User talk:Jkelly: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:19, 7 April 2006

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

illuminatus

hi, i think you missed my question about "cognitive dissonance"? basically i need more guidance about what exactly is wrong with this sentence : "The trilogy is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, with an absurdist plot built of seemingly plausible, if unprovable, components." is the "cognitive dissonance" thing really an opinion? just seems like the right word to describe a story that throws multiple viable & contradictory viewpoints at you. its not intended to speculate about it. Zzzzz 21:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i also added a citation to the sentence. but dont know if this is what you were objecting to? can you give me feedback? cheers. Zzzzz 11:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closed Deletions

Nopers, no hard feelings. I hadn't known it was deleted, but I recieved word yesterday about it. LOL, it's cool, no worries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geimhreadh (talk • contribs)

Category:Hilary Duff singles

I guess that the editors who created them looked at other articles and thought that the rule of thumb was to title them like that. Or, in the case of Beat of My Heart, it was originally created there, then when I merged and redirected it it was recreated at Beat of My Heart (song), and then when I merged and redirected that one it was recreated again at Beat of My Heart (Hilary Duff song). :-( Extraordinary Machine 17:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FARC

I have no idea how I managed to blank most of Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates, but thanks for putting the rest of it back! -- ALoan (Talk) 01:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the message on my user page. Nice of you to leave it - Oliverkroll 18:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Image

There was no process. There is no reason that has been brought to my attention to remove the image. Weatherman90 00:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)==[reply]

Angels Third Party

Wondering if you could take a look at angels and the corresponding talk page, seems like consensus is one thing and it keeps getting switched, figure you'll know better than I.Serlin 05:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien FAC

I wanted to let you know that the article on Tolkien now has 62 properly formatted sources, up from 2 poorly formatted ones, just so you know in case you want to reconsider your vote. Thanks much!! Judgesurreal777 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek copyright

I don't know for sure. I'll see if I can find out. --Latinus 15:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYROM etc.

In Greece, you recently corrected "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" to "Republic of Macedonia", following WP policy. Another user asked me for a precise reference of the statement of WP policy on this matter, and I'm afraid I couldn't find it. Perhaps it would be good in edit comments to point to the policy decision to avoid fruitless edit wars. --Macrakis 22:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving?

Hi, you archived Talk:Macedonians (ethnic group). Where did you archive it to, I can't find it? --Latinus 18:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic Traditionalism

I've done some very significant and "bold" editing of the Gaelic Traditionalism article. I'm telling you because I value your input. It has consistently focused on improving the content and form of the article. Anyway, if you have a chance to pop by and give some feedback, I'd appreciate it. It's more NPOV now. Not perfect, but much better, IMHO. I hope no one screams that I've eviscerated it but it needed drastic editing work to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards as I understand them. I believe what remains is a relatively workable core article. I've also archived a good bit of the talk page so it isn't such a monster to navigate. --Mac 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bitola

Do you think you could have a word with him? His latest sock has just gone on a mass trolling spree [1] and got another block [2]. I know (strongly suspect) it's User:Bitola because of the fact that a whois check reveals that this IP is in the same range (dynamic IP pool) as the one he signed his name with - not to mention the fact that when I communicated my suspicions to him, he didn't deny it. I appreciate that a block may be upsetting (I don't know, I've never been blocked - yet?), but he's compromising the integrity of the encyclopaedia and is making (bordeline) personal attacks. Could you have a word with him. Thanks in advance. --Latinus 00:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'm still trying to find the info about Greek copyrights - I can't expect an answer over the weekend. --Latinus 00:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Bitola's discussion page. Bitola 09:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message about my comments on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Okay, I'll quit my so-called "disruptive" comments. Not because I think my behavior was wrong or abusive, but because it probably won't succeed in changing anyone's mind. Please, do me one favor ... read the Protocol article once more and look at the caricature of a Jew in this image that the article includes: Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion_1943_Poland_Poznan.gif (14KB, MIME type: image/gif). It depicts a Jew as grossly obese, with a large hooked nose, and bags of ill-gotten money in his hands. I consider that vile image to be "a personal attack" on me. In fact, I consider much of that article to be "a personal attack" on me. Can you understand that? I was born in the USA, I fought in a war for the USA, I have lived all my life in the USA ... and I have been called "a dirty Jew" more often than I care to remember. I repeat, can you understand that? Can you understand my wanting to protest that "personal attack"? I would be interested in your answer. Regards, - mbeychok 03:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serbophobia

