User talk:Jmlk17/Archive12

Karyn Kupcinet protection

Thanks! SilkTork *SilkyTalk 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Very welcome. Jmlk17 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisit

Please see [1]. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant "semi-protected". Don't know where my mind was when I said "temp full ban". blah! -- ALLSTARecho 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, no worries; we all have those moments. ;) Jmlk17 18:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Get on AIM!

Hey man, you there? Hop on AIM when you get a chance, okay? I got a question for you. GlassCobra 17:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection request for Mitt Romney

I think the cooling-off period was effective (there is a mostly polite discussion going on now on the talk page). Given the importance of the page it would be good to unprotect it as soon as possible. Thanks. Notmyrealname 19:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the calm discussions! Not everyday protection and consensus works out so well. I've taken the full protection off, but left the semi on for now. Jmlk17 00:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached. I go to work and come back and everything has been changed. I am not blaming you but some editors apparently tried to work around including dissenters in the discussion. Please re-protect the article in the same form that you did last time. There is still much discussion to be had. Turtlescrubber 02:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the issues. :) Jmlk17 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't mean to be a pain but I was a bit upset that the editors on the talk page tried to circumvent normal process. I think protecting the article is best for the content discussion. Turtlescrubber 02:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no worries at all. This way, you guys can all find a suitable medium. :) Jmlk17 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Question for Jmlk17 about Mitt Romney article

BLP guidelines say that administrators "may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material." Are you taking the position that the final edit prior to protecting the page did not insert disputed material? Seems like several editors have disputed that this material in the "Early Life" section is sourced, neutral, and on-topic (see the RfC). Do you have any recommendation about how we should proceed now? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I would like to point out that you have protected the page without removing the disputed material. The following sentence is disputed: "Romney's paternal great-grandparents were polygamist Mormons who moved to Mexico in 1884 after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld various anti-polygamy laws in 1879.[10]" This sentence is disputed because it gives the impression that Mitt Romney's religion endorses polygamy, when in fact Mitt Romney's religion has opposed polygamy since the 1890s. This is disputed material, and it should not be in the protected article. While the sentence is factually correct, it is not presented in context and is therefore very misleading, as multiple editors have stated at the talk page for that article. BLP guidelines say that administrators "may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material." Thanks for any response.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. Not this argument again. Tvoz |talk 05:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems quite obvious that the wrong version of this article has been protected. Notmyrealname (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No matter what version of the article is protected, it will be the "wrong version" according to someone. Nevertheless, as I have quoted repeatedly, BLP guidelines say that administrators "may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material" (emphasis added). No one was citing or invoking that policy at the incident to which Tvoz refers.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand the concerns, and honestly, whatever I do is going to upset one side. Has any discussion been going on in regards to the issue at hand? Jmlk17 05:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I made an editprotected request here, but it was rejected. Then, I took this issue back to the BLP Noticeboard,here, but there's been no response yet. I strongly believe that the disputed sentence is highly misleading. None of the reliable sources provide this information without also clarifying that the Mormon Church hasn't condoned polygamy since the 1800s.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm feeling torn, especially as I was hoping this article's issues could get resolved relatively quickly. Since I was the original protector, I am hesitant to unprotect, as I don't want it to appear as if I am choosing a side. I hope you understand. My suggestion is to try the discussion on the talk page with your other editors, and if nothing is getting resolved, we can definitely go from there. Jmlk17 05:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

We've done an RfC about the polygamy, and there's been a massive discussion by many editors. The compromise position that I advocated was putting the material in the section on his campaign, with context. The frozen page has that material in the "Early Life...." section without context. The third solution is to just leave out the polygamy until there is consensus. Isn't the third solution the preferred option for biographies?Ferrylodge (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because it is just your opinion that a reader would get a mistaken impression about the LDS church from reading this sentence. That hasn't even been the focus of the discussion on the talk page.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So you think a reader would not get a mistaken impression, notmyrealname? According to the Chicago Tribune, "It is a common misconception that the Mormon church sanctions polygamy; it banned the practice in 1890."[2] You don't think the sentence about polygamy in the present article is spreading that misconception?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No I don't, and even if you believe otherwise, this is not a BLP issue.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

So, if the article is spreading a misconception about the religion of a living person, that is not a BLP issue? Come on.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that you're not supposed to take the "Wrong Version" article literally, right?Notmyrealname (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the protected article about Mitt Romney could characterize him as Satan personified, and that would not be a BLP issue? BLP policy says that administrators "may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material." Why do you suppose there's a requirement to remove the disputed material, if no one is supposed to take the disputed material literally?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Question?

