User talk:Jons63/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive Page for my talk

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Jons63, 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:

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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-36 pic

Thanks for your efforts in setting the B-36 image to thumbnail...generally that's how images are supposed to be displayed, and, like you, I often remove sizing. However, I just wanted to let you know why I rolled back your edit...this is one of those rare exceptions to the thumb rule which is permitted by the MOS, and was agreed upon on the talk page. Keep up the diligent work, though! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congressional Medal of Honor

Hi Jons63! I noticed some of your recent edits concerning the denotation of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Its important to note, however, that removing "Congressional" from the name may possibly misrepresent the naming of this medal. For example, in the disambiguation page you may notice that there is more than one Medal of Honor (i.e. not just for the United States). I'd equate it to something like the difference between The Civil War and the American Civil War. While U.S. military personnel may simply use Medal of Honor in their jargon, this is not entirely suitable for use in an international encyclopedia. Besides this, however, I would like to thank you for your other edits and keep up the good work ethic! Best, aNubiSIII (T / C) 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed at Medal of Honor. The consensus was that the medal should be called Medal of Honor not Congressional Medal of Honor. Medal of Honor is not jargon, it is the official name of the medal as written into the law passed by the US Congress that created the medal. On most of the pages I edited, the medal was also called Medal of Honor in the infobox on the right side of the article, so I was making the articles consistent within themselves as well as across Wikipedia. Thanks for the advice Jons63 23:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there again Jons63! I'm not exactly sure if I got my point across before accurately. I'm not insinuating that Medal of Honor is an incorrect term. I am merely saying that there is NO need to remove Congressional from the phrase on different wikipedia articles. Using Congressional is more specific terminology and does not subtract at all from the meaning. You must recognize that there are other medals of honor such as in China, Turkey, etc.
Furthermore, I don't see any discussion much less any consensus about this issue on the Medal of Honor Talk Page. Also, please try not to repost any other user's comments with their signatures unless you make it explicity clear that your are quoting them. These issues should not become points of contention, I hope you understand. Look forward to your future edits! Best, aNubiSIII (T / C) 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Congressional Medal of Honor is not more specific if it is not the name of any Medal issued by the US or any other country. I went back and looked again, Talk:Medal of Honor/Archive 1, and there is a huge discussion and the way I read the discussion, it is a consensus that the name should be Medal of Honor not Congressional Medal of Honor. I believe it IS necessary to remove Congressional from the name since it is not the correct name according to 32CFR578.9 [1]
I do recognise there are other Medals of Honor other than the one given out by the US. I don't think this should be a bone of contention either. If you believe that the name that is used on Wikipedia for this medal should be changed to something else go to the page and advocate for it. I believe it is the proper name with the other possibility being Medal of Honor (United States) but never Congressional Medal of Honor We shouldn't call something an incorrect name just because people call it the incorrect name. Wikipedia should be about correct information not continuing to perpetuate incorrect information.
I apologize for copying your post to my talk page to your talk page. Jons63 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis on all points. Do you have a suggestion about how we might refer to this medal when the context does not make it clear that the medal was a U.S. award? Rklawton (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing messages is not vandalism

Your statement [2] that "removing discussions from your talk page is considered vandalism" is incorrect. WP:USER and WP:VAN very clearly indicate that users may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, I went back and looked. I misread the first time. Jons63 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
If you are a long time editor, it may have changed since you last reviewed the two policies. WP:USER was updated on 10 February 2007, while WP:VAN was updated on 6 January 2006. Do not feel bad if that is the case; you are neither the first nor the last to make this mistake. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woody Lee

