User talk:WacoJacko

OKWackoJacko (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You denied the block request for 72.11.83.22 , the last vandalization by user may have been five days ago. However, I feel the anti-semetic and racist nature of this anon user's vandalism warrants a block. Also, the only edits(out of many) have been vandal attempts. How can I get a second opinion on this?WacoJacko (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such as this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jew%27s_harp&diff=prev&oldid=256302558

WacoJacko (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not saying he shouldn't be blocked, just that WP:AIV isn't the place to report it (see the three points in the banner at the top of the page).

WP:ANI is probably the best place to request blocks in other cases. --fvw* 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I went ahead and put in a request there. Thanks.WacoJacko (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Not much of a voter other than contributing to articles. Just saw this vote for deletion here with regards to the Sri Lankan civil war and thought this might be of interest to you:

• Iranian President visits Colombo Sri Lanka
• Sri Lankan president leaves Tehran

Wiki Raja (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.Yes, I have seen that deletion vote, I voted to keep the category. Maybe I am missing something, but how do those two news stories relate to the deletion discussion? Thanks!WackoJacko (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from THF talk page) Which personal view am I going off of? Exactly what makes Tamils special enough to be the only ethnicity to have their own ethnic terror category? Jews are a religion as much as an ethnicity, so there is no parallel there. One can oppose the demonization and exceptionalization of an ethnic group and still condemn (and categorize) Terrorists with Sri Lankan nationalities as Sri Lankan terrorists.Pectore^talk 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no demonization, that is where you are pushing your point of view. The category makes no mention of demonizing the ethnic group.WackoJacko (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to bring up that the Sri Lankan government commits

state sponsored terrorism by sponsoring paramilitaries. It seems that Sri Lanka has now allied with Iran, China, and Pakistan on its so called war on terror. Sorry to post this on your talk page. I just want to stay out of the vote discussion, because it seems nonsensical. What is actually going on is a clash of political POV. Sadly, with one side hell bent on tagging Tamils as terrorist. In my honest opinion, ethnic groups should not be categorized as a terrorist group, but rather by nationality. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, you don't have to apologize for posting anything. I thank you for the information and your polite discussion.WackoJacko (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't take any side regarding the Tamil people or the Sri Lankan Government.WackoJacko (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is in the public domain, as it is an image from the CDC. I have added the relevant copyright tag to the image(I had forgotten when I uploaded it). Thanks. WackoJacko (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, it was noted in the description that the image was from a United States Government website(specifically the CDC). I just thought I would let you know that.WackoJacko (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your report on Wasifwasif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and you are encouraged to revert, warn and report inappropriate conduct. I have however declined to act on this report for the following reason:

Edits are not vandalism. Please ensure recent edits constitute vandalism before re-reporting. The user looks articulate while not knowing much about Wikipedia. He looks like he's trying to achieve something, please take it to the talk page.

The Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism might be a helpful read if you wish to improve your future reports. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasifwasif was repeatedly blanking the entire page. That doesn't seem like a normal edit to me. He blanked the entire article numerous times. After looking at it further, I guess he is trying to move the article to a new location at Category:Islamic_Shrines_in_Tamil_Nadu (which was allready deleted multiple times, and he has now re-created). However, when I filed the report all I saw was this person repeatedly blanking the entire article(over 3 times). Also, I came upon this from looking at the recent changes and seeing a user had blanked a page. I have no personal feelings whatsoever about shrines in Tamil Nadu. I was just trying to stop vandalism. Secondly, what should be done about this new "category" he has created? As it is a re-creation of a delete category(that had been through a category for deletion discussion).

I replied on your talk page as wellWackoJacko (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a particular reason for the edit reversion regarding the term chattel, please let me know. That term is not in the reference cited. As such, for accuracy, I put the exact quote from the reference. Thank you for your consideration.Bluelake (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chattel would be another valid, descriptive name for what the reference I provided referred to. ThanksWackoJacko (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WakoJaco, Please do not use Wikipedia for your own personal agenda, which seems quite clear going through your User talk page. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your political agenda.