I see you once voted "delete" on the AfD page for "Serbophobia". The article survived the vote, but has since been relisted due to obvious violations of WP:NOR WP:Notability Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and WP:POINT. Please go here and vote. Asim Led 18:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

in fact I admire jewishes, i wish modern greeks were acting as jewishes. BUT setting as a featured article the protocols, is provocative and its a propaganda. (i cant even imagine a featured article such as e.g. "macedonia was is and will be greek forever, slav macedonians are bad, americans are bad, european union is bad, everyone is bad etc" on wikipedia's first page.) thats my opinion and obviously not only mine, i respect and admire jewish power, but im not gonna shut up cuz i believe in democracy, and whoever doesnt believe in democracy and believes in facism, can block me--Feta 21:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

Agreed. I feel that the article has improved. In the next couple of days I'd expect more of the same on the talk page because the link is still on Main pg. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel dispute

Bonsoir Jkelly,

I am responding to your posting on my talk page regarding the dispute with User:Tasc over Israel and units of measure. I tried to demonstrate my point and reasons to him at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conversions as requested. There were a couple of other users who tended to agree with my edits and the reasoning behind them. However, Tasc continued to revert any changes that I made (3 times). I have since asked for mediation in this matter at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-20 Israel. My question to you, as an admin, can you revert the article back to my edit with instructions not to change pending the outcome of the mediation? That way readers can see my changes and agree or disagree with them? Merci MJCdetroit 01:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response on my talk page. Merci beaucoup, MJCdetroit 02:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion—Talk:Israel#infobox. MJCdetroit 03:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical help

Hey can you point out to me what I'm doing wrong here... I archived more text at Talk:Gaelic Traditionalism, but the link to the new archive is red and immediately opens up an edit window when you click it - I obviously missed a step. Do you know what I did wrong? Thanks for your help. --WeniWidiWiki 18:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, there must have been some sort of lag or I was looking at a cached version. Wiki is going really slow on my end today, lots of time outs. Thanks! --WeniWidiWiki 19:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiccan rede

The copyright is no different from the standard version. There is no clear claim to authorship, since it's supposed to have been passed down through geberations. It was not attributed to an author when published. It is assumed to have been supplied by Ed Buczynski (1947-1989), a former Thompson initate, who passed it on to Herman Slater (1938-1992), who was the publisher of ERN. Paul B 00:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action needed

I'm relatively new here but I noticed you are an administrator that is interested in articles concerning Macedonians, so I decided to inform you about this. 195.93.21.133 just made an interesting comment on the Republic of Macedonia discussion page [3]. Until that comment, 195.93.21.133 made about 100 edits [4] and most of them were reverted because of vandalism. The edits that he made were mostly minor, sometimes he changed only 1 letter, wich leads to the conclusion that he was doing it to gain a voting priviledge. I'm still not fully familiar with many wikipedia policies so I'm not sure if I'm right to ask for this IP to be blocked. Anyway I demand that some kind of action be taken, since it's clear that 195.93.21.133 is a vandal and probably a sockpuppet who is trying to gain 50 edits to be eligable to vote in polls. Regards --Realek 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin intervention and WP:PA

Hi Jkelly, I wonder if I can ask for your advice or intervention. I became concerned about the article on Slavoj Zizek becoming disproportionately filled with non-notable criticisms, and made some comments about it on the talk page. User:Ramanpotential, apparently editing as both his own username, as User:ShowsOn, and as an IP address User:58.160.223.124, quickly resorted to escalating personal attacks in response to my concern. I deliberately mostly refrained from editing the article itself at all pending some input from other editors, but I suppose I can also be a bit bristly on talk pages.

I think maybe this is all motivated by some animosity toward the underlying article subject, but it's hard to know for sure. In any case, the personal attacks make it very difficult for me to try to productively work on the article, or sort out the issues of "undue weight" that I see in the article. Maybe a few intervening words from you would help (especially being an admin with potentially greater interventionary powers). Or maybe just some good advice to me that I should chill out :-). All the best, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not User:58.160.223.124 and would welcome whatever processes can be employed to prove this. My current IP address is 192.168.1.3. User:58.160.223.124 is a friend and collegue of mine, however, who is new to Wikipedia and while we are like-minded in our opinion of Zizek I have not been happy with some of his behaviour and am currently trying to encourage him to register a username and familiarise himself more with Wikipedia's etiquette.

