User talk:J Di/1106

november 2006 |

Reverting my user page[edit]

Hey, thanks for that! Budgiekiller 13:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELP![edit]

somebody just vandal'd my talk... for giving myself a barnstar... the user is Whirling Sands Offensiveandconfusing 21:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to remove the message yourself, but I've do it for you. I'll ask the user who put the message on your talk page about it as well. _JD^talk 21:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, the user's been indefinitely blocked. _JD^talk 21:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

Well done on passing your RfA with flying colours! If you have any questions about being an admin then please don't hesititate to ask and I will do my best to answer. Regards and happy editing, (aeropagitica) 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, J Di! Best of luck with the new tools, and if you have any admin-related questions, feel free to contact me. =) Nishkid64 17:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! A WP:BIGBRO member makes it to the call of greatness that is adminship. Way to go! FireSpike 19:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Alex9891 beat JD to that one. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise there was a competition. And the RfA hasn't been closed yet. _JD^talk 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, The JPS did. --Alex (Talk) 19:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was an administrator before he made his first edit to the Project's page. Anyway, if you're going to continue this discussion, please do so off my talk page. _JD^talk 19:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations :) [1]

M a rtinp23 21:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done from me too... Budgiekiller 21:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yup, coolio & many congrats......luke 07:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, in spite of my 'neutral' vote I do wish you all the best as one of our newest admins :) Kind regards, --Joanne B 15:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Mustafa Akalp ^TC 06:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.

KillerChihuahua^?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. IrishGuy ^talk 18:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm me![edit]

I can confirm that I use the nicks J_Di and JD_UK on IRC. _JD^talk 23:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiReaper (talk · contribs)[edit]

You are more patient than I; I'd have nuked the user for this edit alone. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to piss anybody off on my first day, and it was his first edit in over a month - everybody deserves a second chance. _JD^talk 02:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was the first of those four edits, and the others were to blank warnings; but, I'll presume you're watching the user and I'll defer to your patience. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move the page then[edit]

I tried moving the page but could not since since female genital mutilation already exists.As you are an admin , I will then ask you--CltFn 12:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about , tagging you as a sockpuppet? You must have have me confused with someone else.--CltFn 12:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user page[edit]

Thanks for fixing the edits to my user page. Regards, Mr Stephen 15:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Millwall Brick Authours Eh?[edit]

That's fine with me, now remove our club badge from that nonsensicle article please.

I mean that the current Millwall F.C. badge is on the page of an article called: Millwall Brick, this article has no basis in truth, it emanates from a spoof Viz Comic Advertisment. This "article" is defamatory, and should be removed forthwith. Best wishes, Lion King 17:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks much for quick action on vandal! Zora 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. _JD^talk 18:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username[edit]

As for Jack Ash, I wasn't sure if his username should be blocked or not - that's why I put the question marks there. I figured it's up to you. The reason it is likely inappropriate is that it is a rip off of the term jack ass. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else pointed that out in the admins IRC channel, but the user that got reported was User:JACK+ASH, which didn't exist; not User:JACK ASH. Looks like administrators in the channel don't think the username is inappropriate enough to get a block because of all the other things that it could mean, so unless there's any vandalism edits from it nothing's happening with it. _JD^talk 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts to Ghostbusters[edit]

I just wanted to point out: Ghostbusters is a film. The reverts you are doing are to AIDS. I've checked the talk page for Ghostbusters, and it's for the film. So whoever made it into an AIDS article, was the one that started this mess. RobJ1981 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannie Elias[edit]

Would you mind fixing the article, I was about to clean this up until you mucked around with it--Jack Cox 21:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm doing it now. I thought you moved the page by copying the content and pasting it somewhere else. Just give me a minute or two. _JD^talk 21:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've sorted it out now, is everything how it was? _JD^talk 21:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had much success banning me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.206.199.241 (talk • contribs) 21:51, November 5, 2006 (UTC)

Blocked anon still able to edit[edit]

Hello. Thank you for blocking 67.121.240.231, but I'm confused about something. The block log shows you blocking them at 04:02, 06 November 2006 for a period of 48 hours. Twelve minutes later, at 04:14 they edited their own talk page. I don't see any unblock. Is there a delay I'm unaware of as to when the block takes effect? SWAdair 10:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked users are able to edit their own talk pages. I don't know the reason why, but it may be so that they can request unblocks and stuff like that. _JD^talk 10:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I should have thought of that. Thank you. SWAdair 10:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psst... BTW: Paul Signac's page is vandalized. Notice the master love-maker, the Borg, and lots and lots of Nazis. Revert it to about 3 edits back? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.164.161.65 (talk • contribs) 11:46, November 6, 2006 (UTC)

RFPP for Saddam Hussein[edit]

See WP:RFPP. Wikipedia policy says,"On the day's Featured Article, which should almost never be protected, in the interests of encouraging newcomers to be bold. Other pages linked from the Main Page may be protected if under attack." Just thought I'd let the newbie know. Nishkid 64 22:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I didn't notice that the article wasn't featured until after it was protected by somebody else. There's a reason why I'm not doing WP:RFPP, you know :P _JD^talk 22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert edit to Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge[edit]

Please before reverting valid edits refer to the talk page for an explanation. I cannot revert this edit as I am not sure whether I will be blocked, however I would apprciate greatly that you consider the discussion I started at Talk:Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Thankyou. SauliH 19:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the talk page, and also at previous edits. I reverted your edit because one link does not need to be included in an external links section thirteen times. I think you've breached WP:3RR, but I won't block you as long as you don't revert the page again without first giving a good reason. _JD^talk 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for reviewing the correction of the URL's I made. I have not yet updated as I do not want anyone to block me for WP:3RR - waiting 24hrs.SauliH 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR says that an editor can't revert a page more than three times in 24 hours. The addition of different links after one of the users that reverted you in the first place has agreed with the addition would not have gotten you blocked. I've done it for you anyway. _JD^talk 19:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. In wikipedia, I walk on eggshells fearing for the trigger happy. :)SauliH 19:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Trial/3RR[edit]

From Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Detail:

This policy does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism, reverting the edits of a banned or blocked user, or other specific scenarios listed in the Exceptions section below.

