User talk:James Carroll
Welcome!
Hello, James Carroll, and
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
BTW - regarding merging
Please do not remove images from this article with first getting a consensus to do so on the talk page. Also, please do not continue to remove the hatnote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about the removals (thought a bot was going after me), but in both cases I thought that they would not be missed. Just started a discussion on the photo on your talk page, and I'll mention the hatnot there as well.James Carroll (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
James, your huge revisions to the Mitchell Brothers' O'Farrell Theatre were destructive and pointless. I'm going to see about having your work undone. Shame on you. SnoozeKing (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI
Just so you cannot say that you were not warned, on WP:CONSENSUS. It's really the right thing to do.This is a substantial duplication of a comment I posted on the article talk page, which I'm posting here to be sure that you seen it. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
]
Vandalism done to My Work on Lap Dance Article
This is a substantial duplication of a comment I posted on the article talk page, which I'm posting here to be sure that you seen it. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism done to My Work on Lap Dance Article
This is pretty much what I said to Rick Block, and basically sums up what must be done:
- You or one of your admin associates needs to look more closely at the incident. These guys ignored the article for years, and it stagnated. After doing much work cleaning it up and adding research, User:Candleabracadabra without any discussion on the Talk Page and during a late night hour, removed the majority of my work, cutting the article in half. His accomplice, Beyond My Ken who also has deleted the same work has received many complaints from users about his excessive reverts, his use of profanity in his comments, and has even been disciplined many multiple times for Edit Warring (see link below). I will not work on this article, or any other articles, unless User:Candleabracadabra and Beyond My Ken are banned from the page, in order to preserve the much researched and referenced work that I have invested in. Do you really think that any volunteer would continue with this type of treatment?
- Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion to Beyond My Ken
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&direction=prev&oldid=589258371
- It was later found out that the large deletion that initiated the edit war was done by a sockpuppet known as User:Candleabracadabra . As soon as I reverted the sockpuppett's deletion, Beyond My Ken came in and repeated the sockpuppets deletion. Were the two working together? James Carroll (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Marking reverts as vandalism
Please don't mark other people's reverts as vandalism, just because
- For the record, the large deletion done to my edits that are discussed here, was done by a sockpuppet know as User:Candleabracadabra . His account has since been closed. When a user is so sleazy to use a sockpuppet scheme to delete sourced content, it seems appropriate that it should be labeled vandalism.James Carroll (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Blocked for violation of the three-revert rule.
- As a postscript to this block, let me say cool off. Discuss your proposed changes and additions on the talk page, and obtain consensus for them before implementing. Try slowing down and doing this one change at a time. bd2412 T 05:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 13:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Help... How to Submit San Francisco Library Photos -- Public Domain or Fair Use?
- For the 3 articles that I have committed to working on this winter, I really need to include a handful of historic photos from the San Francisco Public Library. The library was accommodating and had me submit this form to get their permission, despite the fact that many of the photos seem like they are Public Domain (see Permission Form at right). They granted permission in all cases.
- I previously had one photo accepted as Fair Use, but photo-admin user:Stefan2 insisted it had to have its resolution reduced, as the photo was from the 1940s [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Settlement_1940s_San_Francisco_Pacific_Street_FaceWest_Crp1.jpg].
- I am very confused as to what can be submitted as Public Domain (would enable more detailed scan resolutions as well), and what ones I need to process as Fair Use. Under a Fair Use submission process, I faced further difficulties by a photo-admin who placed another historic photo in the Non-Free Review limbo [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review ], thus creating another obstacle to getting a 150 year old photo accepted, despite its permissions from from the San Francisco Public Library and a lack of evidence of a copyright owner. [ see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Pacific_Street_Docks_Ferry_Boat_1860s_San_Francisco_LibraryCode_AAC-2278.jpg ].
- Here is how SF Library presents the Full Record of information concerning the photos that have been granted permission. In some cases the photos are before 1923, and some are later. None of the photos I need have the "Restrictions May Apply" phrase upon them, which would suggest a possible copyright claim [ example: http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1008421~S0 ].
- This is a list of the photos which SF Library has granted permission, but am unsure how to process them through Wikipedia.
- http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1006314~S0
- http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1011628~S0
- http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1003649~S0
- http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1011640~S0
- http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1014012~S0
- http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1017169~S0
- It is greatly appreciated if someone could help me out with this. Thanx. James Carroll (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Street Artists Program of San Francisco
- I am not reviewing the DYK nomination and have made no edits to the article. My only contribution was striking a poorly-constructed hook from the DYK nomination. Please reach your consensus without me, as I have no interest in the article itself. Thanks C679 18:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. James Carroll (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Street Artists Program of San Francisco
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Possibly unfree File:Dancehalls of Pacific Street Facing West San Francisco 1909 SFLibraryCode AAB-6692 CropA.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered,
Possibly unfree File:Spider Kellys Dance Hall with Little Egypt 1911 SFLibraryCode AAB-1265 mono.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered,
Orphaned non-free image File:Spider Kellys Dance Hall with Little Egypt 1911 SFLibraryCode AAB-1265 mono.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the
Orphaned non-free image File:Dancehalls of Pacific Street Facing West San Francisco 1909 SFLibraryCode AAB-6692 CropA.jpg
Thanks for uploading
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the
Files listed for deletion
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 March 1 if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. --
A barnstar for you!