As far as editing, I suggest you read the Wikipedia About Editing Pages. You have no more rights than anyone else in editing pages. KevinH22 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello KevinH22. I gave you a message on your talk page about adding unsourced material to articles. If you will notice, other users have warned you as well. If you look through your history you have repeatedly engaged in revert wars and the adding of unsourced POV content. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:No original research. I would also suggest that you refrain from personal attacks. If you have any other questions, please ask. Thanks!WackoJacko (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WacoJacko. You have new messages at Mbinebri's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can I ask why? §hep^Talk 16:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I had made some changes on the template, and for some reason it wasn't updating.WackoJackO 03:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That'd be due to the job queue. A null edit should do the same trick, forces the servers to update their cache ahead of the queue. I just saw templates leaving and coming right back and wanted to make sure you didn't need any help. I just noticed that you've been around for quite awhile longer than me though, probably nothing extra I could have offered anyways. :D Cheers, §hep^Talk 05:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks!WackoJackO 05:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of
  vandalism
  only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view

Thanks a lot, and thanks for the prompt reply/response.WackoJackO 15:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is me requesting the access.WackoJackO 06:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request was approved. Please read

WP:ACCG

for instructions on how to use the utility. Please note that as a matter of policy, accounts are liable to be closed if inactive for over 45 days.

For now, you will be able to create up to 6 accounts per day and you won't be able to create accounts with a name similar to that of other users. If you find yourself running into these limits frequently, please request the accountcreator permission at

talk) 15:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, and welcome to the

WikiProject Ohio! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ohio

.

A few features of the project that you might find helpful:

• The open task box is updated frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{Ohiotasks}} on your user page.
• All important discussions take place on our project's main discussion page; you can also watch this page to keep up with discussions.
• The project has some departments, which handle article quality assessment, newsletter writing, and new page patrolling.
• We also have a taskforce on our over 1,000 townships at which can be found at
  WP:OHTWP
  .

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me or any other member of the project, we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!
§hep^Talk 04:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome to Project Ohio, I am glad to come aboard. I had already been uploading photos and editing Ohio related articles, now I can do it as part of a coordinated effort.WackoJackO 07:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you're on top of his alterations my friend, is there anyway way of preventing further vandalism from the user? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr George R. Allison (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was reported by User:McSly and I to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and was banned for 24 hours. If he he continues his behavior he can be blocked again. I haven't checked him lately, is he started doing it again?WackoJackO 13:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not to be pedantic, but the term "Movie palace" refers to a specific type of large theatre specifically designed for movies, usually in an elaborate decorative style. While the Southern Theatre functioned as a movie theatre for many years, architecturally it was built as and remains essentially a 19th Century legitimate theatre. Best wishes! Markhh (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was originally built for vaudeville, and then was used for silent films, and then films with sound. The inside of the theatre is definitely an elaborate decorative style.WackoJackO 16:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are interested in historic theatres and the Southern is really a gem. And so beautifully restored, - it's really an exceptional theatre in its beauty, acoustics, history and architectural significance. Columbus is indeed lucky. The Southern wasn't actually built for vaudeville, though, but legit theater and was the area's primary venue for plays, operettas and the like until 1911. No doubt it was a movie theatre - and a beautiful one when it started showing movies from the 1910s on. A "movie palace" though refers to the type of large purpose-built theatres designed in the 1910's and 1920's by Thomas Lamb, Rapp and Rapp and others where a fantasy environment was created to enhance and glamorize the movie-going experience. So while the Southern was a beautiful movie theater it wasn't what is really meant by the term "Movie palace". Best wishes and kindest regards. Markhh (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will take your word on that, you seem to have a better knowledge than me in this area. I guess, I was misunderstanding the actual definition of a palace theatre. I didn't realize the theatre had to be built in that specific time period. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.WackoJackO 04:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey, the same user keeps on adding china as a hyperpower, and doesnt seem to be stopping. Any advice on what to do? Deavenger (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that 24.87.45.232 is at it again. The only thing to really do is warn him once more, and if he does not stop(which he probably won't) then report him again at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. He has already been blocked once for this. He almost never gives an edit summary, barely uses a reference(if he does it's from a blog or a forum), and refuses to discuss his edits on talk pages. Also, if you look through his contributions, he does this to a lot of different articles(that have to do with China, and the Chinese Military/weaponry). It is hard to assume good faith anymore with this user, as he has been warned countless times, and never one tried to discuss this. I have had some type of food poisoning or something, so I haven't been editing actively the past couple days. Hopefully, if this editor gets a long enough block he will get the message.WackoJackO 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I don't want to try to engage in an edit war with him, and the fact on one of his edits, he added half the different chinese empires. While I don't disagree that china might have been a historical hyperpower (I'm looking for some sources on historical hyperpowers), he shouldn't keep on readding it even after both of us told him to bring a source for it. BTW, hope you get better from the food poisoning. Deavenger (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Obaby asserted its notability at all. The only reference for Oprap was a blank website.However, I agree that Unibet wouldn't qualify.

