Jump to content

User talk:Johnleemk/Archive8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agapetos angel (talk | contribs) at 05:37, 9 May 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page; feel free to leave any enquiries/comments/brickbats you feel like leaving here. If it necessitates a response, one will be made on your talk page instead of here. I do not usually watch Talk pages I write comments on, so I typically expect a response on this page. Thanks for co-operating.
You can add a new comment to this page here.


Hi John, you might be interested in the following that I wrote in the 6 May 2006 entry for Wikipedia:Deletion_review:


I would like to request that this article be restored.

On 15 January 2006, administrator FCYTravis, nominated the article to be deleted.

The result of the debate as announced by administrator Johnleemk on 20 January 2006 was to keep the article without any qualifications.

FCYTravis ignored the result and speedily deleted the article on 21 January 2006 [[1]].


Critic 20:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I updated all the applicable links per Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/April 2006#WP:NPOVUW .E2.86.92 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The only ones I left were links that were specifically talking about the redirect itself. I think it's ready to be deleted now. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 17:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defacing pages

I am not defacing pages. I am trying to shed light on so called facts given on this website which clearly are not true. Chinamanjoe has been spreading lies throughout this website and it is quite easy to prove that he is lying. He claims to be the great-nephew of Annie Besant, however if he were he would be over 90 years old. However on the Justin Besant page, (Chinamanjoe is Justin Besant) he makes not that he is a high school student with a few albums recently put out. There is no possible way that these two facts could both be true. Also, all of his albums are named things like Stuart or Nubice, which are both inside jokes from his high school. When searching up Justin Besant on google, you will find that the only records of him are on sites which are self-editable such as wikipedia and last.fm. There are also recent pictures of him on his last.fm website which will help support my claims. Chinamanjoe has also been deleting talk from the discussion pages in order to keep these truths about him from being put out. He is continually deleting all evidence that proves that he is not who he claims he is. I am just trying to correct the facts on this website and I am in no way vandalizing. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yofoxyman (talkcontribs) 18:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

It's my messages that are being removed from the discussion pages. Not the other way around.

are you dumb

what the fuck are you talking about. don't do what again? expose the truth and then have someone delete my messages?

obviously i have clicked the link. but you're being dumb. that is one instance out of about 30 that have happened this morning and i was merely replacing what someone else had written there in the effort that someone like a moderator would notice. now clearly one has, so instead of focussing on the one tiny issue at hand here, why don't you come out from under your rock and take a look at the big picture

Opening cases

When you open cases please use the templates at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Workshop and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 16:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it takes, please fix it. I'm tired of having to put the correct template in by hand. Fred Bauder 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks re Hero game

Thanks for alleviating my ignorance about redirects and so on. There's a lot to learn around here! (Also, would you mind deleting User:Chris Chittleborough/Hero (game) for me? Thanks.)

Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, always a pleasure. Next time just stick {{db-author}} on something you wrote that you want deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 17:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arb.

I came across it by snooping in this twit's edits and mail. [[2]]. Never been near adulterer Jim Nussle since. He seems to have refreshed it since. He and TonySidaway (or the some such) are a pair of Dubuque trolls.

If you read it carefully, I seem to have defaced articles on the Julien Dubuque Bridge. My response is that this is an accusation by someone suffering from auditory and visual hallucinations (do read the history). Do read Black Hawk Bridge, as I am interested in Mississippi River crossings. Have I vandalized the JD bridge article?

He's a whack job.

Also see User talk:Dual Freq --FourthAve 08:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rfa

Thanks for the support on my RFA. Unfortunately, it did not achieve consensus. I look forward to your support in a couple months when I apply again. Holler at me if you need anything. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the John Ling page

Hi Johnleemk

I was wondering you could drop by on the John Ling page (yes, the author) and help sort out the discussion we are having. Because you are an administrator, I think you are the best person to decide whether the article truly is vanity, and if so, what to do about it.

Thanks!


~Jade~

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 1

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
Issue 1 - May 2006
Project news

Some project tips

  • Stick the following template {{Template:TheBeatlesArticle}} on relevant articles. We have 500+ already but may have missed some!
  • Use British/English grammar and spelling per Policy
  • A few moments checking other editors contributions is always appreciated.
  • Don't be shy on using the talk pages. It's where a lot of stuff gets decided.

From the Editors

Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Beatles WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this newsletter will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new things to do within the project that they may wish to participate in.

Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome. We would like to emphasise that this is a collaborative Project and all editors are equal - so next month the newsletter editor might be you!

kingboyk, LessHeard vanU and Lar

Signpost

The Project has got off to a great start but we really need your help to keep it going. Here's a few things you can do:


Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? - It's all here

Help the Newbie

Hi John,

I am a solid Newbie in the Wikipedia community - truly awesome and very addictive! Having just joined, I could really use your help and obvious experience...I found your profile from a link on Duncharris's page regarding an arbitration on an edit war that he has been in on a biographical page. I have stumbled on an article regarding Kent Hovind and purely out of interest I have begun editing it because I think many of the users have a personal agenda regarding attacking his character. I have tried as best to do research on all the Wikipedia policies in this regard and as far as I can tell, this is totally against everything Wikipedia stands for.

As stated above, my interests lie more in other areas but I feel quite strongly about providing a neutral article on Kent Hovind - it's also a great way to learn about whether the Wikipedia process works and will determine whether I stick around or not. Until now, everyone seems to be acting really fairly and engaging in really useful discussions on both sides of the debate - also being quite conservative and considerate in changes made. Just yesterday, however, Duncharris arrived and began engaging in what I think is referred to as an "edit war" and reverting edits without engaging in discussion. Whats more, the edit is so minor - it's simply the addition of an NPOV dispute banner which I think is entirely justified from what I can gather.

From his user page he seems very involved in Evolution topics which would explain the obvious biase he has to [Kent Hovind]. He also appears to be currently under a warning which he is clearly not heeding. I also think the matter is more serious as I think some of the entries contravene Wikipedia: Libel in the article and certainly on the talk page.

I could really use your advice / intervention on how to approach this matter. ALSO, having provided discussion areas which have not been used, if I simply reverted an obvious poor revert would I be open to being banned - it would only be my second revert...if reverted after that it would be his third...how does this work?

Thanks --PappaG 12:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, thanks for the help...already engaging in discussion on my user page. Cheers. --PappaG 14:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to rename "Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others"

I suggest that the case titled above be renamed "Biological psychiatry" since the current title is WAY too long (compared to past cases) and cases involving multiple editors on a single article are usually named after the article, not the editors involved. --207.156.196.242 12:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MfD headsup (userfied article from AfD you closed)

You closed this AfD on a fraternity chapter with a userfy per my request - I then notified the author that after he'd had a chance to copy it we'd probably delete it. It's been a month so I've put the user page up at MfD, but if you want to speedy it I've no qualms. Thanks, -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from thewolfstar

Hey, I came across your page through an arbiter link. Then I noticed your stress level is high. I know the feeling well and it truly sucks. peace and good luck with your stress, God only knows we all need it. Maggiethewolfstar 12:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on Current events

Hello Johnleemk/Archive8 –

I'm trying to get some discussion going on two proposals regarding the current events page, but so far have gotten little to no response. Since you have recently edited the current events page, I'm asking for your input on these two proposals:

  • One proposal (this is the big one) involves putting the daily events from the current events pages into article-templates, a lá the monthly pages from 2003 to 2005, as well and having a consistent number of recent days on the current events page instead of a monthly archive. This would allow for the current events page and the respective month pages to be updated simultaneously without the monthly archival. For more, see the current events talk page.

Your input on one or both of these issues would be appreciated. joturner 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother

I reverted you on Big Brother re: OTRS. Please contact me *offline* if you have any questions.--BradPatrick 18:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche 2

Hey, thanks for letting me know, John. It's good news. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this edit? -lethe talk + 07:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lethe, it seems someone added personal information on a Wikipedia administrator to the 9/11 article (as well as multiple other articles), John tried to remove the relevant diffs from the database per Wikipedia policy and it seems that the article needed to be redirected to an alternate dummy page while that was being done. Hope that clears up the confusion. TheProject 07:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, see ANI. I just did the same thing for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Hope that clears up the confusion. Johnleemk | Talk 07:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. -lethe talk + 07:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Franklin's Arbitration Case

If "5 votes are a majority" how did the case close with only 3 votes for enforcement? Lou franklin 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's showing up on the recently closed list twice. When you guys close a case I guess you really mean it! ++Lar: t/c 16:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you sign something so blatantly wrong? Look at my block log and you can easily see, that I am not a serial violator of WP:3RR blocked as such by three separate admins on four occasions. I've been blocked twice for 3RR. Raphael1 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you call these three changes in five days a 3RR violation? [3][4][5] Please note, that one of those changes actually adds a link to the cartoons on an article version without cartoons. Raphael1 16:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say "depending on how you conduct yourself, you may fall foul of the 3RR in spirit". I don't think it's my conduct, but rather my position in this content dispute. Please compare: [6] and [7]. Raphael1 16:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Banned from editing this page

Your notice on Talk:Jonathan_Sarfati is erroneous. I am not 'banned from editing this page', but rather by Arbcom decision, banned from editing the article. The talk pages were never banned, as your notice states. Thank you agapetos_angel 05:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]