User talk:Tjss

                                                                                                                                                                                                     == Euston Manifesto ==

Thanks for your great work on that article. (Here's hoping it grows in importance!) Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article? Good idea! I'd like to help, if I can. I certainly don't have any ideas for significant improvements at present. I read a few blogs, mostly right-of-center; if (as I hope) it makes an impact there, I'll let you know. Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank both you, Tjss, and you, Chris, for covering the emergence of the Euston Manifesto (EM) online so fairly. As one of its authors, there is an obvious conflict for me in my editing its page.

The manifesto will be launched in the "real world" in about a month. It would be very good for the debate---and we do want a serious and high-quality debate---if this launch could be made a current event and the quality of the entry by then is sufficiently high for it to be featured on Wikipedia's front page. I think the EM's sections on open source and freedom of ideas should make the document of particular interest to Wikipedians. Counsell 13:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I found a couple of interesting links; see Talk:Euston Manifesto. I haven't added anything the article itself, sorry. But it's shaping up very nicely without me ... good stuff. By the way, at least two of the four main Manifesto authors have excellent blogs: http://normblog.typepad.com/ (Norm Geras) and http://www.pootergeek.com/ (Damian Counsell, aka User:Counsell). Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're the first admin on the list, so I'll ask you about this. User:Roulette36 has a user page that is racist and offensive. It consists of a single sentence: "Mexicans are dirty." I have advised him that this does not conform to wikipedia policy. If he does not change it, or changes it back, can you please block him or advise me of who I should ask for further action. Thanks. --Tjss 00:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see that you have already blanked the offending comment from the user-in-questions' page.

WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:No personal attacks stress that attacks on third parties should be avoided and that good Wikipedians remove them on sight. If the offending remarks are replaced, the user can be warned with the various policies pointed out. If they persist then a block request can be made to an administrator with the repeat offence evidence as a demonstration of the requirement. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

In that case, I would like to officially request that User:Roulette36 be blocked. After reviewing his contribs, he appears to have thirteen instances of vandalism since 12 February 2006, most of them including racist remarks, especially towards African Americans. I note that on his talk page, he has been warned three times by different users that his actions constitute vandalism, and was threatened with blockage on Feb 13. This user shows nothing but indifference to wikipedia policy and general sensitivity. --Tjss 05:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on Roulette36's userpage to say that his next vandal effort will be his last. The user appears to edit infrequently on Wikipedia, so I prefer to give them a chance of redemption rather than to block in absentia. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've left a warning on User talk:Monkey boy007. Let's hope he calms down. If not, AFAIK the proper thing to do is leave stronger and stronger warnings, then (if necessary) ask an admin to take a look at things. Cheers, CWC(talk) 16:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Someone has written "Democrat Party" article that dignifies this perjorative term. The correct name of the party, of course, is "Democratic Party." Wikipedia is considering deleting the

David Oberst 07:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving Geoffrey Howe resignation speech to wikisource (I just deleted the Wikipedia copy). However, when you move articles between different wikis, be sure to follow the procedure outlined at meta:Transwiki. That requires copying the history of the original article to the talk page of the destination page. Wikisource also require to add {{from en}} at the top of the article and to log the move at s:Wikisource:Transwiki log (Liberatore, 2006). 12:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:ACampbell.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noncommercial-licensed are

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [1]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my nomination of

Thanks so much for the oppose vote. Your support in this matter is valued. Respectfully, Republitarian 03:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for spamming you. I didn't think it was against the guidelines (it seems like there are more rules and restrictions everyday). Anyway I was just trying to get the word out so someone would finally help me out on an article. Speedystickd 00:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support with this particular hare. The article has bothered me since it was posted (as the talk page shows), and I'm not sure what else to do. I can look at it, but truthfully, I am mostly a new page scanner, which is how I got involved. (Also, I have a SLOW dialup connection), so it might be hard for me to watch it. Cheers V. Joe 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the thorough reviews. I'll try to answer your questions in the text, but why do you have already your decision while you haven't read all of them? By the way, all of your question is regarding knowledge about the subject. I cited only from anthropologists studies, as I listed in the References section. If I can't answer some your in-depth questions, then perhaps there is no knowledge about it. Again, thanks. — Indon (reply) — 08:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tjss, sorry to send you directly to your talk page. I am afraid you are wrong about inline citations. Per

1. Embedded links
2. Harvard referencing
3. Footnotes or some people call it cite.php.

Both three offer inline citation in different style. Inline citations by embedded citations and footnotes are automatically placed in the text, but Harvard is different. In Harvard referencing, inline citation is given by (Author Year) format that point to a specific bibliography item in the References section. Some people may confuse the term inline citation that is always by footnote: <ref>...</re> format. Yes, it is inline citation for Footnote style, but not the other 2 styles. Footnote can be used in Harvard and embedded links to make a real footnote (note that is not a main topic of the article, as I used also in

N.B. The Cite.php footnote system is not mandatory; editors are free to use a different method. See How and where to cite sources

.

Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 17:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right. No need to apology ;-). Actually, I like your review. It's very thorough and I need that. Thanks. I'll try to improve the article to fix what your objections for GA. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 19:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the status . Hope you can help.

Davodd 03:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you created Iran Freedom and Support Act back in July. Unfortunately, the source(s) you provided did not support the content in the article. I have since changed the content to accurately reflect the source(s). I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but please be careful in the future. Thanks, KazakhPol 23:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent response. I agree with your reversion. KazakhPol 03:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the status . Hope you can help.

– ClockworkSoul 04:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back in June, you participated in a wiki discussion about deleting an article called “Democrat Party (United States).” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Democrat_Party_%28United_States%29). It was agree to delete this article and redirect it to

Thanks for uploading