Jtorey

Welcome!

Hello, Jtorey, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Jtorey, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Image:Rugrats.jpg

You recently uploaded an image in which you indicated it was from www.nickelodean.com and that free use was allowed. That website is a commercial website and does not give an indication of free use images. Please do not upload such images; and, please, use accurate edit summaries. — ERcheck (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your February 17, 2007 non-encyclopedic, personal-opinion edit to Godwin's law

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your 16 March 2007 second non-encyclopedic, personal-opinion edit to Godwin's law

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you to adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy for editors. Thank you. Waiting a little while and re-adding your unsourced pet peeves isn't going to work. The watchers of this article have largely been watching it for years. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Pedantic.

I do not see how my work is unsourced or does not meat other criteria.

if you have obsessive compulsive disorder or some other mental derangment which means you don't like people touching your perfect (oh, the lie) work, GET A LIFE.

It seems that what ever you do to the article, thats fine. Anybody else? NOT ON.. Correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtorey (talk • contribs) 07:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Please actually read WP:ATT. Your idea of "reliably sourced" amounts to the following: "User:Jtorey has been theorized to be a space alien, from Mars." Convincing? Citing emminently, unquestionably reliable sources for random, incidental terms and concepts mentioned in a passage do not make the passage reliably sourced - the central theme presented in the passage (in both my example and in your assertion of alleged disagreements with Godwin's law) is the very definition of forbidden "original research" You are promulgating personal, and evidently made-up, theories that (so far) have no attributable basis whatsoever. I think a point you may be totally missing is that no one would object at all to the section you want to add, if there were any reliable sources backing it. And please note that your personal observation of this person or that's complaints about G.L., on AOL or IRC or 15 blogs or whatever, does not constitute reliable sourcing. It really doesn't matter one whit if even 50,000 Usenet users have questioned G.L. At least 50,000 people absolutely, positively believe, deep in their hearts and with absolute good faith and conviction that Marilyn Manson is possessed by the Devil. This does not make that theory notable; no one takes it seriously and it has not been the subject of an scholarly research, documentaries, newspaper articles, etc. If the theory/theories that G.L. is flawed, silly or even outright bullshit have not gotten any "press", have not be written about in some form of reliable source (and Jane Smith's Blog isn't one, any more than a random e-mail is), then the theory is not notable and is not verifiable with reliable sources and therefore is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general repository of theories and ideas and even true but unverifiable information.

If it seems that "what ever" I do is fine by everyone on this article (which isn't actually the case if you look at the edit history, and isn't the case in general with my edits Wikipedia-wide - no one goes unchallenged here), and everything you do seems like it isn't fine with folks around here, you might consider that it's because I edit Wikipedia properly in accordance with its guidelines and policies (to the best I can remember them; everyone screws up in that regard once in a while.) You, on the other hand appear to be ignoring and defying them on purpose or at least with reckless disregard. Expect a lot of reverts until you change your modus operandi. Your personal attack on me just above won't go unnoticed by others, either.

Oh, and virtually nothing on the G.L. page is my work. I just watchlist it among some 800 others to keep guideline/policy-violating edits out of them. I think the only substantive thing I've done to it is reword a vaguely-phrased section that could have been confusing to some people. So your apparent accusation of WP:OWNership is an unfounded assumption of bad faith.

I'm moving this topic to your talk page, since this is really about your edits and behavior, not mine.

PS: Please actually look up the definition of the word "pendantic"; your use of it in this context makes no sense. If I gave you fifteen examples like the Mars alien one, and then lectured you on the logical principles of fallacies, and continued on about the philosophical underpinnings of that logic, and... that would be pendantic.

PPS: The funny thing is, I fully expect another attack message from you, because it seems unlikely that you will realize I am trying to help you out here and make your Wikipedia experience fun and productive instead of frustrating. I've watchlisted your talk page so you can reply here and if it's anything substantive I'll answer it (if it's not, I probably won't, wherever it appears). We needn't bounce around on multiple article and user talk pages about this.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 07:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please tell me what the acronym "Wiki" stands for?

I believe, it's "WHAT "I" KNOW IS".

What >>> I <<< KNOW IS.

Not "What "PUBLISHED SOURCES" know is".

This is "WIKIpedia", not "WPSKpedia".

[The previous unsigned comment was posted by Jtorey (talk · contribs), 11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC) ]

What?!? Where are you getting this silliness? Wiki is not an acronym at all (it's a Hawaiian word for "fast"), and doesn't "stand for" anything. See Wiki.

See also WP:POLICY. Whatever you think Wikipedia should be but isn't, isn't for a reason, covered by Wikipedia policies. In particular, adding material that is not reliably sourced is not an option here. The MediaWiki software Wikipedia runs on is free; you can set up your own Wiki with your own rules somewhere else if you like. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

May 2007

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Glans penis. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Real96 12:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Glans penis, you will be blocked from editing. Jakew 12:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Please do not copy/paste text from websites verbatim - this is a clear copyright violation. http://www.weeds.org.au/cgi-bin/weedident.cgi?tpl=plant.tpl&state=&s=&ibra=all&card=V06 is the site in question, and was placed in the article Araujia sericifera by you. Thanks! 121.222.4.158 03:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)