User talk:Jéské Couriano/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Jeske Couriano! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Kukini 06:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Edit Summary Request

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky or even vandalizing. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! -- Kukini 06:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thank'ee. --Jeske Couriano 07:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Nlu (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yessir. -Jeske (SHOUT!) 12:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Rampard, Mukubird, and also the Trideps article

Do you know how to properly report his vandalism? Some things I am reading imply a third party might be necessary to set an official fact regarding the image, and if he refuses the cooperate, only then it counts as vandalism. Either way, something needs to be reported. Just wondering if you know about this stuff or if I should try to get something done myself. --ArrEmmDee 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The ANI article implies to me that I should go through Wikipedia:AIAV. --ArrEmmDee 00:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, then. What if he continues afterwards on any of the three-- I suppose Rampard and Tritops might be out because there is not any proof either way, though. --ArrEmmDee 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Rampard

i would like to see an official site that has the artwork for this Rampard image, and site it sent me to had some other images that are clearly fake too.

I apologize, but I am not the person to talk to, ArrEmmDee is. Since what you say seems true, I'm staying out of debates on the article. BTW, sign your posts with four tildes. -Jeske ^{(Mail goes here)} 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a gripe with the image as well, but when I edited it, it was replaced and stated as having been on such-and-such website which stated they came from the official www.pokemon.co.jp website, which means it is not necessarily bound to be in the "official" art style, implying it may come from other sources such as their card game, which while not in the standard style, is still official. Unless someone were to remove the license for the image with sufficient proof or by proving a lack of sufficient proof that it is in an acceptable art piece, unless some Wikipedia admin orders me otherwise, I will treat removal of the image as vandalism and continue to revert to it until the official official art is released in a decent size-- I actually have seen the official art DSDark seems to have such a great preference to, they're actually fairly similar in art and pose. If any of that seems entirely unreasonable, that is fine. I'm not up for confrontation, but I'm not up for removal of a sufficient art substitute in the meanwhile.--ArrEmmDee 20:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

wait you've seen the real official art for rampard? and if so where––DSDark 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I request, DS and Arr, that you two continue the debate on either of your talk pages or on Rampard's talk page, not on mine. Danke. -Jeske ^{(Mail goes here)} 21:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons

I'm sorry you thought my addition was vandalism, and, in looking at it, I could have chosen a better word choices. But as a Dungeon & Dragons player from way back and having followed the controversies for many years, the Monster Manual from 1977 had topless drawings and it was a point of concern among those critical of D&D. I've tried to restate the information in a form that is more tasteful. Bbagot 15:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Have you tried placing those in the Dungeons & Dragons controversies article as well? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I was just passing through and didn't read many forks. I'd like to apologize again. Now that I've read the history of the article, I see that you have a fair amount of vandalism. My original word choice was very poor. You handled what could have been an explosive situation very well and I wish to commend you for that. Back in my day I was quite the DM with the first edition and have a 900 page story of my characters' expliots, so I certainly respect the game and would only try to add meaningful information from a time period that's probably largely forgotten. Bbagot 20:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Monk

The monk class did come from The Destroyer novels, as those of us who were playing the game in the '70s know well. I have added the citation. You can always use the {fact} tag rather than just deleting information that you haven't heard of, you know. Truly Trivial 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But have you a CITE? I stand corrected. However, to realize why I remove uncited information, you must also understand I also do a LOT of work on Pokemon articles as well.-Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 03:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Check my userpage.

I've responded to your message. TheBlazikenMaster 08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thank'ee for the note. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eevee

I thought I might split up the sections in the video game part of the article to tell what games eeve appears in, what games it doens't and it's statistics. I was wondering, how is that a game guide, and can I still at least have the statistics mini-section? ~VNinja~ 01:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Splitting it up like that is pointless and as far as I know flies in the face of the Pokemon Collaborative project's style guide. I'm not the guy to complain to, that would be the PCP. Further, you were deliberately spelling out the stats section, which (since it has numerical stats anyhow which will be deleted) is tantamount to game guide. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 01:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry.

I apologize. I won't bother you again.

I will watch you all the same in case you do. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You can watch individual users? How?

I have a watchlist, and both my user and talk pages are on it. I take any vandalism on my user page as bothering me. Besides, I have your IP's talk page watchlisted. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you CAN'T watch individual users.

Not without keeping an eye on their talk page and contributions (thanks to that link on the side of the talk page that reads, "User Contributions"). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. An IP block would mean that many people would be affected. Are you a haxor?

No. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That is wack. It's funny how Wikipedia claims to be a "serious" encyclopedia, when it's generally considered by many institutions to not be a valid source of information.

It's mainly because anyone can edit it - not because it's not valid (it's mostly valid thanks to Wikipedia:Attribution & Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), but because an article can easily be rendered crap by vandals, anonymous or named. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Easily edited...thus invalidating its credibility. Anyway, excited for Diamond/Pearl, or did you import? I'm going to guess you didn't since you don't speak Japanese.

I don't import. I'm not saying what exactly I do or my feelings (or even the languages I speak), as I have a policy of not giving out too much personal information (I don't consider userboxes too much). Besides, everything is easily editable up to a point of no return, excepting Wikipedia (which has no such point), a fact you showed by personally attacking me. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I figure if you spoke Japanese, you'd have made a userbox about it. ;-)

Recent reverts

Though I must half-heartedly agree with policy, if these names end up being confirmed, I request that you rerevert (is that a word?) bak to my edits.--Tempest115 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Either myself, User:Urutapu, User:Floramage, or one of the other users who haunt the Pokemon pages will do so when and if they are confirmed. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me.--Tempest115 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Jibacoil

Jibacoil's been hit again with Magnezone, of course, it hasn't been moved to it, but I don't want to revert the page for obvious reasons. -Sukecchi 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Togepi is a Baby

There is official confirmation that Togepi is a baby pokemon, go on to Pokemon-games.com and click on the Pokedex and go down to togepi and it says Baby: Togepi Basic Togetic. DSDark 19:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have bigger issues. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Leaked English Name Confirmed

Look at PokemonElite2000.com the cards confirm Monferno, Infernape, Prinplup, Grotle, Torterra, Magnezone, and Riolu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DSDark (talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Already did. By the by, sign your posts, please? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 02:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Neorant

Hello Jeske. I saw the comment you left on Talk:Neorant regarding the rumors and their place in the mainspace article. In your opinion, do you think that stating the rumors violates WP:NOT#CBALL or that they should be left in the article? Ksy92003 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they do personally, since we can't verify a rumor (which is a type of speculation), thus the rumor violates CBALL and WP:ATT. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 02:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand still is that a Pokemon's name given on a website like www.Serebii.net, even if it's not the official name, technically isn't speculation. I'm not speculating that its name is gonna be Lumineon. I'm not trying to argue anybody here, especially those who have been working on Pokemon articles a hell of a lot longer than I have. I would just like some clarification on the subject, that's all. Ksy92003 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing English Name notes

Since you won't stop removing the small notes I have been placing in the D/P Pokemon articles, I will ask you why... And is Bulbapedia a reliable source, since Wikipedia obviously is, and there are basically the same thing?

Also, what is wrong with reporting news about the reported English names? It's not speculation, as you suggest, as I am not the one making it up... And second, if several sites on the internet leaked the names out and said outright that they didn't do it all at once because Nintendo would be mad, and Nintendo came back by telling people on their forums not to use the English names due to spoilers about the English versions of the games, isn't that verifiable enough?Oraclelink 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Bulbapedia isn't a reliable source, as it is a wiki, and thus anyone can edit it (i.e. anonymous input). Wikipedia is a different matter altogether, since it is the site all this is going on, and thus couldn't be cited (self-referential).

Further, reporting the reported english names violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically the part that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball.

Last, just because Nintendo shot back at them for releasing the English names, it doesn't mean they are genuine. They could have also shot back for other reasons, namely confusion over names once D/P came out. Besides, forums also fail WP:RS thanks to the fact they have anonymous input. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The info on the forums was by NoA staff, therefore not anonymous, and they specifically said to not use them because they would SPOIL THE GAME for people who did not yet want to see the names. And it doesn't violate the crystal ball thing. Oraclelink 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the forum ITSELF violates WP:RS, no matter whether Joe Cartoon, Nintendo of America, or even one of the Crab People posted there. And, actually, it does violate CBALL, since it is essentially a rumor which can't be reliably verified. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

J Milburn

H3y jeske, just letting you know that j milburn is unfair can u tell him thatJimmyr6 15:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Heym Jimmy, just letting you know personal attacks such as the one you keep placing on will get you blocked from editing or on the wrong end of an ArbCom request (and besides, I'm uninvolved and your actions aren't swaying me). By the by, read up on policy. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For all the reverts of my talk and user page. I have reported the user after continued vandalism after a final warning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J Milburn (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, forgot to sign. HagermanBot beat me there. J Milburn 15:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nolle perspiration. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Chiming in to convey my thanks as well. I can't help but appreciate his sense of humour, however. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeske isn't very common name in my opinion.

I'm thinking about the name "Jake", but there is no common name that will help me remember the name as "Jeske", perhaps you can help me remember? What's the best way to remember that e in your name? TheBlazikenMaster 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronounce it "Jay-skay." Since I don't know the unicode for the accented e... -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous

Why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.77.242.26 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

If there's a Wikipedia article on the Club Masters in another language, then people could find the information out by reading the foreign article (if the names are as you say and in the same order as the article has them, there should be little-to-no trouble understanding). There's no need to add a separate section for other-language names - See Qilin. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 17:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand! You are far better than Urutapu!

ur too nice

personally... after seeing how many vandalizing edits this guy made, i would be done warning and go ahead and request a block. It's not justified that he's able to vandalize 5 pages at once and only get one warning, especially when he's already been warned and it's blatant. but that's just me, that anon has only one more shot. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How would I go about it? He's only been here for 48 hours at best, and I didn't append {{uw-vandalism4}} because I haven't been able to get to it yet. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

oh no... please don't take it negatively... i just saw what he was doing and got angry. my statement that "ur too nice" was just meant in a playful manner... damned internet for not being able to convey nuance. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean, I want this guy to stop - by branch or by shackle - but I want to know how to request that an IP be blocked momentarily if they have not vandalized beyond the last warning. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Bidoof

Sorry for being a jerk back there, but it just really annoyed me that some opinions were welcomed and others weren't. But it looks like it is all fine now. And so I don't piss off anyone even more, I'll let you make the call. Do you really think Bidoof looks like a cow? (68.164.13.17 06:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC))

In the fact that its body is thick, yes. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 12:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No language block??

You told me that Wikipedia doesn't blocked language/porn. Why is that? So anyone can just go cussing everybody off a talk page? I had to delete a piece on the sandbox because it was so bad. Wikipedia, being known for its good articles, should have some sort of policy. Like an Administrator could edit it or something. Sincerely, Kevin 20 5 23 26 03:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored because if it were, we'd have very little (after the Muslims, Christians, Jews, right-wingers, left-wingers, charvers, and everyone else demanded whatever they deemed offensive off). Besides, not EVERYONE is going to be put off by potty language - I certainly am not. A talk page should not be edited for language/grammar/etc. - ESPECIALLY if you didn't make the comment.

