User talk:ShortJason

Those interested on my views on Drini, please see my user page.

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Dear ShortJason: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Samir (the scope) 01:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Those are some really POV edits on the Reaganomics article. [1] I'm guessing you don't know about the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policy. Check it out: Wp:npov There's no way something like that can stand. Also, everything needs to be sourceable from a credible source. RJII 01:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Microsoft/Copyvio[edit]

Hey, no problem :). Good job rewriting it - it just looks like a vio to some because it has a lot of unwikified paragraphs with what are apparently paragraph numbers or something. Thanks :). RN 08:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! Feel free to source the stuff :). 67.185.132.50 07:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-4 Phantom[edit]

Thanks but the FA tag was premature since the candidacy process is still going on. Please voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/F-4 Phantom II. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Smolensk (1943)[edit]

Thanks but the FA tag was premature since the candidacy process is still going on. If you think it should be an FA, please voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Smolensk_(1943). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA, regardless of how you voted. I appreciate all votes. I am going to wait until I have more edits in all namespaces. (And also improve answering impossible questions ;). Hopefully one day I will be more sucessful than it was looking, once I meet most user's voting standards. Again, thanks for your time! ~Linuxerist

E/L/T 02:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Thanks, but I won't participate in what can become nasty, abusive trials without moderation or supervision. I disagree with the process. All the same, I wish cool3 the best! Tony 16:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns with being solicited for an RfA, even in as neutral a manner as you have. I haven't solicited anyone for Robchurch's even though a few votes there being changed from oppose to support would turn the tide. So I think I'll hold off, my interactions with cool3 were only to pick a couple of his articles for DYK... you can answer here. ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising my RfA[edit]

While I appreciate your support of my RfA, I really would appreciate it if you stopped advertising it, especially on other user's talk pages, such as you have done at Danbold's. Thanks, zappa.jak e (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had to apologize for your actions on more than 10 people's talk pages - probably somewhere around 15. I ask you to please stop doing this for my RfA, and recommend you do not do this for anyone else's RfAs, as you have been doing. It is considered extremely inappropriate by some, and you may reflect badly on the RfA candidates themselves. Thank you, zappa.jak e (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double voting on my RfA[edit]

It looks as though you have accidently double voted on my RfA, you are listed as supporting me as numbers 4 and 12. HighInBC 04:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Notification (User:Griffjam)[edit]

Hi ShortJason,

I've much appreciated your notification of User:Griffjam's RfA. I interacted with him because I noticed the following (the template page is on my watch list):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AUser_0.9_equals_1&diff=55782846&oldid=55780762

and I warned him with the following notice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Griffjam#Vandalism.

He has removed some of the text (which included a similar notice by another user), anyway I assumed good faith and thought his modifications were just a consequence of being inexpert (he has created an account on May 28). You can see yourself that I won't vote in favour of his adminship. —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 08:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I wrote the above *before* going to the RfA page. His nomination has already been closed. Sorry for the noise (I guess you can remove this whole thread after reading it :)) —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 08:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA petitions[edit]

Just wanted to drop a note to express my support for your efforts. I know there are a lot of people who would oppose it, but I think that RfAs should be voted on by those who know/have interacted with the nominee, not just voting as others are and based on their comments there. Well done so far. dewet|✉ 14:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Editor Review Commentary (If You Like)[edit]

Hi. In conjunction with my RfA (that you voted on), I have created an editor review, to give people a chance to comment as to ways in which I can branch out or alter my contributions to Wikipedia. An RfA seems to solely focus on how one's temperment and contributions relate to how they might handle administrative powers (and the consensus on that seems to be that I'm not quite ready); the editor review opens things up a little more to a larger focus, and I'd love to hear community feedback in the sense of that larger focus, too. If you feel you've already expressed yourself sufficiently when casting your vote, then by all means don't worry about it, but if any thoughts come to mind or if you'd like to expound upon any suggestions or commentary, it would be appreciated. In any case, I appreciated you taking the time to express your opinion on my RfA, and I thank you for that. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

ShortJason, thank you for participating in my RfA. Unfortunately, a great number of oppose voters felt that I lacked experience, and a consensus was not reached (the final tally was 30/28/10). Perhaps I will try again in another few months when I have a few more edits under my belt. If I do, I hope I can count on your support. Thanks again! Cool3 talk 20:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

A haiku of thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support

In my RfA, which passed!