There are many articles on Wikipedia which contain only "happy" "positive" facts as opposed to the entire picture. Can you please explain to me why Censors and Public Relations people always get the upper-hand? Facts are not always pleasant! That is life!76.105.183.246 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain what you mean? I'm a little confused... Jmlk17 02:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, like the revision you just did to the Nancy Cantor article. Furthermore, you never gave a reason. You admins and registered users DO NOT have a greater right to YOUR WATERED DOWN, CENSORED Version of Wikipedia. 76.105.183.246 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I removed your edits for glaring reasons: they are completely POV and biased, and link to a petition website. We don't need that junk here. You are more than welcome to add a bit to a controversy section or what have you, but those edits from before are unnecessary. Jmlk17 03:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

We are having different thinking. Vandalism in Byzantine articles has not been for blocking but changing text in article Serbia with words "Vidak Is The Best :)" is in my thinking reason for blocking user without warning ... Rjecina 04:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes that may be warranted, but I don't believe blocking a new user right away for one vandalism edit is right... per WP:BITE. Jmlk17 04:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!

Joy

Marlith ^T/C has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

KITTIES! Lol, thanks! :) Jmlk17 05:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

kitteh!

Thank you! Hope you're well :) ~ Riana ⁂ 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem... I am, hope the same for you! :) Jmlk17 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me too! Just what I needed, honestly. Was afraid someone was complaining about my spree of sock banz0ring and semi'ed targeted pages!! :P hugs ~Eliz81^(C) 07:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! You are very welcome! :) Jmlk17 10:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:!! user page

Hi. FYI, I protected User:!! and only just now saw that you had previously declined protection at WP:RFPP. I protected because it is on my watchlist and I noticed people kept changing it for some unknown reason. The user is gone and I assume wanted his page kept the way it is so I protected. You're welcome to unprotect if you want. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's all good... not a problem. :) Jmlk17 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

CSD discussion of potential interest

There is a thread here that may be of interest to you. Just thought you should know... Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! :) Jmlk17 04:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sampo Sheep: Joe & Joey - Deletion

Rights to keep the article: :'(

• Joe & Joey is on Youtube
• It was created in 2006.
• My article had no copyright, just cameos.
• If you want the truth, I'll be more than happy to type it in on the article and if it is approved, I will remake the article. I'm being polite! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampo Sheep (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! Sorry about the confusion with your article; unfortunately, it was deleted for failing notability. This is not to put down your creative work, but we like to keep the articles around here to a high(er) degree of notability. :) Jmlk17 04:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor Jmlk17 :)

Jmlk17, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:LaraLove/Editor for deletion#Jmlk17 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). GlassCobra 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. :P GlassCobra 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

All good punk. :-P Jmlk17 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Ryan Holle

Please undo that; this article didn't meet the requirements for a speedy deletion. Do you think every convicted felon in Florida gets a two page article in the New York Times? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but every many convicted felons do get media coverage. How exactly is Mr. Holle a notable person? Jmlk17 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See WP:N. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Kendrick on this one, buddy. I went ahead and restored the page, hope that's okay. GlassCobra 22:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You could try to argue WP:BLP1E, but the article subject isn't simply notable for one event, i.e. "Ryan Holle is a man who lent a car to a friend." There's a whole string of events following that (a murder, an arrest, a one-day trial and the conviction in 2004, and an ongoing discussion about the man's fate, i.e. the NYT source, 3 years later, is still bringing it up. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a mistake on my end... I apologize. Jmlk17 00:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Just remember to measure twice and cut once! -- Kendrick7^talk 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Radio Links Hollywood redux

Just an FYI that a page that you had previously been involved with discussion-wise has returned from deletion: Radio Links Hollywood SpikeJones (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Jmlk17 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide

With regards to you protection to the Bosnian Mujahideen page. Please have a look at the history of the Bosnian Genocide article which is also under mediation and consider if it too needs protection. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs protection at this time, but perhaps a little nudge towards a peaceful resolution. Jmlk17 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RPP for KABC-TV