Thanks for tagging Woody Lee for speedy deletion. I've deleted it because the subject was altogether nonnotable — I just wanted to let you know that the tag you applied, however, was incorrect. The tag, Template:db-repost, is for an article deleted in connexion with Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, not the speedy deletion for which the article had already been deleted three times. Nevertheless, keep up the good work of getting rid of these worthless pages: I'm not likely to find such articles if others don't list them for me! Nyttend 02:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I realized that after I had placed the tag. I placed the tag because I had nominated it for speedy deletion before and it was deleted. Someone else had also tagged it for speedy deletion prior, just didn't realize what that category was for until after I did it. Won't make the mistake again. Thanks for the info. Jons63 02:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sars

Exactly what did you not like about my edits to SARS? And why are you calling it vandalism?66.99.216.3 02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You put a lot of nonsense in the article that is not referenced. Take this for example:
SARS causes a lot of problems that lead to death. It causes the immune system to produce excessive antibodies that attack healthy tissue. It also causes the mucus in the lungs to harden and expand, leading to extreme crushing pain (similar to that of being crushed in a giant vise, only the pressure is outwards instead of inwards), and eventual bursting, tearing, and eventually, total destruction of the entire respiratory system. Even after the victim is officially dead, the inflamed mucus continues to expand, tearing more body tissues, and eventually bursting the victim's upper torso open. (Many doctors who operated on SARS victims often describe the hardened mucus as "like fully cured concrete.")
Other editors also believe your edits are Vandalism also. If you believe your information belongs in the article, provide references when you place it back in. -- Jons63 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medal of Honor

If you'll read Thomas Custer's second award,[3] you'll see that he earned it as a 2nd LT in 1865 and the medal was awarded one month later. As a result, the 1891 business should be revisited since it's a demonstrated fact that officers were awarded the medal prior to 1891. If you wish to re-ad the 1891 bit, you'll need to source it and account for this fact as well. Rklawton (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • See also SAMUEL N. BEJAMIN, ORSON W. BENNETT, HENRY G. BONEBRAKE (etc) (same source). Rklawton (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right. When I looked through them I just looked at some of the officers listed and everyone was awarded for actions prior to 1891, but was awarded after 1891. Based on the evidence the statement doesn't belong. Jons63 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced material

You removed sourced material containing a response to Johnny Sutton's lies from CONGRESSMAN DANA ROHRBACHER'S OFFICE.

You fraudulently claimed "WP:LIVING" as justification.

I am watching this and will protest to WP:ANI if you pull something like this again. If it was unsourced that would be one thing but the malfeasance of Sutton and his office has been documented by the offices of multiple congressmen and newsmedia in the US. FixtheBorder (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The way that line was writen was not WP:NPOV. NPOV is extremely important when talking about living persons. I reviewed the one source and it did not see where it said that Sutton lied. Someone else has already reverted your edit. Jons63 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:3RR

It's time to stop reverting him and move to the talk page. If you continue to revert, you will have broken the 3 revert rule. I'm going to give him the same warning. Leebo T/C 20:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I already had decided to let it drop and wait for outside comments on the RfC. Jons63 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I recommend laying out all your feelings on this issue on the talk page, and presenting a fair evaluation of what you believe the edit war is stemming from. That will allow users from the greater community to step in without much time lost. I'm really not familiar with Johnny Sutton, so I'm not capable of adequately describing the situation. Leebo T/C 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box house

At Box house you've asked for sources. The one sentence in this stub at the moment is cited. What precisely do you want citation for that is missing? (Please respond on my user talk list, I'm not watchlisting these days). - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HELP ---- FUNNY ICON

Hi,

I just saw you make an post for a speedy deletion and I want to know how you got the code for the little icon...