Just thought you might want some reassurance. _JD^talk 19:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty sure that was the case, but wasn't quite 100%... Only rarely do I deal with controversial articles. Cheers V. Joe 19:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected user page[edit]

Hey, yeah that's cool, thanks for noticing! Since I got VandalProof up and running I seem to have upset an large number of anonymous IPs! Hopefully means I'm doing something right!! Budgiekiller 08:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts to Zeke Kinski.[edit]

Please stop reverting my edits, I have seen the episode before, and i know that he was hyper on Red Lemonade, please see Neighbours Fansite.

Suicidal tendancies 12:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use words that imply that I have reverted your edits more than once. I think the site you meant to link to is http://perfectblend.net, and this page of that website says he drunk alcohol. If you want to change the article so that it doesn't mention alcohol, please provide a source. _JD^talk 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

source one[edit]

he became unconcious from drinking alcohol at rachel's birthday party, not at the sleep over, he became hyperactive from drinking red lemonade. Suicidal tendancies 18:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a source; it's just you telling me. All you need to do is change one word to make the text accurate. Please do not revert my next edit without first reading WP:RS and WP:V, and providing a source to back up what you're saying. _JD^talk 18:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks as though you're right. _JD^talk 18:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Away[edit]

I strongly suggest you split every character from Home and Away into their own article and organize to page so it is understandable. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see evert article like Jack Holden on past or present characters. You have done a super job on them Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the articles should be split, you should bring it up on this talk page, as it seems at least one person would be opposed to the idea. _JD^talk 10:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your indefinite block of an IP[edit]

You blocked 206.180.101.19 indefinitely not long ago. I can understand that there's a lot of vandalism from that IP, but I thought that IPs weren't meant to be indefinitely blocked unless they are open proxies. Is there a problem with placing a definite long term block on the IP? _JD^talk 19:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whooooooooooooops[edit]

You're absolutely right. Consider it overkill on my part, I stand corrected. I will fix it, or ask for help if necessary. Thanks for the note. Kaisershatner 19:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, aaaaaaaaaaactually[edit]

Just had a min to read the fine print at WP:BLOCK, note "# Vandalism — Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism. Dynamic IPs: up to 24 hours. AOL IPs and range blocks: about 15 minutes, then 1-3 hours, and 24 at most, to avoid collateral damage. Static IPs and logged-in users: start at 24 hours, increase gradually if it starts again; persistent violators may be blocked indefinitely, but use discretion." I think at least one if not both of the ips I blocked indefinitely met that criteria, certainly the one that was six months of nothing but vandalism. Cheers! Kaisershatner 02:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. An indefinite block still seems a bit excessive on an IP. Oh well. _JD^talk 07:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Johnny Pacheco.jpg[edit]

Because I can't provide differences in a speedy tag, here is the edit where the original uploader edited at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AJohnny_Pacheco.jpg&diff=86813834&oldid=86813198 and wrote "Please delete ASAP" -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that, sorry. I've deleted the image now. Thanks for pointing it out. _JD^talk 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A gift for a true gift to Wikipedia :)[edit]

		Glen's ~~Anti-Vandalism~~ Hellish Worker Barnstar!
		Glen is thrilled to award his good mate J Di with this small token of appreciation and acknowledgement for exceptional performance in reorganzing and tiding our Request for adminship space... YOU are a legend my friend! Glen 11:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Im new[edit]

I need a friendEet Shiit 00:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is Eet Shiit[edit]

I'm using my neighbor's computer because mine is blocked. You blocked my account due to the username, but the username is my real name. This is all a big misunderstanding. Please unblock me. --216.164.199.84 00:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you. Wait the autoblock out. _JD^talk 01:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% serious. And also, isn't there some "assume good faith" thing? So please unblock me. I just want to use the website.--216.164.199.84 01:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an assume good faith policy, but even if it is your real name, other users may think it is meant to be offensive and will most probably block you. Please create an account with a username that doesn't violate our username policy. If you follow the instructions on the block message after you've done this and you are at home, I will consider unblocking your IP. _JD^talk 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't this racist? I mean, just because I am not descended from Europeans shouldn't force me to use a false name. I've had to deal with this in real life before, but when people realize its my real name, they are forgiving. I guess it helps when you know the pronunciation first, and then learn the spelling. :(--216.164.199.84 01:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've been civil and remained calm, and if that username policy weren't there I'd have probably unblocked you by now, but it is there and I don't think I could get away with ignoring the rules in this case. If you do want to use the site with an account, please try to think of a different username and then contact me from it at your home. _JD^talk 01:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anybody I could talk to whos high enough up in the hierarchy to let me use my real name? --216.164.199.84 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales is the only guy I can think of, but he'd probably say the same thing. Your username looks offensive, and as I'm sure you'd know nothing can be done about that. A lot of people don't use their real name on Wikipedia anyway because of the whole Internet privacy thing, so you might be better off using a pseudonym. _JD^talk 01:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to write it with the traditional alphabet instead?--216.164.199.84 01:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that is, but on English Wikipedia only Latin characters can be used in usernames. _JD^talk 01:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry 'bout messin' up your sig at the HD. Feel free to cut this post at will. --hydnjo talk 01:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messin' my sig up? Nah, I just can't stand underscores in wikilinks. Don't worry about it. _JD^talk 01:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELP ME![edit]