Also, Wikipedia is not known for "good articles" (see Talk:Bulbasaur - you'll be surprised), it is known for its anyone-can-edit approach. We do have administrators, but their job is to protect articles, block disruptive users (such as the master of copyright vio), and delete articles. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

recent poke AFDs

yeah... i saw that.... sigh.... guess my wikibreak is over (last one i took ended up losing two maintenance categories) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think Cipher even read the discussions? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 16:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent Jolteon edits

While I do agree with your edits to the page, I do believe that what Missing Oreo was refering to with his refs were the dex entries.--Tempest115 00:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I know what he was trying to do, but he didn't need to cite Serebii, especially if the games are already cited. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 00:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

SHA-1

User:Hairchrm/sha1 - Hairchrm 02:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

mawile talk page

On the mawile talk page someone was talking about how it is usefull and i said that "i dont know if it helps but mawile is my second best pokemon and that faint attack is very usefull" and it says you reverted it and said that it was spam, i was not spamming! i was trying to help the person out by saying some other things about it being useful!-hotspot

It was removed because Talk:Mawile is not a forum for general discussion on Mawile. If you'd looked at the link, it is reasonable you would have figured the "Spam" designation was sarcasm. Besides, whether it is useful or not is a moot point. Wikipedia is not the place to post how "useful" a particular Poke is, as I'd already stated on the talk page. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 02:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lo siento

If you don't know Spanish, that means "I'm sorry." When I said "leader," I only meant that you were one of thoe three who makes nearly all the edits to the Pokemon articles along with Urutapu and Mcy. I wasn't judging based on your actual edits. Sorry for confusion. A trivial matter, as far as I'm concerned. --Ksy92003 (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand the confusion. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 12:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Pokémon image templates

As far as notifying the relevant WikiProject, that's not up to me, that was up to the nominator. I was merely the closing administrator. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already told him. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 02:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no duty on the nominator to notify anyone. It's nice, but it's not compulsory. Do not chastise nominators in XfD processes for your own failure to observe your watchlist. 81.104.175.145 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know the TfD existed, so you might want to recant your last statement. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't know, but it's not the nominator's fault that you didn't know. 81.104.175.145 04:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that? I don't patrol WP:TfD or recent changes, and I've been busy at other avenues during the time the TfD was going on and didn't have time to look, either. Besides, since the TfD involved a project, I would have suspected someone would have notified everyone else. As far as I know, the whole project, sans Amarkov (who forgot about it), did not know an iota about it.-Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 04:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. You could reasonably expect that someone would have spotted it, but nobody did. Therefore, not the nominator's fault. 81.104.175.145 04:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One cannot watch what one did not know existed. Think about that before you chastise me. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 03:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? I'm not telling you off for missing it on your watchlist. I'm telling you off for chastising a TfD nominator for something that wasn't their problem. 81.104.175.145 04:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're fast

You're fast. I just went to Talk:Mudkip to tell you that I had already put in the request. But when I clicked to edit the section, I saw that it was removed. And apparently in that span of 5 seconds, you noticed that I put the request through to WP:RFPP and removed the section. You're pretty fast, mate. Caught me off-guard :) Ksy92003(talk) 20:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The page could not be protected because the current protection hasn't expired yet. After tomorrow, when the protection expires, we can't request the page for protection until after it has been vandalized again. Ksy92003(talk) 00:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the report; it didn't mention anything about vandalism again. It said, "The need for protection should be reviewed after it expires tomorrow." (emphasis added) -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Oops my bad. I misinterpreted it. As long as you know what it says. We'll see what happens after it expires and take the necessary actions then. Ksy92003(talk) 02:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did you people have to change it to list of Pokemon?

Why did most of the pokemon articles get changed to "List of pokemon ____ to _____" when they all had there own articles before. I mean when each of them had there own article it was WAY more informative and useful.

I'll take care of this, Jeske. They were changed to that because a lot of people thought that each Pokemon wasn't notable enough for its own article. Additionally, a lot of the information is shared on all 493 articles, making it rather redundant to say it on 493 articles. It wasn't Jeske's decision, it was agreed at WP:PCP (I think that's the right link). It's a better idea to group them all together, so we don't have to repeat the same information on 493 articles. Now, all the same information is only gonna be posted on 25 articles with all the same links and information. Nothing is being removed. It's all just being grouped together to avoid redundancy. Ksy92003(talk) 03:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, I am NOT part of the PCP. Complain there, not on my talk page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 04:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Just wanted to tell you that I replied on my talk page... or will momentarily. Ksy92003(talk) 04:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Mudkips

The list article was denied semi-protection, at least until it starts getting vandalized.--_ZXCVBNM 19:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry for the comment I left you. I was just wondering if you knew if Charizard was going to be kept as its own article instead of being merged. Ksy92003(talk) 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is on the cusp, AFAIK. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v)} 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Serebii isn't a credable source?

I never knew that. Aw well thanks for the update.TheUltimate3 09:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Serebii's author does not reveal where he gets his information unrelated to the game code, it automatically makes the site unusable as a reliable source. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 09:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Redact

Please retract this comment. If you actually read the change I made to WP:NOT, which is unrelated to the nomination, you will see that it was readily accepted. As, of course, I already pointed out on my talk page. Mudslinging is unacceptable. --Eyrian 16:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I will, once I get past the edit conflict. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 17:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

After Seeing His Lovely Comment On Your Talk Page

I knew to revert, so no problem. :) Oh, and I've included your Mudkipz userbox to my own userbox subpage if that's okay with you. :) -WarthogDemon 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free. I reported him to WP:AIV; he has a history of socking (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/70.144.143.165). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ..

.. for your timely intervention :) - Alison ☺ 08:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to report him/her for the legal threat (s)he left after my comment. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 08:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Cluetrout

What is a cluetrout? Regards, Navou ^banter 03:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:TROUT. Synonymous with "Cluestick." -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

THANKS

Bigglove^talk 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said I blocked him - especially since I don't have the means to! -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for being the messenger then. How did you know he was blocked? It didn't say it on his talk page. Bigglove^talk 01:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Every user, even IP addresses, has a link to their block log in their contributions. I looked at it and saw that Avraham had already given him a one-month holiday. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I did not know that. Thanks for telling me. Bigglove^talk 02:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Nolle perspiration, chummer. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments req

Comment: This has been reported as well to WP:AIV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not there now; it's probably already been actioned. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Jmlk17 23:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page

Eh, my bad. I meant to move it back chronlogically. Didn't look like it would delete content otherwise I would've moved it manually. Sorry about that mess up. -WarthogDemon 01:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be moved to the bottom? -WarthogDemon 01:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm, it was until someone moved it back up to teh top. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's my mistake: [1]. Looking at it like that it looked like the only change the actual move itself, without any stuff added. Should've double checked myself. Again, sorry about that. -WarthogDemon 01:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Nolle perspiration. His comment's back in, and I moved it back to the bottom (in keeping with the chronology). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, the user seems to insist on having it at the top... -WarthogDemon 01:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That strikes me as very odd, given that he's been around for at least a year and he suddenly jumps into this issue (although his edit to the actual section was honest). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My MfD page

I tried that (in fact, it still says that) but it is not showing up on CAT:CSD because it wants some deletion rationale (since it is a talk page) so I did this instead. MfD - Rjd0060 23:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've given my opinion on the matter at the MfD. The Speedy tag should have been honored. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy - request for protected "under dispute"

thanks

it is important though to tagg the article under dipsute Bold textwhich can not be removed by the editors if no consensus is reached. thanks again. --Sm565 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Your Message

I received a message from you regarding vandalism. If you have anything valid to say to me regarding the accusation, I want to do so through arbitration. 65.188.22.40 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. You have no case for arbitration. And while we're at it, stop trolling. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 00:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Usernames

Oops! WP:RFAA told me to go there for "some other reason" and that's why I did that. Sorry!!! jonathan (talk — contribs) 01:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What does your reply mean? jonathan (talk — contribs) 01:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied again; read the Wiktionary links. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 01:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

SkiersBot find

Thanks for the 'heads up' on this. For some bizarre reason the Category:Fictional universe stubs‎ was included in the recursive list (a 'daughter' of) the Category:Comics stubs. As there was only one subcategory therein that could be strictly considered as a 'comics' related fictional universe, I have removed the link and the fict universe stubs won't be included in lists of comics stubs any more. Sometimes it's these 'goofs' that help fix things that aren't looked at too often (I would never have thought that fict universes would be considered as 'comics' by someone)! I'll go back on the bot tags and remove any that clearly fall into those other fict universes categories. SkierRMH 19:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Null perspiration, chummer. I'll go talk with rspeer; he blocked SkiersBot until you were able to address it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 20:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's unblocked now. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Axolotl

Hi there. I see you've been pretty active in removing Mudkip related nonsense from the Pokemon and mudskipper articles, so wonder if you'd mind watching Axolotl as well. It gets the same rubbish periodically, not helped by a page on Encyclopaedia Dramatica encouraging people to revert to a version full of silliness. I can't link to the Encyclopaedia Dramatica page as it's on the spam blacklist - suggest you Google it and go to the mudkip page if you haven't seen it already. I'm watching it myself, but will be away for the next week so would be good to have another pair of eyes on it. Regards Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you muchly. I'll watchlist it and talk with User:Alison if things get out of hand over there. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

u

Editing

Every correction I made was formatting errors, or spelling. If you look at the reversion you reverted it back to, it looks ridiculous. I don't care who's edits they are. Spelling was wrong, and headers weren't capitalized. You asked for me not to correct other users edits? Who's would I correct then? Carter | Talk to me 05:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your own. Other editors take offense if someone edits the comments they made, even for grammar, spelling, and capitalization. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 05:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize then. I have a script that runs letting me know of misspelling. I thought it wouldn't be a problem, but if correcting other users spelling is offensive, I wouldn't want to hurt anyones feelings. I removed the silly in my first statement as well. Sorry about that. It was rude. Is it not ok then to correct other users spelling? Carter | Talk to me 05:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't OK to do so. The only time you could get away with editing another user's comment is if they're making legal threats, personal attacks, or trying to out someone, and then you remove the offending sections (or the whole post if it's just one big ol LT/PA/outing). -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 05:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You say to get away with like it's against WP policy to correct simple spelling errors. I can get away with it I feel as long as it is simple correction, but once again, I DO NOT want to be offensive. It's not against policy however to minor correct as I did. Anyways, I consider the matter closed. I will refrain from editing other users comments on talk pages. Thanks for the heads up. Carter | Talk to me 06:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Null perspiration, chummer. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 06:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that expression? What does it mean? Forgive my being naive. Also, considering your edit history, I highly support your RfA. Carter | Talk to me 06:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