Obaby was declined because products cannot be speedy deleted under criterion A7, and OpRap was declined because being unreferenced is not a speedy deletion criterion, nor can words be deleted under A7 either. I agree with you though, that they are probably not suitable as articles, and that is why I have left them as PRODs. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look close enough at Obaby, I thought it was a company not a product, my mistake.WackoJackO 22:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But why you deleted by contribution? What I add is a fact. -徐名一 (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it back, but copy edit slightly for you.WackoJackO 08:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think good faith is important. But good faith principle should not blot out facts. -徐名一 (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added back most of what your wrote, and made some grammatical corrections. However, you have added some material that is not neutral and is considered original research. WackoJackO 08:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you. -徐名一 (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!WackoJackO 09:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem interested only in deleting articles. You serve no useful role on Wikipedia. Shiplevelone (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you look here, only 76 of my edits(out of around 2500) are deleted edits. That would not seem to indicate that I am "interested only in deleting articles". However, I do thank you for your input. Also, you might want to refrain from personal attacks, it is better to focus more on the content, as opposed to the editor him/her self. Thanks again, let me know if you need anything!WackoJackO 09:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your "edition" was to continue to delete the "speedy deletion" template on the article. Instead, you should just add the hangon template.WackoJackO 09:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look carefully. My "addition" was an addition to the article which you proposed to delete. An article about a large wind energy company will not be deleted. I hope after 2500 edits you've apprehended some idea of what stays on Wikipedia. You probably have. But you insist on a useless bureaucratic move. My criticism stands. I will focus on the editor because you have a problem.

Shiplevelone (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that you don't delete "deletion" templates. Indecently, your article doesn't have a single reference. Your article does not have any verifiable claim to notability. If you need anymore help, just ask.

Your addition, deleted the template on the article, I do see now that you added one additional sentence as well. However, you can't delete the "deletion" templates, and must add a "hangon" template instead. Additionaly, it helps to add an edit summary, that way other editors can have some idea what you are doing. It could have definitely helped avoid this situation. I suggest you calm down, and instead of attacking me, try and and improve your article.WackoJackO 10:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_News_Network - this page has been deleted recently which was created by me. I had placed the tag 'hangon' on my page itself. Please guide me

Your reply: Hi, You cannot add copyrighted material to Wikipedia(like you have done). You also need valid references(not connected to World News Network in this case) for any article you create. Valid references would be reputable newspapers(online or off), magazines, journals, etc. Additionally, blogs, Internet forums, etc are not valid sources. If I can help you in any way, just ask.WackoJackO 06:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)\

I am part of World News Network, so used the same content which was on our site. If you still want me to rewrite the content I will do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smita28 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you "re-display" the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_News_Network again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smita28 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you should not be writing an article for a company that you are involved with. Also, a new article would have to have valid references.WackoJackO 08:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you reverted an edit at

Thank you, I was reverting(and warning) a lot of IP vandalism, and I guess I got mixed up. Thanks again for the heads up!WackoJackO 08:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Why my edits are considered as vandalism? Am I stating incorrect facts?

195.158.84.236 (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while technically correct, human is the specific term. Labeling pictures on

cumshot as "a great ape ejaculating on a women" is vandalism. You are engaging in vandalism and an edit war, and will be blocked.WackoJackO 09:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not like to interfere with user pages, but that edit was over the top. I'm glad you did not have an objection. See ya 'round. Tiderolls 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WacoJacko. You have new messages at Yousaf465's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

yousaf465' 10:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted this without reading the source yourself here it is [1],it clearly says 600 Km for HN-1.--yousaf465' 03:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the user who added it had been repeatedly adding unsourced, or incorrectly sourced material to "puff up" Chinese military related articles (this is the first correct change I have seen him make). It looks like I made a mistake here.WackoJackO 07:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no probs, it's amazing how often these Afd debates go off on tangents instead of sticking to the point, so thought I'd try and step on it - all it achieves is that the Afd keeps getting relisted and we all get bored! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does seem like a lot of AFDs get sidetracked. Hopefully, your comments will steer things back on course.WackoJackO 12:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the standard for including details regarding deaths at various places? A man died at the local mall here, should that be detailed in the mall's article? What about the soldier that had a seizure while driving to base, lost control, drove into the wall and died? Does that go in the article of the base? Of course not. The information was relevant when charges were placed upon the camp. I have the documents that show the charges have been withdrawn.

