User talk:Jusdafax/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Please add new messages to the BOTTOM of the page by starting a new chapter heading. Also: note that I will likely respond to new messages here, so please watchlist my page. If I leave YOU a message, I'll watchlist your page. Thanks!

New Empty Talk Page

Spanking new and ready for your words. If you have praise, complaints, or questions, just add it at the bottom for chronological flow. Thanks! Jusdafax 03:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi you can delete this later because i don't know how to send messages, but how do you put the articles you make onto your homepage??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superjoesh (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Are you referring to Tomiwa by any chance? Well, articles like that aren't supposed to be in the main article namespace. If you want it to be in your userpage, just copy it and paste it on to User:Superjoesh. However, unless you are planning to work on the article, you shouldn't really have copies of deleted articles in your userpage (i.e. homepage), according to WP:UP. Well, that's my two cents, take it or leave it as you will, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's easy. To start, click on your name at the top, which takes you to your user page. When you are on your user page, click on the tab that says 'edit this page'. Add the content, then hit the 'save page' button at the bottom. (I almost always hit the 'Show preview' button first, to see what it looks like.) Once it is is saved, take a look.

I'm curious... how did you come to ask me? Anyway, happy editing! Jusdafax 20:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superjoesh (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am making a new serious page related to potatoes in my watch list and i was wondering if you could help me with the problems wikipedia says it has on the page. It would be a great help!!! --Superjoesh (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

And how do you add things like what you're a fan of

First off, a couple quick points. Please insert comments at the bottom of the section you are commenting in, not the top, as that messes up the way it reads in order. Also, if you don't mind I'm restoring the first comment you deleted, as it was commented on afterwards.

Next, I'd like to ask you again how you came to me? While I can sometimes help people, as I have tried to above, I am hardly an expert in wiki-coding. Also, I am not an administrator but just a user like yourself. I'll take a look at your page`when I get a chance but my time is sometimes limited. May I suggest WP:HELP as a useful source of info, with people who know much more than I do. Best wishes always, Jusdafax 07:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to know why my amendment to the article "Universe" was removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.130.80 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rowe

Hi, I am on the talkpage there. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am still there? Discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

At another user talkpage, what is according to you the Potential for major conflict at Karl Rove

Are a lot excessive and I am disappointed in your unnecessary attempting to escalate what is a simple good natured content discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

"Excessive?" Perhaps. But since you have refused to review the history of the talk page from last summer, when a warning regarding edit warring on the Karl Rove page was issued to User:Soxwon, and blocks (to another user, now seemingly inactive) were issued, you leave me little choice but to "escalate", as you put it, by alerting administrators to what I would hardly call "good natured content discussion".

In fact, to be completely frank, your language as well as that of Soxwon seems to me to be designed to provoke via WP:BAIT. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I hope you will accept my apologies, if so.

I again urge you to carefully read the Archives, in particular the last entries of Archive 7, and the crucial period of Archive 8 to gain my perspective on this matter. Rest assured I take this conflict as a highly serious one: Soxwon has attempted to have me punished by reporting me to WP:WQA. However, I have never been blocked or warned by the administrators, and I fully intend to keep it that way. Since, in my view, Soxwon has hardly proved to be a model editor, and you openly seek him as an ally, it is only prudent to alert a member of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee in advance of any further action on a hot-button topic. Jusdafax 21:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your asking others for assistance and claims of some previous consensus for this poor edit in the lede of an article will not be enough to keep them in the lede, I suggest you take a step back. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted. Jusdafax 15:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made a smaller edit this time and left the largest part of the edit in the article, I hope it is acceptable to you as a compromise. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Precognition

It might be time to request page protection. This IP is not going to stop. Frankly, this person seems mentally unbalanced. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mostly agree with you, but in a case like this where it's blatant and obsessive, I find it's sometimes better to let 'em dig their own grave. Then when the hammer comes down you get a longer block for the vandal, like two weeks or more, instead of 31 hours! Still, if you want to request now, go for it. I have yet to ever do so, and will follow your efforts with interest. By the way, may I say I'm a fan of your efforts, your name comes up on Huggle a lot. Best, Jusdafax 15:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, Syrthiss, the last admin to block the IP, semi-protected the article. So, no need. I agree with your logic, though, and had not thought of it that way. I do not use Huggle, so you will have to be more specific. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