(Translation from shadowspeak) No sweat, buddy. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 06:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Jack Thompson

Sorry I just noticed your comment on the request for protection, and realized I wasn't terribly clear on what I meant. But the correct page got protected so its all good, sorry for any confusion, Ill try and be more clear next time.  :-) Good luck editing.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Null perspiration, chummer. I reverted myself after I realized you wanted the disambiguation page protected. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 06:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I Aim To Please

And to help Wikipedia of course. :D Now what should be done with User:UniversalHero? -WarthogDemon 06:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted two of his edits so far and informed FisherQueen. I was planning to go to AN/I if I didn't get a response from her within the next three hours. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 06:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As have I. He's reverted all of hours. I gave him an only warning just to be official. -WarthogDemon 06:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to take him to WP:AN3 for Vampirella. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 06:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually he just got blocked as a sock of a User:Creepy Crawler. -WarthogDemon 06:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that. I'll help you counteract what he's done. Nevermind; already been taken care of. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 06:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. That was some weird foot fetish vandal . . . only slightly odder than a coprophagic IP vandal I dealt with 2 months ago... :P Happy editing! -WarthogDemon 06:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we trade? ;) I'm tired of SIHULM vandals and BSR IPs. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 06:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

BSR IPs? Biologically-Sane Rhinos? Borderline Smelly Rats? Bloody Salty Republicans? Barnacle-Sporting Rabbits? -WarthogDemon 06:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Bad Seed at Rotom. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 06:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. Forgot about reverting him from your page sometime back. Ah well I must be off for now. Cheers. :) -WarthogDemon 06:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Creepy Crawler

Regards this edit and comment, that particular user is a sock of User:Creepy Crawler who's actions usually consist solely of adding a link to the barefoot page and a collection of middling-useful categories; sometimes correct, sometimes spammy. I've been watching and correcting his/her additions for a while now, but it's a lot of work to revert and the 3rr is always close to being breached when he/she is actually online. All this to say, if you see similar actions in the future, I love to have help with corrections, warnings and blocks (I believe you will pass an RFA soon?) and this has been going on for months. I think myself alone I've tagged about 8 different socks with exactly the same contribution history.

Thanks,

WLU 14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out and I'll watchlist both barefoot and the pages he was hitting as UniversalHero. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 18:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never noticed him/her editing barefoot directly, is there a way of spotting new links to Barefoot? I've tried using the related changes page, but either I'm mis-timing it, using it wrong, or it's just impossible. WLU 18:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Go to barefoot and click on "What links here." That gives a list of every article linking to it. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tried that, there's over 550 pages and it's a lot to click/crtl-f/edit. Are they arranged chronologically? I've never tried to figure out if there's an order to the list. Would just going to the bottom of the list give the newest? WLU 19:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know; from what I've seen, it's random. However, I would see if these appear on the list (these were the ones he last hit) and check them to see if they're legit. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 19:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti vandalism thank you

Thank you for quickly reverting vandal-like deletion edits to my talk page by Dictator Bimbo Wales this morning. Jaraalbe 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Null perspiration, chummer. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA - attention, pls

Hi Jeske, just want to alert you that there has been an Oppose vote at your RfA, citing an WP:Civil issue. I already added my comment to this, but I guess you would want to add a statement of your own, to. The issue is a bit, hmm, creepy... :-/ Gray62 13:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you muchly for telling me, but I keep my RfA watchlisted so I can respond to any questions or criticisms. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Revert explained

Just a note to explain why I reverted your well intentioned revert of personal attacks as found on User talk:Philippe. This is a very unique case were the personal attacks are actually the subject matter of the main topic, so reverting them has a negative impact on the topic itself. My assumption is that you acted solely based on normal Wikipedia standards and did not have any hidden agenda of protecting the one making the personal attacks. That individual has now been blocked for 48 hours. Just wanted you to know exactly what was going on and why I reverted your revert. There is no need to reply as this was a very unique situation. Thank you for your on going work in reverting vandalism where ever it occurs. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA

Given you're passing with flying colours so far, I can probably guess what your first admin action is when promoted (delete the Main Page! Yeah!) Will ^(talk) 12:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Har har har. You're a regular Bill Engvall. Actually, I'm planning to beeline straight for RfPP and AN/I. I don't plan to delete any Main Pages ever. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 17:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that's awesome. And I really mean LOP (241-260), which comes off semi on the 17th. Will ^(talk) 18:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My RfA finishes a few hours before the prot does, IIRC. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to you being an admin! Thanks for your advice and suggestions yesterday! Congrats again! Carter | Talk to me 05:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, isn't there a WP:COUNTINGCHICKENS? No? :P -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha now you're just being modest. Well, good luck anyways! Carter | Talk to me 07:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

­*waits for you to pounce on the LOP in 80 minutes* Will ^(talk) 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not nagging at the same time (well, a bit...), but the 4channers are quiet for a day when it's off protection... Will ^(talk) 20:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If they start acting up, I'll protect it. So far it's quiet on the Western Front. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! I don't think we've ever interacted, but I just saw your intervention today on the Flavius sockpuppetry issue. I'll immediately press-gang you into service as a sock fighter! (You can earn the Whack-a-mole Stuffed Tiger Prize too!) :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulationes! Oh I forgot, you're not Spanish! :-) Bearian 12:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, congrats, I see you're getting your hands dirty at RFPP already! All the best :) ~ Riana ⁂ 19:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You were always one of the more useful and productive non-admins at RFPP. I think it's safe in your hands. – Steel 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on your successful RfA. If you have any questions, then you can also ask me. I'm not an admin here, but I am on another Wiki. So I am familiar with the tools. But finally: no more having to go to WP:RFPP; you can do it yourself! Ksy92003(talk) 13:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to add my congratulations. I knew you'd make it! Proud of you, and your work! I add a lot to RFPP! Hope you support me there. Anyways, good luck! Carter | Talk to me 07:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Go there now. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 07:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. You do good work, and I hope to follow in your shoes. Good call. Happy editing! Carter | Talk to me 07:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Woolmer Hill

Thanks for protecting the article; I was just about to ask. Acroterion _(talk) 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that it was already at RPP; I thought you were psychic! And congratulations on your successful RfA. Acroterion _(talk) 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have the permissions for the "Read User's Mind" button. :P -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you'll have to be a steward for that. Acroterion _(talk) 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war developing

I note that you were the first to remove a link to www.thefirmament.org placed on the Firmament page. User Megamile has since made multiple attempts to place this link on this and other pages, despite multiple reverts by others (including me). Now a new pattern is emerging: several new user accounts have been created with no apparent purpose except to debate the issue on the Talkpage (MyCallonWiki, IMSirius, Stargate5), and one of these has just replaced the link (I reverted him). I suspect sockpuppetry (or maybe meatpuppetry). --Robert Stevens 19:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFCU. I don't have CheckUser permissions, but I will file the report for you. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

grey's anatomy

you just protected Grey's Anatomy, but this person continued to revert your protected page. [2], and deleted the "racial diversity" fact. you should check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.219.71 (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please get a source or leave the article be. And next time, sign. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 01:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Witchcraft semi-protection

Many thanks for your protection spell (and amusing reasoning)! May your contributions never be reverted and may your talk page henceforth be free of Mud. Elementals of the Interweb, I summon, stir and call ye up to guard this User and the pages they write - so mote it be! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank'ee much! Now I wonder if there's a spell to turn all the SPA SIHULM supporters into Mudkip themselves... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

picture in Nobel Prize article

Just wanted to point out that I brought up that there may be a possible trademark/copyright violation by including the image of the Nobel Prize medal in the article. See Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Photo of Nobel Prize medal. I know that blocking admins don't block on a correct or incorrect version but wouldn't it have been in the best interest of Wikipedia to remove the image from the article until the legality of its use is determined? –panda 15:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Doing so would have compromised me because the image was what was being edit-warred over. Same for the image itself. Had I removed it, I would be taking sides. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad

sorry i thought ppl redirected the arceus page for no reason.Pendo4 is here...Look around...hello???...I am here... 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Null perspiration. Might I suggest reading through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon's archives for a history about how the merge came to be? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

About your message on the snopes.com talk page

I can find the links I need to prove the claims in 5 minutes (I can find the two articles I named on that talk page in two, I have an archive site that hosts them in my favourites), I can give them to you, though, or you can find them by typing in google searches for "snopes criticism". What do you need? I don't have a good sense for this kinda thing, and I wanna make sure I do this right, yanno? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally, news sources (CNN, New York Times), books, and scholarly sources are usable; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for instruction on how to do it. I don't think there's anything stopping you from adding sources. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So?

I wasn't the one asking for unprotection. Only thing I did was add the right template. Why are you telling me this? TheBlazikenMaster 01:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it was an anon claiming that the vandalism was dying down. Expect a few more sleepers. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not watching the article. TheBlazikenMaster 14:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And I still think it's pointless informing me this since I'm not watching the page. TheBlazikenMaster 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New admin school

Hey there Jéské Couriano, Congratulations on becoming an administrator. Obviously, it is unlikely that you will know how to use the tools at first and mistakes are bound to happen, so if you would like to practice using them, with step by step guides to follow, in an environement that you can do no harm in, then why not pop down to the new admin school where we have pages on blocking, deleting and restoring pages, protecting and unprotecting pages and viewing deleted pages. Once again, congratulations and best of luck with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point

But maybe it makes it a pterodacturd! -- But|seriously|folks  21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Hello, hope you don't mind, but I fixed a spelling error on your userpage [3], thanks, and happy editing! Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I do - that was a direct quote :( -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Null perspiration, chummer. I've already fixed it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting hardblock

I just saw that you blocked Doggypoopy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for username. You may want to hardblock it because an account named Doggypoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (similar name) has also been blocked recently, so it's likely a vandal sock. Thanks.--Avant Guard 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Bulletin board system

Hi... This article was vandalized by an anon-ip after you added the semi-protection tag -- maybe it didn't actually get protected? --Rrburke^(talk) 20:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you'd read the history, you'd've seen that the protection had expired by then (3 days had passed). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Jeske. I dont quite understand the reason for your answer. If the change of the username will not help remove the COI template on the page I have created , then what will? Because this is the only reason that I see for that template there, given that I have made the language of the article as neutral and informative as possible. What exactly is the COI? My apologies if I am not aware of some basic Wikipedia rule on the issue. 09:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)Cerge-ei

Generally, if you write about someone or something you're deeply involved with, regrdless of username, the article (or a user) can still be tagged as conflicted. Ask other users to help you with the article - finding criticisms, etc.