"Information No. 08-0245, Ontario Court of Justice, Provincial Offences Court. Regina (Minstry of Labour) vs. Camp Tamakwa, Victor Norris, Craig Perlmutter. Proceedings: Heard before His Worship Justice of the Peace M. Moreau on February 20, 2009, at North Bay, Ontario." The certified transcript shows Mr. Wilson, on behalf of the Ministry of Labour, stating "I am no longer convinced that we have a reasonable prospect of conviction and the Crown will be withdrawing these charges against all three parties." The court endorses.

I can send this to you if you would like. Until there is further information that makes this a notable and relevant event to the camp, it should not be included in the article. We don't document deaths, regardless of where they occur, unless it is a notable event, which this isn't. Unfortunate? Certainly. Notable? Not at all.

It's covered in a reliable, secondary source(mainstream media), that is enough to meet the standards for inclusion for the info. All we have to go by are the sources. However, I did take out the part mentioning the charges, however, I have found no sources verifying that on the internet.WackoJackO 15:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would say the standard for including deaths at various places, would be when they are covered by a reliable, independent, secondary source. In this case, The Daily Observer. I would say the death, is just is notable as anything else in the camp article. WackoJackO 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you would be wrong.

vecia 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Why, because you don't agree? I would say it is very notable if someone died an accidental drowning at a camp for children, as long as it is properly sourced, which it is. WackoJackO 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vecia 15:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I would think that Natasha Richardson should definitely be mentioned in Mont Tremblant Resort. Just mentioning the death in an article does not automatically imply fault.WackoJackO 15:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant to the article. People die all the time. We don't document it like this. Absurd.

vecia 16:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi WacoJacko-- Just dropping a note to say that I objected to your proposed deletion of the Celo Community entry and I have explained my objection on a talk page for that entry. It doesn't have the fame of Oneida or New Harmony, but it was the subject of a relatively recent book with a good press and is underappreciated perhaps because of its size, though it should be studied for both its longevity and its connections to New Deal bureaucrat Arthur Morgan (first president of the T.V.A.). I have students completing and uploading wikipedia entries as an assignment (due on Wed. April 8th, so they're uploading them tonight), and I have talked with them and agreed to their chosen topics based on my judgment about the worthiness of the topic relative to the word count they are proposing. I would be happy to speak further if you have any further questions or objections to this or other entries. yours, Patrick Schmidt (associate prof. of political science, Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdwschmidt (talk • contribs) 04:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If some reliable secondary sources(not from the community itself) can be added, I will be in favor of the article being kept. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the Wikipedia policy on sources. If you have any questions just ask. WackoJackO 07:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it needs to be edited (the citation to Miller is ambiguous) the references/citations themselves make clear that there is credible external material available--notably the 2001 book from University of Illinois Press. Did you just overlook that? More broadly, one has to begin to wonder what one does with published oral histories when developing Wikipedia entries. Certainly many of the entries on political thought make use of or reference to autobiographical accounts or theoretical pieces themselves--obscuring the effective meaning of the "no original work" principle. But such considerations need not apply here--although reference may be made to self-performed histories for purposes of the details, the question here is "is this entry about a significant topic", and in light of the scholarly work on the subject, which is duly referenced in this piece, very clearly it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdwschmidt (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to Miller has been edited, which makes clear that it is given discussion in a book on utopian communities in America, published by Syracuse University Press. Very little of what is cited comes from material directly produced by the community. I hope that resolves it in your mind. Pdwschmidt (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was what I was talking about as far as the secondary sources were concerned. Thanks for your work.WackoJackO 22:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is another discussion on the Richard Gere gerbil story, you commented on this once before. Talk:Richard Gere Fodient (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise giving up your ANI report and not wasting anymore time there.WackoJackO 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this here since, as mentioned, dynamic ip and all that (wouldn't want someone else seeing the message and getting confused).

