User talk:Jredmond/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
pronouns and such
Please see Archive 2 for earlier editing history of this section.
Were there any women in the project besides Angela back in 2004? It's so much more confusing now. ;)
I have a question, you being someone who I assume pays more attention to trends and politics than I. Is the response to SupportPublicTV normal these days, e.g. speedy deletion of the spiel s/he put up followed by a username block for daring to put up links to relevant content that you own, as encouraged on the Pump? It seems excessive to me but, then again, I didn't see the harm in the corrections and tweaks originating from User:USSTRATCOM PAO way back before MyWikiBiz, so the community may have just passed me by on this issue while I was busy not watching the project pages over the past couple years. Cheers, BanyanTree 22:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- There have always been women around, but for whatever reason few are open about their gender. Pseudonyms hide more than just real names sometimes... :)
- It looks like this speedy-and-block routine is how XLinkBot is designed. I think it's generally worthwhile, as it catches spam and misuse much faster and more effectively than human RC patrollers. In this particular case, some users expressed copyright concerns about the YouTube videos in question, and it's true that YouTube videos are usually on shaky copyright grounds. Since we have a confirmation of Wikipedia identity, at least, this shouldn't be a big issue.
- I definitely agree with you that the links were relevant, though I could do without the "courtesy of" bits (people can see credits on YouTube proper). However, it looks like SupportPublicTV got blocked for an iffy username rather than any actual content. I don't see "SupportPublicTV" as spammy, but I'll discuss this with OrangeMike (the blocking admin) before I lift the block. - Jredmond (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Richards unsalting
OK. Just seemed like a lot of recreation going on. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
How sad can you get, you don't even know who Alan Oliver is. If you speak to many many more people in the UK, especially the North East you will start to get an impression of what I'am talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicMartins (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how well I know or don't know Alan Oliver. Wikipedia is not the place to call somebody a "wonky faced twat". - Jredmond (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't mean to revert the template
Just a heads up--I meant to revert the other edit, not that one. Sorry for being a little careless. Croctotheface (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I figured that was the case; it's easy to overlook hidden templates like that. - Jredmond (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Time Times (2008-06)
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue four • June 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
TfD nomination of Template:Nor
Template:Nor has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 09:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This WikiProject is having a revival and is trying to determine the direction it will be heading in the future. Questions are being asked, and exciting things are coming in the future, including the bringing of 1345 and other year articles to GA and even FA status. You are listed as a member and are invited to respond to this roll-call by putting an asterisk next to your username on the members list to show that you are still active in the project. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Response
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.70 hQEOAw5ddrrSvq+nEAP+Pf4vpY1DRrcF2EAFy8+kq159qXAzPfLf6ZSiqCNLVUkb rYcixmAmo6+yqMJ+7P8MEg+x/M5MRbCJ5UwztuAL2iBP55dNY4tK0iQAXtMB0/hs 40QpEqDw+6AATjAlvTOc0D4ICbU0T6Dhvum9TIDuRQtwyYFwBOKfQPLPdkzAXpEE AKM1guy8SkvFy6kcDoE/ys6Ctr9tI0woFubu5PmWAJ86QBdrUx55RRnxPtu+NN1e 8Nq0u5xceyJOddtO9I/8QOvxCGN4R4Eof1N6+gpjzbWT4q3ye3DlJujMEFD5u4/o 7ZjAhHQheIUSNiUwhhZlRxz8usHYX4rum6qtXRFYe+WdhQQOA5tRR7fEWjr2EA/+ IWDEo8suIYYJ59bb1JPnf2GW36ZbNgHkcQN0aYQNKc1Da5Gb/J3vSHq5FzaK8OXA OXqeLDs1e5VtUd0RylVfd0x438NDyincFZZBaC25Bo7COleQ/Serh+rP3TWRkhyC 4gFhbrQz4G1MpMq1/mXbjqNpkndJKvzfYOu9clESNVU99KrC+G/Lq5oLR6quf4t0 i00g2/c6YsjrbMUYqA8eDx2o5ckBRdC3zZC/w5eER1jV8JnNlwPgXJCp1cCkI5e1 VQHYuk7Ud+MoIuyAX7pvKo7Rg75yypIPrv4eVZdP2Wp8mWoHS55rAumAUHwL8HPi cjQDiBfuAHc552TrHO6zzTrXLOBp/KZ6JjDk7PNBMB0FkgEMyXoDyysbATOZ0LJe NLOSg7dCktCQoice1lLgSxMQN199SjElfobdijKcTZ3Hc2UR6Neo0wA1Y0KcTsJk EcvmbNxOao524TsGDRZYeC/0VXUdXnmDDaH1EvMMt4WyLhXLPjnPdPRK/nrCduht 1ZjUFjowDF00iZfMx0yEkHWGOdoYUOMojTgSJ9soUv8yG68cw+j62e8ssN/+wULU 7FHwL7hdKDqQxN8EKGg9g+dhb9FyhWVykl5cnzIrGXlUDJSoGDsFTmTjgUY4Emku 