As a side note, I removed the template you included with the post; it's redundant with the template at the top of this page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

CHU

Hello Jeske. That IP address who keeps referring to Jedi123456 on name change, has made more edits to the section, here. Any plans for what we could do? Rudget _{Contributions} 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing - it's been removed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for repying. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Foreplay Should Be Unprotected

I outlined my reasons for thinking this at the discussion page before realizing I was meant to speak to you directly. As tedious as it is to continually revert acts of vandalism, I don't believe that protection is in the long-term interest of the project. -MBlume 23:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your reasoning, and I will unprotect the article ASAP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ^^ MBlume 23:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

IP Check - Bimbo Wales

Are all my socks. There is no copycat. Please block this account. I am Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz! 03:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointless when the string is now flagged. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Might be an idea to not block it, if it's what he wants? Don't fed the trolls, and all that. All this chap does is ask for his account to be blocked. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Moot point - he was blocked right afterwards as a Connell sock. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Many regs

In light of the many regs that have been thrown around at the discussion on Bulbsasaur, how do you tolerate the state Meowth is in?--Barnyard animals 06:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In light of the fact I don't have Meowth watchlisted and thus am oblivious, how do you expect me to do anyhing about it atm? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, effectively 'blindsight it'. Good enough answer for me, no-one is under any compunction to not 'blindsight' articles, not even admins when their attention has been drawn to it.--Barnyard animals 06:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I already sledgehammered it, stop complaining and, if you care to, bring it up at WT:POKE. In fact, I was working on it when you posted last. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no complaint in my words at all, sorry if you read them as such.--Barnyard animals 06:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just don't make any "blindsighting" comments. Remember that I don't have as much impetus to work on the Pokémon articles because I'm not allied with WP:POKE. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ta

Cheers for whacking that guy :) ~ Riana ⁂ 09:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was about to block him indef after the revert when I saw you'd already made it clear he was the weakest link. ;) As for the response to his unblock... Holy. I usually expect abuse like that here, not on a user talk page. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, coupla hundred blocks and a few rouge prots, and you get used to it ;) Welcome to the jungle :) ~ Riana ⁂ 09:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still holding out for the Sneak-Block a... Oh, rouge, not rogue! Sorry! ;) -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve Hoffman article protection

You protected this article with the "Controversy" section removed, despite it having credible citations. Please revert the article back to include this information and then protect it. Thanks. Sidar 20:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See meta:The wrong version. I will not get involved in an edit war. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 20:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please restore the previous version of the Steve Hoffman entry. The Controversy section should be included before being protected. It it both well-sourced and a key detail in this individual's career. Otherwise, I request that this entry is removed entirely. The people that are removing the Controversy section are trying to erase a key detail which makes for a very biased Wiki entry. Huberman 20:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

I will not take part in an edit war - the Controversy section's the one being warred over. Reach a consensus on the talk page, all of you. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 20:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added my opinion on this matter to the Talk section of the Steve Hoffman entry. I respectfully ask that you consider the details Jéské. Thanks12.152.10.41 21:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Huberman

I refuse to take part in edit wars. See meta:The Wrong Version, please, and stop wasting time trying to get me to do it. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 21:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy dude. I was just saying...comprende amigo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.152.10.41 (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left my explanation on the talk page. And, for the record, I am not Spanish/Mexican and do not speak Spanish. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you would leave the article locked in poor form (an empty section header). Is this how new admins are supposed to act? It looks very unprofessional. Sidar 22:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, Whatever version it's on when it's protected is the version it's on. I do not edit it beforehand. Stop trying to drag me further into this. -Jéské^{(v^_^v)} 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

At least use your ADMIN POWERS and add {{protected}} to the page. Sidar 23:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to a recent posting of yours in the discussion section. I would be grateful if you could read it and let me know your thoughts. I am new to this, so excuse any missteps on my part. Thanks --Foultip 20:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your block against User:I'm Al Gore

I've found that you've blocked the user, saying that if he is Al Gore, let the Wikimedia Foundation know. But how should a famous person like Al Gore who wish to join Wikipedia inform the Foundation? Didn't the username policy only said that the user must state in his/her/its userpage? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 10:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Given his name, that would have been far too easy, hence why I said tell the Foundation. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Spring Valley, California

You sprotected this. Please take a more careful look at the history here. There was one major vandaliser IP. Now that is blocked. There just so happened to be another today. But look further back. The 50th revision is all the way back in March. It was just a freak coincidence. I urge you to reconsider. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

72.207.81.89 wasn't back in March. However, if you feel that my prot is mistaken, feel free to reduce or unprot at your discretion. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said, that was just one instance, and, as far as I can see, coincidence to the fact that one persistent IP that should have been blocked vandalised on the same day. Thanks though; if the vandalism rises again, then reprotection will certainly be necessary. Kind regards, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please unprotect Fred Thompson

Five days has been long enough for a non-issue. Further protection needs justification. Turtlescrubber 13:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you come to a consensus on the talk page? I don't want to see it reprotected because of more edit-warring. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please unprotect Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII

The anon editor has not engaged in discussion on the Talk Page and so there seems to be no way to resolve the content dispute. Please unprotect the page. --Richard 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

File an RFC. I'm not going to unprotect an article if the edit-warring is likely to resume on the same thing that got it protected in the first place. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa

Been busy at RFPP, huh? Apparently your RfA was successful :) I was so used to seeing you over there I did a double take (hang on, he's using the template?) Congratulations, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Passed almost-unanimously; been working at RFPP ever since. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem

(edit conflict) You protected a page leaving a potential copyright/trademark violation in the infobox Nobel Prize (the image); see Talk:Nobel Prize and my recent comments in various reports pages. The image placed there is in dispute. Until the dispute is resolved, the image needs to be removed by administrator(s) who are currently the only ones able to edit the page. [As a new administrator, perhaps you didn't realize that.] You protected a page leaving an image whose validity is disputed. When such questions arise about an image, Wikipedia's policy is to remove it until the questions are properly resolved. This is a legal matter. Please see WP:3RR violations page and links to the fair use violations and non-free content issues provided throughout that report. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC) [In part due to the disputed image, the article has failed a "good article" review; there are several other reasons too for its failing the "good article" review, but removing the image will be an improvement to the article; moreover, it is required by the terms of the good article review. As an administrator, you (or another administrator) can remove the image while the review of the validity of its license is being reviewed. It also lacks a necessary detailed fair-use rationale, as the image includes the currently-registered trademark for Nobel Foundation (organization/company), which is WP:Non-free content and subject to WP:Fair use guidelines, as well as the copyright and trademark notice restrictions on nobelprize.org cited in my comments elsewhere about this problem. See WP:AN/3RR violations report page [4]. I hope that you will correct this problem. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]

I'll deal with it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. The image has been removed. I didn't at first because the editwarring was over the image. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. (I responded on my talk page as well. I'll archive that discussion (archive 16). --NYScholar 21:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI - I have emailed the Nobel Foundation about this image (and other images of the medals and diplomas) and am waiting for a reply. –panda 21:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I request you re-instate this image, per your original inclination. Per the discussion on the copyright-specialist forum at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Image:DSCN0732.JPG, there appears to be no problem with this image, because the underlying design was known in the U.S. before 1923.

I don't know why NYScholar has got such a bee in his bonnet about this image, but he has repeatedly failed, when requested, to respond to this point, which is basic for any claim to a U.S. copyright. Jheald 00:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright - I will admit that I'm in over my head in this situation. I'm not going to restore the image; rather I'm going to take this to WP:AN and ask for help. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I find that the previous user (User:Jheald) has been uncivil (in the fair use concerns pages, where I reported this problem) and is repeatedly stating misleading and false information (with no basis in fact). The designs of all the Nobel medals are currently (still) the property of the Nobel Foundation which features their images, describes the designs, and explains their history, featuring "Registered trademark of The Nobel Foundation" with each image/design of each medal. The designers of the medals never owned the copyrights to the designs, as they were done as work for hire for the Nobel Foundation (or its predecessor/organization). The design was work for hire commissioned by the Nobel Foundation (or its predecessor organization/s) and the "use" of images of the Nobel Prize Medals (all of them, including the Nobel Peace Prize Medal) is subject to current notices of current trademarks and copyrights posted clearly on the Nobel Foundation's feature of each medal image. [edit conflict] The date of the design (and the Peace medal was based on a design by another designer) has nothing to do with the designs and images of the medals all currently being registered properties of the Nobel Foundation (the design of the Nobel Peace Prize Medal is the same now as it was in 1933, and the design of the medal and the copyrighted images of the medal are all identified as a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation organization). Wikipedia cannot violate the terms and conditions of these registered trademarks and copyrights. I've made this very clear; the user just ignores what I've said and refuses to acknowledge that s/he has no basis in fact for claims otherwise. The medal designs/images of the medals are the trademark of the Nobel Foundation and subject to U.S. and international laws as well as Wikipedia's own stated policies and guidelines pertaining to Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Trademarks and WP:Copyright. I see no evidence to the contrary. [I see no evidence that user jheald is a "specialist" in copyright and trademark laws or Wikipedia policies and guidelines pertaining to fair use; s/he is not an intellectual property lawyer as far as I can tell or acknowledged as an expert pertaining to intellectual and artistic property law. There is too much left unclear in the lack of a detailed fair-use rationale for this image in question.] --NYScholar 00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [Updated in brackets. --NYScholar 01:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]

I have also updated the talk page of the image whose license is being disputed with information from the Imperial War Museum, whose exhibits are also subject to copyright (Crown copyright, the IWM copyright, and the copyrights and trademarks of others, like the Nobel Foundation, when those items have been placed on exhibit at the IWM. I added the exhibit external link to Norman Angell so that people can consult it for further information; the image pertains only to that article as it is an image of the medal that he received in 1933 (whose images are still subject to their copyrights and trademarks as registered by the organizations/companies involved). He no longer owns the medal, as the Crown owns the artifact; the images, however, and the design of the medal are trademarked and copyrighted by the Nobel Foundation. (His family probably donated the medal to the IWM; but conditions of "access" to exhibits apply; as do whatever conditions the IWM may place on photographing its exhibits. It is not clear whether the image in question is a photograph of a published photograph (copyrighted to someone else) or a photograph taken in the IWM by the uploader of it. Frequently in Wikipedia, anonymous people (anonymous still w/ screen names) scan published images and say that they created them. There is no proper recognizable copyright for such people; they are not using real names and cannot license their photographs as "their" property. There is no way to verify their claims of ownership. --NYScholar 00:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have brought it up to WP:AN. Had I known I would be caught in a quagmire like this, I would have avoided the Nobel Prize article... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NYS, I humbly ask you to please make certain you've said everything you want to say in a post before you post it, and that you've copyedited it. I'm getting tired of seeing the New Messages bar for a minor edit every time I refresh WP:RFPP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; will try to do. Thanks for your patience and assistance. (I apologized for the typo. corrs. in edit summ. I realized I had to corr. after I saved. I do preview everything!) --NYScholar 01:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Jéské, that's ok, you deserve the Nobel Prize for having the courage to step into the middle of this one . . . -- But|seriously|folks  05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, I received a reply from the Nobel Foundation (already!). They responded:

"This is the most hectic time of year. We will not be able to get back to you immediately."