You're really one to talk about wasting time. Good idea or bad idea, at least I was addressing an actual incident (however trivial). But your "but you did it too! sorta!" was just plain silly. It had nothing to do with whether or not WebHamster was crossing the line. It didn't even have anything to do with insults.

There are two things you can't dispute: misguided or not, I'm trying my best to improve the article and address people's arguments. And, without even considering tone, faith, or anything else, that last part I quoted was full of insults.

You want to say I need a thicker skin? Fine. That'd make a lot of sense if this were a forum or something. But can you honestly say that musing over whether I'm "obtuse", "pedantic", or "naively innocent" (and then finally deciding) is really an attempt to improve the article? If yes, then I guess we simply have to agree to disagree. If not, then there is something seriously wrong here.

In any event, you don't need to tell me that I'm wasting my time. Right or wrong, the sort of crap people can get away with these days (particularly against IP editors) merely reinforces why I mostly left wikipedia in the first place. My current plan is to try to create a better (and by 'better', I mean 'more clear) argument in the article's talk page, in the hope of breaking out of this endless cycle. Hopefully, people will try to contribute. If not, screw it.

(oh, and should you not want this on your talk page either, don't forget that anyone has the right to simply delete discussions from their talk pages if they so choose) 209.90.133.75 (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course people are allowed to delete discussions on their talk pages. Although, it is considered better to archive it instead. However, as far as "musing over whether your "obtuse", "pedantic", or "naively innocent"", I think you have me confused with another editor. I believe he/she said that to you because your tone was provocative and condescending, and then when someone pointed that out to you, you started taking offense, and throwing around wiki terms like

WP:CIVIL. I do think that your ANI report was was a waste of time, and I do think you should grow some thicker skin(no offense meant). However, I do hope you can continue to contribute to Wikipedia.WackoJackO 00:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Now I really have made a mistake. It was not my intention to imply that you had done that musing. It was webhamster. That was only part of why I did the report. My point was that I may have been a bit terse with you, but he(/she) was outright disruptive, so your addition to the ani report wasn't really 'the same thing'.

As for the deleting thing, you'd really be surprised by how many people don't know they're allowed to do that. I've even seen admins threatening to block people for removing content from their own talk pages (because not even all admins know that you can!). So, just as a precaution, I try to include that reminder whenever I post something that might be at all unpleasant on someone's talk page. 209.90.133.75 (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've seen people threatened/warned about clearing their talk page comments as well, that is one of my pet peeves(the warning not the clearing).WackoJackO 01:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how I could appropriately respond to the comment on racism, as I feel I should be able to provide a context, being the author of the work in question.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.48.6 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You additions to the article must be neutral(not a point of view), and they must have valid references. The edit you made was was not neutraloriginal research, and was not backed up by references. It may be helpful for you to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research , and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for a start. Let me know if you have anymore questions.WackoJackO 14:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I am the author of the book referred to, and I felt that the sentence about racism was misleading/takes the work out of context. How can I provide appropriate context? Is the original sentence not simply a point of view?

Many thanks

Leo Baxendale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo Baxendale (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to find valid secondary sources. I would advise reading over the pages(Wikipedia guidelines)that I recommended above.WackoJackO 15:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article originally seemed to violate NPOV because it asserted that the technology WAS pseudoscience. It may well be (and probably is, at least as far as medicine is concerned), but the (scientific) jury is still out as far as certain industrial applications such as water storage and water-pipe distribution systems are concerned!

I have added some references, but they are commercial rather than academic, because the idea is that WP is supposed to be a starting point for inquiry. I will try to find something better. Thank you, WakoJacko, for your timely reminder about references, Regards, Timpo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpo (talk • contribs) 09:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit belated, but thanks for the rescue barnstar (I hadn't noticed it until now). If you happen to run across any new articles that could be in danger of being deleted and mention being listed on the National Register of Historic Places, let me know as most NRHP listings are inherently notable. --

You are very welcome. I had originally been on the side of deleting the article myself. However, I was impressed by the way you improved, cleaned up, and rescued the article. Also, when I was in favor of deleting it, I was not aware that it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, had I known that I would have felt differently. I will let you know if I see any NHRP that are at risk of deletion.WackoJackO 11:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I like your userpage a lot. I have had trouble with mine. It looks ok when viewed in