Yes, what can I do for you? – Gurch 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.) How ironic. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes explaining again... You could have answered this in the admin channel! Anyway, User:EnthusiastFRANCE uploaded a lot of images before he got blocked, but as far as I can tell none of them have any fair use rationales. Can they be deleted, or do they need to be tagged with {{nrd}}? _JD^talk 02:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say tag them, especially if they're still being used; presumably they've been there a while so we don't really want to start speedying them – Gurch 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thisgroovecover.jpg[edit]

Hi, I noticed you've added {{no rationale}} to Image:Thisgroovecover.jpg, but it was uploaded before 2006-05-04, not after it. --Kjoonlee 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realise. The uploader's already been notified that the image will be deleted if they don't add a rationale, so if they don't add one in seven days I'll delete it; assuming they've made any contributions. Thanks for pointing it out. _JD^talk 11:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~But is there a policy to delete such images uploaded before 2006-05-04?~~ I've removed the tag from the image, BTW. --Kjoonlee 13:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. CSD I6. Sorry.. --Kjoonlee 13:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, beat me to it. You edit conflicted me with that. _JD^talk 13:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the same would apply to Image:Fw1DVD.jpg, Image:Indi.jpg, Image:Kate Ritchie.jpg, Image:Big Brother UK 6 logo.gif, Image:Bb7 eye.png, Image:Amelia Frid.jpg and Image:PaulRobinson.jpg but Image:Indi.jpg has had a rationale added, Image:Big Brother UK 6 logo.gif is also missing a source and Image:Bb7 eye.png has versions from both before and after the cut-off date. Tra (Talk) 16:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, all fair use images should have a fair use rationale regardless of when they were uploaded, and even though some of those tagged images were uploaded before May 4 2006, they can still be deleted if they have no fair use rationale and the uploader has been asked to add one. None of the images you've listed should have been tagged really, but the uploaders have been asked to provide rationales and if they don't, the images get deleted. I think that's all that matters really. _JD^talk 16:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KFC[edit]

Please do not revert edits to Kentucky Fried Chicken or KFC again because you don't know what you are doing. The company has changed its name. 166.82.206.146 18:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I do know what I'm doing; you don't. Read WP:MOVE and register an account if you want to move the page. _JD^talk 18:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on here longer than you. I will report you for multiple reverts. 166.82.206.146 18:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll block you for not moving a page properly. _JD^talk 18:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HEY[edit]

Hello I have just edited the Sunderland page, as I looked at A TABLE on the BBC sports news and I updated the article, and WHAT DO YOU DO? Revert it MR. Thinks he's clever, change it back please. Professor Sunderland 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC) at 18:18pm on the 12th November 2006[reply]

Your edit removed most of the article. I'm guessing it was an accident, or possibly that you're using Firefox and the Google Toolbar on Windows XP. There's a bug with that. I'll put your edit back in. _JD^talk 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

thanks for the lift on the Ip ban ;).Thatperson

Speaking of an IP ban...

You left an "Indef blocked" template on an IP you recently blocked for 24 hours. I'm not entirely sure it's that important, but it's just a note and I got confused when I saw it. Logical2u 00:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Where is it? Are they still blocked now? _JD^talk 00:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second question was a bit stupid... _JD^talk 00:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiiii!!!![edit]

Thanks so much for reverting vandalism on my page!!!!! It's the first time it has occurred on my page. RaNdOm26 02:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Jews in Switzerland[edit]

You reverted a notice I made of copyright infringement. Please read my discussion of such, and go to the reference I listed. You will see the whole thing is plagiarized.

Thanx, mwinog2777

No I didn't. I reverted your attempts to trasclude Wikipedia:Copyright problems onto that page. If the content is plagiarised, read WP:CV and follow the instructions. _JD^talk 09:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JD[edit]

Hi, thanks for your comment. But I use to put test templates and I am not sure what did you mean in your message. Can you please be a bit indetail. thanks codetiger 14:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, ok. thank you very much. codetiger 14:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA[edit]

You removed [2] my RFA (it has been restored), was there a reason why? If it's because of my edit summary, I apologize, I made a typo and forgot an "S" in there so that's why it appears as a redlink in the log. Metros232 17:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was the edit summary. I should have been paying more attention anyway, and red links in edit summaries are no excuse for reverting an edit without looking at it. Sorry about that. _JD^talk 17:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RockerAndRollerNeverLearnsSleeps edits[edit]

Sigh. RockerAndRoller etc caught my eye on NP patrol and I was just about to revert the vandalism to your userpage when you beat me to it. I sometimes wonder what's stuffed in peoples' heads. For a start if I was idiot enough to vandalise a userpage I wouldn't choose one clearly stating that the user was an admin, then once it was obvious my edits were being watched I very probably wouldn't go on and do yet another puerile edit. Takes all sorts, I suppose :-( Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 18:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fake user page[edit]

