User talk:Jonny-mt

userpage | talk | e-mail | contribs | sandbox | wikidiary | subpages | edit count | commons | meta | ja-wiki

Template:Vacation4{| class="messagebox standard talk"

Here because I deleted your article? Read through this first to find why.

Hampar Kelikian

What I don't understand is why can't I have the quote in, it is not copyrighted as far as I know. And you need to have a talk with Corvus cornix he gave me warnings and told me that my editing privelages would be taken away. If he is not an adminstator then he needs to keep to himself. The quote is in block, and has every bit of information on who wrote it and everything.--Nickthearmenian12 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A small quote--one or two sentences at most--that contributes to the article should be acceptable, but adding large chunks of copyrighted text (or entire articles) constitutes a copyright violation. As far as determining copyright goes, a good rule of thumb is that unless it is explicitely in the public domain or otherwise available under a free license, it should be considered as being under copyright. In this case, People Magazine and/or the author of the article most certainly own the copyright to the article.

Incidentally, Corvus is correct in his warnings--persistent copyright violations will result in a block. Needless to say, this is a last resort, and we would much rather have you as a productive contributor. So please feel free to ask any questions you may have, and I'll do what I can to answer them! --jonny-mt 08:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

IP 104.202.179.120

I thought I should note that the user at IP 140.232.150.91 (talk), who was temporarily banned with that IP as well as 140.232.179.120 (talk), is now back making the same edits with a new IP: 65.4.79.45 (talk). --Jikaku (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update--I've added both their user talk page and Chinese Taipei to my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on them. --jonny-mt 07:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: your message

Thanks for your concern. Firstly, how could I reconsider a block that already expired? While the edits of the IP may not exactly fit what is commonly construed as vandalism, they do fit disruptive editing because when they replaced an entire article with their version and I reverted and left a talk page message to them (through the bold-revert-discuss method), they constantly reverted without going over the merits in a way that any other contributors could evaluate them (the article talk page for instance instead of an edit summary that limits the amount of text you can type). It is my belief that the IP was a former user since they knew all the lingo at the outset. I am not sure if they were blocked previously or not, but that did raise a red-flag. I also note that the IP never provided any verifiable and reliable sources that were not original research to back up their claims. As for content disagreement, I don't even have that page watchlisted, nor do I intend to (I came upon this by looking at recent changes) and since the blocks have expired, they are able to come back and re-write the article entirely and I wouldn't even know about it. If there was any abuse of the tools it was not intentional with malice aforethought and an extremely isolated incident (I've been a sysop since January and this is the first occasion like this that I remember).

As to the other diffs you've provided, I leave a talk page message or template warning for each and every revert I perform, so they were not blind reverts. I do not dispute that I could have used the ability within twinkle to leave a more personalized message in the edit summary (I do use this on most occasions and do not go to admin rollback until after at least the first warning usually). Perhaps I could use a trout? I'm guessing that for those occasions there was something external affecting me at that time (I have been going through some RL issues as of late).

As to my possibly having some sort of a fortress mentality, while that is entirely possible, many of the articles that I have contributed to have been helped immensely by good-faith anon contributors, in fact one of them was recently saved from being demoted at FAR recently.

This is all water under the bridge to me as I go about things day-by-day, and thanks again for your message and concern. It has opened my eyes and shown me that I probably could use a [[WP:TROUT|trout]. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the response, particularly for clearing up the rollback question. I'm not denying that the IP was engaging in an edit war; I was simply trying to suggest that a gentler hand (and maybe a 3RR warning) may have resulted in a different outcome. But as you mention it's all water under the bridge, and the wiki will certainly go on.

By the way, I certainly didn't mean to scold you or act like I was putting you in your place. As I mentioned, the vast majority of your contributions (content and administrative) are hugely helpful and flawlessly executed, but sadly as admins it's the 0.001% of questionable edits that we're always judged on. I've noticed that a fortress mentality has started to push me into WP:BITE territory on more than one occasion, so I was just hoping to alert you to the same. If I act out of place in the future, I certainly hope you'll feel free to plant a bigass WP:TROUT right where I need it :) --jonny-mt 02:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - September 2008

Aloha. The September 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Happy vacation!

I hope you are having a great time. I wanted to update you in case I get too busy and forget. Two things: Tauheed ashraf responded to your query.[1] And, I've updated Portal talk:Hawaii/Did you know with candidates for rotation. Thank you! Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)