JerryVanF

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, JerryVanF, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! cab (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hey, I found your AfD on Toufiq Saber Muhammad Al Marwa’i a little upsetting, but I think you may've unintentionally stumbled into a minefield without meaning to. There's a "bitter war" ongoing between people who believe that all Guantanamo detainees should have an article, and those who believe none of them should. (I'm in the former camp, admittedly, I believe if we're told they're the "worst of the worst", we should be able to easily look up the details of each of them) - but I was hoping you could explain why you felt that way about Toufiq specifically? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to encourage you to honour the advice in the deletion policies, and leave a courtesy heads-up on the talk page of the article creator when you nominate an article for deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I don't know if you'd mind withdrawing the call for deletion - but I'd be happy to address any similar concerns you have in the future, improving the article, answering questions or anything else you require. Cheers! Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 03:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the "counter" has to be manually updated. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings!

I saw your comment in the {{afd}}, that you wanted to do some more research. FWIW, I wish it were more common that people would be willing to take a second look at things. I do my best to do this myself, to take a second look when someone suggests I ought to, to own up when a correspondent makes a good point, or outright convinces me I made a mistake. I admire it when my correspondents can acknowledge they share in the same human fallibility we all share.

You might find this response I made when I explained why Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw your recent comment. If you have given this more thought I'd welcome any specific comments you cared to share.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Attacks in the article Bruce Barclay (Commissioner)

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Bruce Barclay (Commissioner). Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Joe Sperrazza (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Attack page

Ignore the warning, it is clearly not an attack page. Have a nice day! :) asenine ^{say what?} 06:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

answer at ANI

I answered your post at ANI. I'm leaving you the diff to my comment in case that the discussion gets archived before you can see it (the discussions get archived if nobody comments on them for 24 hours) [1] --Enric Naval (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

proposed test

I will give my name to a trusted person and begin editing under my real name. This is for ethical reasons (do as you do unto others).

When I have time, I'll look at the list of new users. I will look for obvious troublemaker names and then start with the 5th name after that. I will then ask every 5th name if they want to participate. If they do, I will verify their name (the way to do it will be decided). If they don't, they will be assigned to the anonymous group.

10 editors will be selected for each group. I'll do a pilot study of these 20 editors for 30 days. I'll report their behavior. If I get someone to help me, I will ask them to rate the users. I will not tell them if they are the anonymous group or the real named group. I will ask that they not be aware of what we are doing except to rate the contributions in terms of quality and if they have conflicts.

The number of editors and length of time can be extended.

I am open to suggestions. JerryVanF (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: John Paulson

Hi - thanks for the message. Yes, he's notable, and yes, it was clearer before I had to play whack-a-copyvio. The thing was a copy/paste from a financial trade magazine, and I didn't have time to rebuild it while I was shoveling through a seven-week copyright backlog.

There's more material out there for him now than when I whacked it - he's a former subprime mortgage fund guy, a gazillionaire.

Here are the ELs from the old page, not including the link to that magazine I mentioned (which is in the deletion log if you want to look):

• Pensions & Investments Online, Excellent Timing July 09 2007
• The Wall Street Journal January 2008

Just a Google search for

"john paulson" -wikipedia

returns:

• article on a dispute with former employer Bear Stearns
• New York Daily News
• Subprime Savant: John Paulson (CNBC)
• [2] (press release = he made $3.7 billion in 2007. by himself. alone. solitary. i didn't get any. :-(
• The Daily Guardian (London)

and there's tons more. He definitely makes the cut. If you like to expand stubs, it's a gem.

Let me know if you have questions or need more help. :-) - KrakatoaKatie 11:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

re User:Southern Texas

Thanks for your note on my talkpage. I note from the ANI discussion that another of the identities of this editor, User:Uga Man, is being treated as the sockmaster - it appears to be the oldest - so it is that account which will be allowed to edit in future. If you have good reason to request that it is Southern Texas that should be the editing account, I suggest you contact User:East718 who was the admin who has been dealing with this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC) nb. It is not important that you identify yourself to me, or anyone else. As you have not been caught by the autoblock from these blocked accounts it is WP:AGF'ed you are another individual.

identity

An administrator put a link on my user page to ANI about a bad user (has "Spam" in the user name). From there, I saw you.

I am willing to be part of your study. However, it is looking like I will not edit because my identity cannot be verified. I was planning to write some medical articles. I wanted verification not because I would use it to insist that I am an expert, but because I didn't want people to think I was a convict or a drug company trying to sell a medicine.

It seems like none of the checkusers will verify my IP.

So it is looking more and more like I will not do any writing for Wikipedia. The decision hasn't been made but it's looking that way. Doctor Wikipedian (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Real Name Pseudonym Editing Quality Study

Participants: User:Doctor Wikipedian
User:Riateyeh chosen at random then the next 10th user picked
User:Delibebek
User:Skidootron
User:Moonpie18
User:BVande
User:Dincher
User:Cpt-bbb
chosen at random (just created) then next 10th users
User:Ralmar94303
User:Gordreese
User:Children Overboard
User:Carlton T. Greenpossible real name
User:Micheal.tsai25 possible real name

I saw your project on WP:AN. You can add me to the real name cohort. BVande (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JerryVanF (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a mistaken identity. I am not Dereks1x. I am Jerry VanFleet. This is my real name. I have been confirmed by this website, another internet encyclopedia, except that site requires positive identification. See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Jerry_Van_Fleet#Welcome.21 Furthermore, there is no checkuser request. I just checked WP:RFCU. The administrator blocking me is making up that there has been a checkuser or a checkuser is fishing as I am not sockpuppeting any articles. If so, name the article that Dereks1x edited that I edited or a vote that Dereks1x voted that I voted....Before you deny this request, you should consider that this checkuser may possibly be politically motivated. He banned Southern Texas, an editor that administrator LessHeardvanU said made good edits (his words, not mine), but Southern Texas edited political articles. I pointed out how Southern Texas did not have a RFCU request and it made it look like it was checkuser fishing. In retaliation, the checkuser now picked a banned name out of the hat and banned me saying it is a sock. I hope this isn't the case, prove me wrong and unblock. If you deny this request, then you must state where the RFCU request is and, if it isn't there, why was a checkuser run except for fishing reasons and name the articles that this Dereks1x edited that I also edited and explain the coincidence that I pointed a procedure error about a blocked user and then the checkuser blocks me. Also state the name of the checkuser, if dmcdevit, then it is a conflict of interest that he is fishing because I made a comment about his behavior. Please answer all these questions in your unblock reasons if you don't unblock. Thank you. NOTE: Also note the block log of the admin blocking me, East718. East718 has been blocked himself; reason "for being a dick"

Decline reason:

Entirely spurious request. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nomination of Bruce Barclay (Commissioner) for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Bruce Barclay (Commissioner), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Barclay (Commissioner) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)