Can I ask why the request was denied? I am not asking for it to be completely protected, just IP accounts. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing Neutral... from my count, there have only been 10 edits total this month, including the reverts. I'm personally a bit reluctant to protect a page that isn't very active. But if it continues/gets worse, we can always go back on that decision... I'm not a hard guy to work with. :) Jmlk17 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, that works :) Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy editing! Jmlk17 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It was only two edits (not really a vandalism "outbreak")...but what should I do since they aren't really getting the message? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If they're ignoring vandalism warnings, just head on over to aiv, leave a report, and an admin will usually get to it real quick! :) Jmlk17 06:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I did that too :) We are just discussing what to do on WP:WPRS and when Rollo suggested RPP again, I wanted to check before reporting again. Thanks for your help, I appericate it. :) Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 07:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course... glad to help anytime! :) Jmlk17 07:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Noah Antwiler

Please do not be trigger happy before I even explain myself. Read the talk page please. This is not about a person I know, it is about a quite popular journalist and YouTube reviewer. Don't threaten to block me before I can even explain myself please. Thank you.--Wick3dd (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as bitey: I don't mean to. Unfortunately, a YouTube reviewing critic isn't exactly notable, and fails our criteria for bios. Jmlk17 11:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgiven. I just figured he was notable, since he is a journalist and popular reviewer. I am currently looking for a mainstream-ish article and YouTube reviewing, as it is quite the thing these days. If I can come up with more information on these independent reviewers and on Noah himself, is it ok for me to remake it?--Wick3dd (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh definitely; it'd be horrid of me as an admin to discourage your editing! May I suggest creating it here first, then requesting another editor to review it first, so there are no further issues? Happy editing, I'm off to bed! :) Jmlk17 11:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Sorry, this my first article so I am unfamiliar with etiquette. I did read the first article bit though. Thank you for your time and have a good night.--Wick3dd (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries at all. Good luck! :) Jmlk17 19:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

European Union, dispute over relevance of sport

I noticed that you protected the above page on the 30th November. This is the second time the page has been locked over the same content dispute on an essentially minor point. Neither version of the page is especially objectionable, or even incorrect. It is simply a matter of how much detail should be included. This is a long standing dispute with the parties essentially deadlocked with absolutely no consensus likely. I did not see that you set a date for the page to be unlocked. Reading the policy on page protection I see that in the case of an edit dispute this is supposed to be temporary, with a set expiry date, and that repeated page protection should not be used for the same dispute. Can you please advise when the page will be unprotected as there are quite a number of people interested in editing the rest of it. Sandpiper (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just hunted out your reply to Lear on the same point. If there is any consensus on the page, I would judge that it opposes Lears desire to add extra information to the page regarding sport. Most people are prepared to let it ride for the sake of peace, but some insist that given the size of the page already and the considered minor importance of this information, it should be removed. My own view would be that the page has other more serious problems, but I oppose Lears wish to add this information. I am not convinced that anything is happening as a result of the page protection except that everyone has a holiday while it continues. Sandpiper (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If the issue at hand has been resolved, then it definitely should be unprotected. If everything has been solved, I can do it, or, since my online time is limited at this moment, a request at RFPP may help. Jmlk17 05:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted here because the instructions say to discuss with the protecting admin in the first instance rather than lodging a request for unprotection. No, as I said the matter remains unresolved and is likely to remain so for the forseeable future. Thus the question arises when you intend to unlock the page. However, I shall have a go at posting this issue of unprotection. Sandpiper (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

I know you used to have some really nice pictures and other things on your userpage. Do you think you could go into your userpages edit history and copy all of it onto my sandbox. I really liked how it was before you put that editor deletion thing up. Thanks and happy editing!Swirlex (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Have at it! I'm not sure exactly what pictures you have in mind though! :) Jmlk17 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Blocked User:Giovanni Giove has called for WP:CANVASS against 13 users on english wikipedia and 6 articles. This call is writen on Italian wikipedia ([3]). To tell truth I do not know why I am on this list but .... Can you please give advice about this situation ?? ---Rjecina (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Goodness. I have no idea where that comes/came from! Have you tried talking with Giovanni? Jmlk17 05:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

User:AlasdairGreen27 has been good enough to inform anybody on the list about this stuff. For me there is no problem because he is blocked user number 5 which do not like me ...

It is possible for you to put under semi-protection articles Jakov Mikalja and Croatisation because all other articles from his list are semi-protected ? ---Rjecina (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Adminship questions

I see that you are an admin here, and I am potentially interested in becoming an also becoming an admin. Because of this, I would like to ask you a few questions about adminship and becoming an admin:

• Do you dislike being an admin?
• Do you suggest getting nominated, rather than self nomination?
• Would you suggest getting an admin coach?