Firefox, but when viewed with Internet Explorer it is all screwed up.WackoJackO 12:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If any new articles don't specifically state that its listed on the NRHP, but, for whatever reason, mentions some type of histotical or architectural importance, feel free to send by me if you need a second opinion. I got the idea for my user page from the layout of portals. Your welcome to copy code from mine, but I took a look at yours and if place a space between each of the flagicon templates detailing the places you've visited, it'll display better in IE. Firefox is smart enough to automatically

talk•contribs 01:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

38.100.14.250 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been edited extensively by someone who's IP address geolocates to within about a block(as close as it can pinpoint) of Mr. Weidefelds law office. In my opinion, the article definitely merits the tag.WackoJackO 00:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read closely, I amended the article to make it neutral. Prior to my edits- all allegations were worded as if tey were proven fact- which, considering the allegedly "verifiable source material" used to cite or substantiate the outlandish and at times unapologetic biased pro-Jewish claims. I suggest you apply your allegations of verifiability to the substantial Jewish claims especially by the vested interest groups such as ADL. Good day.Starstylers (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smita28/World_News_Network

thanks Smita —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smita28 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The page which I had created for World News Network got deleted.

Please can you have a look at the page and let me know whether the text fits well within your criteria?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smita28/World_News_Network

thanks Smitasmita (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initially you reverted the deletion of data by an anonymous IP. You then re-deleted it because you noted the musical album did not have an article, here. At the time I added it the album did have an article, but it was later deleted. However, you also re-deleted Little Nemo: The Dream Master which was still an article. I have added that back, along with a note about Nightmare on Elm Street. Dream Master has been turned into a disambig for the moment (since the album was deleted). 'The Dream Master' could easily be a disambig but since the book has no pretext like the game and movie, may as well keep it there for now. Tyciol (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't quite remember the circumstances involving the edits, as they took place back in February. However, what you have suggested/done seems perfectly reasonable to me. Thanks.WackoJackO 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool thanks :) It's always hard to remember circumstances (took me a few min to remember I even edited it before, lol) that's why I check history a lot. Tyciol (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just wanted to bring this to your attention: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#re_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FGerbilling.2C_improper_deletion.3F -- œ^™ 20:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

The page which I had created for "World News Network" was deleted. please ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_News_Network

I agree, some of the content was copied from "world news network" website.

As suggested by SOMEGUY1221, i have re-created the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smita28/World_News_Network

Please may I know your opinion on this page? This time I don't want it to be deleted.

smita (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Smita28[reply]

Madurai Maqbara is an article that was recently spun off from Maqbara. The creator of these articles, Wasifwasif, is claiming at Talk:Madurai Maqbara that the contents of the article (cut-and-pasted from the old Maqbara) "are already verified by Wackojacko a wikipedia administrator". Wonder if you agree with that characterization, and would care to comment at Talk:Madurai Maqbara? Thanks! --Sarabseth (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to verify if these are the comments given by you on the Madurai maqbara discussion page..?

I did give up in frustration. Also, I am not an administrator. Nothing against Wasiwasif, the article(s) just has a lot of problems. It was not neutral and was not backed up by reputable sources.The article had a definite religious tone.WackoJackO 11:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)-[reply]

I have created a page on Intership Ltd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sixth6sense. Please may I know your opinion on this page? Will Wikipedia accept it?

Sixth6sense (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you would need more reliable, neutral sources for a start. If the notability of the company can be backed up by verifiable sources then the article belongs on Wikipedia. Please see the following Wikipedia guidlines:

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Neutral point of viewWackoJackO 02:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Vilas_Paswan - this article displays details of an Indian political leader. The title used for his political carrier is "Bahut bada chutiya haih" which means : "He is a bastard" - I am wondering how come Wikipedia is allowing using such titles?

smita (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WacoJacko

I have created a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sixth6sense, could you please review it and guide me. Will Wikipedia accept this page? thanks Sixth6sense (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you that the article on

On an article section of a religious college, an editor persists on listing exclusively a couple of graduates who are notorious criminals. I feel his exclusive list of graduates is unfair to the many other graduates who are not criminals and who are unfairly represented by this editor who seemingly is opposed to that particular religious organization.