The Helpful One (Talk) 19:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victim of vandalism

Hi Jons63. Just a heads up that your argument with User_Talk:71.154.248.214 over Delight, Arkansas was because s/he was a vandal. The information you added to the document was perfectly accurate, and a cursory look over that IP address' edits indicates a concerted effort to vandalize the page, nothing more. You were completely in the right. --GoodDamon 22:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I realized that, but I had already reverted 3 times and I was just going to back away and fix it tomorrow. Thanks for the support. Jons63 03:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No problem, glad to be of assistance. :) --GoodDamon 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Sutton

You have recently made reversions to this page, but have not placed any note on the talk page informing others as to what you are objecting. I am asking you to do so as per my discussion with Mr Black Kite, so that the article can be improved. Please respond on the talk page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixthepedia (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Regarding the page طارق الناصر, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "patent nonsense", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion because it is not patent nonsense, it is written in a foreign language and should be tagged {{notenglish}}. If you still want the page to be deleted, please use the WP:PNT process. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Club Penguin

I reverted you change to Club Penguin, as I do not think you intended it to look like that. I just wanted you to know. --Τις (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daphne Rosen

[edit] MySpace as a source

When someone is saying "She is notable as one of the few openly Jewish actors/actresses in the adult industry currently making pornographic films today," The official MySpace is a fine source since that person, through their very own MySpace, is "Openly" stating that they "are Jewish." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daphnerosen (talk • contribs) 21:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How about the bio on her official site?

She's Jewish. She says it all the time (as well as it being known throughout the internet). The new footnote is from her official bio on her official website. Again, "openly Jewish" is firmly supported by the footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daphnerosen (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So less than a half dozen Jewish pornstars were named...

...that constitutes "few" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daphnerosen (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And that constitutes original research. Original Research is not allowed, you need a source that supports the claims you are making. 00:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Torrey adams

I noticed a few minutes ago that you said in an edit summary that you would have removed your own db-bio tag had it not been gone already. It may well be that you're seeing something I'm not, so I wanted to check with you first. As near as I can tell, all the references are either self-generated or self-serving or not really references... this seems to me to be a lot of self-promotion and not much notability, and I was thinking of either re-tagging it with db-bio or taking it to AfD for a lack of notability. But I thought I'd take a moment to find out what you see in this article -- my mind is open, if you wouldn't mind spending a moment to explain it to me. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see an assertion of notability in the article. That is why I wouldn't put a db-bio tag on the article. I don't believe it would stay after an AfD though. Jons63 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to LeBron James: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Jauerback (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You got to it before me!

I clicked Save Page at the source code of Michael Jackson, two edits back. And when I went to the revision history of the article, it said you reverted it back two articles instead! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afarnen (talk • contribs) 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You just need to be quicker next time, LOL Jons63 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Wilcher CSD

You CSDed me so fast I thought it might be a bot. I have partially sourced the article. Could you please comment at Talk:Thomas Wilcher.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 16:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a BOT just was looking at recently created pages and yours came up. Jons63 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I have been adding stuff and other editors have downgraded CSD to prod/expand. I am hoping to get the prod/expand downgraded further. Please revisit.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Elson

I have removed your speedy tag from this article. Elson is a head coach of the football program at Western Kentucky University, a Division I Football Bowl ubdivision team, and is therefore inherently notable. This wouldn't even be deleted in an AfD, much less a speedy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page

Your commentary on my talk page is irrelevant to the subject to which you claim to be referring. 65.60.137.13 (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

you are right, I placed that on the wrong page, sorry Jons63 (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desmond barrick

Yes, anyone who has competed for a senior national team in any sport would be considered notable. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Le Vell

its not just hearsay, I went to the driving offenders class with him(80.5.151.36 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

Well then that is Original Research. You need to have a reliable source to put it in the article. Jons63 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natalee Holloway

I made the same point about the living category as you and agree completely. Unforetuneately, the owners of that article disagree with that guideline and will not allow it to be removed. It is too bad that people pushing an agenda can do that. Nice try though. They tried to say it was due to office actions but now say office action means nothing, and that it can't be removed, go figure. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] tjthe dj re; WEDC, and others

Hi Jons, Thanks for your courteous response

First, how do I contact you for direct conversation?

Now to addrress a few things noted in my usertalk,

With respect, I WROTE the original WNMP article, and am still in the process of adding details. WHY would I (original author) put my new stuff on the "talk page?" There are NO other contributors to the article. Thanks.