Why did you revert the fake user page made similar to my name? It was obviously setup by a vandal - in this case User:Boris Allen. Aren't you going to delete it and ban the guy? John Smith's 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who's who. I'll look into it now, I'll leave a message here when I've sorted something. _JD^talk 18:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have some idea of what's happened here, but tell me if I have got anything wrong. You're User:John Smith's, and your user page got moved to User:John Smith's Willy by Boris Allen, who is now blocked. Instead of moving it back, you copied the content from where your page was moved to, and pasted it into where it was moved from. Have I got that right? If so, I can move your old page and merge the histories for you. All other users have already been blocked. _JD^talk 19:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you got it right. I tried to move the pages back, but failed for some reason. So I switched the content temporarily. Yes, please move the old page and merge the histories, etc - while deleting any "willy" pages that are still there. Thanks a lot! John Smith's 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll merge the histories of the user page and user talk page, but the pages in your user space are going to be deleted for a short while. Please don't recreate them. _JD^talk 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that's sorted. I've deleted the redirects, but I'm not going to delete the revisions created by the vandal because they may need to be looked at in future. That alright? _JD^talk 19:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's looking fine now - thanks. But the vandal hasn't been blocked according to the log. What are you going to do about him? John Smith's 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my mistake. Why did I think he was blocked? There doesn't look like much I can do as Boris Allen is making some constructive edits, but I will leave a message on his talk page and keep an eye on him. If he causes any more problems for you, let me know. _JD^talk 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of User talk:David Betesh[edit]

Hi.. you reverted this user's vandalism earlier, but the same IP has returned with a partial blanking. Rather that reverting it myself, I thought I'd leave it to you to see if you wanted to issue a block to the IP as well. --Rrburke 21:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them for 48 hours. Thanks for letting me know. _JD^talk 21:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI: the user has resumed the weird partial blanking of User talk:David Betesh again. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've warned them. If they do anything else tonight, I'll block them again. _JD^talk 20:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice he also blanked West Bank. I think this IP vandal is probably a sockpuppet for User:David Betesh. I say this for a couple of reasons. First, he appears to be trying to remove warnings from User talk:David Betesh and it's hard to imagine who else would want to bother doing that.

Second, 216.46.79.2, like User:David Betesh, has vandalized Emanuel Jaques. In each case the vandalism has taken the form of removing the name of a child murderer which happens to be similar to his own.

Additionally, 216.46.79.2 added this external link to Sephardi Jews. This link also appears on the page User:David Betesh. The main author of the Wikipedia article Sephardic Pizmonim Project is also User:David Betesh.

Finally The anon-ip is located in Brooklyn; User:David Betesh is connected to Flatbush, Brooklyn, as it says on his user page.

--Rrburke^(talk) 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really... I'll try to get it looked into. Thanks for the info. _JD^talk 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP for a week, but I'm going to leave the user for a bit, to see what happens now. _JD^talk 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Geyer[edit]

Hi.. Um, I think the semi-protection should be there because I discovered a variety of vandalisms when I last went on. Thanx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaggy9872004 (talk • contribs) 11:51, November 14, 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to protect the article because semi-protection prevents IPs from making constructive edits. The article hasn't been vandalised so much that it's becoming difficult for other users to revert it quickly. I'm already keeping an eye on it, so if the vandalism becomes more frequent I will consider semi-protecting it or asking another administrator to decide if such action is necessary. _JD^talk 11:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad page moves[edit]

Hi, I'd like to know why you moved User:John Smith's to User:John Smith's Willy and User talk:John Smith's to User talk:John Smith's Willy on November 7 2006. These page moves appear to be vandalism. I have moved the pages back and merged the page histories, but unless there is a good reason for why you did this, consider this a warning. If you do this again, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia to prevent further non-constructive page moves. _JD^talk 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry about that, it was only intended as a joke between users. I didn't think it would matter as much since it wasn't an actual article, but don't worry, I won't be doing anything like that again--Boris Allen 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator intervention against vandalism[edit]

Please do not remove reports from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, even if the reported user has stopped vandalising. Administrators trying to work through the reports can be confused if reports suddenly start disappearing, and this could allow users that should have been blocked to continue editing later. You edit conflicted me when you made this edit, and that slowed me down as I didn't know what I was doing after encountering a second edit conflict. I appreciate you wanting to help with the backlogs, but AIV probably isn't the best place to try. _JD^talk 17:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did think I was doing you a favour, you seemed a bit stressed. I removed the ones I knew to be blocked because I was involved in the warning and fighting of them. And I checked some others to see if the process had been followed, which they hadn't. I apologise if I caused you any inconvenience. Bubba hot ep 17:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something Awful[edit]

Please consider unprotecting Something Awful. Misza13 did a range block on the most recent vandal for me, so I don't think the protection is needed. Thanks. _JD^talk 17:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin tools[edit]

The mop

Congratulations on becoming an admin!

