Archives

Sep 06 2006 - Oct 15 2006 Oct 15 2006 - Dec 08 2006 Dec 08 2006 - Jan 14 2007 Jan 14 2007 - Feb 17 2007

Is there any way that you can delete Bradford N. Smith's page permanently. I am his father, and was unaware that he had done this until recently. None of his information is true, other than the Mad magazines and his birthdate and name, I would really appreciate it if you could delete it from here, or at least direct to somebody who can. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.226.58 (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you needed any more proof, I can sign in on Bradford's two wikipedia user names. This one, Rhssoccer. and.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhssoccer (talk • contribs) 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one, ScoobyDooGuy1991, which he claimed initially was his nephew's, but was in fact his. I'm not sure why, but I assume he created two users in order to make his claim to famemore believable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScoobyDooGuy1991 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I guess that might be notable? But it's current version looks like you could make a pretty good claim to A7 (notability) or G11 (advert). Or something. Haven't heard of that one, before, heh. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 14:12, February 18, 2007 User:Zzuuzz (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Like A Maiden" (CSD G7 Author requests deletion)

Hm. That's frequently used when an author blanks a page they recently submitted. Which I guess is also true. *shrug* Funny thing, that. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of persistent edit warring on Srebrenica massacre, I have proposed that a straw poll be taken regarding one of the issues involved—namely, how to title the section currently named "Alternative views". This will help us to determine whether there is a consensus on what to title this section, or at least a consensus on what not to call it. The straw poll can be found at Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Straw poll on "Alternative views" section. I have posted this announcement to each of the users who have made multiple edits to Srebrenica massacre this year. (I thought I had included you in my initial announcement a couple days ago, but apparently you were somehow overlooked. Sorry!) —Psychonaut 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I agree that the whole discussion over on the Srebrenica massacre page is extremely frustrating. Believe me, I've experienced it. However, I don't see that leaving the article in the hands of the extremists and those that should loudest is a solution (in fact, that's howthe nationalist wars in the Balkans started). Given that the article seems doomed to get stuck on endless discussion on details I've proposed a 'Fresh Start', setting out some basic principles which should help us to make some real progress with the article. Unfortunately, so far no one seems willing to support such an initiative. I would much appreciate if you took a look at it and gave some comments. Regards Osli73 09:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be scared or offended by the creation of this article. I am extending you the chance to at least disscuss the merits of the article. Please don't offence or assume the use of the phrase is direct attack upon you or your sensitivities. All I wanted was a chance to discuss the merits of a term (that gets massive hit on all search engines) without it being swept under the rug. Are you saying that if I managed to complete the article with full references, (before being "speedy deleted") that you would support me in the project? Prester John 07:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please comment and weight in on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas), a recent fork of North America. Thanks! Corticopia 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you reverted recent 2000 victims edit, back to 8,000. Thank you. Bosniak 21:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is genocide when there were killed mostly adult males which were capable to use rifle or gun?

• When the victims are non-combatants, yes, yes it still counts as genocide. Djma12 02:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim. Yes, I had read the arguments of those opposing the move and I know that the genocide definition is not disputed, it's just a discussion about which is the most suitable title for this article according to most common usage. After the Srebrenica massacre was declared a genocide I started hearing references to it as "Srebrenica Genocide" more and more, so I guess that it's becoming a more usual and adequate form, thus justifying the article to be renamed in my opinion. Regards, Húsönd 18:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I'm sorry if my edit summary text offended you. In all the time I've contributed here, the abbreviation "Rv" means only "revert" while "Rvv" means "Revert vandalism". I learnt that by seeing other using this terms. If I'm wrong, please accept my apologies. However, check my contribution log and you'll see that when I'm reverting vandalism I add "Rvv" [1]. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jim, the point is that the English-speaking nations of Central America, the Caribbean and South America (Guyana) members of CONCACAF uses the North America zone (not saying subcontinent), and such zone includes only Mexico, the United States and Canada. Thats why it is included as an occasionally usage CONCACAF Gold Cup (in English). JC 13:00, 16 March 2007 (PST)

Its fixed now and am began on my own machine. Thanks for your interest. Regards, SqueakBox 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim,

Yesterday, I actually spent about 45 minutes reading the discussion page and seeing your experience at the Srebrenica Massacre article a couple of months ago. I can see why you decided to wash your hands of it. I can see we disagree on some fundamental issues but I also believe you are acting in good faith and simply giving your honest opinion. By the way, even though I do disagree with you on some issues, I share your opinion that the UN is not an oracle of absolute truth. The free exchange of ideas offered by people acting in good faith has its merits.