You placed discussion about the article, specifically, reasons why the article should not be deleted in the main article. Those comments did not belong in the article, they belong on the talk page associated with the article. I hope this clears things up. Jons63 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Feb 14, 2008 Yes, well I really am quite fed up with the "rules" and no direct communication, here. There were edits (not by me) that were quite incorrect, like linking WRIN to "the Rural Radio Network" - NOT the RRN WRIN was a mewmber of, yet wanting more sources on items that are NOT written about, anywhere.

A few of the people who "edit" articles here are clueless- except of course for using their authority. If "experts" are not welcome, then phooey on it all.

WCRW and WEDC were "historic" places because they "shared time." Bullfish waants to bew a bully but doesnb't understand the significane of these "pioneer HISPANIC" as wel as pioneer "shared time stations."

There are NO existing written sources, except old Broadcasting yearbooks and the photo albums that existed at the stations, O...and ME!

Read the article about WIBN, another rdio station with which I am familiar. WHERE are the references there? The writing there looks like a 4th grader did it. Where are the citations there?

I mean NO disrespect here. This is just frustrating, as I have lots of very pertinent info, but it seems "unappreciated." I'm 58 and have been in radio since I was 14. Your actions here make ME feel disrespected.

Is Wikipedia REALLY interested in my input?

Note also that the entries authored by 69.129.51.87 (talk) are MINE. I forgot to log in. Thanks.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tjthedj"

Thanks. tjthedj

Tjthedj ==JONS....Thanks for your reply. (though you'd never know from what I wrote- sorry) I was complainng about Bullfish and should have responded to them.

Your guidance is VERY helpful. tjthedj==

[edit] February 29

Just to let you know that the IP user 156.61.xx.xx who has made some odd recent changes to this article about the Roman bissextile day has moved on here after having been blocked out of Julian calendar, Roman calendar, Mercedonius and Leap year. Over the last month he has been pushing to insert his understanding of Roman intercalation into these articles. He ignores contrary evidence, opinion of scholarship, and general reason, and he absolutely refuses to use the Talk page to discuss his issues under any circumstances, though he does read them. All you get are cryptic comments in Edit Summary lines and ad hominem attacks in the inserted text, though he has muted this down after being threatened with being blocked.

THanks for reverting him here. I recommend you don't try to engage with him. I tried for a month to reason with him, because it did seem possible, but in the end it just made him more wedge-headed and me very frustrated.

I have asked for this page to be added to the list being semiprotected.

--Chris Bennett (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Thanks -- I'm aware of the 3RR rule and have no intention of violating it. Hence why I mentioned in my summary that this was my last shot before dispute resolutioin. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alisyn Camerota

The edit i made to the page wasn't vandalism.That is her correct birth year.Her and Gretchen Carlson have the same birthdate,Gretchen graduated high school in 1984.Which makes them born in 1966. 75.108.60.152 (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Have reverted page back to my edit.

[edit] Leopold

I take it you've never seen an episode of the Simpsons where Leopold appears then? Every episode he's in, he refers to the children as "you little freaks" (or words to that effect). – PeeJay 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You Misunderstood My Motive

This was not retaliation. It was intended to educate. These vandals need to understand how vulnerable they are to identity theft, by placing all that very personal info on the Internet. I fully expected Bruxfain to delete it by now. Thanks for doing it in his stead.