So my guess is that whatever the people here at WP decide is fine for now. If anyone still cares later on, I can try contacting them again in January or February when everything is more calm for them. Where else should this be cross-posted to? –panda 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The fair use review link above is a good place. In any instance, I already put the image back because NYS's arguments are effectively defeated because he failed to address a hole with regards to PD. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• See: Wikipedia:Media copyright questionsNobel Prize (R) Medal images and Talk:Nobel Prize for update and request. (I'm moving the previous long comment there. Shortened for posting here .... ) --NYScholar 20:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If the image were edited to be smaller, with less black space, and if it were to be used in a section of an article on the Nobel Peace Prize that discussed the awarding of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) to Norman Angell, or in a section of the article on Norman Angell discussing his Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal, perhaps it would meet the requirements of WP:Image#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. It does not meet those requirements in its current use in the infobox in Nobel Prize. --NYScholar 20:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Here also is the direct link to the sec. of the talk page of the article: Talk:Nobel Prize#Administrative help requested for editing while protected. --NYScholar 20:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Eve Torres

Can you please unprotect this article? A person name Eve Torres (I don't know if it's the same as the deleted article) just won the 2007 WWE Diva Search, and I would like to move her article from Eve Marie Torres to Eve Torres. TJ Spyke 02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll unsalt it within 5 minutes. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Done Eve Torres is now unsalted. You can move it now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hot House Entertainment

You have acted with undue haste in protecting the Hot House article. The article is completely unsourced, and as the rules state, unsourced content can be removed at any time. If editors would simply take the time to source the article, then other editors would not have to take the desperate action of removing the unsourced material, over and over, until proper sourcing is made. Why is an article allowed to stand, that has never been sourced? In the absence of sourcing, the material can be considered OR, and can be seen as free advertising for the studio it discusses. Is it only coincidental that the studio employs "Sister Roma," the subject of another article that has had attention brought to it for lack of sourcing? There is a pro-porn agenda among the editors working on this article (and the Sister Roma and Sister Boom-Boom articles). They ignore the rules on sourcing, and your protection of the Hot House article enables their improper activity further.

72.68.30.122 10:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read its protection request or the page history (or even looked at the pages you're lambasting)? The Roma and Boom-Boom articles have been sourced, and it's IPs who have been deleting text to make it seem unsourced. Go away, please. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 11:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No, have YOU read the sources in the context of the article? In many instances the material cited is not found in the source! That's not sourcing, it's deception. Improperly sourced material can be deleted. The Hot House article is completely unsourced -- who are you kidding? The fact that you've said to go away will keep me here, much longer. Your biases and your agendas and those of editors like yourself will be exposed for all to see.

72.68.30.122 11:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You're accusing someone oblivious to the porn industry and neutral in the whole affair of being biased and having an agenda. Please assume good faith on everyones' part or leave them alone. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, nor am I expert in the workings of the porn industry, but you are hardly neutral in this affair. You have protected Hot House, an unsourced article. You have expressed support of the two "Sisters" articles without thoroughly reading them, apparently. For these reasons I said that you are biased and have an agenda. One cannot assume good faith among the others if they put up articles that are unreferenced, then when called on it, they "pretend" to reference parts of the article, i.e., they list sources, but the material they reference is not found in the source. 72.68.30.122 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

72., I heavily doubt you know about what your fellow IPs have done, and I strongly doubt your neutrality in the matter. I am looking over the Roma article (I did not protect it, User:Iridescent did) and so far I am fnding sources that are saying what the article does. IPs have been removing these sources, valid or no, and essentially blanking the article, then slapping {{unsourced}} on it. As for Hot House Entertainment, I suggest you start finding sources if you care so much about the article - the semi-protection ends in about 36 hours anyhow, meaning you'll be clear to edit it then. 36 hours should be enough time to find sources. My suggestion is that you stop whining and start finding sources to correct the problem you see. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Update

Please scroll up to User talk:Jéské Couriano#Problem and see links there. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Labeling refs as bad

Hi, Please explain your removing four references from Sister Roma? Each was asserting the notability of the events for which they were citing per WP:REF to avoid WP:OR. Benjiboi 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If some of them have articles, put them in those articles. Otherwise, I removed them because they didn't make any mention of the subject of the article. Feel free to revert if you feel they should be there.

Thank you, I will. I wouldn't have put largest _____ w/o asserting its inclusion. Also the anon IP has apparently had their fun with us and is moving on. Benjiboi 22:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

# 18

I can't disagree with your decision to lock the page. I would like some advice on what I should do about primarily user:Sesshomaru and secondarily user:DBZROCKS. They have both gone around and removed almost all information from several character pages, and Sesh has even nominated one for deletion TWICE because of his perceived lack of sources. Even though all of the pages he editted cite the anime/manga as a source, he has ignored this and the policies regarding the matter. They also go and revert any changes made to the articles. They claim that the edits are "controversial" or "unsourced". But even when an explanation is provided they completely ignore it. What do you think should be done?--Marhawkman 00:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest filing a Request for Comment or mediation with regards to the both of them. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I do that?--Marhawkman 00:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

For an RfC, head to Requests for Comment and click on "User conduct" in that section. It will help if there are other people who have tried to talk to him on the talk page. For mediation, head to Requests for mediation if an RfC fails. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Marhawkman 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Civil Air Patrol

I question the validity of fully protecting the article Civil Air Patrol, given that the "edit warring" you gave as rationale was other editors attempting to combat either vandalism or someone completely unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy (which is about the same thing). The IP User:72.148.190.9 has been warned multiple times both in edit summaries and on his/her talk page, yet continues in their effort unabated to add a specific bit of material which is not supported by any present source. I would suggest that the more appropriate action would be a semi-protection of the article. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I see a content dispute which started the vandalism, and thus semi-protection would end up being an endorsement of one side. Talk it out if he's willing to talk, but if he doesn't within 3 days, I'll unprotect it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What content dispute? The entire problem has been this IP adding a bit about Maj Gen Pineda having been stripped of rank and terminated from the organisation, a statement which is not supported by the source. The IP has been repeated told that this is the problem. Now don't get me wrong, having the article protected means less effort need be expended in dealing with poor edits (joking, joking), but there are plenty of good editors around. If three days is what is must be, so be it, but I still contend that full protection in this situation is an answer looking for a problem. This is simple vandal fighting and policy enforcement. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to approach him about it. See if he actually does have a ready source. If he deletes your question right off or gives a dodgy or otherwise roundabout answer, tell me and I'll reduce the protection. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I wandered in late in the debate or whatever, but this is exactly what appears to have been going back and forth at National Commanders of the Civil Air Patrol (which badly needs cleaning up, it appears). He is definitely reading the edit summaries and user-talk page warnings, as he responds in kind. Kind of a humourous situation, in my opinion. Nothing that hasn't happened plenty of times before.

Heh, he even just wrote on my actual user page saying "This guy changes facts on other peoples postings - what is up with that?" -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at his TP and determine if he needs a few days off. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the personal attack he made in his latest Talk:CAP edit, as well as accusations of cabalism. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Lesnaya

Please visit Talk:Battle of Lesnaya and unlock the article. Thanks. Voyevoda 15:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

71.61.89.4 (talk)

Hi there. Re. the ANI report, I've blocked that IP address. Threats of taking a shotgun to anyone breaks a number of rules here so I went ahead and blocked them. Sorry for going against your comment / warning but I felt the seriousness of that kind of attack warranted an immediate block. Hope you don't mind - Alison ^❤ 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't - I'm in the middle of something myself involving a student union and bad-faith CSD noms. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Sounds like fun :b Think I'd rather deal with the shotgun guy :) Thanks again - Alison ^❤ 23:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

HIM Protection

Why did you remove my request for protection on that article? If you want to reject it, then reject it. DO NOT REMOVE IT WITHOUT EXPLANATION. Understand? Iaberis 17:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't you I apologize of course... Iaberis 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even touch it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry then :) Iaberis 14:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson

Could you please take another look at the debate on the Fred Thompson talk page and make some sort of suggestion as to what it would take to unprotect the page? The regular media might pick up the story on the suppresion of numerous cited articles claiming notability of the age difference, the way they did before with Thompson's talk page. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for me to reiterate myself. Come to a consensus about the issues that started the edit war. I'm not going to unprotect the article and spark a new edit war. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to reconsider, the Fred Thompson article was in the top 100 most viewed wikipedia pages in October. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Consensus, or no unprotection. Choose. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there anywhere that your decision can be appealed? Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the article is to be protected until after the election has run it's course. It's just a lot easier that way. No mess. Turtlescrubber 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, TS, it will be protected until the parties stop wasting time trying to persuade me to unprotect the article and actually go to the talk page and form a consensus on the matter. An unprotection request will likely still be declined, as it was last time, because you haven't been talking with each other. But, if you want to try, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Requests for unprotection and file a request there. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you got it all wrong. I totally agree with the unfounded permanent full protection of the page. I mean, there were almost eight edits over a 24 hour period. My god. Someone almost got warned about edit warring. Almost. Glad we won't have to relive that again until after the election. We shouldn't let anyone edit this article at all because it's just the way we like it. Keep up the good work ;)Turtlescrubber 22:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars need not be within the space of 24 hours. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, you seem to have missed the point entirely. Take a little time. Clear your mind. Think about how huge an overreaction you are having. Then go ahead, do the right thing. You might even enjoy it. Turtlescrubber 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're a fine one to talk about overreacting, TS. You are free to file a request for unprotection if you wish. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OOOOHHHHH. New admin throws a jab. Continues to overreact. A small amount of power still corrupts. Have fun on your two inch high pedestal. Turtlescrubber 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Look, here's the problem; misguided Thompson supporters think that by not talking about the age difference at all that it will somehow help their candidate. They will never agree to putting it on the page. Other users like would like to note the difference, especially since the news media thinks it is notable. We're not advocating the use of the term "trophy wife", nor giving the, say, proportional age difference (she was 54% of his age when they started dating), but just the age difference in years (24). At a certain point, notability must trump a cadre of obstructionist editors. I argue that this point has been reached. Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that is the case, file a request for unprotection for the article. I'm not unprotecting it because there is no consensus, and if Turtlescrubber keeps jabbing at me, I'll block him for trolling. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, If you're going to threaten me, then I should probably leave you alone. Also, it is always better to have non-involved admins do that (blocking) kind of thing. Just a little hint. Anyway, I have annoyed you enough and I will stop "trolling" your page. However, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of how wrong I think your decision is. You don't seem to be one that cares to listen. If I were you, I would discuss your protection of the page with an admin that has more experience. If you listen, you may learn. Anyway, sorry to get you all agitated. I'll let you stew in your own juices. Turtlescrubber 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I might do that. But: Is there another place where the inclusion of the information can be considered by more experienced Wikipedians than I? I want the issue resolved, not an edit war with the cadre of Thompson supporters. Or will the people at the request for unprotection weigh in on it? Fee Fi Foe Fum 22:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and Wikipedia:Third opinion. Go through Requests for Comment first. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I already did an RfC, so it's off to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Am I to be requesting mediation with you? If so, I make the following exacting request; leave the Fred Thompson page protected, but amend the section on his personal life to read: Thompson began dating Republican consultant Jeri Kehn in July 1996, when she was 29 and he was 53.[95] Their 24 year age difference has prompted a flurry of speculation in the news media on its possible effects on his presidential aspirations, with the consensus being that she is an asset to his campaign.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11].[12]

Looking at the sources, I think I'll request the edit to the page at WP:RPP rather than doing it myself - it's clearly sourced, but if I did it I would have calls for my head. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I placed the request. All we can do now is wait. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson edit request...