Secondly, I cannot see anything on the WP:PA page which supports Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's claim that I have attacked him, and would ask him to cite whatever part of it he believes does so. His threats to get me blocked certainly do not seem to be in the spirit of Wikipedia. Ramanpotential 09:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petra-founders-2004.jpg

Hi. Hope you're doing fine. You deleted this picture I uploaded recently. However, I've been given a release by the webmaster and the owner of the picture to use it. How can I proved that here next time I upload another picture from his site? Thief12 03:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Tell them to try again. I twas out for abrief time this morning and that was when they must have tried to e-mail me. Thanks. P.S. Yes, there was a very serious problem.Gator (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wot, me an admin?

File:1000000eme.jpg

Another newly produced robot thanks you for your handiwork, and excuses himself while he practices his new abilities. Back in action soon! -- Hoary 09:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the invitation or honor or whatever it may be. Yes, I'm willing to be an admin. (For some time I confused "administrator" with "arbitrator", and having looked in horror and disbelief at arbitration proceedings, I wanted to have none of that!)

There's one thing that worries me, though: two of the three examples that you give. The example of restoration after vandalism is OK; it's the other two. I don't think that Winnermario made a "personal attack": he (she?) just had a minor explosion of irritation. Yes, I stayed cool, but there's a whiff of sarcasm about my coolth: while I don't regret what I wrote, I wouldn't claim it as exemplary. As for "helping out with dispute resolution", I think that yes, I was attempting to do this in the long run, but the diff that you give is of my advocacy of one side in a dispute. Worse, the latter two examples are both in response to one user, Winnermario. I disagreed with him at the time and was sure he was wrong and I was right; but I also supposed that he honestly believed that I was wrong and he was right -- though his edits irritated me at times, I didn't regard him as a vandal, troll, or similar, and wouldn't be happy if people got the impression that I did regard him in this way.

Might I persuade you to reconsider the details of your nomination? -- Hoary 02:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a second time. I've dutifully answered the questions, done the transcluding, etc. Now I'll sit back and watch the ensuing carnival! -- Hoary 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hectorian

I apologise:(...but there have been many real vandalisms in Alexander the Great's article lately and when i rv-ed them i was writting (as i should) 'rv vandalism'.this time,the history of my browser(when i wrote 'rv' appeared 'rv vandalism') cheated me, and i clicked it...I should had been more careful:(... --Hectorian 02:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50 cent image

It is in fact part of the creative commons-- the email that makes this clear is on the image's page. Please kindly remove that tag. Thank you.--Urthogie 07:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reason to believe they own the image because they are sourced as the holders of the image on all other sites that hold the image. Why is commons-nc a speedy delete?--Urthogie 09:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That makes sense-- but can you explain how I could put the lists in prose format. They don't seem to lend themselves to prose. I just want to get your support on this FA Nomination before it fades out.--Urthogie 17:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of 150-year-old print

Hey, Jkelly. I don't understand the image copyright notice you've posted on Giano's talkpage or the nosource tag you put on the image page. What is the problem? The image description page is and was appropriately tagged with {{PD-art}} and there's a note stating that it's from a 150-year-old print and hence Public Domain by virtue of age. It looks from your message (a form message, I guess?) as if you want the image description page to also contain info about who created it. Wtf? 19th century prints are anonymous, one hardly ever knows who created them—but hey, it's 150 years old! The images I have uploaded myself are generally tagged either {{PD-art}} or {{PD-old}}, because I also write articles about old stuff. Could you let me know if there's something wrong with my image info also? The only difference is that I can generally refer to an URL or a published book as the source I've gotten the image from (because I don't collect old prints the way Giano does). Of course these old pictures have nothing to do with Fair Use, and no Fair Use claim is made: they're Public Domain because they're old. Is there some magic or obligatory way of expressing this that we've both missed? Bishonen talk 08:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Many of them are scans of old prints etc. I have collected, but they are mostly far from rare, the 1830/40s were the beginning of mass production. I don't want to put my name and private address as their source for obvious reasons! I have returned to the image's own page and given a slightly more detailed description thus I think all images are now more clearly described for you. Where an artist is anonymous but publishing work in the 1820's I hope you will agree with me that he will have been dead for over 100 years. These images are also uploaded from England where copyright of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (including a photograph) lasts only until 70 years after the death of the author. But that is hypothetical anyway as these artists have all been dead over 100 years. I hope you are now able to resupport. While I am here and you seem to know about the subject, I am planning to write a page to FA standard about the Victorian printer George Baxter (he developed colour printing as opposed to hand tinting and died in the 1850s) as I am fortunate enough to own one of the largest collections of his work in Europe, how can I upload never before published images and examples of his work, of which I own the only known example without losing my anonymity - or can't it be done - because for all anyone knows I could be just producing them myself - do you see the problem - A few experts will know instantly who owns them, but I don't want it common knowledge - I'm interested in your view. Giano | talk 09:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion

Why did you delete the Dorthe Holm image? It was sourced! I clearly labelled it as IOC. This is the source. Now I have to re-upload the image, jerk. --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Dkwong323

I have a very strong suspicion this user may be Kasey Kassem. Just take a look at his contributions, he only edits the American Pie (song) page. For some strange reason it seems to be his favorite!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.192.215 (talk • contribs)

Your image deletion practices

Hi Jkelly. I've been idly snooping about looking at the kinds of images you delete in your quest to enforce the WP copyright policies as you understand them. Unfortunately, I've concluded that your understanding of both these policies and US copyright law itself are deeply flawed. I have no action planned at the moment, but when my own schedule lightens up and I have read a bit more about Jimbo's latest expressed views on the matter, I will almost certainly ask for some form of roundtable about these deletion practices, focusing on you and one or two other Admins... There's no personal hostility here, but I do believe your practices are seriously sacrificing the quality of this encyclopedia for vanishingly small, or even no, gains in insulation from lawsuits. I've left this message as a courtesy, so you can perhaps begin preparing your justification. I didn't want to just spring this on you and have you involved in mediation without adequate preparation time. Thanks. Jim Tour 08:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rapping article

I updated the page to reflect all but one of your suggestions. See featured article nomination. Thanks, --Urthogie 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our Gang (and rapping)

Can you keep an eye on this article (or list it at the admins' messageboard)? There's a quack who apparently thinks, because some pictures in the German Wikipedia article on Our Gang were improperly tagged and deleted, that all of the pictures in the English one should be deleted, too.

On a lighter note, how're you doing these days. --FuriousFreddy 05:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't see that nomination. I did some cleanup work on that article in the beginning (mostly grammar/copyediting and formatting, but a lot of it), but I'd hoped that Urthogie wouldn't try and nominate it for FAC in that state (short, listy, and non-comprehensive). I don't think I can vote on the article, because I've made substantive edits, and I really don't have all of that free time to dedicate to trying to fix it up (that's what I get for getting a job that actually makes me do work). But, no; it's not feature quality. The thing is -- I wouldn't know where to start in properly cleaning it up. It's like writing an article on poetry, only your sources are going to be a lot less reliable and comprehensive. I honestly don't know if we can produce even a good article on rapping (just the practice of putting rhyming words together, which is what the article is meant ot focus on) without heaping amounts of original research (and yes, much of the content of the article is indeed original research). There just hasn't been that much outside study put into the subject.--FuriousFreddy 02:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a personal attack

You have reacted quite promptly on my recent outburst of hate. I just wanted to say that I have reported on WP:ANI and to several administrators User:Hatchet and his deeds, and I haven't got a reply. He goes against WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:POINT. Consider that if you don't have any other work to do then warning users who post messages to other users. Death2 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC

I do not know if i should place my comment here or in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR .Inanna, does not participate in dialogues.on the contrary, when her edit was reverted, she attacked another article(with no sources at all) for the only reason that i am Greek [5]. not to mention the comments that she has made to the users who reverted her(apart from me). --Hectorian 03:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,thank u.i will read the policies and how these things work and i will see what i can do.Thanks again! --Hectorian 03:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Claudel

Well, I don't really think that the licensing to that picture is going to change the world. It's not as if the school could sell it and make millions. I understand your concern however and will quit being a stubborn mule as I see I am out-stubborned.

I'd like to say that this is site a real asset to the composium of Human knowledge and I am really impressed that even the slightest of details is monitered with such vigilance. I am pleased and yet, anxious, that perhaps the trully free flow of information may be limited so easily. I do not expect anything to change though, it is completely understandable for Wikipedia to CIA (Cover It's A**): copyright is a fundament of liberal society and is inviolable, for now.