You can reply below or on my talk page if you wish. Thanks in advance! Malinaccier (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I definitely do enjoy being an admin; it let's me feel like I can give a bit more back around here. I was nominated by another admin for my Rfa, but self-noms are perfectly alright. As for the admin coach, I definitely recommend one. I had one, and also coached 2 successful candidates to adminship. Hope this helps! :) Jmlk17 05:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for answering my questions. I have added my name to the waiting list for an admin coach, but I see that some people have been waiting in line since February! Do you think I should just contact a coach listed on Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status? Malinaccier (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure! The process there seems to be a little backlogged, but contact someone on the list and see if they'd be willing. Good luck! Jmlk17 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Renato Canova

Hello. You declined my request to semi-protect that page, putting a standard answer "There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time". That's an insufficient claim, while at the same time I'm getting tired of reverting vandalism on that page on daily basis. I'm probably the only user who watch for that article, thus reverting the edits is almost solely my responsibility. In this case, semi-protection would be an an easy and effective way to solve the situation. Julius Sahara (talk) 07:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been 12 edits since the beginning of the month. I also notice it seems to be the same IP or IP range. Have you reported them to AIV? Jmlk17 07:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP changes constantly, and there seems to be two separate IP ranges. Before I can successfully report AIV, I need to give proper warnings. At some point I tried to give him/her warnings, with little effect. Instead, he/she started posting the same warnings on my user page (not my talk page). Julius Sahara (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Understandable; dynamic IPs are hard to catch sometimes. If the vandalism increases, we can always protect; it's not written in stone! :) Jmlk17 08:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Renminbi

Hi there

I guess we were both looking at the same protection request, because I submitted mine a minute after yours. [4] I'm not sure if you want to keep my protection, or revert to your protection. Either way is fine with me. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, it happens! Yours seems to be more practical than mine however. :) Jmlk17 08:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Reason for deletion of Dwayne fraggon

Please be aware of the following statement in WP:CSD#G4:

This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).

Please stop using G4 as a reason for deleting articles which were re-created after being speedied. Od Mishehu 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

K. Jmlk17 08:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help reverting 68.90.62.202. My 'undo' finger was starting to get stiff! --Kralizec! (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! That sockpuppet definitely went wild for a bit! :) Jmlk17 08:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested in the note [5] I left at WP:ANI regarding this individual's 100-odd socks. --Kralizec! (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Another sock attack! 68.89.189.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Kralizec! (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good God... Jmlk17 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your question [6], that will be determined [7] here shortly.  :-) --Kralizec! (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. :) Jmlk17 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Mop

hey I wanna run for admin can I have a mop plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kill the Non-Notable Articles (talk • contribs) 02:24, December 9, 2007

Uhm, I honestly don't think you would succeed in an RFA right now. Jmlk17 09:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment about User:71.156.123.161

I'm curious as to why you fully protected the userpage for only administrators to edit when it was an IP address sockpuppeting. Wouldn't semi-protection accomplish the same thing? — Save_Us_229 11:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I did so as the sockpuppet master has been known to use registered names as well as IPs. Jmlk17 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologize (song)

Could we get this page protected again? It seems the vandalism is persisting...for some reason people cannot seem to understand why the Timbaland version of the song gets its own chronology....Nouse4aname (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Man, the article is quite the target now eh? :) I'm not so sure this time, but give rfpp a whirl. :) Jmlk17 00:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. And as the vandalism is the same as before I am a little confused as to why you can't protect it again. It is not a content dispute, it is a clear case of WP:OWN. This IP user claims that Timbaland should not have a chronology on the page as he didn't contribute enough to the recording (WP:OR). As he is clearly listed as one of the two main artists, he gets a chronology. This is so ridiculous. I don't even like this song or band, and yet I am gettig caught up in some petty edit war. Anyway, I have changed the page to reflect a fair compromise. The wording is altered but the chronology stays. If further disruption occurs then I trust the page will be protected. I will leave it for now.Nouse4aname (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote on my RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of 41/0/1. Please accept a slice of panettone as an expression of my gratitude. Feel free to help yourself to some chocolate zabaglione as well. I am humbled by the trust placed in me to use the tools wisely. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Very welcome. Good luck! :) Jmlk17 00:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

~*Bonk*~

I replied to your reply! Ariel♥Gold 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking forward to your return. Hope all is well. Dreadstar † 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.

Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Thanks so much for your support in my RfA. More importanly, I hope things are going OK off Wikipedia.
--A. B. ^(talk) 22:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.

Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.