Enjoy your new-found powers, and remember to use them only for good, and not for evil. If you would like to try out your new mop, here are some spots that always need loving care:

All the best! - Quadell

The flamethrower

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. --Nlu (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, never seems to stop does it... I hope you don't mind me protecting your user page; no new users or IPs seemed to be making any constructive edits to it. _JD^talk 17:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Idol merges[edit]

Hi, I'd like to know why you removed the merge tags from Damien Leith and Dean Geyer. If another editor has added merge tags to articles and proposed a merge in good faith, you shouldn't remove the merge tags. I knew what I was doing when I added those merge tags, and meant to add one to every article I have added one to. If you are opposed to the proposed merge, please discuss it by clicking on the Discuss link on the merge tags; they will all take you to Talk:Australian Idol 2006. Don't remove these merge tags again until a decision has been reached. Removing them prematurely may leave people unaware that the merge has been proposed, and this may affect how the discussion develops. Thank you. _JD^talk 22:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those Merge Tags are uneccesary because I believe the singers are impotant enough to have their own page on wikipedia. Merging the article is unprofounded and not relevant. Thanx! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaggy9872004 (talk • contribs) 06:10, November 15, 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it like this. I put the merge tags on the articles. You do not just remove them because you believe the merge is not needed. If you disagree with it, you discuss it. I've also told you that adding {{protected}} and {{sprotect}} to a page does not protect it, but you've continued to add these tags to some articles and you're still removing merge tags from others. If you continue to ignore other editors and instructions written on pages, you may be blocked to prevent further disruption. _JD^talk 08:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Threatening to block[edit]

In response to these two edits on User talk:Phil Boswell, please do not threaten to block editors to elicit a response from them. Blocks are meant only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and I do not see anything done by Phil Boswell that is deserving of a block. Please read Wikipedia's policy on blocking editors before you "consider" any more. _JD^talk 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Hi J di, In response to these two edits on User talk:Phil Boswell, please do not threaten to block editors to elicit a response. Blocks are meant only to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, and I do not see anything done by Phil Boswell that is deserving of a block... Unfortunately I feel disruption is underway, as the code Phil is/was subst:ing is not optimiz/sed for subst:ing; cf {{·}}'s history.[reply]

Meanwhile, I'm perturbed that Phil appears not only to've ignored my attempt to discuss the matter and then my request to stop and do so, but continue editing as if no contact made. Does this perturb you? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dot. How can the template not be optimised for substituting? I really don't see the problem... You may also be interested in the fact that Phil Boswell's last edit was six minutes before you left that message. _JD^talk 17:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare these; which code would you prefer to subst:?
As I tried to indicate to Phil, it's more than just a dot; is that difficult to see? (If so, my apologies, which, if he also misunderstood, I'll pass on to Phil.)

When I left the message I didn't know that edit would be Phil's last edit (for the time being).

I'd appreciate your counsel on whether my concern above about Phil's editing pattern is mistaken; thanks! David (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's not just a dot; it's a dot with span tags around it. I still don't see the problem, as as far as I know span tags work on articles. I seriously do not see the problem. Perhaps you'd like to explain it to me? _JD^talk 17:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the or the tags (more compact, so I'd say preferable for subst:ing), it's the   preceding them; this is what I was pointing to in my statement "The primary rationale for {{·}} is linewrap management, so it replaces (say)  ·..." on Phil's talk page. Using   in this way prevents the separator character (whether a middot, bullet, etc) from appearing at the start of a wrapped line, i.e. it assists in formatting the template appearance.
Suggest placing {{·}} after an item rather than  · or  · or  • or • etc desirable as:

it's the most compact here and hopefully the least perturbing to non-coders;
if consensus desires a different separator character, spacing, etc, it's one or two changes at a single template rather than many across many templates.

This is what I'd happily discuss with Phil, but he continued editing without discussion or acknowledgement...

I'm puzzled that you seem to have no advice about my read of Phil's editing pattern...? David (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't continue to edit. He stopped editing six minutes before you left him a message. Threatening to block a person because they're not editing is way out of line, and substituting the template does nothing to affect the end result. What's so special about {{·}} that will stop people from removing it from an edit box if they see it instead of •? I've seen articles with more code that would be much better off on a separate page, see Australia for one. Seriously, unless you have anything new here that's going to convince me that a block is necessary or that substituting this template is a bad thing, just drop it now. _JD^talk 18:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if you're seeing the same history, J Di; my first message to Phil was at 12:40, the second at 13:19 and the third at 15:40 before my bold message at 16:30... After an initial response at 13:05, Phil continued editing without further acknowledgement...

I don't feel a block is necessary. I'm just puzzled by Phil's lack of response after 13:05. Perhaps a message to say I was reverting his related edits in lieu of further response might've been better advised...? Yours, David Kernow (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I'm not surprised. All this seems petty; you're telling Phil Boswell to stop substituting a template when there's nothing wrong with what he is doing. You haven't actually given any good reason for why this template shouldn't be substituted, and you've threatened to block him because he hasn't replied to your message. I don't even care that he didn't reply to your message; I'm telling you to drop it. Now. _JD^talk 19:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you think I haven't given any good reason to reconsider subst:ing. Thanks, though, for your concern. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection[edit]

Thanks. I was handling a persistent IP vandal so I couldn't respond earlier. Gdo01 17:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ClutchFans[edit]

What more do you want????? I had the thread where the creation of a ClutchFans article was discussed linked to the images. I then have the EXACT post where the owner of the sight praises the work. Now I have added both links. What more is needed???? (Lil Pun 20:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I need a link to something where the website's owner specifically says that the images are freely licensed. If you can't do that, the images would have to be used under fair use, and they need a fair use rationale in that case. If neither can be produced, the images get deleted. _JD^talk 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing out numbers over ten[edit]

In more formal prose, all numbers under 100 are written out in words. In the manual of style, we compromised on wording that numbers that can be written out as two words or less "may" be written out. See [3]. You may notice, for example, that in the most formal prose such as in wedding invitations or legal text, numbers are always written out fully, regardless of how long it is. —Centrx→talk • 02:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Geyer[edit]