3L8of8sQhfcCCdrbtPVxj2d1wMZBdd1psn+xHcSD8EgP/3lIdIUfZPHKdheuzIKH L/zrxbJjjcvyNpan2a5leJUwqc0opNLcebjAKiObxz2suGzMLGyfYYLV3ClfYfwY jj4SNtWDSOmbLm56VuGU+iS1RzzuTPO/8UPwbs06frHNudtyRdzxZ7lWVI1/Y4A1 OYK27eeeiPGMehAg7wdBA+BOXiAhNETjkryzzbrvg/a+9qJ+scwmT5wwU4nNlreR P4nkOE9c66HuFczF8k8z5/k3LWAn1wURaYMWIMnD7tHvSbrqAnefV2pY+u58cubM VLG0aKONttcsbyqRb4pwXsbHbh6evCmGkFFHNEGWPiQeW6Alz7dgT9ReqcP9628N J9UcyojlIzt5Rz9widhhT7CoyuDuV/S6TvPE1OZBXmp2vqg6RJu4PjF47pZoSnKj Rz/ak6sj4YdbTHhnW7hPzAIv0XmIuSpiVoeJfn3vBcnxjNHFdPWBNs/namChR3cA dbPXYVdRDY9URcFTBfnVg17ys9J/dI3uB+XLA8DtD6S/gFQQ/KB3k06i1PTCNhl6 7dAyEm61aWvV8Btb0hDdf5HOJ9FkkbpnrnAe0bmwQhRBb///2kZgzcjiWiuQBVXy igNjifMYnrz5QogShSelxfP4NbOtJ8h+8INU1cqlS11heTMYiYNEXdqAAJONip6j BNx0UsTVJCOr+W09wX0lExAP0p4BrVR4n5a0T/59YgghnmEjUON0qHO9DIwsjALL NGw32nHNs6dVHmhMNSOJ0wWCMpSLr8Q3Pwlzx8PkXbB1MTd5E1EYzv7TKeebNgOv a2iiRAjwxmx3dp3pzWlpm/ksShzkPMVofl4YRLQn2rBPnpSUHWe2g2NS1Mj2APXv sCyk6AfCS82JSP92VxrdRSrSsxazDqfuMHjI7h8MCPuiug== =jyTc -----END PGP MESSAGE-----
-- Avi (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Langston, Oklahoma
I'm watching the template to help ensure that it's not listed as Coon City: if this keeps going more, a block will result for Ninthsense. Nyttend (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not treating this as an unsourced-edits case anymore: I've given a final warning for this behaviour as vandalism. Tell me if you find any more such edits. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Meetup?
Jim - you've previously expressed interest in a Chicago wiki-meet. If you're interested in coming to another one, take a look at Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and let us know your thoughts. best — Dan | talk 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:CHICAGO
You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have participated in discussion at either Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3 or Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as an active member. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now atrying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Johann Hari
Thanks for your edits on the Johann hari page. Shouldn't this IP address be blocked permenantly for such obvious abuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.135.255 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- No. IPs are never permanent, even if they're static. On top of this, a perma-block assumes that only one person has been editing from that IP; that there has been no proxying (open or otherwise) involved; that the person in question is and forever shall be completely incapable of any mildly positive contribution to the wiki; and that IPv4 is here to stay for the indefinite future. Far better to wear out their patience with rollbacks and semiprotection. - Jredmond (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin protection
Please see Talk:Sarah_Palin#Should_this_article_be_semi-protected.3F.--ragesoss (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Your username mentioned in San Jose Mercury News
In case you didn't know, your name was mentioned in an article in the Mercury News, "Tug of war over Wiki entry on Palin". Kudos! Emw2012 (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Jredmond, that's no trouble, glad to be of assistance! Always nicer fighting vandals with help! Have a good day :) AvnjayTalk 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
TV template deletion
Can you expand on what that information is that Nielsen complained about? I am trying to create a general guideline on when copyrighted information can be used, but that would be hard to do without knowing where the line has been drawn by OTRS. As far as I know, the templates had the following:
- The name of the market
- The DMA number
- A list of stations in the market
Which of these was the problem? Thank you. --NE2 19:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm replying on WP:AN now - will have a diff once I've posted. - Jredmond (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've asked a follow-up question. --NE2 20:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Nielsen Templates
If the Nielsen templates are to be undeleted, please let me know the exactly edits (removing of Nielsen "DMA" information of course) to be made and I will, as quickly as I can, edit the templates for Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington DC. Please keep me informed on my talk page. Thanks!...NeutralHomer • Talk 04:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Consentblock
Template:Consentblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Nielsen takedown
