This is an archive of past discussions with User talk:Jauerback/Archives. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject 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. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Your withdrawal was extremely courteous. Thank you. I do agree that the article needs expansion, if only to be more encyclopedic, and will tag it for such. Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.19:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.
Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.
Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm writing to you re: Avangate article.
You have deleted and posted a comment on this back in Jan 2008.
"15:55, 28 January 2008 Jauerback (Talk | contribs) deleted "Avangate".
Since 2008, Avangate has grown, has learnt and we modified our article accordingly. Some of our clients also have articles on wikipedia and I've put links to those pages for extra references.
I'd like to ask you to reconsider this action and un-delete the page (if this is the technical term?).
Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Delia_Ene to see the new article I'm proposing. If anything needs changing further, please let me know and I'll be happy to do so.
Please note that Jackal4, whom you have warned in the past, continues to engage in edit warring, putting up innappropriate material on dozens of articles (which he then refused to delete), profanity, and deleting communications between others on their pages. Perhaps you can communicate with him? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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 and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
I am inclined to unblock User talk:203.24.135.66 given his explanation of the events. I checked his edits, and they all seem to be removing unsourced material from BLPs, which is in line with policy. It seems that his lack of edit summaries and his refusal to acknowledge warnings is what led to the misunderstanding; I have educated him on the importance of both issues, and I think in light of all this, he should be unblocked. I am seeking your input. Do you have additional information on the situation, or do you think that an unblock is OK here? --Jayron32.talk.contribs03:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The February 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject 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. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
I saw that you determined the edits by user:24.130.175.43 to the article Najeh Davenport are not vandalism. It's actually quite subtle but very deliberate vandalism. The user added a claim (for which many editors have already been warned) that Davenport should have worn the "number 2" on a certain team. That probably seems relatively benign, but it's part of a long history of people adding "poop" jokes to the article because Davenport once committed a crime involving defecation. Reverting such vandalism from the article has become a daily chore, and this IP address has been involved in vandalizing this article previously. Chicken Wing (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)]
Sorry for being snippy. Now I see what's going on. The guy who tried to foment the edit war on that page is the guy who I twice reported and got blocked for inappropriate user names. He's doing this just to get revenge. But I did not fall into his 3RR trap. I've stopped watching the article. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?17:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I had only reverted twice. I've never gotten a 3RR warning when I hadn't even reached 3RR yet. However, I very seldom reach 3RR anymore. And in this case, once I realized that the user was just trying to bait me and get revenge, I abandoned the article. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?21:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
Very well, but I think it's an utter waste of time. She's likely to be around for a little while, and her page will probably be recreated. Other unnotables such as Haley Scarnato and Stephanie Edwards were "kept for now". I think it's jumping the gun and I'd like to know how I could propose an article recreation? (If something can be nominated for deletion, it can certainly be nominated for creation, no?) I'm not trying to attack you or anything, fyi. It just makes no sense.--Cinemaniac86Oy_gevalt.15:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The WikiProject Films coordinator voting process has recently begun! We are aiming to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are still interested in running, please sign up here. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by March 28. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
oops?
Mr. Jauerback, I come to you with hat-in-hand to offer a sincere apology for my poor choice of words. I am referring to the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Mackris. My poor choice of words "Are you serious?" was indeed a very poor choice, as it implied a reflection upon the nom, rather than the AfD. I hope you will forgive me for this error. You are, without a doubt, one of the most respected and valued members of the Wikipedia community; and without intent - I made an implication toward you rather than the item to be discussed. I deeply appreciate your temperance and restraint in the matter; you had every right to come to my talk page and chew my ass out. As the younger generation would say "My Bad". I am sorry!
whew .. well, I can certainly see that somewhere between my brain and the keyboard the comment came across as an Ad hominem comment. Then when I saw how prolific your contributions were, and a perfect RfA - I figured I had really stepped in it this time. Anyway, my line of thinking on the article was 2-fold. The position of "producer" for such a large outfit, (Silverman and Tartikoff came to mind) - and then coupling that with the "event", I thought the article should be salvaged. While James Earl Ray and Lee Harvey Oswald were the first "single event" BLP's that came to mind, I also understand that murder doesn't quite equate to a sex scandal either: so, on those lines I'd say: Lorena Bobbitt, Monica Lewinsky, Holly Hallstrom. When I factored in the number and quality of sources in google, google books, etc., I simply thought it was a clear Keep. Now I have to admit, that minimal research also showed that Sherell Paris and Deborah Curling don't have articles (Bob Barker scandal), and that Lorena Bobbitt shares a page with her husband and the "event". So that did leave me a little less firm in my beliefs. I know this is now all moot, and I'm not trying to say "See this has that", but the examples are only to explain my line of thinking. I'm a long time reader of the wiki, but have only been editing for a short time JB, so I am nowhere near being an expert on policy and guidelines.
This is concerning the deleted page, named Tender Writing
I was wondering if it is possible to get an article that was falsely deleted (due to supposed copyright infringement), re-submitted? If however I have to re-write the article how can I stop this from happening again? as I understand that I did not send the release of work statement prior to my adding of the article. Who should I email this document to, in order to aviod a repeat of the situation??? any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much for your help, I understand more about the situation now and will change the required documentation. Being very new at this, I appreciate the guidance you have given me.