I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

xDanielx's RFA thanks

Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

Dear Jmlk, Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day! Cordially, — xDanielx T/C\R 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

AKA sisters

The article List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters has been nominated by user Miranda as a Featured lists. Please see List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters; then post your Support of the nomination or provide comments. Happy Holidays!!--Ccson (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 24 support, 3 oppose, and 3 neutral. I promise to work my hardest to improve the Wiki with my new tools.

--Michael Greiner 19:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! -- ALLSTARecho 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Radio Links Hollywood

Hello Jmlk17, it seems you may not have taken the time to download one of the MP3s and have a listen to it before deciding to delete the article [Radio Links Hollywood].

Am I correct?

I was hopping you would take the time to download one and see that it might be a good addition to Wikipedia's data base.

I am still working on updating the website so it is more user friendly. This should be approved in a bit: sample

Lori Lerner's material is unique. She is hired by film studios to produce unique MP3 clips. Her clips are provided to radio stations across the country as a free service.

What do you think? Should I cease trying to get this article accepted? It's just that I'm not understanding exactly why it isn't being accepted. Thank you for your consideration, Courtens (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I must admit I have not downloaded from your site. I actually have no desire to, but thank you for the invitation. I am still unsure about the notability of your article, but since I am sometimes a lone voice of dissent, I would suggest giving deletion review a shot. Hope this helps! :) Jmlk17 01:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RFA

	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons

explain why we don't protect the main page? it seems like that should be one protected, as it is the first page people see when they visit wikipedia Ctjf83 ^talk 03:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Wikipedia in general is free to be edited by anyone, at anytime. If a newcomer comes to the site, clicks on the Featured Article and wants to try out editing or correct an issue, only to find it protected, I believe it turns them off from the project from the get go. Also, give NOPRO a read-through; it'll probably make a bit more sense than my ramblings usually do. :) Jmlk17 04:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

well i guess....even though we both know most IPs are useless vandals Ctjf83 ^talk 05:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I won't argue the semantics of the issue. If it does get real bad, a short protection is always in order. Jmlk17 11:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

BRC

You've been invited. GlassCobra 05:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... we'll see. :) Jmlk17 11:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Aw c'mon. :P GlassCobra 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps; let me run it through the lawyers first. ;) Jmlk17 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah. Just run your ass down to Target, like I did. :P GlassCobra 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I own a bathrobe... Jmlk17 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then what are you waiting for? GlassCobra 00:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Faerland Terrace

What were your reasons for deleting the article for Faerland Terrace Assisted Living Facility? I find it quite ridiculous, and even more so, the article was a work in progress. Please explain your actions.

Cmosetick (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I deleted the article for a lack of any notability. I apologize for the inconvenience, but I don't believe the article is on a notable subject. Jmlk17 21:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your reversion of Goodshoped's talk

You're probably not aware of this, but I sent Goodshoped an email as to my blanking his talk page and replacing it with a message, and he told me it was okay to do so. Best, --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 16:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How could he be aware of that? Also, considering the page said in big letters "DON'T DELETE," I think Jmlk made the right call. GlassCobra 16:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I surely was not aware of that. All I saw was a user blanking another user's talk page. :) Jmlk17 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I tried to get him to sign back in to make one more comment here, but he's determined not to sign back in as Goodshoped (he's got a new account now, user:Blow of Light) and wants to tell you something about my blanking his talkpage. If you want his email address, check his talk revision for Dec. 8th. Best, --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 00:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem at all... if he is concerned about contacting me or any admin, he needn't be worried. :) Jmlk17 05:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP for Amon Amarth

Regarding this [Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Amon_Amarth_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29], I received a request on my talk page, to reconsider my past denial of a RFPP. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was just a bit curious about it. :) Jmlk17 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Colorado Avalanche

Hello Jmlk, I've reversed your major edit concerning the Avalanche 'current roster'. You should take your idea to the Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey first, before making such big changes. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, no problem, I figured as much lol. Jmlk17 05:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question

Hey there. When I say "My next task is becoming an admin, so I can have my hand further in the cookie jar", all I mean by that is one of the reasons for my RfA is sysop abilities would give me more to do. Sometimes I go to my watchlist, with too little time to research and expand an article, and there isn't anything to revert either. I have acquired the habit of checking out the community portal and occasionally find a couple things there. Being an admin would allow me the ability to take care of some admin backlogs, of any kind. -- Reaper X 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good buddy, thanks for the quick reply! :) Jmlk17 05:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A City Warning

why'd you delete A City Warning? They meet WP:BAND. I'm a big fan. City warming (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How exactly are they notable? Jmlk17 11:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