Hi, I have been waiting for an edit for over a week now. Can you please add it?

Jeremy221 00:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Read above - anything I add can be seen as admin abuse since I'm the protector. Ask another admin or go through WP:RPP. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

DBZ

user:sesshomaru is still at it. He still completely ignores everything anyone says about what he's doing. His rantings have, so far, devolved to pointing at policies and some article about a guy named DL Hughley. And he reverts all attempts at fixing the damage he's done.--Marhawkman 11:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you requested a comment on him? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not sure exactly what that did, but there were a lot of other users that came to the page to express their opinions. But regardless of what people say he continues. :( --Marhawkman 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to request comment on what I'm doing, though I'm afraid you won't get very far. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson (2nd)

I'm a little confused. What issue needs to be ironed out before you can remove the protection from the Fred Thompson article? And who needs to iron it out? Remember 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The people on the talk page need to come to a compromise about the subject they were edit-warring about. I can't remember exactly what it was that led to protection, but I think it had something to do with age. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't know exactly who and what the edit war was about then how will you know when its done?Remember 18:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I do recall the edit war was over age. I've been eyeing the talk page and all I've been seeing is {{editprotected}} and complaints towards me since I protected. I am willing to unprot if and only if there is absolutely no way the edit war will start again. If you disagree, request unprot at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: remembrance day notice

Hey Jéské, The notice is not only for Canadians or those who observe Remembrance Day, but to remind people about the wars (doesn't really matter which one or which side) and the people who fought in them, who live through them, and who suffered because of them....I am trying to be as ambiguous as possible with this notices, which means that anyone could see it differently...some people might see it as a reminder of how Canada "became" a nation in WWI, or of how many people died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or of the attack at Pearl Harbor, or of the Holocaust, or of the killings in Darfur, or of the Rwandan Genocide, or of the Nanking Massacre....its up to those who receive the message to define what it is a reminder of...but if you choose to have it removed from your user talk page thats fine with me. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant no offense, and I apologize if I offended you by removing it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No offence taken :-P ... nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for semi-prot of Buddhism

And I'm very impressed by your Dhammapada quote! Bravo for your swift and judicious action. Thanks so much! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You are very much welcome. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yukon semi-protection plea

Sorry to push this, but the vandalism overwhelms the real contributions and I didn't see anywhere that said it had to be every single day..., at least a week or two, to discourage the kids doing it, pleeeeeeeease --Tallard 02:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If the vandalism isn't constant and is quickly reverted, protection is unnecessary. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Image

Hi there Jeske! I am not exactly sure why the image on the Nobel Prize page has been commented out and orphaned. I think it has been established in about 5 different discussion pages that the image is completely usable. In fact, you yourself have said, "It's becoming clear to me that NYS doesn't have a case for wanting this removed, under law or policy". It, therefore, seems somewhat wrong to remove it because one OCD user is still writing pages and pages of nonsense over this issue and can't move on. I don't wanted to touch your edit but I hope that you can restore this based on what has been reached by overwhelming consensus. But, then again, I might be wrong??? Thanks. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I commented it out to try and keep from kindling an edit war over the image (which got the article protected in the first place). The last thing I want to do is hand out 3RR blocks.-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry man, just wondered where you moved my question about the Pokemon articles too. regards --Tefalstar 13:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the talk page of WikiProject Pokémon. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

IP vandalism at Red Flag (band) has immediately resumed, now that your semi-protection has expired

Hello Jeske. This edit shows that the IP-hopping vandal is back at Red Flag (band), less than 24 hours after your three weeks of article semi-protection expired. What do you recommend we do? EdJohnston 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

His second edit summary suggested a willingness to negotiate, but then he spoiled it by leaving insults on my User talk. EdJohnston 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you'll look at the history here, you'll realize that he just blew any chance of me listening to him. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no intentions to negotiate. Certainly not with either one of you. After all, it takes a certain kind of person to abuse his editorial muscle by deliberately keeping false information locked on the page. On the other thought, maybe I should just quit wasting my time on that nut ball Chris Reylonds and let him sleep well knowing that his embarrassing secret is safe, thanks to your effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.71.157 (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not The Truth^TM. Welcome to Wikipedia. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know. Wikipedia is a sac of lies and facts mixed together. And this means that reliability and wikipedia are antonyms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.71.157 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See Fox News - it's just as bad and has an obvious bias. Either you show up with citations from reliable sources documenting your arguments in re Mark Reynolds' demise, or you don't. Blogs, other Wikis, MySpaces, etc. do not count because they are easily alterable. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario Galaxy semi-protection

Hi Jeske,

Thanks for stopping by the Super Mario Galaxy article in response to my page protection request. I noticed you remarked about the high level of IP vandalism here, but the log says you actually unprotected the already unprotected page. Since the next edit has you adding the {{pp-semiprotected}} template, I just wanted to stop by and check to see if you actually intended to protect it after all.

Sorry if this seems rude; I not an admin and don't know enough about how the actual page protection interface works, so for all I know it could be the first salvo in a brilliant, sweeping protection strategy :) Thanks for your help! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a mistake on my end. I'll fix it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Done Article is semi'd now for the length of time as stated in the RPP report. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for your help, and sorry for bugging you! --jonny-mt^(t)_(c)Tell me what you think! 05:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nolle perspiration, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusion!

I'm trying to make character pages for the show "Weeds" but I donno how to make a copyright tag for the images. I asked for help on the Weeds discussion page as well (or someone who knows how to help me provide it), but I don't understand what it's asking for- can you clear it up, since I don't understand the articles on it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Join the club. Out of curiosity, did you read any of the links provided to you on your talkpage? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, The articles are pretty confusing, someone who doesn't know how to in advance is lost on them. They need those topics to be written in a lot more accesible format... Plusher (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

He has returned...

Dear Admin, you blocked 86.155.215.165 from editing for a week on 11th November, after the little exchange [[13]], having said that if he shows up again under a different IP, you might consider semi-protecting the page. If you look at Talk:Hakka, you'll see he's back again, as 81.157.100.12, same old tactics, same old abuses. I leave the entire matter in your hands! InfernoXV 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He has not edited the article itself, but I gave him a stern warning for the personal attack (I didn't block because he's engaging in civil discussion at Talk:Cantonese (linguistics). They do, however, both resolve to England. I'm keeping an eye on the article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• tip of the hat to you* InfernoXV 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

He's back on Talk:Hakka, reverting the deletions you made. InfernoXV (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting to this sooner... I saw that you reverted, and it looks like he's trying civil discourse now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Un-protection request for No. 18

I'm new here, so I'm not entirely sure how you go about this, but I'd like to request unprotection for No. 18. The reason for the dispute was whether or not 18 had actually married Krillin. I was able to find a verifiable, primary source that confirmed the marriage, and it was enough to convince those who were previously unconvinced that Krillin is indeed her husband. The dispute can be found here. With the dispute settled, I'd like this page unprotected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K9feline (talk • contribs) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing by coming to me first, although more admins watch Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for unprotection. Don't worry, I'm unprotecting now. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Image protection

Hey there - I would like to unprotect Image:DSCN0732.JPG to correct the templates. I am stopping by here first since you protected it. With all due respect to the volumes of discussion about the image, the image needs to be tagged with a copyright template and have a proper fair use rationale. Anything otherwise is a violation of our image policy so it's not really a "consensus" issue. Nobel is still using the medal and they have clearly claimed copyright on it as recently as this year. These photographs are absolutely not derivative works. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection of Fred Thompson article

Can you unprotect Fred Thompson? It looks like we've finally gotten consensus on the wording of the age difference between Fred Thompson and his second wife.See the bottom of this section.[14] Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on it. Gimme a sec. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done Reduced back to Cbrown's semi. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny

Funny what you did here. ;) -Goodshoped 23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And, by the way, if you know anything about one or more PWees, you may want to go here. Seasons greetings, and have a happy thanksgiving! -Goodshoped 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Note the second diff Tim Vickers provided and you'll see why I chose to parody Silent Night. And, I should be asking the same of you and BSRs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. I have categorized that investigation with the PeeWee investigation. Did you check it? -Goodshoped 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah; I have it watchlisted. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'll try to see if I can - wait. Did you do a checkuser on them already? Because, if you didn't, I would be more than happy to have a checkuser done on him. -Goodshoped 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I've filed one CU on BSR that identified him as using a lot of A-Class dynamic IPs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Same thing on the PeeWee, but with California State University IPs. -Goodshoped 18:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A circumvented block

Hello there Jéské. I feel the need to inform you that the user V-Dash has apparently circumvented the block you placed on him only nine days ago. At least he is touting that he has broken his own block.

(slight edit) I just realized that the time difference would have made it ten days from his original block. However, it would seem that these changes have been in place for at least a day or two. Action22579 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, V-Dash is being impersonated by other people. I need to see diffs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Notification

Hi there. I case you aren't still following the section, I'm pointing out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#David Howell (chess player). I hope you don't mind, but I've also used two of your blocks as examples in another thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Indefinite blocks. If you would prefer different examples be used, please let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no objection. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and another

Thanks for semi-ing those two pages -- but he's at at least one other so far now -- Kingdom of Armenia could you be so kind as to semi that as well? Thanks! Gscshoyru (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

...And another: Kura-Araxes culture... Gscshoyru (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting my mallet... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Done -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

And thanks from me for the same on Mitt Romney. Should help. Tvoz |talk 07:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Null perspiration, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User block help?!

I've come across a stumbling block & ask your assistance. I'm attempting to block ScottMichaelMcDaniel/SurveyGizmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - and yes, that's the name, with the "/" in it. When I try the block, it tells me the user doesn't exist. I've tried deleting it, restoring it (current state)... Suggestions? My guess is the / is screwing things up, but ain't got a clue how to bypass it. SkierRMH (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you might be better off asking someone with more than a month's tenure as admin so far. I'm as clueless as you are in this instance. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I decided to block the username before the slash. Turns out that that username you tried to block is actually his subpage, not a separate user. -Jéské ^{(Blah v>_<v)} 08:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The SSB Ness debate

Basically the use of "until now" in the Smash Bros. updates is throwing some editors into a frenzy given that the rest of the body of editors do not consider the statements made here to be confirmation of Ness' removal, especially given that if dismissed, he would be the first veteran fighter to be confirmed as not in Brawl. One of the lamest talk page debates ensued because of this disagreement. Given that the phrase has been used in several updates since then, and not in that context, we're trying to be sensitive and not use "up until now" as examples of confirmation or dismissal of characters. Hopefully that sheds some light; the talk page archives at Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series) have the full story. I posted here to let you know instead of on the page to avoid unearthing it all again.