By "Your name comes up on Huggle" I mean that the Huggle screen shows previous editing activity, and I have often seen that you have been active reverting vandalism. As for my logic, such as it is, I seldom complain about what I see as too-short blocks against the nasty types of vandalism I encounter, but I did squawk the other day when someone put a death threat on my page. The admin in question changed the block from 31 hours to two weeks, which was better than nothing, but I think it called for a year. Good hunting, Jusdafax 16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Threats of any kind, even in the actual implementation would be damn near impossible, should get a user blocked for good. There is no reason any editor should have to put up with that. Happy hunting to you! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The placing of a death threat on a user page should have zero tolerance, and a perma-ban on the acct. sends a clear message. Jusdafax 05:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You have a new reply on my talk page

It appears you made a mistake while using huggle, check out my talk page for more information. --Frankie0607 15:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As you no doubt see on your page, I have corrected my error. Best wishes, Jusdafax 22:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Do not leave false warnings on user talk pages, as you did on User Talk: Tdinoahfan. Doing so is vandalism, and will be reverted. Tdinoahfan (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, but looking at your talk page shows otherwise. Jusdafax 22:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

thx

thanks Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're more than welcome! I usualy revert after more than 20 repeating chars. Jusdafax 00:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS October Newsletter

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(Note to self) Other words of advice

Parting words of advice from Larry Sanger:

• Be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,
• Be focused single-mindedly on writing an encyclopedia, not on Usenet-style debate,
• Recognize and praise the best work: work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced,
• Work to understand what neutrality requires, and why it is so essential to and good for this project,
• Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,
• Attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and
• Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

An outline for a Wikicovenant from Kingturtle:

• Make others feel welcome (even longtime participants; even those you dislike),
• Create and continue a friendly environment,
• Turn the other cheek (which includes walking away from potential edit wars),
• Give praise, especially to those you do not know (most people like to know they are wanted and appreciated), and
• Forgive!

Jusdafax 07:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Jusdafax, you have a new message here. Regards. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. I will take the matter as resolved. Jusdafax 04:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Stanley Amos

Hi, can you please explain to me how my edit to "Stanley Amos" was "unconstructive"? According to Category:Living people and Category:Possibly living people: "Individuals of advanced age (over 90) for whom no documentation has existed for a decade or longer [can be placed in Category:Possibly living people]." Amos would be 101 or 102 and I did a search and there is no documentation that he has been alive for many decades, so I don't understand why my edit was reverted, as it seems perfectly appropriate. He was only added to the "living people" category by User:Rich Farmbrough, who seems to have gone through all the birth year categories about a month ago and added the "living people" category to people under the age of 122. I feel that my edit more accurately conveys his living status and is perfectly acceptably by the category policies. 209.243.6.249 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just looked at your talk page where I find I'm not alone in disbelieving that this category exists. Since you make the effort to talk about it, you would have to be an odd type of vandal to press the point, but could you give me a further example that illustrates what you are contending? Thanks, Jusdafax 15:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but in this case on the BLP noticeboard, Josef Streb was moved into Category:Possibly living people for the same reason that I feel that Amos belonged there, despite the fact that there was more evidence than in this case that he was alive: discussion here. 209.243.6.249 (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see the link you provided. Case made, thanks for teaching me something I didn't know, and please accept my apologies. I'll wipe the warning. Best, Jusdafax 15:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a big problem at all, thanks for removing the warning! 209.243.6.249 (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Also reverted my edit.Jusdafax 15:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks....

for the way you expressed support on the RfA earlier. Leaky Caldron 15:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You are more than welcome. I often find myself in agreement with you! Jusdafax 15:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, what on earth have you done to attract all this vandalism sh*te? Leaky Caldron 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Exist as a good contributor who reverts their vandalism? That's the usual reason... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been on an anti-vandal crusade (some might term it a binge) since I got rollback and Huggle about six weeks ago. Dedicated vandals hate it, hence their foolish attempts to vandalize my page, which of course I or a fellow vandal fighter instantly detect and revert. Vandalism is a much bigger problem than I had thought prior to doing this... quite sobering. Best wishes, Jusdafax 17:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I do a bit with rollback and undo but I've been lucky so far - only a couple of attacks. I thought you must have seriously pi$$ed some people off! Keep up the good work! Leaky Caldron 19:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

UAA

I just corrected your report format here. If you look above where you type in the report, it shows how to type it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... I'm still figuring that page out, as you see. Jusdafax 18:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The one user I've reported, I did with Twinkle, which made it very easy. All the formatting was already taken care of. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:29, 9

November 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into Twinkle. Btw, they hardblocked him. Thanks again! Jusdafax 18:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. Just be warned that Twinkle doesn't work with Internet Explorer, so you may have to download Firefox if you haven't got it. It's worth it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation
		Much like rabbits, vandals occur in large numbers and are considered by some to be a nuisance. However while rabbits are cute, vandals are not. For defending my user page from a vandal, and possibly also blocking said vandal, I give you "Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation". Take this random award featuring an image of an adorable mammal, and let it be a sign to others that you fight the good fight. From your completely insane friend,   Nezzadar ☎  .