They're very popular and the singer is well known. I gave references too, but am not a member. City warming (talk) 11:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

They have no notability, and the references you gave were their personal site, and sites with massive collections of bands, many of which are non-notable. My apologies. Jmlk17 11:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not signed to a label, have not released any albums, etc. Jmlk17 11:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just beginning the page and it was speedy deleted. Shouldn't it go to AFD if some notabilty is shown? One link (not myspace) showed clear notabilty City warming (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no notability though... that's the issue. No albums, no label, nothing but a myspace page and a couple entries on DIY websites. Jmlk17 12:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

They have a recording contract just signed. City warming (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Status

Okay. You'll have to add this to the first line of your userpage since it is fully protected: {{User:Jmlk17/Status}}.

Then, add this to your monobook.js:

Once you get that added, I can tweak the placement so it isn't so far to the left, I didn't want it overlapping the admin icon on your userpage. And, once you add that code (and refresh) at the top right, where your links for prefs, watchlist, contribs, etc are, you will see three words: "in", "busy", and "out". Clicking on those will automatically load the status page and change your status.

I think I've done all the other work, and all you'll have to do is add the monobook.js code, but let me know if it isn't working once you do that and I'll check it again. Sweet dreams! (I've set you "away") :) Ariel♥Gold 12:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I tested out all the modes, blue = online, green = busy, red = offline. The icons all appear correctly, and I tested the placement with your userpage admin icon and it looks good now. It should work once you've done your monobook. I did notice you have a /div thing on your userpage, that doesn't seem to do anything, the line above the admin icon. Also, you could just use the {{administrator}} icon to simplify things if you wanted. Holler at me when you get the monobook in and let me know if it works! Ariel♥Gold 12:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you're awake! Cmon, test this out, let me know if it works! Hee hee. I'm going to go to bed soon, so was hoping to work out any problems before I logged off, but if I am gone by the time you install the script and test it, just drop me a note and I'll see what's wrong when I get up. ~*Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweeeeet! I'm glad it has no bugs! And it is placed perfectly on your userpage, too! Awesome! Now you just have to remember to "set" your status, lol. Still a pretty handy thing to have, and helpful for others to see when you're around and available (~*Cough*~) Ariel♥Gold 22:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Works perfectly! Looks great! Thank you again so much! :) Jmlk17 22:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the /pre code, so your page doesn't scroll horizontally anymore. :) Night night Jmlk! Ariel♥Gold 23:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Restore Request

Dear Sir, re: Deletion of "St. Thomas College of Teacher Education, Pala"

You have deleted this post, if you can restore this topic is highly appreciable. This is not related to any person or group of person.

They are one of the pioneer institutions in the field of teacher education. It was started in 1957 and based in South India. They are accredited at the 4 star level by NAAC (National Assessment and Accreditation Council). I am working as a Web Consultant for them. Regards,--Sumeshbabu (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've researched the school a bit, and it seems to be somewhat notable, so I have restored the article to give you the opportunity to expand and work on it. Best of luck! :) Jmlk17 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rachael Bell Music -- Why Deleted?

I am Rachael Bell's attorney and U.S. representative. I do not understand why you deleted her entry. Ms. Bell has a "highly recommended" new CD "Colour Me Blue" reviewed on SoulTracks.com, the number 1 soul music website in the U.S. and has made numerous other recent TV and radio appearances here. All of the information that was listed was factual and independently verifiable. You have other musicians on Wikipedia who have accomplished far less, and in addition, you have another "Rachael Bell" entry for a 17-year old UK resident who was arrested for throwing a house party without her parents permission!! With all due respect, how can you have that "Rachael Bell" on here and delete the other, who has actually accomplished something? Please reconsider your decision.

R. Patryk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.26.54.11 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I saw from the article, there was no implication of any notability, and that the info in the article did not help. Upon further research, I believe I may have made a mistake. How may I help work this out? Jmlk17 22:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

White House Museum

An editor has asked for a deletion review of White House Museum. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! :) Jmlk17 22:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Merrill page

I editted the Merrill page and made sure all the contents are factuals. The facts that EEOC mainatins the ML conduct has been with reckless disregard and malice are in the text of the law suit. Not sure who you are but when you are linking words like "July" and "Iranian" I suspect what kind of intention you have!!!! It's absurd or down right stupid to link (highlight) a world like "JULY"!!

What is the motive here?!!!

Uh, what? Jmlk17 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)