By the way, thank you for your work on the 241-260 page. As much as I liek the Mudkip, I can't source it, and that's what matters :) Coreycubed (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thank'ee. I myself am a Smash vet and I can see that Lucas is merely a pallette-swap (clone) of Ness as he was in Melee, and that the words spoken in his Special Moves section are proof positive to me that Lucas has replaced Ness. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

LionheartX

You reverted my edit citing a lack of proof. Have fun reading this long story. User_talk:Certified.Gangsta#View_by_Certified.Gangsta then you would know what kind of turmoil I have been going through.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mine apologies - I'm unfamiliar with the situation. Feel free to revert me. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm under arbCom revert parole and my appeal is still pending. Would you mind if you revert for me? Thanks--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I shall. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Done -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :)--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Null perspiration, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Btw, judging from past experience, it is without a doubt that he will start edit war over it.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

R Family Vacations and COI finding

Copied from the COIN:

There are significant problems both with the determination of the admin here and the way by which he arrived at it. The admin has quoted "the article" -- he doesn't say which, but he quotes it to say: "...protests by church groups.." That they were church groups is not contentious here; describing the protesters as Christian protesters is contentious. Though all Christian houses of worship can be described as churches, not all churches are necessarily Christian. And it cannnot be extrapolated from either source used that all of the churches present at the protest were Christian. Similarly, it cannot be extrapolated from either source used that all the protesters were Christian -- it can only be said, reading the sources, that the protesters were from church groups. It is quite different to describe the protesters as Christian protesters than to say they are church group protesters. Neither source cited says the protesters were Christian; that interpolation is the product of the author's anti-Christian agenda. The admin finds that that use of the term "Reservations" and linking that term to the reservations page is unfortunate, when in effect, it is deliberate and designed to attract the reader to the reservations page.

The admin has made his determination referencing material in the article that was not raised in the COI concerns: he talks about the church groups being Christian groups, when it was the description of the protesters as Christian that is contentious. The admin assigns no weight to the author's choice to direct the reader to the reservations page (where they could make a purchase). The admin has ignored the very issues that form the basis of this COI notice.

It is my understanding that at WP we report the facts, not the author's interpolation or interpretation of facts as fact.

I am unable to give this matter any more attention at this time. Even this statement is incomplete but had to be made to respond to this ridiculous finding. Immediately following Chanukah I will seek additional intervention, including an inquiry into the capability of this admin and the veracity of his adminship.

This matter is far from resolved and it certainly is not over.--72.76.13.102 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Were it not for the fact he's an IP-hopper, I would have gone to AIV ages ago. I have semi'd COI/N. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Sirkad(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.

Sings American Pie -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Angel Heart Barnstar

		Angel Heart Barnstar
		For your dedication to dealing with some of the least fabulous aspects of the human condition including sorting out vandalistic (and likely homophobic) attackers often "behind the scenes" I award you the Angel Heart Barnstar. Your diligent work and compassionate service to those who appreciate the support for continuing their contributions to Wikipedia has hereby not gone unnoticed and in fact has very much eased distress and helped the Wikipedia community. Benjiboi 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Domo Arigato, Benjiboi! I made certain he won't be using COI/N as an attack route anytime soon as well, since he was beating a dead horse with the same stuff he had complained about (and gotten shot down on). -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my page! cheers. Sirkad(Talk) 01:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

	The Great Gratitude Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded to Jéské Couriano for helping remove vandalism on Sirkad's Userpage.

Null perspiration, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Hey Jéské, you reverted the IP's edit on leaked info. Just so you know, everytime you see an IP adding 'leaked' info to blogspot sites, it's likely a sockpuppet of all the socks in this report: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Europebound2007. So if you come across one again, you can probably block the IP immediately with no warings necessary. Spellcast 03:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't we blackball Blogspot? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is talk of blocking the site at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#blogspot.com 2. But the spammers avoid the filter by leaving out the "http://". At least it's one less click away. Spellcast 15:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP Hopper who vandalized a video game article persistently is back

Recently, you semi-protected the article Raiden Fighters 2 because of some IP hopper who makes infrequent, but persistent vandalism edits. Well, this person is back. Now he is vandalizing articles about the other games in the same series: Raiden Fighters and Raiden Fighters Jet. The IP hopper blatantly places the same misleading and incorrect information in these articles as he did in Raiden Fighters 2. I was going to put up a RFPP, but it would be pointless for articles that have been vandalized just once.

The IP range for the vandal belongs in the 206.170.103.* block. Judging by the latest actions, it is clear this IP hopper is here to cause trouble, seeing that this person added almost exactly the same misleading information in two other similar articles as in Raiden Fighters 2. I don't know if this is grounds for a block of the entire IP range, but trying to talk to this person directly will be fruitless due to the constantly changing dynamic IP address. Thank you very much for your time. JudgeSpear 10:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll protect - this is a legitimate reason to do so. Thank'ee for the note; I'll get right over there and issue padlocks. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 10:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you for the swift response. I suggest you monitor that entire IP range. This vandal may have vandalized many more articles in the past. On another subject, how does one report a problem user? The guidelines for WP:AIV are somewhat strict, especially when it applies to people with dynamic IP addresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JudgeSpear (talk • contribs) 10:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For a dynamic IP-hopper, go see if someone at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is willing to do a rangeblock; be aware, however, that if he's one of many people on that range or using AOL that the likelihood of a range block drops. I don't know how to do a range block, otherwise I'd be investigating the IP myself. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 10:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Derek is back

He's back. Ran for RFA, failed, immediately ran again. Derekhunter 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See my question here, as this was posted on my talk page as well. I think I know the answer, but will wait and see. Tvoz |talk 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else see flags, especially since the only RfA that has been removed within the past few hours ran its course? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose in an overabundance of caution one might look at any RfAs that failed just prior to 1 Dec 18:07 {UTC) which is when NrDg's was opened - but I really very much doubt that this was at all a legitimate accusation. It fits Dereks1x's style far too much for that, and NrDg's history looks nothing like any of Dereks1x's socks many of whom I am all too familiar with. (By the way, is there a list of closed RfA's by date?) Tvoz |talk 20:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know; I espied the history. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Derekhunter (aka Dereks1x) after seeing that he filed an RFCU against User:NrDg. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Well, I do, and I don't know if anyone else has noticed the exchanges. And then there's this reply to my query. Tvoz |talk 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just saw. Thanks. Tvoz |talk 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

BS

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For your oustanding work on keeping V-Dash's interaction's with other members as peaceful as possible. Kudos! MelicansMatkin 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank'ee, Melicans! I'd play the harp, but I don't have a mic attached to my speakers. ;)

I also blocked a sockfarm run by Dash Jr (talk · contribs) providing a link to the blog I removed from his TP last night. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Brainchannels

I really have no problem with the user, but after the two very "vivid" emails, I figured RPP was needed, but I will keep an eye on the page. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

'Salright. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Goodshoped35110s protections

Please reconsider your semi-protections of Goodshoped35110s' subpages. This user is extremely problematic, and there is no real reason to protect the pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#My recent block of Goodshoped35110s for a quick idea of this user's behavior. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll unprotect - I was unaware of this thread when I protected and did as was generally done with userpages with user's request. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Unprotected all the ones I protected except for the Identity subpage because of the presence of a security hash there. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Next time, however, if you disagree with what an admin has stated (since I'd already denied the requests), please take it up with them directly rather than going ahead with the protection anyway (not a big deal, it's just polite). I 100% agree about the security hash, however; something like that is much more high-risk, and should be protected accordingly. Thanks! EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard

Thanks for going over this with me, Im going off line now, but your time was appreciated Fasach Nua (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Null perspiration, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Same guy, diff non IPs

Dear Jéské, sorry to bother, but remember this? 86.155.215.165, who later turned up as 81.157.100.12, is now working on Cantonese people both as 77.44.49.36 and 81.154.205.12. His edits are unsourced and entirely POV, and he's doing the same old ad-hominems on Talk:Cantonese people. My reversions of his OR have elicted an accusation of vandalism. I'm hesitant to call his accusations 'civil discourse' as it really appears to be neither. A glance at my contributions will show that I edit a variety of articles, including some serious academic ones, and that I do not make frivolous POV edits. His edits, OTOH, seem to revolve largely around Hakka and Cantonese, and are not only unsourced and unreferenced, but controversial, heavy-handed and show clear bias. InfernoXV (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this up at AN/I and get help dealing with this; this guy is either on a dynamic IP or is switchng terminals. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bring it up on ANI if it hasn't already (please provide a link to my talk page if possible). Don't keep reverting -- because 3RR goes both ways unfortunately. I'll keep tabs on it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Cantonese people

You broke 3RR there. As an admin, you should know that adding unsourced material to an article (even repeatedly) is not vandalism, so it's not an exception to 3RR. Not only did you revert 4 times today in your content dispute, you extended the edit war further by asking another editor to revert for you as a proxy. Also not good. As you can see, I didn't block you even though I did block the IP editor; ordinarily I would block both parties to an edit war, but in this case I thought it would be better to suggest you just take it upon yourself to step away from the article for a while and cool off. Kafziel ^Talk 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I will. Thank you muchly for the warning, and I'll keep myself out of edit-wars as a participant in the future. I asked for a full-prot at WP:RPP; I was hoping that it would be acted upon to stem the war. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech massacre

May I ask why you fully protected Virginia Tech massacre? An IP user - 67.52.70.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) vandalized the article three times and Sfmammamia (talk · contribs) reverted the vandalism. All three edits were unquestionably vandalism - (1) adding "butt head", (2) adding "Cho was one messed up person." and "bold text", and (3) blanking a section and replacing it with "i dont know what this feature is but isnt this all just cleint sided so why should i get introuble if it doesnt do anything". Though there is a mild discussion on the talk page about the inclusion of some questionable content, it has not resulted in an edit war on the article. --B (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw a slow-mo edit war in progress between registered users spilling over from yesterday, not the vandalism. And please do not use the Plus sign at the top to make new threads; I have the COI Reports section at the bottom for a reason. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you are talking about, but only four reverts, the most recent of which was eight hours before the protection and a good conversation on the talk page? I don't know that there is any need for a protection, especially not one with an indefinite ending. --B (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the protection is a mistake, you have every right to unprotect it (if an admin) or ask me to unprotect it (if not). I don't mind. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please unprotect Virginia Tech massacre? As a long-term editor of the article, I can remember several times that it has been semi-protected due to vandalism or editing disputes, but this is the first time in my memory that the article has been fully protected, and it seems unnecessary to me. The article is currently under FAC review, so a few of us have been making cleanup edits as they come up in the review. In addition there was that spate of vandalism mentioned above, as well as a minor dispute over the very brief addition started yesterday, on which I'm hopeful we are close to consensus. --Sfmammamia (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gimme a couple secs. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Done -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! --Sfmammamia (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(RI)Null perspiration, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

???