Thanks

..for reverting vandal on my User Page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto! --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 15:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage! A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 22:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved Comment re: vandalism by User:Badurpa

Hey man, why did you thrash my BHS edit? I just want it to stay up long enough to make a statement to Grdovic, she ruined my final years of High School and is continuing to ruin those of my friends who are a few years behind me. Maybe Wiki isn't the best format but come on man, grant me some artistic freedom here, take it down in a week or something, just long enough for her to see it. Be cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badurpa (talk • contribs) 01:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for revenge (no matter how deserved it may be!) Hopefully you can understand what Wikipedia would look like if we let comments like yours stand. Sadly, hideous power figures are a fact of life, and learning to deal with them is the challenge we all face. Take a deeep breath and move on, is my best advice. Jusdafax 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. By blanking my page, you will be blocked. Be patient, and please come back with an intent to create constructive material... this is the path of good karma. Best, Jusdafax 01:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi there. Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Don't know how I pissed them off ,but I'll keep an eye on that IIP for a while now. GedUK  08:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oocities

Hello, I see you placed a warning on Oocities' talk page about the link changes. I noticed that they are fixing the dead links and making them into good links, but it seems kind of shady. What do you think should be done? Kevinmon•talk•trib 14:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Smells funny. The name seems to be the clue, so I'm reverting and if it keeps up, reporting the name. Thanks, Jusdafax 15:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the reverts on my user pages. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I see I'm a bit late in saying that, but the sentiment is no less true! Jusdafax 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand

I made changes without logging on (forgot) on Liquidsoap and you reverted them as they appeared "non constructive". I don't really get what you mean by non constructive then ? These changes where constructive, did you look at the diff ? Otherwise, I fail to see what is constructive to you..

Thanks for your help understanding this

Toots5446 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. What triggered my revert was that you changed "leaves" to "leafs". As I look at the other changes I see a few I'd question, a few improvements, and a few I just don't know about. I'll assume good faith, and remove the warning from your IP if you will change 'leafs' back to 'leaves'. Am I correct in assuming English is not your first language? If English IS your first language, no offense. Best, Jusdafax 23:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I Don't Understand Either

Why did you take my edit of the Ware Shoals SC page off. My friend wants to run for mayor in a few years and i am trying to get the word out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerboggs (talk • contribs) 05:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

my friend just wants to get his name out there that he is running for mayor.

(Tylerboggs (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a space for a recruitment drive. Disregarding the policies, the people in the town probably already know and anyone outside of the town doesn't care. If he is really that notable, then give him his own page or subsection with reliable sources for the statements. However, if he is not notable (which I suspect to be true), then leave him out of Wikipedia. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well said, Jade, and thanks for answering this while I was afk. Tyler, the misunderstanding you are making is about the definition of Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not a social space for announcing future projects. The basis of any Wikipedia article is sourced facts, and for further information please read WP:RS, which will help you to understand why what you are attempting to add to the article is defined as vandalism. Best wishes, Jusdafax 14:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I was simply passing through. Also, having had a closer look at your diffs, you deleted other information to make way for yours, which also contributed to the decision to revert you. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I'll take another look so I understand how I missed that. Thanks again. Jusdafax 14:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The only major deletion that I saw was this diff. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha, no great loss, as the material in question is unsourced POV, in my opinion. Still, thanks for pointing it out. Jusdafax 18:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Half-Life 2

Hi i would just like to say my post on the halflife 2 page was not intended to be spam in any way i was just informing others about news on the games —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanator (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New threads go at the bottom. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

First off, Jadefalcon has, as noted, moved your comment to where it should be, at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Secondly, you neglected to sign your post, so I waited for the autosigner. In the future when posting on talk pages, it is a good idea to place new posts at the bottom (or in a section you wish to comment on) and then sign your posts with four tildes (4 of these... ~).

