User talk:Rjd0060

Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page.
I will usually reply to messages left here on this page so check back for a response.

---

Archives /Archives for a full archive

Raquel Evita Saraswati (Seidel)

Why has her former name, marriage, and religious heritage been deleted? These are all common, mundane, non-libelous elements of a biography. How do they violate the BLP guidelines?

If this persists, I will bring it up with Jimbo. If the wikipedia bureaucrats are skewing information, this is a serious matter indeed.

You have NOT stated how the information deleted violates the BLP guidelines. Why has her former name, marriage, and religious heritage been deleted? Virtually all wikipedia biographies contain this information; Carlos Memen for example. Plus, all of this information is public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.34.208 (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Because you cannot add unconfirmed information to a biography article. But the information IS confirmed. The marriage is a matter of public record. Her other name has been confirmed -- by herself on Wikipedia no less, and in other places -- as being her other name. Her religious affiliation during college is noted in public records (scholarship announcements in an offline newspaper) as well. So, please explain to me what information is 'unconfirmed'-- or let the information stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.34.208 (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotecting PlayStation 3

No offense, but... (Yeah, I know what that means—I'm going to tear you apart but don't be offended :P )

Seriously, I own a PS3 and I know many people who own PS3s and Xbox 360s. I can assure you, PlayStation 3 should probably remain semi-protected until the PS4 comes out (i.e. at least until 2011, probably longer.)

Basically what I am saying is, don't unprotect PlayStation 3. There is no way it will not be vandalized until the PS4 comes out. Even then, I'm not so sure. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I apologize for being so condescending beforehand. I know little of the minutiae of adminship, and maybe it's time I recognize this fact. Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Signature

s:ko:User:WonRyong/MediaWiki#사용자 서명 기본값 변경

Thank you for that via IRC. :) -- WonRyong (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom Hanks

Hi Rjd0060, on requests for page protection, you declined the extension for Ton Hanks, though as you posted it, I had reviewed the page's history and decided to increase it to two weeks. Do you have any objection to the extension, now that it's already been done? Thanks. Acalamari 23:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks for your input. Acalamari 23:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism because you disagree?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Really I'm a vandal because you disagree? What happened to NPOV, and assume good faith? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.4.188 (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the section you seemed to miss "Anonymous edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully. When the subject is of ambiguous notability, such edits should not be regarded as vandalism in the first instance, and recent changes patrollers should bear in mind that they may be dealing with the subject. The use of inflammatory edit summaries or vandalism-related talk-page templates should be avoided." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.4.188 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

How does it not violate this "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." This is why I removed the material. It violates the standard of Wiki bios. I gave reasons, it's not vandalism. 68.34.4.188 (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Anonymous edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully." Removing content is appropriate in some circumstances under wiki guide lines. Guidelines I have cited. 68.34.4.188 (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

98.201.50.77

I was going to report him, but you beat me to the block. Excuse me for saying this, but HOLY ****!!!!!!! I've seen a LOT of vandalism in my day, but nothing else came even close to that. Wow. Thingg^⊕⊗ 00:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw another one too... MAN I wish I could block people sometimes... Thingg^⊕⊗ 00:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot Approvals Group

That method of selection does not have community consensus, and those nominations which were approved were ran while it was clear that method lacked consensus (in seemingly direct defiance of that, in fact). Please do not encourage them by reverting it again. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for protecting my user page. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - Im still here and i hold no bitterness for the distant past

Have a nice day. . --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Its ok, enjoy. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

E.O. Green School shooting

There is a dispute on the neutrality of the article on the talk page. I believe I was accurate in my reasoning as to why I do not believe the article presents POV, but I would like a second opinion from an admin who has not looked at the article previously. Would you mind reviewing the article? If you choose to do so, thankyou in advance. Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Swoogle

Hey Rjd, on the 8th I added a prod tag to Swoogle. I noticed you removed the tag on the 14th. How come you didn't delete it? Was that actually a contest (so I should list it on Afd if I feel like it?) Thanks Jussen (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast response! Did the e-mail say why they thought it should be kept? Jussen (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread regarding unblock decline

Please see this ANI thread, where I've criticised an unblock review (a decline) that you performed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utah professional sports' frequent use of letter Z in team names

I disagree with your closing the debate because of "no consensus." The proper course of action would have been to relist in order to gain a consensus, since it had not been relisted before. Because of your action, I will now be forced to take this to deleteion review to obtain a proper outcome. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment as well. I think that the preponderance of comment was to delete. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So that automatically disqualifies me for some reason? Oh, please. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Utah professional sports' frequent use of letter Z in team names

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Utah professional sports' frequent use of letter Z in team names. 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. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Wow, my bad on that one. I'm really sorry about that and I'll definitely be more careful in the future. Thingg^⊕⊗ 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Equalpanel

Its User:Heardhouse, aka the "ghost eats toast" vandal. I've blocked at least 40 of his sockpuppets. See the history of Beer for the latest spate, plus my user page for another recent set of them. Best, Gwernol 23:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, sorry I didn't add the sockpuppet tag earlier. Gwernol 01:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Boar

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Boar. 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. Spf7 (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Cuthbert Blanedale Frunk

Hey Rjd, I wanted to drop you a line to protest this deletion. I think the PROD was pretty off; as a fictional character, it's tough to establish any kind of real-world notability outside the books, as you well know. However, WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, targeting that one article out of the slew of Redwall character articles that we have seems a little unnecessary and unfair. Would you consider restoring it, or at least merging it to a different article, like List of Long Patrol hares? If you choose the latter, I'll be happy to help. Thanks. GlassCobra 15:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Permissions for Images

Hello User:Rjd0060

I was recently given permission by a company to upload some images, also recently had some previously uploaded images put into question as possibly unfree. I just noticed that you had placed OTRS permission tags on those said images, and am wondering if you could tell me the best bay to upload the new one's I have been given permission to release, without having these also tagged?

Than you User:Ash773User talk:Ash773 09:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

DELETION OF THE CHUCK LEONARD PAGE

Chuck Leonard was a notable disc jockey because he was the first African American (and if I'm not mistaken the only African Amercian) to work at WABC on the air and the reason for that was because back in the 60s as you probably remember ws the time of the Civil Rights Movement. Chuck Leonard did something what not a lot of people were able to do, he became one of the most popular and most remembered radio Disc Jockey's on the air at WABC and he became known across the country. Also, if I remember correctly, I never saw a notice on the Chuck Leonard page about it being deleted if noone said why Chuck Leonard should be remembered. SO I think the page should be put back up. Thank you

--Chrismaster1 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

DELETION OF THE CHUCK LEONARD PAGE

Chuck Leonard was a notable disc jockey because he was the first African American (and if I'm not mistaken the only African Amercian) to work at WABC on the air and the reason for that was because back in the 60s as you probably remember ws the time of the Civil Rights Movement. Chuck Leonard did something what not a lot of people were able to do, he became one of the most popular and most remembered radio Disc Jockey's on the air at WABC and he became known across the country. Also, if I remember correctly, I never saw a notice on the Chuck Leonard page about it being deleted if noone said why Chuck Leonard should be remembered. SO I think the page should be put back up. Thank you

--Chrismaster1 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)