In any case, I am currently contacting frequent editors of the Srebrenica Massacre and, as a courtesy, posting on their talk pages this message which is now on the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page.

I understand you are probably rather inclined not to get involved but, in case you may be, wanted to give you the chance to see this latest proposed edit.

Best Regards, Fairview360 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editors,

Please visit this version of the Srebrenica Massacre article to see the proposed changes to section 2.4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=117151359

Please visit this site to see the proposed sub-article which the proposed section 2.4 text will be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_executions_in_the_Srebrenica_massacre

If there is no major objection, we would like to introduce this major edit to the article this Sunday March 25. This ought to give each editor the time they need to review the proposed changes before they are fully introduced.

The objective here is to make the article more concise while continuing to clearly state what happened and in no way obscure actual events.

A full review of the proposed changes to section 2.4 and the sub-article will show that all information regarding the executions has been preserved and presented in a clear manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fairview360 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please grant me access to the Ronald Reagan article so I can watch and work on it.

Update: Thanks for the info.

Hi there! I hope you're well. I've been observing the discussion at Talk:North America and generally concur with you. Relatedly, would you care to weigh in at

• Talk:Continent#Continuation, regarding the tortuous arrangement of images in that article regarding the different models (which may eschew content; I am partial to this arrangement or similar for reasons stated)
• South America: which others and (grudgingly) I recently edited the lead etc. of to reflect that it is sometimes considered a subcontinent.
• Americas (terminology)

Merci! Corticopia 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK if I nominate you to be an administrator? Amos Han ^Talk 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some other people want you to run for adminship, besides me. I was User:Wikipedier, who nominated you a little while ago, but I changed my name recently. I will certainly, however, understand if you still decline, but if the supporters pile up some day, I hope that it won't be an absolute that you will never run. Keep up the great anti-vandal work.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 02:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you want to be an administrator? Amos Han ^Talk 00:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was looking at something that really dated back to February. Amos Han ^Talk 00:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim,

I'm not too savvy at this so I need help. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.88.224.253

This IP needs to be banned. He just vandalized this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drum_Workshop&oldid=123312121 - by typing in "suck it".

He's been warned several times which you can see from his talk page. I know you're not an admin, but hopefully you know how to report to an admin.

Thanks, conanchicken

Hello Jim, would you please give your opinion in this [2]? I'm trying to include the notion that North America is also a subcontinent in the single American continent model. Thanks. AlexCovarrubias 11:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jim Douglas, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (book).jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Jim Douglas/Robert A. Heinlein bibliography. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just got this message from you.

"It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from January 1. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)"

and i have no idea what you are talking about, i don't think i have even read that article before, much less that i edited it. So a little bit more info would be nice, like what time/date and just what i supposedly deleted, it might jar my memory. Although personally, i put it down to a dynamic ip address.

Why remove JES from the Jes Brieden disambiguation page? She was nominated for a grammy and when I typed in JES I want to be able to find Jes Brieden.

I've found many inappropriate usernames in Misza13's block log containing the name above mentioned. Do you know who is that? There were so many names saying that "<name> is going out with Kate McAuliffe" and so on. I have no idea what was going on. --Edmundkh 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page sig has a separate link for your own talk page, but your user page redirects here. Is that vandalism? Nice work on the Heinlein material. BTW; were you at the Centennial?
--Baylink 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:BASISlogo.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 14:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received notice today that my addition to the "Breast" page was reverted due to suspected vandalism. I assure you I have never submitted an entry to any page on Wikipedia. Please explain where I can find more information on this ... oh, and thank you for catching this filth that was submitted ... from account or anyone elses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.188.61 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Prussian Blue (duo), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (duo) (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jim, this is darthvader1. The guy who believed it was all over for liquids and gels on commercial planes. Well, this past december, I was on a trip to Florida to study the florida manatee and although I did not bring any liquids on the flight to Florida (having allready sprayed my packed laundry with cologne), my instructors told me that it was "okay" to bring liquids in small amounts on the plane. Just before the flight home, at the tampa airport, I asked my chief instructor to "show me his liquids", and he did. And I saw them, small amounts all enclosed in a zip lock plastic baggie (toothpaste, some sunscreen and mouthwash, and some other stuff), and I said; "You gotta be kidding me!" And he said; "No, I am not." When I go travelling, including to Florida, I want to smell nice for those women in Florida. I don't want to be smelling like I was playing in a sewer. Darthvader1 (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article BBj has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no indication of meeting WP:NSOFT. Only reference is to the developers own website

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on BASIS International requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. noq (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]