As to your 3 edits to the Wikipedia 'Half-Life 2' article, which I have reverted... the first is outright vandalism (looking into your article creation history shows that) and second is unsourced speculation at best. Your third edit, which may or may not be valid, is a link that you placed in the middle of the article.

Now, you may have a case for the link being additional information on the game. Based on your history, however, I reverted it as likely vandalism. If you wish to add a constructive link, please note the 'External Links' section at the bottom of the article. This is where additional links should be placed.

You have come to my page with a complaint about my revert of your third edit. May I gently suggest the obvious: If you would like to be a contributing editor to Wikipedia, starting by being a vandal is not in your best interests.

I encourage you, since you now show indications of wanting to move beyond vandalism, to consider the idea that being a contributor is more fun than being a vandal. If so, welcome to Wikipedia! If not, you face blocks and eventually being banned. Hoping you choose the right path, with Best Wishes, Jusdafax 17:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa

My edit is correct. See Talk:Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa/Archive1. It's the same. 74.249.96.112 (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I like you undoing your edits. Do it to the other pages I edited. Thanks. 74.249.96.112 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. My bad, will remove warnings. Had you put the information in the edit summaries originally? Also, when talking on someone's talk page, please make a new section heading, thanks. Jusdafax 00:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

As for your other pages you mention, that would be up to the editors that reverted them. Page blanking is a major problem on Wikipedia, and when archiving be sure to mention what you are up to in the summaries. If you already have been doing that, never mind. Best, Jusdafax 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance at the PTSD article

After many hours of work on this article in past 24 hours, I return this afternoon to see that a couple of vandals showed up and began trashing things, although not gravely. You quickly caught and corrected the mess, and confronted them on their talk page (more politely than I would have). I'm very grateful. It takes a lot of work to significantly improve a complex article such as this. This kind of deviant behavior is simply infuriating. Thanks for your very real help! TomCloyd (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, and thanks in return for your kind words as well as your excellent content work. Best wishes always, Jusdafax 00:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your !vote

Thanks for being so polite and helpful at my RfA, I really appreciate it. I'm flattered you'd think me worthy of a precedent setting vote, but I'd hate for you to have to change your views on RfA qualifications just because of me!

First off, Amory, congrats! I had meant to congratulate you on your page, but you beat me to it.

Your Rfa was a strong endorsement, and as you note in the link you posted, my feelings are that you will be a strong admin, and an outstanding force for the encyclopedia as a whole. As to my own views, it's too late. What I learned in opposing you is that, as I say, there appears to be no current need whatsoever in Wikipedia for content to be a needful requirement for an admin. As the saying goes, 'the truth shall set you free' regarding the will of the !voting community, and I am willing to admit that the idea of some admins being specialists instead of all being Jacks-of-all-trades may work out for the best of the project... indeed, I hope so very much. In any case, my best wishes and salutations to you, today and evey day! Jusdafax 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Confucius Edits

Recently you reverted one of my edits on the Confucius article. My edit was an undo of a vandal, and for some reason you undid mine.. reverting it BACK to the vandals page. Right now the Confucius article is broken (showing most of the page under the title "="), the "Names" section is also missing now (something that has been there for over a year). –  TigerTails  talk  15:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you find the time to reply to other people, but not me.. –  TigerTails  talk 

Actually I failed to notice is all, a mere oversight, I assure you. I assume you would like me to revert my edit? Happy to do so of course, as well as remove any warnings, etc. Jusdafax 13:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: it appears you have corrected the article. Again, my apologies. As you see I pulled the warning from your talk page. Best wishes, Jusdafax 13:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Politics of Gatineau Park

An article that you have been involved in editing, Politics of Gatineau Park, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - Ahunt (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My edit was purely incidental. I know nothing about the issue. Jusdafax 03:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

thank god!

...That you're online! I can't believe how much vandalism is going on now! It's like all the kids are in school or something.. lol A8UDI 15:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah it's as bad as I've ever seen it this morning. Jusdafax 16:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Should everyone put on their Batman capes? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt! Jusdafax 16:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I knew I bought it for a reason would find a use for it when I found it lying in a dumpster!

Strom Thurmond

Just because you find it unconstructive for me to identifying him as a racist doesn't mean it's inaccurate.

