive, the player mentioned was on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers super bowl champion team. The info stated is correct, and I am not just going to add something like that for no reason. Please revert the page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhosford11 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You deleted my facts that I added to the page while deleting undrafted sportspersons who are obviously on the page as a joke???? I cleaned this page up and added a player who can be backed up anywhere on google. You thought that two OBVIOUS high school kids added on to the page with jokes in the edit were more pertinent than my edit? I hope there is a way to report you for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhosford11 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- You were correct in deleting the two fake players. I did some research and found that the player you added was legit. However, just as I was getting ready to take you seriously, I noticed the last line you added: "Now runs successful Emu farm outside of Plant City, FL." Whether that's vandalism, a joke, or something that only you know about, it does not belong on Wikipedia. My reverts will remain as they are. JSpung (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry
I was just experimenting to see if it really worked like my friends said it would —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.68.112 (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- In the future, feel free to use the sandbox to experiment. Please do not experiment on articles again. JSpung (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Legendary Danny O'Doul is a respected entertainer, masterchef and metallurgist who lives in Woodmere, NY (Wemphis Enclave).
Please stop removing any additions to the Woodmere page, as Mr. O'Doul is a legitimate hometown hero, whose copious, bountiful talents as an entertainer and legendary singer are regularly used for the greater good of the people of the Five Towns, as The Legendary Danny O'Doul performs at numerous charity benefit concerts in the Five Towns and on the South Shore of Long Island. Besides performing gratis, Mr. O'Doul is also a generous philanthropist and humanitarian in the community and participates in the region's meals on wheels program.
You should stop removing referrences to this fine American Patriot, and recognize his widespread influence and respect in the community for which this reference was included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.226.152 (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AVUS
Re this reversion – you reverted two edits that actually were valid: one was including a link to the Autobahn's entry, and the other a grammatical correct. Less of the trigger happy reversion please, even if I am editing from an IP. (I have 7000+ edits on an account, but edit on an IP at work for privacy reasons). 194.73.174.10 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