I'm awed that you are so darned thorough,

Many thanks for a great job,

(Inexorable 04:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Stevenson Staff.jpg

The above image was nominated for deletion. I was about to delete it, but it is not obvious to me that you were ever informed about the nomination. The nomination was due to "questionable status". I will hold off on deleting the image for a while in the hopes that you can respond and clarify if you are the author of the image. Jkelly 01:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me. Actually, I don't remember where I got the image. When I first started editing, I was really involved with school articles and I was helping various other Wikipedians write quality articles about their schools. I did not take the picture myself, but I think I got it off the school's website. If I did, though, the picture has since been removed from their website. I hope this clarifies things. --M @th wiz 20 20 16:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed replacement/update for "band" infoboxes

I have created a proposal for a new music artist infobox, Template:Infobox musical artist 2, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines. Let me know what you think of it. Thanks. --FuriousFreddy 23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rapping featured article nomination

Heya. I think I've addressed all of your concerns on the featured article nomination for rapping. Could you vote support if I have, and explain what still needs to be done, if I haven't? Thanks, --Urthogie 22:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POLL: Introduction for Republic of Macedonia article

Hello! Given ongoing discussions and recent edit warring – and with the hope of resolving this issue – you might be interested in a poll currently underway to decide the rendition of the lead for the Republic of Macedonia article. Please weigh in! --Aldux 15:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V and the Bob Dylan article

No good deed goes unpunished, it seems; I've just finished cleaning up the Dylan links section at your suggestion, and had pulled notes together in preparation for bringing the article into compliance with the tougher verifiability standards that have been developed over recent months -- as you noted a while back, the article is almost completely unreferenced, even though published sources should be easy to provide for all significant points.However, User:JDG, with whom we both have clashed, has returned and restarted old and apparently settled editing disputes, inserting several significant blocks of unsourced, often-disputed text. Would you be willing to respond to my recent comments about verifiability issues on the article talk page (supportively, I hope)? Monicasdude 09:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JK-- do you from your side encourage Mdude's use of you as his go-to-guy? Have you seen the RFCs and now the RfAr against him? Is this the sort of fellow-traveler you want?... Please think twice before taking his case, or even backing him in a single assertion. He has a talent for playing the advocate of things like "tougher verifiability standards" while quietly breaking these ideals when it suits his own (unsourced) preferences... JK, there's something going on with you. Do you discuss WP disputes with certain people in other venues, then come here to carry out agreed-upon actions? Were you a confidante, for instance, of Jtkiefer's? (I don't know why I suspect it, but I do)... Look at what happened to him and at what is about to happen to Mdude. JDG 11:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 09:57, 7 April 2006 edit Monicasdude (talk \| contribs) 3,505 edits WP:V and the Bob Dylan article ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:19, 7 April 2006 edit undo JDG (talk \| contribs) 3,103 edits →[[WP:V]] and the [[Bob Dylan]] article: Mdude's go-to guy? Next edit →
Line 216:		Line 216:

	No good deed goes unpunished, it seems; I've just finished cleaning up the Dylan links section at your suggestion, and had pulled notes together in preparation for bringing the article into compliance with the tougher verifiability standards that have been developed over recent months -- as you noted a while back, the article is almost completely unreferenced, even though published sources should be easy to provide for all significant points.However, [[User:JDG]], with whom we both have clashed, has returned and restarted old and apparently settled editing disputes, inserting several significant blocks of unsourced, often-disputed text. Would you be willing to respond to my recent comments about verifiability issues on the article talk page (supportively, I hope)? [[User:Monicasdude\|Monicasdude]] 09:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)		No good deed goes unpunished, it seems; I've just finished cleaning up the Dylan links section at your suggestion, and had pulled notes together in preparation for bringing the article into compliance with the tougher verifiability standards that have been developed over recent months -- as you noted a while back, the article is almost completely unreferenced, even though published sources should be easy to provide for all significant points.However, [[User:JDG]], with whom we both have clashed, has returned and restarted old and apparently settled editing disputes, inserting several significant blocks of unsourced, often-disputed text. Would you be willing to respond to my recent comments about verifiability issues on the article talk page (supportively, I hope)? [[User:Monicasdude\|Monicasdude]] 09:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

			JK-- do you from your side encourage Mdude's use of you as his go-to-guy? Have you seen the RFCs and now the RfAr against him? Is this the sort of fellow-traveler you want?... Please think twice before taking his case, or even backing him in a single assertion. He has a talent for playing the advocate of things like "tougher verifiability standards" while quietly breaking these ideals when it suits his own (unsourced) preferences... JK, there's something going on with you. Do you discuss WP disputes with certain people in other venues, then come here to carry out agreed-upon actions? Were you a confidante, for instance, of Jtkiefer's? (I don't know why I suspect it, but I do)... Look at what happened to him and at what is about to happen to Mdude. [[User:JDG\|JDG]] 11:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)