What would you prefer? I add a link to wiktionary for the definition of racist? Should we do a compare? Again, a spade is a spade. It's not vandalism if I'm correct and you just happen to disagree with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplessinger (talk • contribs) 17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP, thanks. Also please sign your posts. Jusdafax 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I reviewied WP:BLP which is about living persons. This one is dead. Your threat of banning me isn't constructive. ">User:Cplessinger</

Wikipedia uses a neutral point of view. That is all. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I forgot that he finally died, so you are right about that. I'll follow this one, but I'll be surprised if what you want isn't ruled to be vandalism. If I'm wrong I'll remove the two warnings I gave you. Fair enough? Jusdafax 17:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll put my edit on the article discussion page. If I get no objection, I'm putting my edit back in. User talk:Cplessinger

Good idea, and I'll be watching this with interest. Jusdafax 17:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that all articles (regardless of WP:BLP) must have citations from reliable sources. BLP merely errs on the side of a more cautious approach because of the legitimate potential of legal liability due to libel. Because a person has died does not mean we have free reign to write whatever we feel about a subject; it still has to be properly sourced.  Frank  |  talk  18:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming your remarks are meant for Cplessinger, whose edits I reverted with Huggle. The more I think about it, the less comfortable I am with calling him a vandal. He has a content dispute... highly edgy, but a content dispute when alls said and done. Jusdafax 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC) UPDATE: OK Cplessinger, I pulled the warnings. You appear to be new here, so I'm cutting you slack under WP:BITE. Jusdafax 18:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It was just disconcerting to me to have my edit categorically defined as vandalism. I've seen the vadal entries for Jesus, Hitler, and George W. Bush. I've also looked to see what else on this page was has been undone and called vandalism. I didn't think that my edit was vandalism. I have believed from the beginning this was a content edit. Frank has some things for me to respond to, so I'm going to attend to that. I'm not going to tie you up any longer. Regards.

--Christopher Plessinger 18:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplessinger (talk • contribs)

No problem. Happy to talk any time. As I note on Frank's page, I'm not an admin, in case you were under that impression. Jusdafax 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Correction

My correction isn't in conflict with article, if you don't believe me, count the population in all countries as in the article. It's impossible that in France there are 64 million of French on a total population of 65 million! I will correct it for the last time....I hope. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankVonPedro (talk • contribs) 17:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. My apologies, seemed like vandalism at first look. If I gave a warning, I'll remove.Jusdafax 17:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankVonPedro (talk • contribs) 20:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

...for cleaning up my user page. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome, most happy to help. Good fortunes to you! Jusdafax 04:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. BTW, I like your name, though I often chose to read it as "Judas fax"--an anachronism, of course, and since he didn't even write the Gospel of Judas he probably never faxed it either. Say, you ever thought about becoming admin Jusdafax? Has a nice ring to it... Drmies (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my jumping in, but I just wanted to second that impression. I read it as Judas fax every time, then self correct a second later. Intentional, or just an accident of a Brooklyn-ish pronunciation of the phrase? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha Drmies, you are the first to suggest I run the gauntlet of a Rfa, so there isn't exactly a groundswell of sentiment for that to happen. Appreciate the thought, though. As for my name SR, it's intended to be read Jus - da - fax ...there was an old teevee show named Dragnet that had Detective Joe Friday always saying, "Just the facts, m'am" when he interviewed babbling women in his investigations. It became a cliche in popular culture at the time, and when it came to naming myself seemed to fit. I may make the signature a tricolor to make it easier to read. Whew... fighting vandals is easier than explaining this stuff! Best wishes to you both, Jusdafax 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I ain't from Brooklyn--closer to Breukelen, as a matter of fact! I think it's some sort of metathesis, aided by the fact that we are more likely to read what we are familiar with. That, and I've been listening to Judas Priest in the car. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I got the Dragnet reference (though I only know that from the movie), yes--very appropriate in this place. Do you want a groundswell for promotion? I think plenty of others will like you with extra buttons. Think about it. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I wound up roaring with laughter a few minutes ago at the Dragnet Wiki-article, which informs me that Joe Friday never actually said "Just the facts, ma'm." It was in the spoofs, it seems, so my assumption may have been fostered by reading old a paperback of a Mad Magazine Dragnet spoof. As for the other matter you raise... Really? Uh, I wasn't hinting I wanted lobbyists supporters for a Rfa, but again, I truly appreciate the kind thought! To be frank, I'm learning more about the maze of policy at Wikipedia every day that goes by. So, the short version is, I don't think I'm ready at the moment for an Rfa. But please accept my astonished gratitude for your most kindly sentiment, which is (I should reassert) a first for me. Which, again, may be an indicator, eh? With sincere thanks, Jusdafax 20:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I would never have guessed the phrase hadn't been used. I knew about "Play it again, Sam" and some others, but this one is a new one on me. I see that it is also mentioned in Beam me up, Scotty, along with other famous ones.--SPhilbrickT 15:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert ?