Geez mate, there is no need to yell like an old bludger. The only reason I have put that up there is because I've contacted the administrators because of some of the vandalism that has been happening on the page. See for yourself. It was also a way to scare away some of the vandals so next time you decide to be rude to someone, think clearly of the possibilites those editors are trying to do. Good Day to you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaggy9872004 (talk • contribs) 06:11, November 17, 2006 (UTC)

The Wedge (TV Show)[edit]

Hi, How are you mate? This is concerning 'The Wedge (TV Show) CAn you please stop re-eneterin '...and Criticsm' into the name. It's not very appropriate for the article. One word is enough to make this a neutral article. Thanks! —shaggy9872004 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaggy9872004 (talk • contribs) 10:04, November 18, 2006 (UTC)

Sign your comments with four tildes. The section includes criticism, so the section heading should include this. If you have a problem with this, discuss it on the talk page; don't revert it. _JD^talk 10:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has criticsm on it, but it also has the reaction of the media on it, therefore it would be better as it was than now + not everybody has to discuss when they want to edit. Wikipedia has said if you don't want your work editted mercilessly then don't post it. Thank you! Shaggy9872004 10:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know how Wikipedia works. You've just said yourself that the section has criticism in it, so the section heading should be left to show this. Leave it as it is or discuss it on the talk page. _JD^talk 10:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you know how wiki works then you would know what I said on my last comment was true. From the shadows of 'Reaction' suddenly we have to deliberately put in an '...and criticsm', why? Thank! Shaggy9872004 10:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already told you why. Discuss it on the talk page if you disagree. _JD^talk 10:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you? Thank you! Shaggy9872004 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't I what? _JD^talk 10:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you discuss, it doesn't have to always be me! Thanks! Shaggy9872004 22:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do discuss. I left a comment on the talk page, and I haven't received a reply. I also discussed here with you, but I get the feeling you don't really care about what I have to say. _JD^talk 22:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do care what you've got to say, believe or not I want to be friends with you, but to signed up like I'm being stalked or something by anonymus person is just too much. I don't see the other guys having to discuss everthing they want to edit. Thanks Once Again! Shaggy9872004 22:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You think I'm stalking you? Believe it or not, people have been editing the articles you edit long before you registered on Wikipedia; and I have quite a few articles on my watchlist that I don't edit but still like to keep an eye on. If you're going to make a controversial edit, or something that somebody is opposed to, it's a good idea to discuss it so that you don't get into an edit war. Using the fact that other editors don't discuss their edits before committing them is not an excuse to copy them. If your edit gets reverted, discuss it on the talk page and wait for consensus; don't revert it back. It might be a good idea to read WP:3RR and WP:BB _JD^talk 22:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedge (TV show) and WP:3RR warning[edit]

PLease stop the edit war on the section headings and discuss the matter on the talk page. You have also reached the WP:3RR limit and could be blocked for 24hours. Gnangarra

RfA thanks[edit]

Thankyou for the support!

I'd like to express my huge thanks to you, J di, for your support in my recent RfA, which closed with 100% support at 71/0/1. Needless to say, I am very suprised at the huge levels of support I've seen on my RfA, and at the fact that I only had give three answers, unlike many other nominees who have had many, many more questions (such as yourself)! I'll be careful with my use of the tools, and invite you to tell me off if I do something wrong! Thanks, M a rtinp23 14:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Cameron Stout[edit]

Hi! I would be interested to know your reasons for reverting my edit to this article. IE: why you changed my reversing of the recent changing of Camerons name to the American style of using his surname rather than his first name, as it was since the article was first started? Richard Harvey 19:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my edit summary, read WP:MOSBIO. This section says that surnames should be used, as the use of forenames gives the impression that the writer knows the article's subject personally. _JD^talk 19:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! Unfortunately your edit summary didn't show up on my watchlist, due to you having done more than one edit to the article. No problem :) RE: Know him? You should have seen that photo before I cropped it! It was taken the night he returned to the island after he won Big Brother!!Richard Harvey 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second season of The Wedge[edit]

In regards to this edit summary left on an edit made to The Wedge (TV show): Yes, it doesn't have written source but Kate Jenkinson has said that they would start filming in September, where exactly did she say this? Would I be able to listen to her saying it? _JD^talk 09:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you buy the second season of Thank God You're Here you can probably here her say it. And though it's not very reliable, Imdb also says it's in production. Here's a link: [4] Thanks! Shaggy9872004 09:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably? Probably isn't good enough, and if this has been in production since September, I'd expect to see at least one Internet source by now. I'm changing what's in the article so that what's there is verifiable. _JD^talk 09:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I said probably I was trying to be sincre and have you seen the IMDB link? I will revert your edits if you change the article. That is unless you want to this to result in an endless edit war. Shaggy9872004 09:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you before, if I post a message on your talk page, reply on your talk page. It's not difficult to do. It would appear that you're the one doing the reverting. I trust you've read WP:3RR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Text that is well-sourced should not be removed without a good reason, and you have failed to supply one. This revert was uncalled for, and I am asking that you self-revert before it is reverted by somebody else. _JD^talk 09:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phase change heat pump[edit]

J Di: the redirect to Heat pump is intentional and after discussion/comment period. Please turn off your (automatic?) undos. 129.237.114.171 18:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Phase change heat pump has only been reverted once. Any other reverts of your edits are not being done by me. _JD^talk 18:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting a userpage[edit]

