User talk:WacoJacko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WELCOME

WELCOME

[edit] AFD Begging for Help

Can you give me hand by looking over this AfD for Dekker Dreyer I have a deletionist that won't back off and it's looking pretty grim. I saw you chimed in on another AfD and I'm really looking for some help since I was (previously) a casual editor. Wikimegamaster 08:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Gere/Gerbilling

Yeah, I definitely agree! Gerbilling should be mentioned on the Richard Gere page and Richard Gere should be mentioned on the Gerbilling page. Someone keeps deleting the discussion for this on the talk pages of both articles, IT IS RIDICULOUS(can't we have a discussion without wikilaywering?)69.223.155.147 06:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agreeWacoJacko 08:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep pressing this issue!!71.74.70.152 00:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Most definitely!WacoJacko 12:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Richard Gere/Talk Page

How about you read some guidelines? Consider yourself warned. If you continue to revert archived material to the Talk page at Richard Gere, you will be blocked. -Jmh123 09:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material[1]. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

No one is censoring anything. The discussion is in the archive which is linked at the top of the page. I don't share your sense of the importance of including gerbil rumors everywhere; that's childish and silly gossip you might expect to see in the Enquirer but it doesn't befit an encyclopedia. The policy clearly states that material of that nature should be removed, and that editors who reinsert the material may be warned and blocked, but regardless, it's time to archive the page anyway. -Jmh123 09:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It is archived. Look at the top right hand corner, for the filing cabinet, and the link to General Archive 2. Here's a link: Talk:Richard_Gere/General_Archive2 -Jmh123 09:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I put it there myself. All that's happened since then is edit warring. If you'll leave the page alone I'll check and see, and fix it if it is gone. -Jmh123 09:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a complete mess. I archived everything that was on the talk page, but it's been reverted back and forth a bunch of times and not all are straight reverts, and I can't just go back and revert before all that started, because I'm not sure that will preserve the archive I did. I don't want to try to do this tonight when I'm very tired and mess it up. Do you mind allowing me a day to straighten this out, and next time, please, revert warring is not the answer. -Jmh123 10:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, it's all saved, archive 1 and archive 2. -Jmh123 16:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fearns Sports College

Hi - sorry I didn't have time to respond this morning. If you need any more help with referencing, see Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes. I've removed the {{advert}} tag - thanks for the work you've done on this article. – Tivedshambo (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject:Terrorism

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry I never got back to you on that.

WacoJacko (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Dear WacoJacko,

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof! Unfortunately, your application has been declined because it seems that you don't have at least 250 mainspace edits. When you fulfill this requirement, feel free to re-apply.

Snowolf How can I help? 13:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Yeah I read the requirements wrong, I thought it said 250 TOTAL edits.

ThanksWacoJacko (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom Fighter etc.

I saw your remark on the talk page for the article on "Terrorism" and wasn't entirely sure how you meant it - that is, whether you meant it ironically. Isn't the point that from the perspective of those they were opposing the French resistance were terrorists? That is exactly how the Nazis, and the Wehrmacht, described them.

Regards,

Imp of the Perverse (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


Well, I'll have to go back and look at the comment. I'll get back to you.WacoJacko (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because the Nazi's described the French Resistance as a terrorist organization doesn't make them one. The Nazi's were occupying French territory, and murdering innocent civilians by the thousands(millions if you include all the other countries they occupied). The French resistance really was fighting for their freedom.WacoJacko (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


The French Resistance was actually a resistance movement, fighting an invader in their sovereign country(France). That is completely different than a terrorist group like Al-Queda or Hammas.

Thanks!WacoJacko (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't Al Qaeda and Hamas both say that fighting an invader is at least a central part of what they are doing (especially Hamas I should imagine)? So would have the IRA, of course. I should have mentioned that the French resistance were also described as "terrorists" by the French government, not just by the Germans.

Regards,

Imp of the Perverse (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


what the the Vichy governemt?? The Vichy government wasn't a valid government, they were a Nazi puppet regime. Also, Hamas aren't fighting invaders, "Palestine" is not sovereign nation, and it never has been.
Finally, what invader is Al Queda fighting? They attacked the United States inside the United States. Al Qaeda and Hamas are both strictly terrorist groups, nothing else, not freedom fighters, not resistance groups, and certainly not social welfare groups like they have said.WacoJacko (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Contact

Jacko. I'm still in that voice chat. I'll be around today Matteblack (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, shit came up yesterday. I've been there for the past few hrs.WacoJacko (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, WacoJacko! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrbtalk 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Spot

Ha! Thanks for the head's up! I was wondering why I hadn't gotten my spot up yet. I must've been tired.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


No problem man!

peace! WacoJacko (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

The Terrorism WikiProject
April 2008 Newsletter

News
Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Gerbilling, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's very clearly vandalism. Please read WP:BLP. That was an incredibly inappropriate page to create. It also violated WP:V and WP:NPOV. Just because you have made good edits before, does not give you permission to vandalize. Given your edit history I would expect you to know better. Gwernol 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree at all that it was vandalism. I feel it was a valid page. It was actually an incredibly APPROPRIATE page to create! What you are doing is censorship. What is this 1984? Are you the thought police?WacoJacko (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice, follow up your vandalism with a personal attack. Have you read WP:BLP yet? You cannot add information about living people without very good sources. Your addition was both incorrect and defamatory. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid gossip rag or your personal blog. You absolutely cannot add rumors and defamation to articles. If you continue, I will block you to prevent further damage to Wikipedia. Gwernol 15:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me, blocking me for debating you on my talk page, haaha?? WacoJacko (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not what I said. I said if you continue (i.e. try to recreate the article or continue to defame Gere or others) I will block you. Gwernol 16:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Continue, It was created ONCE, you are going on like I have been re-creating over and over!WacoJacko (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "or others" ??WacoJacko (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I mean you can't defame anyone on Wikipedia. Please read WP:BLP. My warning isn't limited to continued defamation of Gere. Gwernol 16:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I was not defaming a person, Gere was not mentioned in the article. Did I defame the gerbil?WacoJacko (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)