Any possibility you could comment on the redirect you created for Swine flu which is being discussed here? I haven't been able to find any explanation of why the target was chosen or whether there was any discussion or consensus about it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the candid reply. But it apparently needs an admin to edit the redirect. Can you do it? There may be thousands of achy snifflers out there who would be grateful ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you recently closed this over at FPC. Will you explain why you decided to promote it? I count 3.5 supports for the unedited version; this is not enough to meet the quorum of 4 supports. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Jauerback will probably explain his reasoning, but I think he promoted the image because he also has a vote and MER-C had mentioned somewhere, that the closer can weigh in with his opinion and close the nomination when its a close call. Also, per the recent discussion, haven't we dropped weak and strong votes? --Muhammad(talk)02:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I brought it up as a procedural point more than anything. I don't mind the closer weighing in, I just don't recall anyone doing it when quorum hasn't been met. As for weak and strong votes, I'm really not sure. I recall seeing wadester close a nomination or two as "no quorum" with 3 supports and 1 weak support, but maybe that was before the "reform" discussions. I'm not even sure if we ever finalized anything from all those discussions. Someone probably needs to get on that soon. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
It was definitely a close call, but there a couple of factors in my decision. I didn't necessarily discount the "weak support" vote as only a half vote, but I also didn't promote it because of Shoemaker's Holiday's vote, either. However, I also took into consideration, as an admin more experienced in FPCs, Shoemaker's opinion that this was a clear consensus closure, which was what my comment on his talk page was referring to. Of course, my own opinion of the image probably played some part in it (as I'm sure most admins' probably do). Based on all the above, plus my assessment of the overall consensus and some of the strengths of the arguments about the blown sky, I felt it should be promoted. Jauerbackdude?/dude.13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Though it has been sometime since I have visited Wikiperdia, I passed though today to find that a page that was worked on for me has been deleted.
I found that the Justin Frazier page was reviewed by you and deleted because of "real person". I'm not quite sure if there is a question as to if there is a "Real" Justin Frazier, but that's me. I'm an actor from the Chicago area that works frequently out of the LA area.
I would like an explanation of sorts as to how the conclusion was reached that there is no Justin Frazier.
Websites? Imdb? Facebook? Myspace? Were any of these looked into with the different pictures and captions with me in them.
Is there a way you could possibly help me reinstate my page to avoid future deletions?
I seriously suggest that any administrator who wants to block me again, look at this situation a little more logically. The things I have added to the page have been backed up by references and have been an attempt to show the film as it is -- a criticially-acclaimed film. I also suggest that someone do a sock puppet and/or meat puppet investigation of these tag team deleters, particularly Erik and Ckatz to see if an administrator, Ckatz, is guilty of violating his duties, and thus should be stripped of his administrator limited powers. Meatpuppetry WP:MEAT and sockpuppetry gives a misleading impression of participation in the discussion, and of the support and opposition of a majority view, which would not otherwise exist. The recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus is highly inappropriate.
Ckatz and Erik tag team on this effort, as you can see by the page's history, also added by a couple meat puppets who immediately jumped into the page by reverting things. Ckatz does his nasty business and when he gets tired or when he is running for wiki cookies and stars for his "administration" work, he pawns it off on one of his stealth meat puppets and/or sock puppets. Ravensfire2002 is clearly a sock puppet and/or meat puppet of one of these two, considering the precocious edit history. This person started contributing at a "pro" level this year showing considerable skill (a sign of a possible sock puppet), and doing malice with this account. This person also openly canvassed other contributors to this discussion, all of whom are new to it.
I don't have the time to go back and document each and every instance of how his attacks started (but it did start with Ckatz repeatedly removing the name of Canadian actress Evangeline Lilly from the page). But just look at the history of the page, and of the detractor/deleters Ckatz, Erik (who are meat puppets) and their likely sock puppets or meat puppets Ravensfire2002 and BovineBoy2008. Several of the meat puppets, especially Ravensfire2002 and BovineBoy2008, launched into disruptive canvassing and excessive cross-posting to bring other contributors to this page to augment their position with opinions (vote stacking) which match theirs. At a few times, recently both Ravensfire and Erik have made false straw arguments, augmented with smiley face emoticons, in an attempt to "appear" neutral. Then they have used that fake position of neutrality to go into the page and entirely restructure, when everyone on the page was asked not to edit war! I seriously think that these people should be blocked for edit warring. Ckatz needs to have his administrator powers stripped from him, because he is clearly using meat puppetry to do malice.