The wiki article is called Hyles-Anderson College and the section is called Alumni, while the seemingly biased editor is called MrOllie, but created a new editor acc that he is using to send threats and erase my changes. His new acc is HHaeyyn89.

My request is for you to evaluate the proposed addition:

A X01153943 added a new section titled Distinguised Alumni that I fully support. The new section is listed as follows:

Dr. Jack Schapp, Pastor of

Kevin Cowling, Pastor of Valley Baptist Church in Mesa, AZ and Administrator of Valley Baptist School & of Valley Baptist Institute.

Tim Ruhl, Pastor of Pleasant Valley Baptist Church in Chico, CA.

Michael Ray, Pastor of Hopewell Baptist Church in Napa, CA.

Rodger Alley, Pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church of Greater Denver in Denver, CO.

Daniel Kaighen, Pastor of Lighthouse Baptist Church in Norwalk, CT.

Dennis Atkinson, Pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Englewood, FL.

Brian Evans, Pastor of Oakwood Baptist Church in Flowery Branch, GA.

Keith Gomez, Pastor of Northwest Bible Baptist Church in Elgin, IL and Administrator of Northwest Baptist Academy & of Providence Baptist College.

Jonathan Pope, Pastor of Christchurch Baptist Fellowship in Houston, Tx.

Clayton Reed, Pastor of Southlake Baptist Church in Southlake, TX.

Dr. Jeff Owens, Pastor of Shenandoah Bible Baptist Church in Martinsburg, WV and Administrator of Martinsburg Christian Academy.

Dr. John Paisley, Pastor of Riverview Baptist Church in Pasco, WA.

I realize that the format for this new addition may not be the best, but I still feel that leaving the biased editor's list of only two criminals as "THE ALUMNI" is unfair. Could you please help include at least a couple of these prominent alumni into the list of Alumni to have a proper and fair sample?

A stated reason these alumni was erased from the last was that "A pastor in Flowery Branch, Georgia, a town of less than 4,000 people, is not notable" even though X01153943 stated that "The location of a church is irrelevant when assessing notability."

The criterion used to have these alumni included is that they are grads that are Pastors of mega-churches and most well-known large churches (over a 1000 members) and college founders.

I feel my error may be that I do not know yet how to place the information in Wiki the way I am supposed to place it. Either way, I feel there is still a need to meet at a middle ground on this issue. X01153943 even shortened the list to include only those with verifiable notability, and even requested assistance from the editor in question to obtain a middle ground. Request was deleted.

Your help to obtain a fair resolution, even if it is not fully what the graduates and me desire, would be greatly appreciated.

The Children's Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!
	Edit-a-Thon page. ---LoriLee (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply ]

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date: November 7, 2013 Re.: Updating Gibson Site with Active Link to Speak Your Piece! Interview Transcript Active Link: http://archive.is/nxb0I

I hope this finds you well.

By way of introduction, my name is Steve Feuerstein, I am radio show host based in NYC, and recently read several of your comments on Hutton Gibson's Wikipedia Homepage.

I was hoping that you could assist me in the following: Quotation 24 on Gibson's site, referencing my transcript/interview with Hutton Gibson on Speak Your Piece!, is now inactive. The link hosted by Movie City News no longer yields the partial transcript of the interview which I conducted with Mel's father approximately one week prior to release of The Passion. The transcript has, however, been archived by Movie City News at the following active link: http://archive.is/nxb0I

I mention this at this point in time for a distinct reason. Several weeks ago I was flown to LA to be interviewed by a national television network that is producing a one-hour documentary about Mel Gibson on the 10th anniversary of the release of the film. As such, I believe that the site will once again receive significant attention and that readers at large will find his extended comments disturbing and educational.

Thank you for your assistance. If for some reason this is a burden to you, please let me know and I will continue to seek assistance regarding this matter.

Warm regards,

Steve

Steve Feuerstein [email protected] 347-964-0297 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.19.168.213 (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the

I copied your statement and source for Olentangy Indian Caverns and created the article, because you were inactive. I attributed your work in the edit summary. --Mitchumch (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Benzedrine inhaler for wiki article.jpg

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Aerialpicofcolumbus.JPG

The file File:Aerialpicofcolumbus.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, low quality

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

• File:RomeoyJulietacuban.JPG
• File:Two Cota Buses.JPG

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

talk) 01:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Benzedrine inhaler for wiki article.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]