Hi. I'm told (here specifically) that you may be able to tell me if List of TV markets and major sports teams in the United States is impacted by the Nielsen take-down. It was blanked and listed at WP:CP on September 21st. I've moved it to the Wikipedia:CP#Remaining_older_issues.2C_consolidated, but I have not yet been able to find out if this article was included in that take-down notice or not. Since I'm unfamiliar with its terms, I'd like to get feedback from somebody who knows. If you can offer any assistance, I would be most grateful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I see you've been editing since I dropped this here. Since you haven't responded, I presume you must not know the answer to this one. Would you by any chance know who might? I've got no response at User talk:FT2 and my only feedback at the AN thread linked above was a suggestion to talk to you. Sooner or later, we'll either have to delete that article or clear it. Right now, it's just lurking in the in-between zone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much. :) Sorry for being dense on the issue, but it involves television and sports, two things about which I know little. :D It seems like the entire article is Nielsen, so I gather you're saying that you believe this entire article falls under the provenance of their takedown (IANAL, either), in which case the likely best handling is for me to delete the article so that a new one can be created based on the Census Bureau's MSA? (I don't know what an MSA is. Sorry about my general cluelessness on tv issues. The only reason I'm running it down is because currently I seem to be one of the few people who volunteers at CP, and if I don't, it's not likely to be taken care of for some time.) :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Littlestown Boxing page
Why did you delete my Littlestown Boxing page?
Redsox72491 (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- It had no sources. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own group. - Jredmond (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Nova
with all respect, the publication of an article in E-LIS is not publication, and the negative material sourced to there cannot stand. What I think you could do is add an external link to the posting, as was done for the Tausch paper, which has exactly the same status. I do not want to get into a revert war about this, so if you want to take this back to RS, do. Alternatively, wait till its published. Frankly, I wouldnt in the least mind including it if we could without stretching things too far. DGG (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
What do I do?
I saw your warning on my (IP) talk page. I don't know who from my organization is doing that but please don't block this IP. Cuz the browser here somehow hangs if you log in to wikipedia. WP is an important resource =| 125.21.165.158 (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- That warning is from May 2008; your IP isn't in any immediate danger of being blocked. As your user talk page mentions, though, you can avoid that sort of warning if you register and use an account. - Jredmond (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh. Actually, as I mentioned, the browser on computers here hangs if you log into a WP account for some mysterious reason, so that's a problem. Thanks for the reply! :) 125.21.165.158 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
edits
why do you edit Wikipedia pages so often? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthej (talk • contribs) 02:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because there are problems to be fixed, and I happen to be there to fix them.
I find it amusing that people will waste their lives correcting Wikipedia Articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthej (talk • contribs) 05:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I used the rollback tool on the 1812 vandalism; it took me maybe a quarter of a second to click the "rollback" link and completely undo the vandalism. I didn't have to sort the information from the misinformation, and I didn't have to go through the confirmation step with the "undo" tool. On top of this, I'm not the only one who fixes things around here.
- How much time have you wasted so far on tedious and pointless Wikipedia vandalism? - Jredmond (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
all of it i committed suicide :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthej (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the revert
Thanks for the revert on the Altenberg bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton track. It is appreciated. Chris (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 | This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
In 2009, WikiProject Years developed a essay for the inclusion of events "recent year" articles.
Important policy discussions took place in January 2009 at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years.