It seems like date and year articles tend to be vandalism magnets, much moreso than most other articles. I wish the standard templates pointed out the identity theft issue, as I attempted to do. Any ideas? Please advise. Thanks. Art Smart (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hat

I think it is a common misconception that hats cannot be made of leather. As a milliner of leather hats it a problem I battle everyday. Would you like to revert your last undo, or should I? Also I noticed in the cleaning section a list of how to clean dofferent types of hats. Seems similar me list some but not all types of hats. Cheers, Major Awesome (Major Awesome Leather Hats, Auklington New Zealand) MajorAwesome (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Kobe Bryant

I Apoligize, I just don't think "Sexual assault" is really good idea to mention in a Kobe's "basketball" article, I don't want my kids to see that stuff too...thanks Dwilso (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, see WP:CENSOR RT | Talk 06:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desert Storm

Hi,

I just cited some changes I made to the Desert Storm & the P-3 Orion pages. That was a quick edit on your part. I am still considering how to cite sources without breaking copywright. This case I was also present for the events. BullofBigRed (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008

Hey, you don't need to put standardized Twinkle warnings on an established editor's and admin's talk page. Please also don't talk down to me with phrases like, "Respect other people's versions of English." As far as I was aware, we use American English on all articles except articles such as Queen (band) and other articles specific to Great Britain or Australia, but if you would like particular details within more generic articles (such as 2008), I'll go ahead and leave it that way. Thanks for the info, but I don't think all that huge speech was necessary on my page, but since you use Twinkle and Friendly for most of your edits, I guess it does it by itself. Useight (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the wording of the template, I just don't appreciate receiving a template on my talk page. I believe templates are really only necessary for warning vandals and welcoming new editors. I just believe that established editors should take the time to write something themselves when communicating with other established editors, such as ourselves. I would just appreciate a more personalized message. I'm sorry if I came across that I was trying to elevate myself because I'm an admin, I'm just trying to ask that you write your own messages when communicating with established editors. Sorry for any confusion. Useight (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy tagging

Tagging User:Casull/Template:w-DelKeyWorks for speedy deletion caused a number of user talk pages to show up on CAT:CSD - when tagging pages that have transclusions, be careful to use noinclude. But, regardless, the redirect should simply have been fixed to point at the proper target, which I have done. —Random832 20:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

How do I fix my legitimate entry to the Crack Cocaine page that was erased by "Jons63" ? A link sent me to this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.170.219 (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thx

Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism to my user page. Man, you were fast. Rien (talk\stalk)  23:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was watching newbie edits and saw it, you are welcome. Jons63 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

you are a very nice person thank you for your advice. Tesatraptrap (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, If I can be of any assistance let me know. Jons63 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] please refrain from reverting my changes

I have a pet cockatiel and I know about them so I don't need to "source" anything. What I am writing is obviously true and is not even somewhat nonsensical. I know you live inside a plastic room with plastic food and plastic friends. But I live with a bird and we love each other and sometimes she lays eggs. At this point I have no idea what constitutes as a "good" edit to a wikipedia page. No wonder there are so many "vandals".

[edit] Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Korea article

I thought unified silla is considered the first to rule Korea under one leadership for the most part. Was there a discussion on this already. I couldn't find it in the discussion section. The term unified silla even already eludes to just that about Korea being unified under one rule.--4.23.83.100 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lookinhere

    • Here here, Katraith is spot on! user:Jons63 has vandalized my User Page when I stated at the top that edits to my user page are not permitted without my express permission. He went and removed my statement on editing my user page. Help Stamp Out Bad Trolls please report him to the Administrators [4] (Lookinhere (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Comments

Jons63 clearly doesn't have a lot to do, as he/she seems utterly consumed with correcting/deleting pages that he/she has not the first iota of expertise in or knowledge about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstraith (talk • contribs) 13:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Users do not delete article, administrators do it. If your article follow WP:BIO, then be sure it will never be deleted. Otherwise it will be deleted per WP:DP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I see the page you are talking about. I did not delete it, only recommended that it be deleted because you did not establish that the subject of the article was notable. If you review the information here and write your article to meet those guidelines the article will probably not be deleted. Jons63 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Wrote And Recorded This In Less Than Five Hours

Just letting you know that some info has been added to the article, so you might want to reconsider your opinion in the AfD discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Bong" edits