You recently protected User:FisherQueen because of repeated new user vandalism, but, as is common with some of our best vandal fighters, FisherQueen enjoys the puerile defacement of her page. (I know I do! 55 vandalism edits and counting.) Per her request, I've unprotected the page. I don't think this counts as wheel-warring (god I hope not) but I thought I should let you know. -- Merope 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People enjoy that?! Man... _JD^talk 19:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, you don't enjoy misspelled homophobic insults that don't bother to take your gender identification into consideration? Because I love the accusation that I "suxxor cock" or whatever the kids say nowadays. Cheers. -- Merope 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert. It really amuses me when they do that... my little payment for a job well done.-FisherQueen 21:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note[edit]

Concerning Image:Scream (1996 film) poster.jpg, please read speedy deletion guidelines again. Especially I6. Best, feydey 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the speedy deletion guidelines, and tagging that image was a mistake. _JD^talk 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Image:Fw1DVD.jpg too, better go back and check others also... feydey 20:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've made a few mistakes. Everybody does. Gimmie a break. _JD^talk 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

happy Turkey-Day!!!![edit]

I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandizi^ŋ! --Randfan _{please talk talk to me!}

Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Rand fan !!

Cheers! :) —Rand fan !! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Hello[edit]

I'm currently undergoing an Editor review, and am trying to get a large amount of replies. I am sending messages to those who left me a message on my talk page as a way of getting the word out. I encourage you to add your two cents to the review! Thanks for your time, and Happy Thanksgiving! FireSpike Editor Review! 20:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:SpiderManLenticular.gif[edit]

Image:SpiderManLenticular.gif is a fair use image; it can't go on your user page. _JD^talk 21:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now reverted, thanks for the heads-up. Shame, it is a really good image. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedge (TV show)[edit]

Hi J Di, may I ask what you are doing with the page? Thanks Shaggy9872004 10:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may ask, but you aren't going to get an answer. _JD^talk 10:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Shaggy9872004 10:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't want to. _JD^talk 10:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should at least give users a small summary before you make a major edit. Shaggy9872004 10:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did. _JD^talk 10:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Karate High School[edit]

why shouldnt it be on wikipedia. bands that have done less and are currently defunct are on wikipedia. there is no reason to delete karate high school. they are a band, on a lable, that has published material and is touring. JoshDinger 20:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One EP isn't normally enough to make a band notable. Read WP:N and WP:BAND. _JD^talk 20:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously! on deletion review[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Seriously!. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SamFan64 (talk • contribs) 21:11, November 24, 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Contraband[edit]

Why did you say this page did not exist? I wrote it, and i'd know! Eli Tuberg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.243.43.253 (talk • contribs) 22:38, November 24, 2006 (UTC)

The deletion log says that the page has never been deleted, and as this is red, it doesn't exist right now. I can't see anything in your most recent contributions that looks like this page, so I can't say what's happened to it, unless you tried to create the article when you weren't logged in. _JD^talk 22:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page[edit]

Thanks for catching that. Michaelbusch 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage Revert[edit]

Thanks for clearing my user page, much appreciated. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 23:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for reverting up those untrue stupiditys made by likely the same person under diffrent IP addresses. I've put my talk page under request for semi-protection due to concerns of harrassment here. I'm also concern this could be the same person then User:64.235.216.166 who've vandalized my user page earlier this week.--JForget 23:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What...[edit]

Are you trying to do?... with the T.S.O.L. image?? It was taken from an event poster, which is a form of promotional image, thus fair use. - Deathrocker 11:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image needs a fair use rationale. I left a message on your talk page; if you read that, you'd know what you need to do. _JD^talk 11:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding PHPCow[edit]

There is a new account: publishing created for editing the PHPCow article as phpcow.com user was marked as spam.

Please edit the page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHPCow and make appropriate changes to remove the comment box —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Publishing (talk • contribs) 17:21, November 25, 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking me to do, but if it's to remove the AfD notice from PHPCow, the answer's no. _JD^talk 17:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the reason? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Publishing (talk • contribs) 17:32, November 25, 2006 (UTC)

The AfD notice is on the article to inform people of the current discussion. The notice will be removed after the discussion, if the article isn't deleted. _JD^talk 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to solve the problem. Its over month i'm having problems with that damn page whereas there is NO spam NOthing that violates Wiki terms.

please approve the article and remove any comment box there or forward the case to admin. Isn't Wikipedia supporting us at all?

I just can't understand why others were approved but we can not. there is nothing special on that page. nothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Publishing (talk • contribs) 17:40, November 25, 2006 (UTC)

The article hasn't existed for "over a month"; it's existed for eighteen days. Administrators don't "approve" articles, and I'm not going to remove the AfD notice while there is an ongoing AfD discussion. _JD^talk 17:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username block (I'll spare you the name)[edit]

You're fast! (and I screwed up the template on AIV the first time(s)) ;) Dina 18:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Genetic Alliance[edit]

I do not undertand why this article was deleted. It is like many other articles about 501 (c) (3) organizations in Wikipedia - it allows individuals trying to understand the international advocacy and disease support world to find support.