Deilvered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC) on request of Wrad
SETI@HOME
Hay... I joined your Seti@Home team. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletions
- Sorry to trouble you but I couldn't help but notice that you deleted Dick vagina as a test page. I believe that I tagged it as vandalism. I'm often surprised by the decisions of what category of CSD people use and in this instance I would have thought that this contributor had nothing but vandalism in mind. I wonder if you'd be willing to say why you thought this a test page, which I thought was usually along the lines of 'I wonder if I can make a page here?' Many thanks. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- I generally don't use "vandalism" as a reason unless it's an established article that needs certain troublesome revisions removed. In this specific case, I did interpret that page as "I wonder if I can make a page here", so "test page" worked as a reason. - Jredmond (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you deleted Nicknames for stanley as "nonsense". However, it didn't qualify WP:CSD G1 (which doesn't include obscene remarks), and should have been deleted under WP:CSD G10. Thanks for deleteing it anyway. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Your block of Poopmaster98
Hope you don't mind, I've given the editor an indef username block after checking to make sure that similar names are also indefinitely blocked. dougweller (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
royale limousine delete
i added this to offer the reader the definition of royale limousine the certified legitimate builder that has a 25 year history in the industry of custom vehicle conversions as opposed to several other builders and upstarts trying to jump on its repurtation with similar names or services that are confused with this royale. i think it offers an unbiased history and description of the company to help the reader distinguish. this company has been around a long time and is part of the automotive and limousine history. if you would prefer all the product links removed then thats ok Limosmyth (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's great, but why exactly do we need an encyclopedia article on this particular company? I deleted the Royale Limousine entry because it was written for a business directory or company Web site; those things are useful, yes, but Wikipedia is neither. Please have a look at WP:NOT, which discusses this issue further. - Jredmond (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
I appreciate the reversions you made on my user page. It ain't much but it's all I got :) Tiderolls 03:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: Block on User:Nick Rizza
You are correct and I shouldn't have blocked him at all. I remembered the vandalism on the same article earlier that day and I assumed it was the same person (I thought he did the same thing, I should have double checked). My apologies, I have unblocked him. -- Luk talk 06:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- PS: btw, you should have tweaked the block on the spot after seeing I was no longer around ;)
- No problem. It has been my experience, though, that it's best to check with the blocking admin before lifting an indefinite block. Less drama that way. - Jredmond (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- True (I got in an argument because of that once :)). I updated my talk page though :). -- Luk talk 19:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. It has been my experience, though, that it's best to check with the blocking admin before lifting an indefinite block. Less drama that way. - Jredmond (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Saint Philomena
Dear JRedmond,
I've put in on the talk page of Saint Philomena some corrections of errors made under title: List of Saints/ Calander of Liturgical list of Saints. I did'nt take away others work but added my own opinion after recearch, leaning on my own study. It may get very heated but I'v tried to be as clinical as possible. I did check with OIEnglish before proceeding. I am not "Fulomena". I'v come to Wikipedia rather late.
Regards,
MacOfJesus (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry
I was just... upset.
It's a closeup of a creature's eye. Pictures like that are always going to be at least a little blurry. How clear would you be able to get it without ramming the camera lens up against the poor animal's head? Pastel kitten (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's OK - I figured as much. Just try not to make outbursts like that into a habit; though you and he had differing opinions about what actually improves the article, you were both working towards the same end. (We kind of summarize that approach in the initialism "AGF".)
- As for the photo itself, there are some technical solutions that can reduce blurriness. I can't really help you on that front, but you may want to browse c:Category:Animal eyes; the photographers who took those might have some good suggestions for you. (Especially the ones who did File:Hawk eye.jpg and File:Crocodile marin Thoiry 19801.jpg.) - Jredmond (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Which game are we playing?
Hey Jimmy, how long is my ban? Cfcilldarathesecond (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Would you mind taking a look at the above, it seems inconceivable that it is a candidate for a speedy delete?
Thanks.Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- SD has been declined. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Checkuser/Oversight election
Jredmond, I owe you a huge apology. On reading your message on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard talk page, and your email, I went back and reviewed the page where those who had made requests were listed, and found your name there. Somehow, it had escaped my notice in June when sending out email notifications to editors who'd personally contacted the Committee about accessing these permissions. I apologize for having missed your name in amongst that group, and for failing to notify you directly. I don't think there is anything I can do to correct my error at this point, except to ensure you have the opportunity to proceed at the next point. Risker (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Talk Page
Thank you for deleting it. - Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me | BNosey - 19:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Consent block
Template:Consent block has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Feinoha Talk, My master 23:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for leaving a message...
We'll see how this goes! Fredir (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Dan Cleveland
I just redeleted Dan Cleveland, which was recreated just after you created it. I was curious about the edit history — it showed the page as having been recreated by Scythre as he marked it for deletion. Do you know how that could have happened? Obviously he didn't intend to recreate a problematic page, and he's not an admin, so he couldn't have undeleted it. Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that I deleted it as he was editing; when he clicked "save page", then it submitted the entire body of text as new. - Jredmond (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
regarding your changes to Mediawiki:Newarticletext, Here. i'm not sure i understand your rationale for removing the search, but by doing so, it adds several extra steps to the process. i for one, would like to see it replaced. cheers! --emerson7 17:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Please restore the search link you removed in this edit; it is very useful for finding a redirect target. Thank you. --NE2 21:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#search link and continue the discussion there. - Jredmond (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)