What do you mean unsourced? how can i source this? its a technique used in some places. but i can't source this.OK. BUT that doesn't mean it's impossible to do! even if i CAN'T prove that it's not used anywhere! so what to do? can't you just take that as a theory? or even better, just sit back and enjoy it for yourself? i just dont see why this needs to be sourced, as it isn't a fact... if you see what i mean! 79.179.112.203 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some core policies on wikipedia. One of them is that material added to articles must be verifiable with reliable sources. You have not provided any sources, reliable or not, for this material you want to add. Another set of policies is what wikipedia is not, these include: NOT a publisher of original thought and NOT a manual or howto guide among others. The material without reliable sources to verify it appears to be original research. Do not add the material back in unless you can provide a source. Jons63 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nowiking categories

I find it more useful to place a colon before the category, like this: [[:Category:Star Trek]] so that it renders like this Category:Star Trek. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I saw how you changed it and put that into my basket of tools. Jons63 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] quick fixer

i was demonstrating something about the nature of wikipedia to my brother by doing a minor spelling vandalism to an uncontroversial page. my estimate was it would be changed back in 10 minutes, this user caught it and changed it back 12 minutes after i did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.56.220 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Karl Pilkington

Right, the 'trivial' notes that you deleted from this page are entirely the point to Karl Pilkington: he is a 'notable person' because he had a pet magpie and that his favourite job was a paper round. Pilkington's famous for being an idiot; he's not some comic actor whose biography should include their time in Footlights or whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.168.188 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Bruce

please reconsider your speedy del. I have now updated the page with more notoriousness.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahmckem (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic FC

Hi. Thanks for reverting vandalism from this article. However, I thought I would point out that you did not revert back far enough and left a bunch of previous vandalism in place. Please examine carefully when reverting as others may look and assume that you have got it all. Best wishes and thanks again. --John (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Days of the year guideline

As a frequent contributor (or vandal patroller) to the days of the year articles (WP:DAYS), your comments on the current state of the proposed guideline for that project would be greatly appreciated. Discussion is taking place here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ecocho refs

Just wanted to say thanks for help finding the refs on Ecocho! Are Wikipedians/is Wikipedia usually this fast? Thanks again, mate

[edit] Crisis Management Website

Please reconsider your speedy delete regarding website that I added on Crisis management topic. Website that I added is non profit website which can help organizations. It was developed by students from Illinois Institute of Technology, IL to help organizations prepare for crisis situations. We would be appreciate if you would consider not treat this adding as a Spam.

Matt Chojecki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.Chojecki (talk • contribs) 23:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The website you keep adding requires someone to register to access the material in it. When I tried to register it requires a company ID and I was not able to register. It is not much use unless people can get the information easily. Your website is not easy to get information from. Sorry at this point I would still say it is spam and will continue to remove it when I find it. Jons63 (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jon63 After your comment regarding our website our group try to make website more “user friendly”. We added “guest login” with automatically dismiss you from login process. We add tutorial also. If you reconsider your decision one more time we will be appreciate. Website that we want to add is developed by students and its absolutely free. We don't derive any kind of profit from this. Our only guess was that our web-based tool can be helpful for Wikipedia users.

Best regards, Matt Chojecki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.Chojecki (talk • contribs) 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.crisistesting.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.Chojecki (talk • contribs) 23:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick work

Good vandal swating at the MJ article, your quick. Realist2 (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jons63 (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

What? i dont remember refresh mah memorey 68.197.129.199 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit to Dr Pepper

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I undid your recent edit to the Dr Pepper article. The weird anecdote about the name formatting is true; I remember reading it in "The Legend of Dr Pepper/7-Up" (something like that, I don't remember the title exactly). I don't currently have access to the book, but I will later and will properly cite it then. For now I just left a "citation needed" tag. Dan (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I left that in to and removed the nonsense about Dr Pepper making you gain weight rather than lose weight. Jons63 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just noticed I misread the history page. Sorry about that. Dan (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem Jons63 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] George Hans Staab

I also am an Engineer at Ohio State and have had Dr. Staab for 2 classes (in fact I am writing this from the OSU engineering computer lab). I would say that I know him personally. I have reviewed the article and everything in the "Mannerisms" section of the article is completely true, as I'm sure George himself would agree. I see no reason why it was removed.