|
The Resilient Barnstar |
| File:Jelly Roll Morton and friends (1918).gif. Result! Keep up the good work. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC) |
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Terrific street
Regarding Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 March 1#Terrific Street, Peripitus beat me to close it and TLSuda beat me to deleting the old revisions of the image. Hah, I guess I'm getting old and slow. James086Talk 17:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
You might be interested in contributing to this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. Yes, I do have something that I would like to contribute.James Carroll (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Moving forward
Please see new section on Talk:Street Artists Program of San Francisco. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
CoM sockpuppets, cmt
Hi James -- I saw your note on the COM sockpuppet investigation page, as well as here -- I'm a little confused; what do you mean? Both Candleabracadabra and the sockmaster ChildofMidnight are indefinitely blocked (Candleabracadabra and CoM). If you spot any new sockpuppets feel free to open a new investigation subpage, and you can restore any material deleted by the editor. All the best -- Antandrus (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- It has finally come out that User:Candleabracadabra has run a sock puppet scheme to further his twisted point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive . I was also one of this jerk's victims when he did a Mass Deletion of much work that I had researched and sourced. You can read about it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lap_dance/Archive_2
- Why did you censor my Complaint from the record of his Investigation? My complaint belongs in his Investigation as it may add insight for others who now have to correct the other twisted stunts and edits that this disingenuous person, User:Candleabracadabra , has caused. And from what I have seen of recent and rapid deletions to Candleabracadabra's Talk Page, it seems that User:TheCatalyst31 might be the same person as User:Candleabracadabra and may also need to be investigated for sock puppetry. I am very disturbed that you and others like User:Ebyabe have censored my words, and even censored attempted discussions on your Talk Pages, just to protect a disingenuous individual such as Candleabracadabra.
- Wikipedia is fragile document in that its research depends on a "code of personal honor" for its Sources. How can one expect a "code of honor" when an individual is so twisted that they must run a deceitful activity like sock puppetry to force their point of view?James Carroll (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, what? I was one of the people who participated in the sockpuppetry investigation, and I don't appreciate the baseless personal attack. As for your earlier comments, there's no need to grave dance on the talk page of an indefinitely blocked editor. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- To look at Candleabracadabra's Talk Page, it looks like nothing has happened at all -- like he is still in business. It is too easy not to see the sock puppet notice on his main page. It makes sense to also have a notification on his talk page -- that he is a sock puppet and has been found to be a disingenuous and deceitful individual -- so that other who are considering reversing his bogus edits are encouraged and not discouraged. You claim that Candleabracadabra needs to be protected from "personal attacks" while I feel that a fraud like Candleabracadabra deserves no such courtesy. The facts of his deceptions should be made obvious, not hidden. It is very likely that Candleabracadabra will return with yet a new identity and we will need facts about his old identity to flesh him out. James Carroll (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Candleabracadabra was permanently blocked 4 months ago. So the issue is academic. If more socks appear, they will be dealt with. Have a happy new year. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 02:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- You still have not offered a valid reason why my factual posts should be censored from a Talk Page. James Carroll (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Because you put it in an archive page, which are for recordkeeping purposes. Which I mentioned in the edit summary. If you want your new concerns addressed, please add them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Have a nice day. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 18:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- You still have not offered a valid reason why my factual posts should be censored from a Talk Page. James Carroll (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Candleabracadabra was permanently blocked 4 months ago. So the issue is academic. If more socks appear, they will be dealt with. Have a happy new year. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 02:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- To look at Candleabracadabra's Talk Page, it looks like nothing has happened at all -- like he is still in business. It is too easy not to see the sock puppet notice on his main page. It makes sense to also have a notification on his talk page -- that he is a sock puppet and has been found to be a disingenuous and deceitful individual -- so that other who are considering reversing his bogus edits are encouraged and not discouraged. You claim that Candleabracadabra needs to be protected from "personal attacks" while I feel that a fraud like Candleabracadabra deserves no such courtesy. The facts of his deceptions should be made obvious, not hidden. It is very likely that Candleabracadabra will return with yet a new identity and we will need facts about his old identity to flesh him out. James Carroll (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, what? I was one of the people who participated in the sockpuppetry investigation, and I don't appreciate the baseless personal attack. As for your earlier comments, there's no need to grave dance on the talk page of an indefinitely blocked editor. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
File:Dancehalls of Pacific Street Facing West San Francisco 1909 SFLibraryCode AAB-6692 CropA.jpg listed for discussion
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, James Carroll. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)