Wise I'll try to be.

-- Nataly a 04:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. The nomination ended successfully and I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Thanks[edit]

I wanted to drop a brief note on your talk page (one admittedly not written to you only, but nevertheless truly meant) to thank you for your vote in my Request for Adminship, which concluded this evening. Even though it was unsuccessful, it did make clear to me some areas in which I can improve my contributions to Wikipedia, both in terms of the areas in which I can participate and the manner in which I can participate. I do plan on, at some point in the future (although, I think, not the near future), attempting the process again, and I hope you will consider participating in that voting process as well. If you wish in the future to offer any constructive criticism to me, or if I may assist you with anything, I hope you will not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 04:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there[edit]

Thanks for commenting on my RfA...it was greatly appreciated! --Osbus 21:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA message[edit]

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude[edit]

Dude, you may wish to take down what you have on your user page. I don't like the fact the the CVU was deleted (And I fought good and hard for hours before the MfD was closed) however attacking Drini (Which is what that will be considered) is not the way to go (It wont make any differnce). Please take it down and most likey the DRV will keep the CVU deleted (I'm not going for an overturn do to the fact it will most likey not be overturned). Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 20:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. And your userpage has become an attack page in my opinion. Please remove this attack on Drini. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more an attack than voting "no" in an RfA is. ShortJason 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't vote on Wikipedia. We discuss. Also your page has been trancluded into Drini's in order to vandalise. I will ask you again to remove it. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 20:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do vote in RfAs: "Voting and expressing opinions" is a section title on the rfa page. Yes we vote. I'm sorry that Drini's page was vandalized, but I stand by what I've written and will not remove it. If you would like we can open a request for comment or go through mediation to solve this, but as Drini hasn't even ask me to remove my page, I'd hardly consider doing so at the moment. ShortJason 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Drini issue you have on your talk page is in violation of Wikipedias policy of no direct personal attacks and WP:POINT. You may have a valid complaint but your userpage is not the place to voice it. I am tagging the userbox specifically as that is not needed. SOmeone will probaslby also trag the category for deletion. I would advise you too seek a formal process such as arbcom or Wikipedia:Request for de-adminship. If nothing else this will not strengthen your side of the case. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also listed your page at WP:AN/I as a possible attack page. I felt that this was my only choice since you refused several polite requests to remove it. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 21:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:ShortJason/remove. Prodego ^talk 21:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note this disclaimer from Drini: Disclaimer:

I'm human. I perform several hundred actions each day. Once in a while I make a mistake, I apologize for them. If you tell me in a calm way where I'm mistaken, I'll fix it. perhaps if you talked to him he would explain and discuss his actions. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thank you, I'll put things on hold and do just that. ShortJason 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drini[edit]

I will support his removal. I am very dissatisfied about the recent deletion of vandal informations and other matters on Wikipedia. I feel like we are losing the War on Vandalism already. Arbiteroftruth 06:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

I've blocked this fellow indefinitely as an attack troll. He has persistently campaigned against an administrator over some imaginary grievance or other. --Tony Sidaway 00:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request[edit]

I request that you inmediately remove your anti drini page and stop spamming talk pages to rally against me. It's a clear violation of the rules and a direct attack against me. I won't hesitate to pursue further actions if you continue doing so. -- Drini 00:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticize an Admin and You Get Blocked?[edit]

I am not an attack troll, nor am I a sockpuppet of TJWhite. As anyone who looks through my contributions can see, I have made great contributions to this encyclopedia including substantial contributions to the articles on Nasser and Degas. My only crime is questioning the decisions of an administrator.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ShortJason (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have done nothing wrong

Decline reason:

This is a confirmed sockpuppet account and will remain blocked Gwernol 02:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.