Comperable articles that are in Wikipedia are: March of Dimes American Cancer Society

and so on - why has this one been deleted? Sfterry 20:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the articles you're comparing the one you wrote to. Read WP:N, WP:CORP, and WP:SPAM. _JD^talk 22:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I undertsand that. My stub was less than a few hours old. I am new and it takes time to do this correctly. Will administrators keep deleting it within a few hours without giving us a chance to get it right? I read that only vandalism is deleted immediately. I thought I had time to work on it.Sfterry 00:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the first revision asserts notability, an administrator shouldn't speedy delete the article. _JD^talk 00:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use[edit]

You keep telling me my TV screenshots do not have a "fair use rational", but the information I put on the image page is exactly the same as the information I find on other TV screenshots (eg. source, template, description). What exactly does a "fair use rational" look like? Kogsquinge 23:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image apparently has a good fair use rationale. _JD^talk 23:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

...for rvv on my user page. amitch 01:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..and again. amitch ^(talk) 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL U GUYS R RETARDS!!!!! BY JOHN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maddypenguin (talk • contribs) 09:49, November 27, 2006 (UTC)

Putting Salt on a Snail[edit]

So that sort of thing qualifies as a speedy? I thought it might, but I just wanted to be sure. Thanks :) riana_dzasta 12:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Welcome[edit]

Oooops, I already have a user page but forgot to sign in! Im useually User:Mostly Zen Thanks - 80.195.196.38 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Unspecified source for Image:Gogostop.jpg[edit]

Just a quick thnaks for bringing this to my attention. I guess I forgot to put in the source. Thanks for letting me know --Whats new? / Talk 11:52, 28 November 2006. (AEDT)

Karl Marx request[edit]

Could you please revert MY edit in that page?.

Y reverted an obvious case of vandalism, but I forgot I am currently operating from a "filtered" Internet access, that truncated some words.

Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Randroide 15:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted back to my last revision. _JD^talk 15:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What´s now the next step with User_talk:Ritchie4002? Randroide 15:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them indefinitely. _JD^talk 15:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did the right thing. Thank you. But I am not an admin. What should I once I´ve found someone in the situation of Ritchie4002?. Randroide 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section of Wikipedia:Vandalism has information on how to deal with vandals. _JD^talk 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thank you, sir. Randroide 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

For reverting my userpage after it was vandalized. FireSpike Editor Review! 02:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Geyer[edit]

May I ask: 'Why you put that AfD on the page?'. The page has nothing wrong with it, I don't see you putting it on other idol's pages. Shaggy9872004 09:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've put it on eight others as well. My reasons for nominating the articles for deletion are on the nomination page. _JD^talk 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dean is noticable for his modelling for calendars... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaggy9872004 (talk • contribs) 09:13, November 29, 2006 (UTC)

Being in a calendar doesn't make a person notable. _JD^talk 09:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least he has had more publicity and achievement than the others except Damien Leith. Shaggy9872004 09:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean he's notable enough for an article, and it's probably your own point of view as well. _JD^talk 09:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging[edit]

No, it's driven off the dates of the database dumps - and hence is not 100% accurate. See Template_talk:Unreferenced#This_should_be_a_deletion_template for more discussion. Rich Farmbrough, 09:29 29 November 2006 (GMT).

Block this IP[edit]

J Di, can u please block this IP, it has attacked 'The Wedge' Countless times already, 203.101.232.240 Shaggy9872004 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can block that IP. _JD^talk 09:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wow, I can't beleieve it, we actually got through a 'conversation' without arguing.Shaggy9872004 09:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No Personal Attacks"[edit]

No personal attacks

With regards to your comments on Talk:Australian Idol: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; 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. JDtalk 09:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. JDtalk 11:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

--In response to your vandalism on my user page, I only made 2 messages that were even close to a personal attack. And they were both posted at least 3-4 days before your 'first' warning that you put all over my profile page. You can'[t give someone 2 warnings in a row for one thing, and then say the first one was the first and the second one was the last. Keep a lid on your temper.What do you mean its my last warning, guh... I'd say you're a bit full of yourself mate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SilverNightFire (talk • contribs) 10:44, November 29, 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that if you continue, I'll block you myself. Comments like this and this should not be made by anybody. The two warnings were for these comments, and they are not vandalism. If you continue being uncivil towards other users, you will be indefinitely blocked. _JD^talk 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Normandy[edit]

Your recent edit to Normandy (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 13:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

Your recently blocked TheBigBadWolf for personal comments he made on my user page for which I am thankful. However, someone called TheBiggerBadWolf has now written "No you didn't faggy. Ha. You can't stop me! Viltry the Sock Puppeteer continues his work! pwned J Di, pwned. And you can block this account =] It won't stop me xD Have fun!". Is there anything you can do about it? Thanks. -- Random2502 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them. I'll put your user talk page on my watchlist. _JD^talk 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Random2502 22:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Movie revert[edit]

Thanks for the message. I explained my initial revert as "Rv: The trailer page is already linked to, the newspaper info is irrelevant; The joke isn't that they will kill the people in the front row of the theater, it's that they don". The end is cut off because I accidentally saved the page before I was done typing. If in your caution at the top of this page you meant that you'd prefer I reply on my own talk page, I apologize. _si»abhorreo»^T 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

disabling the javascript change for lowercase titles[edit]

You can now disable the bit of javascript code I added by putting this in your monobook.js:

disableRealTitle = 1;

If there's a reason that this might be needed, and it's something reasonable others agree with, I'd be happy to tweak the code to address it. But as I said, once the title is changed to be lowercase, the {{lowercase}} message seems to be redundant at that point. --Interiot 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning[edit]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Shaggy9872004 09:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even touched 3RR; you're the person reverting without discussing. Maybe you should look at the talk page before trying to warn me in future. _JD^talk 09:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]