Why did you revert this edit with no explanation?[1] I believe I have some pretty legit concerns about Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Do you for some reason believe that "Wikiassholes"is civil, that webcomics artists should insert their own images into lists, and that non-free images should be included in lists? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

My misunderstanding, clearly. Will revert if you like, also remove warning. Best, Jusdafax 23:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC) ...Hmm. You didn't get a warning, and I see you already reverted. Jusdafax 23:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Alka-Seltzer

I see you have reverted vandalism on this article recently. It occurred again here [[2]] and I reverted it. I looked at the Talk page of the vandal (a school IP) and they have been warned and blocked several times before. Can this be escalated somehow? I do not know the ropes to put this into motion and wondered if you could help.Riverpa (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, on second look I see you did not revert on the Alka Seltzer article, I picked your name up off of the vandal's talk page where you had warned him about vandalism to another article. Anyway, the request does still hold, can this IP be blocked more permanently? Thanks Riverpa (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a mere vandal fighter granted the rollback ability, and not an admin, though I am flattered to be considered such. You raise an interesting point... how to find an admin who is active on this front? Of course there is the Wikipedia:List of administrators, but that is shooting blind. Perhaps the best I can suggest off the top of my head are the kind, attentive folk at WP:ANI, who hopefully can help or advise you how best to proceed. My very best wishes to you! Jusdafax 04:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Further study reveals this interesting page: Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention which is perhaps your best bet, though I can't speak from personal experience. Again, my best, Jusdafax 05:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, I will give it a shot. Riverpa (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

1. Thanks for the quick work on reverting the vandalism to my user page and, presumably, reporting it to WP:AIV (I was busy with other vandalism and didn't even notice until after you fixed it).
2. How do you consistently and quickly provide the specific vandalism edit examples in your WP:AIV reports? I'm guessing it isn't manual; at least I hope it isn't, because I don't have that kind of patience. :-) —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help. I use a combination of the rollback feature and the 'Huggle' vandal fighting tool. Use the search engine for more info, but if you can't find it I'll get you a link. Gotta go, this is Prime Time in vandal-land1. Best, Jusdafax 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, so I have to get off my lazy ass and install it. I applied for (and received) rollback a few weeks ago with the intention of trying out Huggle, but never got around to it. I'll definitely take a look. Twinkle is nice, but I'm always annoyed that it doesn't link my warnings to the edit(s) in question (or provide any support whatsoever on WP:AIV as far as I can tell). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the info. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it's no fun installing it, there are various hoops to jump thru. Btw, some ppl use BOTH Twinkle and Huggle. I keep meaning to look into Twinkle. With humor, Jusdafax 15:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cuco

Why are you reverting the edits? They have sources and are well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.30.234 (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Looked like vandalism. I appear to be wrong, sorry. I'll remove the warning you got. I see you already reverted. Believe I only reverted you once. By the way, it's a good idea to sign your posts, thanks. Best, Jusdafax 15:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

debt vandal

Hi, sorry I was trying to figure out what tag to put down on that vandal's page when you put yours in and then blocked him. How did the admin respond so quickly? PDBailey (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Huggle (see two sections up) auto-reports it to the admin page at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and the admin(s) watching it blocks obvious vandals as they pop up on that page. Pretty efficient! Jusdafax 18:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you lack permissions for Huggle (it requires Rollback privileges, and editors with minimal history aren't given them), or aren't running Windows, you could also try WP:Twinkle. In addition to a lot of other functionality, it adds tabs for warn, to warn a user, and arv, to report them to an administrator if they've been vandalizing frequently despite warnings (which I learned about only after my posts above). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Little Bighorn

Are you kidding me? I didn't ask you to revert my request for some sources for questionable assertions in an article. I don't care what the truth is, as long as it's the truth. IMHO the entire Battle of Little Big Horn article needs a major edit. Kadathdreamques (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC) I will gladly sign this.