P.S. I tried to rush to write this before I was blocked, but I was blocked while I was writing it. Again, removing vandalism is not 3RR. I should not have been blocked. The whole group was asked not to edit war, and those people majorly restructuring the page, required a protection of the page from that unproductive vandal behavior and false meat puppet consensus. Inurhead (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the Brett Favre article. I was trying to revert most of the edits that changed most of his player info box, but couldn't keep up. I added two references about the reports, but as you stated, nothing is for sure until he passes his physical. Thanks again. Manningmbd18:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
It's too bad that a state government employee would make non-sense edits. You just blocked an IP in Arkansas, USA. Your action is very reasonable and logical. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:FILM September Election Voting
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you just posted a 3RR warning on my page. I realize that I am breaking that rule, but I'm trying to keep this guy from vandalizing the Arguing with Idiots page. Can you help me? Tell me if I'm out of line reverting his edits, or if I'm right and he's adding POV to that page in a big way. I'm trying to do this in good faith, I promise. Joshua Ingram17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll back off, but it would be helpful if someone else (someone with some authority, other then me and another editor) tells the other user (1) Beck's interpretation of the Constitutional provision at issue is objectively wrong and ridiculous and (2) to stop the personal attacks. Thanks.Jimintheatl (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. 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. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The project's Tag & Assess drive has begun. We will be assessing over 50,000 articles during the drive and we need your help! 200-article ranges can be adopted and completed at any pace. A variety of awards are available based on the number of articles assessed. Please help review whatever you are comfortable with, and if you have any questions, leave a message on the talk page of the drive. In addition, please add your name to the active member list if you have not already. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I saw that you reverted the recent edit and protected this page. Perhaps you could leave a comment here, as the user that continually adds the copyvio flags decided to file a report against me. Now that the page is protected, it seems that the issue has been resolved. Regards, Nouse4aname (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, I wonder if perhaps you could reduce the length of the protection or make it a semi protection... there's a round of fixtures to be played this coming weekend that I'm sure people will be hoping to update the page with. Cheers, Nouse4aname (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't sure if you came across it from ANI or if you just stumbled across the article. Should have checked the time code and seen you wouldn't have had time to leave a message yet! Thanks for sorting this. Have a good day. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There must be a mistake, I just got this while I was trying to edit the film project page:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Lacy Hancock". The reason given for Lacy Hancock's block is: An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Arpierson1993. Please refer to editing habits, contributions and/or any sockpuppetry investigations for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful.
Well when I looked at this User:Lacy Hancock, I noticed that she is from MS, and so am I, and is probably using the ISP Wildblue (which is a shared network over satellite).
Good day, I'm just wondering if you'd be so kind as to give this editor one last chance. I am well aware that they have yet to make a useful contribution to the encyclopaedia, however, they have contacted me on my own talk page and expressed what I judge to be a genuine interest in contributing to the project. Could we start again, assume good faith and, if they want to correct the spelling of a word on their talk page, let them- it's in the history after all and I fear your reversions are only exacerbating the situation. If there's a bigger issue and I've just weighed in without going over the detail, then could you explain it to me so I can try to help. Also, I notice from the page history that, when reverting the spelling correction, you reverted my addition of a "talkback" template, so, could I ask you exercise a little caution in reverting and remember that, while slower, the undo button works just as well. Best, HJMitchellYou rang? 01:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)a "tb" on my talk page would be greatly appreciated!
I'm willing to let the user have a bit longer of a grace period especially if you're willing to work with the user. However, it's never acceptable to edit other people's comments, even if they are on your own talk page. Deletion is another thing, but not editing. Jauerbackdude?/dude.04:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI
Thanks for FYI Jauerback, Rooster. --Dunshocking (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It proves a point that you do not understand the Rooster reference. You have no intellectual authority to decide that an article on rugby should be semi protected, or discuss any matter concerning it. For Irishmen, there is no football game to match rugby and if all our young men played rugby, not only would we beat England and Wales but France and the whole lot of them put together.--Dunshocking (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I never claimed to know anything about the sport. It takes neither knowledge of the sport nor "intellectual authority" to semi-protect an article from users who continue to add copyrighted material. However, you would think that a user with any "intellectual authority" at all would know not to continue to add copyrighted material. Hmm... Anyway, the alternative would have been a block. Which would you have preferred? Jauerbackdude?/dude.02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
No hard feelings, no wheel warring or offense intended, and feel free to change the block. Within minutes, the user has created account, posted an obvious advertisement of their company on their user page (deleted), then started spamming a mainframe article and got my level-3 warning; then continued re-inserting the link reverting other editors - that is why my indef. Materialscientist (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
Hello, I noticed that you blocked the anon Special:Contributions/72.11.138.117, for what I assume is vandalizing the incident report page. However, can you please ban the anon for longer or permanently? The anon is User:InkHeart, who was blocked for abusing multiple accounts and who has been a nuisance for the past couple of months. As noted in the incident report, she has been using numerous different IP addresses, which have been blocked over time. However, one of them she is using now is an IP address that had been unblocked because the block expired. Thanks. Ωphois03:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your help! One more request, if you don't mind. Another admin who was involved in InkHeart's previous attempts permanently semi-protected the pages InkHeart was targeting, as InkHeart appears to be able to easily switch IP addresses. Do you mind doing so for Han Hyo-joo, Lee Da Hae, and Lee Jun Ki? Ωphois04:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
— 16 March 2009