Hi Jon, I wanted to ask why you edited our article about George Hans Staab today... I added the section about "Mannerisms" and you removed it. Why? Do you go to Ohio State? The article about Dr. Staab is meant to be in good humor, and I see no reason why the section I added shouldn't remain. Please let me know why you made this edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.145.58 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting non-contentious information

It is not appropriate to revert new information in an article just because it is unsourced. Unless it is contentious information in a biography of a living person or you dispute it, you should request a citation. If you dispute the information in a good faith contribution, you should provide a reason.

It is particulalrly inappropriate to call a good faith contribution, vandalism as you did with the Brownsville addition to the Mike Tyson article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:Verifiability:
Do not leave unsourced information in articles about living persons. As Jimmy Wales has put it: ...

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales [1]

The information I removed was added by an IP without an edit summary and no source. It appeared to me to be vandalism and then it was replaced with a personal attack against me by another IP. I removed it again as unsourced. Referring to the above, the last I knew Mike Tyson was alive and a person, the information was unsourced and and I did not leave it in. Jons63 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, that is the verifiability policy. A more constructive approach to well intentioned edits (and one less likely to provoke childish personal attacks) is to find a source that disproves(or supports) the addition.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the WP:Verifiability policy has changed. It is now "Do not leave unsourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organisations in articles."--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I have been watching the page and have already adjusted how I react to newly added information. Jons63 (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MJ Albums

Do you have any idea why the names of MJ albums are being changed?--Realist2 (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I noticed it and fixed some hatnotes so they linked to the right disambig page Jons63 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he reverted you. He has changed the names no "off the wall" and "invincible" and has gone to every article on wiki that names them to give them changes as well. Realist2 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alantology

Taken care of. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jons63 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Vandalis?

How did I vandalize anything? I looked in history of 1998 and you say I did vandalisim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halosean (talk • contribs) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You removed a comment on the page that said, "Do not add yourself or people without Wikipedia articles to this list" and added yourself to the page. You did 3 things, 1) You removed comments on how the page works, 2) You added yourself to the page when the comment says not to add yourself, 3) You added a person (yourself) without a wikipedia article, (your userpage is not an article). The combination of those 3 things IMO is vandalism. Jons63 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Woah, I need to think of a better password... --<<Sean Contributions/Halosean>> 01:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Ken Mannuzza

I spent lots of time on my Article about Ken Mannuzza and you say it's not true. How dare you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowayno (talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 April 2008

How dare I, it is simple, there are no sources and it is contrary to all of history, all you have to do is source the page with verifiable reliable sources and people will believe it, but acting the way you are does not help your cause. Jons63 (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Grout

Hey thanks for editing my article, i had never written one before, tried to put in the citations and all that before, but realise how shit it was after seeing your editing, thanks for spending time on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GroutFan (talk • contribs) 01:25, 29 April 2008

[edit] Marilyn Monroe

I'm sorry about the linking of icon; I just assumed it led onto an article about iconic people, not things.

--6afraidof7 (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Ulrich

I assure you I have no connection to Glenn Ulrich or his company. I am a fan. I was told by nickleshoes that I could rewrite the page and I did. Glenn made history as the youngest ever in the history of pro wrestling to run and promote wrestling shows, he is the only person to every go directly from the high school wrestling mat to the pro ring. He also promoted the largest wrestling show every run by a fed not sanctioned by one of the big two companies this past April without television talent. These are remarkable and I believe notable items. Please restore the page for me or tell me what I have to do to get it restored.

Thanks, --Joseph Doe (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)