OK, thanks Jusdafax. I run across this stuff all the time. Not the undo-edit, but the need for attribution. I'm glad we're on the same team. :) Just trying to make Wiki better for all, like you. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadathdreamques (talk • contribs) 20:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm... our talk page edits crossed (twice!) As I say on your page, I removed the bold face comments someone posted recently. Agree that the page needs work, but it is a highly controversial topic and there are multiple POV's in books and movies. I have read that there are more books on the BotLB than there are on the Battle of Gettysburg, about which it is ironic that Custer was present at both. Anyway, I suggest putting your concerns on the article's discussion page, and talk it over. Yep, we are clearly on the same team, as you say, and I'll remove my warning from your talk page, as I see you got a more serious one regarding [[WP:3RR]. Oh and by the way, as a fan of H.P. Lovecraft, I like your handle. Jusdafax 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello folks - To clear things up - the tags in the section related to EBC and post-battle controversies were from me, as the history of the page shows. I did not revert the unsupported statement about Mrs. C's efforts, but without a WP:RS to support it it is one more POV statement in a section replete with them. The article has evolved into its present shape over a number of years, and there have been some intense edit wars reflecting different editors' ideas about how the battle should be presented. I did a fair amount of the writing several years ago and have been and will remain vigilant about keeping a pro- or anti-Custer bias out of the article. Just the facts please, as fellow editor Jusdafax's name suggests. I am well aware of what Mrs. Custer did and the allegations (debatable and therefore WP:Controversy) that the officer corps refrained from criticism out of respect for her, but there is that pesky matter of WP:OR. The tagged sentences need reputable sources, of which as JDF notes there are plenty. Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict

I just wanted to say sorry about that edit conflict. Hopefully, I got your signatures back, but if I mucked it up by all means correct it. I just couldn't stomach losing what I had just written at length. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I understand completely. Jusdafax 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For all the reverts of my talk page. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. That was one determined vandal. Jusdafax 15:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments re CDA

On the one hand, I completely agree with your comment in CDA draft that signatories will be scrutinized. However, I urge you to read the comment with tone in mind. It could be read as "watch your back if you ever dare to add your name to a list". I don't think you meant it to sound as ominous as it could be read. I wonder if there is a more neutral way to put it - "instigating a CDA is a very serious step, and should not be taken lightly" or something along those lines. I'm not even asking you to refactor, just wanted to point out that it could be read more than one way.
On a related point, I'll mention something I passed along to Ben MacDui. It isn't clear to me how the first step (obtaining signatures) takes place. The "publicity" section talks about notice, but I think that is the notice for the discussion of the de-adminship, not the notice of the signature request. Is this right? Has there been thought about where the request for signatures should be posted, and what it should include? For example, is the person initiating the call for signatures expected to post a reason? Seems obvious, but it isn't stated. What about the other signatories? The current wording says "Signatures must be placed in the nomination area of the requests, as a simple signed bullet point." Does this mean they cannot add comments? What if their reason for signing is different than the original reason? Arguably, we could conclude that the discussion starts in the second step, but we should be clear.
Despite my requests for additional clarity, I'm impressed by the start of the process. Looks like you and others have put thought into it.--SPhilbrickT 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this thoughtful post, which raises issues I had not considered. To go to your last one first, I can take virtually no credit for the process, except perhaps as a cheerleader and commenter. The guys I really respect are 'Uncle G', the originator of the proposal that got the only serious backing (aka Option 4) and the extender of the process, who you mention, Ben MacDui. I agree that the description of the start of the signature process is not clear, and also that my own words are not well-chosen regarding same. I'm going to chew this over. Thanks again, Jusdafax 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Have I messed up?

I came across the Dana Lee Jones Photography article via New Pages, and deleted what there was of it as blatant advertising. Noticing that there were 10 edits afterwards, I took a look, and may have messed up as at one point the article was over 5k in length. Please take a look, and if I've messed up feel free to undelete and restore the article to its former length if that is correct. Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were correct. Looks like the article has just been completely deleted, so it's a moot point. But thanks for your concern in contacting me. Jusdafax 17:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me. I deleted the article but it was only a short advertising stub when I did so. At some point previously it was over 5k long. Just want to be totally sure the deletion was correct. :) Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Proper vandalism warning levels