I thought you didn't want anything to do with me? That topic was well within the guidelines.V-Dash (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Now please leave me be. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. Fine, I'll do that. You go your way and I go my way.V-Dash (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"sock Puppet"

"VoAoGoIoNoAo isDUMB" is not my "sock puppet" it was made in retaliation for an edit I made. Perhaps for my revision of Alla Pugacheva. "VoAoGoIoNoAo isDUMB" put a "last warning" vandalism notice on my page it's all there (in the history). (in fact it was just after that that my profile was blocked, due to the content of my previous user name)

Landcamera900 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I apologize mightily. I'll remove the sockpuppet tag immediately. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks : ) Landcamera900 (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Done And I apologize for initially missing the autoblock on you yesterday. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So your a admin...

the article "Land camera" is a thinly veiled image gallery, but every time I try to put a nomination for deletion up a editor called Cburnett removes it, and she has made it clear she has no intention of changing the article. what can I do? Landcamera900 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a request for comment on the issue, but my suggestion is to be bold and expand the article to more than a picture gallery, if you're able to. As stated there, staleness isn't a reason to axe an article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

IFD which I'd like your input in

Hey Jéské, I know you're familiar with all the madness revolving around mudkips. That said, could you please provide some input on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 21#Image:CSPC-DONOTWANT-Mudkip.jpg? Thanks! east.718 at 09:01, 10/21/2007

SIHLUM

Keep an eye on the page, protection expired. Will ^(talk) 16:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Axolotl and Mudpuppy have also been under attack; however the actual instances of SIHULM vandalism are within manageable levels. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reprotted after a 4channer tore a swath. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

late

I saw that. Your just to quick! Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

He made the mistake of slapping SIHULM stuff onto articles; I have zero-tolerance for crap of that nature. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User:LOLMAX

Hello. You may not be aware, but WP:USER was updated some time ago to allow editors to remove warnings from their own talk pages at will, and without archiving. Your reverts ([15], [16], [17]) of LOLMAX (talk · contribs) could be viewed ... unfavourably. Thank you for your time, --Kralizec! (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that already (Random informed me on the thread); however I kept adding the warnings because he was still vandalizing and thus another user unfamiliar with him might not realize that he has had a final warning. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 16:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the AN/I thread until you mentioned it here; I only ran into this issue when LOLMAX was reported to AIV. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Blessed editing, and...

Happy Holidays from Marlith ^T/C Please feel free to contribute to Wikipedia:Song/The Twelve Days of Christmas

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop

Marlith ^T/C 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Social Network

I know Wikipedia isn't a social network. I was helping her edit and learn how to use certain tools and codes on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, please check out my contributions. (I love entei (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

I apologize. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:COIN

No offense, but just WTF do you think you're doing by protecting WP:COIN? It's a public noticeboard, for Christ's sake. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It was protected because an anon was using it to harass User:Benjiboi with a bad report. The protection is due to expire in 5 days. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a public noticeboard that affects many anons. Please use better judgment when protecting pages in the future, thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do, chummer. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, brother. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

<Just curious, but why did you go the route of a long protection on a public noticeboard instead of simply dealing with the anon? No offense, but this seems like a pretty dumb approach to the problem to me. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The anon was using dynamic IPs - Short of calling Verizion (which I'd rather try to avoid because I'm rather nervous on the phone) and risking missing them by three hours (as the IP ranges are in NJ), protection was the only avenue. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely you've heard of WP:RBI? That board is watchlisted by quite a few people, after all. And why a month? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do rangeblocks and was concerned about collateral damage. The month prot was to discourage him from trying to use COI/N as an attack avenue. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. And what consideration did you give to the other anons who needed to post at WP:COIN? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I made a section on my talk page where they could post a report. I would then file it for them at COI/N. The section ("COI Reports") was linked to at COI/N. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're getting it. It's not up to you to manage anon postings at WP:COIN. If you're ever again tempted to protect a public noticeboard, just say no. There is a myriad of other ways to deal with anon vandals. You have no special powers as an admin, just a couple of extra buttons. Remember that, compadre. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yessir. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 01:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WTH was that for?

Why'd you delete my page?V-Dash (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the deletion reason? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But it wasn't a troll....V-Dash (talk) 02:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It was made to troll. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Not it wasn't.V-Dash (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If you object so much, take it to deletion review. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Mail!

Please check it 'buku! Your pal -Sukecchi (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied. -Sukecchi (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hat trick! -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Is their a term for after hat trick? Either way, responded! -Sukecchi (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sent something else...-Sukecchi (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied -Sukecchi (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting talk comments on Talk:D&D

Regarding this edit on Talk:Dungeons & Dragons in which you reverted a comment. Sure, as you note, this isn't a forum. However, I don't believe we are supposed to be quite as strict in policing talk pages as articles proper. Reverting well intentioned, if inappropriate, talk comments seems overly harsh. Wouldn't it have been enough to reply with "This is not a forum. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for discussing the subjects of the articles."? — Alan De Smet | Talk 16:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The user is currently on admin radars because she's using Wikipedia as a soc-net. While I will admit I could have been not so blunt about it, I left her a kinder note both answering her question and telling her Wikipedia isn't a forum. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So long as this is a highly unusual thing. I did poke around in the user's edits, and they seem more than a little confused about Wikipedia. It just seemed odd to be reverting a talk comment, and thus worthy of at least a little investigation. Thanks for all of your work! — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CHU

Please only use the standard {{CHU}} template with its paramters, it's much more thorough for easy reading for bureaucrats. That is the template clerks should use. Thanks :) Qst 21:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Suspected V-Dash sock

A new user, SPD has made the exact same edits to Pokemon Diamond and Pearl that V-Dash did back in November. By that I mean this new user keeps changing the genre from CRPG to RPG, and changing the number of species. I thought that I should bring this to your attention, given V-Dash's past history of trolling and sockpuppetry, as well as your experience in handling the situation with that user. It could be unrelated to V-Dash, but I certainly find it suspicious. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, and waaaaaay late. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Alison says "Inconclusive." Behavior will have to do. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Darn..oh well, we'll keep an eye on 'em. Merry Christmas~! -Sukecchi (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the behavior's pretty damning. He's doing the exact same thing V-Dash did in re the genre section in the infobox; I wouldn't be two-faced if he tried to game. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 04:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I imagine you already plopped what SPD V put on the talk page in a translator, but in case you didn't: "You are weak, stupid, etc. Why should you go against the word of the fact? Your article does not switch that the large N states. Your encrassent games with your nonsense". Looks like something he would say to me...although in French. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Another nail - I blocked Dash for 2 weeks and SPD V indef as a sockpuppet. I asked for a review at AN/I. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hate to break the eggs, but I was sick with food poisoning during the holidays, so I believe you have the wrong guy.V-Dash (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I already reblocked Dash Jr (thanks, Alison!). On a side note, I feel sorry for that and I apologize for pegging SPD V as you. Sukie should do the same. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah see, I'm enduring the pain and agony of a dip(for chips) my bro cooked, yet you wanted to accuse poor old me. Ah, but you at least apologized. Well Suke, you're up next.V-Dash (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. -Sukecchi (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Convenient your brother ws there to troll in exactly the same way you were, when you were away from you PC... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.142.214.72 (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser states that PolluxFrost, not V-Dash, was running SPD V, 172. You may not know this, but V-Dash and PolluxFrost do not have the same IP address. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mega Man Discussion

Just to clarify, I was explaining to DarkFierceDeityLink that if Sonic and Metal Gear properties had no cameos in previous SSB games, then it makes no sense that Mega Man doing the same should be used as an argument as to why he is or isn't in Brawl. Your reply to me about WHY Sonic and Metal Gear properties weren't in the previous games (besides being something I already knew and have had to explain to confused people on the Talk Page in the past) didn't have much bearing on the actual point I was making; I was basically trying to explain to him that his argument made little sense without actually saying it that way and insulting him or anything. Moot point in the long run since that convo got deleted, but anyways... Arrowned (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Null persp. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A question regarding disputes

Hi. Recently someone asked me for help in a dispute between two parties, where one has accused the other of wikistalking him. After looking at the situation, I recommended they just drop it and go edit articles. However, the one editor that accused the other disputant of wikistalking (User:Ronz, if you'd like to know) has accused me of assuming bad faith. I fear this may be true, and I have a horrible feeling that I may have been biased towards another party. I hate to get involved, but what should I do now? Maser ^(Talk!) 05:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to find someone who can be very neutral in the matter and has good negotiation skills to help you (if you decide to continue on), or find someone else willing to do it. If you can provide me a link to the conversation, I'll look into it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The dispute in question is here. I'm rather inexperienced resolving disputes, but would like to be an administrator someday. What could I have done better in that situation? Maser ^(Talk!) 06:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I could tell, your statements were mainly about the contributor, not the discussion. I have to agree with Ronz here - focus on contributions, not the editors who make them, or you'll just keep getting abused of bias. And do not be so hasty to misinterpret words. -Jéské ^{(Blah v·_·v)} 06:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me a specific thing I said that could have been more civil? Maser ^(Talk!) 06:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

However, the one editor that accused the other disputant of wikistalking (User:Ronz, if you'd like to know) has accused me of assuming bad faith. (from above) She made no such accusation from what I had read. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I might have misinterpreted. This edit, specifically - Please question whether you're assuming bad faith on my part before responding further. Thanks. (from User talk:Ronz) I might have misworded it, I meant that she felt my view to be biased towards the other disputant. The problem I had wasn't that I was being uncivil and biased, but rather that I focused too much on mediating between the disputants, and not enough on the dispute. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you did misinterpret it, and I agree that you were focusing more on the disputants rather than the actual dispute, which gave an appearance of bias. It's not that rare of a mistake, nor is such a mistake the end of the world. Learn from it and grow. My suggestion right now is that you hand it off to someone else (other than me, please) before you inadvertently give someone a reason to make effigies. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to give this to the mediation committee at this time? I don't suspect so. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the involved parties and would like to know what steps I can take to resolve this dispute. Anthon01 (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, Anthon, talk with Ronz, if she's willing to listen. Dialog gets more done than swords on Wikipedia. If she's not willing to listen, file a mediation. Second, Maser, if both parties consent to mediation, it's a good idea, especially if you've exhausted what you *can* do. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "H"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "I"s, "J"s, and "K"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note and concern. I'll get right on documenting my criteria and procedure. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008 ;)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent contributions to the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Requests for page protection are very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to review your contributions for spelling, grammatical, capitalization, and punctuation errors before you save. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting others must do on the article, and will help maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance of Wikipedia. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to encourage the best possible writing from our authors. Please take a look at the Manual of Style and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Heh heh heh!--12 Noon ^2¢ 01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't misspell unintentionally. -Jéské ^{(Blah v-_^v)} 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)