Hi Jusdafax: I happened to notice as a follow-up that when you applied a vandalism warning to this vandal for his/her disruptive work on Telegraphy, that you unfortunately used the wrong warning level. Level 1 warnings needed to be followed immediately by level 2s, then 3s and finally by level 4s in order to properly warn off vandals, and to also follow-up with a request to block the responsible vandal. ARI Admins at Wikipedia will not act on our block requests unless the proper sequence has been followed in a timely manner. I've now revised your warning to the proper level as a result. Thanks if you can assist in this effort. Best HarryZilber (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Huggle has a pretty good percentage of getting those warnings right, but I guess that time it messed up. However, I have noticed a growing tendency by admins to just block obvious vandals even if the 1,2,3,4,5 sequence isn't followed, which to me just seems like common sense. Thanks though for your post, as I am always interested in knowing what's up on this topic. Best, Jusdafax 17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Huggle did not mess up. The standard practice for IP accounts is to revert back to a level 1 warning after a few days have passed after the last warning, following the assumption that a different editor is using the IP. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A great pleasure. Actually, I had watchlisted your page sometime back, as I find it of interest! Best wishes, Jusdafax 17:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re:Karl Rove

I applied at RFPP and was denied since they "both seemed willing to use the talk page." However, with the recent incessent reverts, edit summaries like this one, and comments this one I don't know that this is true. And comments like THIS one should raise red flags... Soxwon (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your message

No worries.. I keep a few fellow vandal fighters watchlisted. Kinda sucks sometimes signing on and seeing some of the silly stuff people write. Regards - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Message

How did you find me so quickly? 75.67.222.253 (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I like turtles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.4.252.149#November_2009

24.4.252.149 (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content

I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!, history of dermatology, or list of dermatologists pages? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm flattered by your offer. It's a topic about which I know little, unfortunately, so I think it best to decline at this time. Thanks for considering me, and if I change my mind I'll let you know. Best wishes to you and the project! Jusdafax 04:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

I am asking you here to please strike you reference to the fact that these two editors have been blocked before, it is bad faith and not relevant in any way, please strike the comment. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I will do so to demonstrate good faith, at your request. Jusdafax 23:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI wikiquette alerts

I have opened a report about your comments at wikiquette alerts Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you jumped the gun, since the comment was already removed, and I had posted to that effect on my page here as well. Jusdafax 00:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC) (NOTE: the report was quickly closed as resolved, and archived.) Jusdafax 00:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Covering fire

[3] Thanks. Nancy ^talk 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. That was a nasty one! Jusdafax 20:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks for the birthday wishes, Jusdafax. It's not often I forget who I've granted rollback to, but I somehow forgot that I granted it to you! I see your name often, and consider you to be a decent and positive editor. Best. Acalamari 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, I appreciate the kind words. It's been quite an experience so far, being a vandal fighter! Jusdafax 03:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

cluebot

How happy r u that cluebot is back :) A8UDI 15:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Better, better. But the flood continues. Jusdafax 15:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry :/.

About the vandalism on I win. It wasn't needed. I just thought it was funny that there was actually something when I searched I win and then I thought, no, I win. Imo, it was Jusdafax :).

Hard for me to have a sense of humor about such things. Still, a vandal who apologizes is different. Go my son, and sin no more. 8D Jusdafax 23:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Apology about the vandalism you found.

Hello. I regret that my IP address was found with a strange bit of vandalism. I have been hit by a Black Hat Hacker, and, I am afraid that he may have been using a Cookie Grabber. A way to find out if I would type something rather harsh is to see if the first letter of the proper name is capitalized, and if I use good grammar and punctuation. I do not object to the edit that was reverted - that must have been the Black Hat, trying to make me look bad.

Once again, I do apologize if this IP continues to vandalize the site - it is beyond my control at the moment. --205.211.16.254 (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate your attempts to help. (Vandalism link removal of nonprofits organizations from mental health pages). Social Anxiety Disorder page being one example.

75.253.216.114 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help. 'Cookie grabber', eh? New one for me; I'm disgusted but not surprised. Jusdafax 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Page blanked by author

Hi. Though page blanking is usually vandalism and needs to be reverted, it is worth looking first at the page history, because sometimes the author has blanked his own page, as with Carlos Bertulani just now. In those cases the best thing is to tag it {{db-author}}. It can be confusing for an author who realises his page is inappropriate and blanks it, if his page is at once restored and he is accused of vandalism for the blanking and told it was unconstructive. This author must be confused by now - he blanked it three times and was reverted three times, but the article seems to me acceptable, and I have asked him what he really wants. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that now, and will remove any warning I may have given the author with my apologies. Thanks for the heads-up! Jusdafax 20:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

--AndrewHowse (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A great pleasure to help out a Wikignome! Jusdafax 23:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5