This is an archive for Jokerst44's user talk page. This page holds archives for April 2007.

I've nominated MOCHIP, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that MOCHIP satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOCHIP and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MOCHIP during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.--Masterpedia 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• note I was not the nominator. You can not remove AFD tags from articles it is consider vandalism. --Masterpedia 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is poor form to remove comments left by other editors regarding concerns in your editorial behavior. While there is no strict rule, it is commonly accepted that removed comments are moved to the archive. Removing them, does not hide it, and will look badly in the future if you are accused of uncivil behavior or other such behavior, when an administrator looks through the pages history and sees removed comments regarding your behavior. It is my friendly reccomendation that you replace the removed comments, and try to be a little more civil about things. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to put comments back. I know it doesn't delete them for good, but I asked repeatedly for MSJapan to leave me alone and when he did not I removed his comments. I also expect there to be a 2 way street here. I am being civil by asking him to cut it out. Everyone has there limits and he likes to push those limits as you will see if you look at his repetitive rants at people. Jokerst44 18:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is a two way street, and I am sure that MSJapan will make every effort to be civil here. We all get excited about things and get involved, i myself included. Just remember that being WP:COOL is a good way to handle things! Thank you for youd civil response. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont take sides, i just make decisions based on what I see. My comments are really just a friendly reminder, not an ultamatum or a threat. If you feel somebody is egging you on, feel free to ignore them, if you feel somebody is baiting you, or being overly difficult and would like an external opinion, feel free to let me know. I am not calling anybodys particular edits innapropriate, however looking through the edit hsitory of this page it looks like there are areas where both of you could improve in the civility category. However, it is a small past issue, lets work forward from here. By the way, where are you a mason at? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Mason in Missouri. I appreciate your help. I need to explain something though. I think that everyone interprets things differently. It is confusing at times. For instance...you mentioned that removing comments on my talk page could be looked badly on in the future, yet under "removing uncivil comments", it actually says to do this as an option, along with a few other things. Since it stays in page history it can be viewed later if needed. There is so much info on WP that I believe some things actually contratict themselves. I just thought deleting it was ok, since I read it as being an option. If you still think I should put them back I can...you may just need to tell me how. It's all good though. Jokerst44 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, there is not a hard and fast rule about it. Blatant vandalism is usually removed and the rest is up to the editor. It is usually better to err on the side of caution and create an archive. I have every comment that somebody has bitched at me about something, or called me a name, just for the record. You do not have to replace them, if you do not want. I will agree, much of WP is confusing, and i have spent a while figuring it out (and still learnin). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Paolo in Italy. I added a page on Pronunciation Lexicon Specification. This is a W3C specification. You added it lacks references or sources. I then added the See Also (related W3C specifications) and External Links (including the link to the PLS specification itself). Then I removed your note. I think I did it wrong, but I don't see what is missing from this page. Pao662 09:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was starting to feel like a downed flyboy in the Kaiser's territory. I deeply appreciate the sympathy. Matthew Joseph Harrington 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add text to the Nara, Nara article that was copied directly from this website: [1]?-Jefu 07:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jokerst44. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that:

You do not yet have enough edits in the main namespace (> 250).

Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jokerst44. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that: you have not made 250 mainspace edits. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. Prodego ^talk 20:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are looking at is one of the entries for the List of years in poetry, which is being built out; while at present I am adding the Song Dynasty poets, the list will get built out further as we work through, for example, Japanese, Persian, Arabic, French, etc.; for more fully built out years, look at something in the 19th or 20th century (e.g., 1934 in poetry or 1853 in poetry). For general discussion on the project, look at the talk pages on the List of years in poetry. A Musing 01:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! Jokerst44 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds do you suggest this page be cleaned up? I see nothing that can be removed that would be of benefit. Worley-d 00:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to sound like a rather awkward request, but I'd like to request that you remove your templates from the Cleveland Browns' season pages that you've tagged as requiring clean-up. The articles were newly created to provide a backbone for the Cleveland Browns seasons article, and will be filled out as time passes. (Obviously, some season articles will be longer than others.) But I don't feel that there's any need for those articles to be tagged as requiring clean-up when there's really nothing to clean up to begin with. Give me time, and they'll all be filled out. Thanks for your understanding, even if you don't accept my request. Wlmaltby3 02:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your compliance! Wlmaltby3 03:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across Amit Manthanwar and noticed you put a cleanup tag on it. For pages like that you may want to consider adding speedy notices, as it is pretty obvious they are not notable. I use WP:TWINKLE to do my tagging. -22:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Great thanks. Jokerst44 01:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that your recent add of the reference tag has been removed from the article. If nothing else, the article's citations are all in order. I have found that it is helpful to bring your concerns to the article's discussion page before making what would clearly be seen as a contentious edit by many of the editors in the article. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added a fact tag instead. Jokerst44 04:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it will probably be reverted, as it was placed in Lead Statements. They are supposed to be an overview of the rest of the article, and the info referred to occurs below. You might want to review WP:LEAD - this not being said in a derogatory manner, but rather as a suggestion. Again, I cannot stress to you enough that simply making changes on the article without addressing them in discussion is not going to earn you any friends. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the proper way to make "friends". Don't take it so personally. Jokerst44 16:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review the policy on Lead statements, which will help explain the way lead statemetns are constructed. They are supposed to act as an overview for the article. In this overview, they explain what will be happening in the article. the items you placed cite tags on are later explained with proper citations. Please remove the tags. However, if you find uncited info in the body of the article (again, not the lead but the body), please put any tags to let everyone know that citation needs to be made. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going on record as stating that the area which I added the tag, which I see was already removed, was stating fact which could be questioned, not an "overview". It may be needed to be removed since it should not be included in an overview in that case. I see you are having trouble with me doing anything to this article and taking issue with my actions. I will leave it to other people to decide. It does seem like everyone who has contributed greatly to an article, really doesn't like other people "messing" with it. Jokerst44 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraphs are supposed to be a concise overview of the article, and the sentences reflect what has been written in the body of the article. It's not necessary to add citation-needed tags. From my perspective, these sentences mention the controversy of the film succinctly enough. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said...I will let other people work on it. It seems like everyone has opinions and interprets things differently, which is natural. So I am done with 300, no big deal. Jokerst44 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, dude. :) Happy editing! Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with you adding info to a page, Jokester44. As I said in two previous posts to your talk page, you are improperly utilizing the citation tag, as it doesn't apply to Lead Statements. The reason for this is that the statements made in the lead remarks are referencing data already referenced within the artilce. I have suggested that you read WP:LEAD, and the fact that another editor removed your remarks for precisely the same reason that I suggested that you revert yourself should clearly tell you that this isn't a conspiracy to remove all your edits. Please read the wikilink provided and you will see that what I say is correct. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol..I'm not saying it is a conspiracy. You keep assuming I have not read WP:LEAD. I have seen this same situation interpreted differently on different articles, that's all I'm saying. Again, don't take it personally. Let's just let this go, I think it has been covered fully. Jokerst44 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been already rated as category B before you tagged it.

Every detail of the page is supported by sources, from the biographer and family members. Please see the references section. I request you remove the tag "This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources." as well as "Categories: Articles lacking sources from April, 2007 | All articles lacking sources" Thank you in advance. User: Milliot 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You have references listed, but this tag refers to inadequate citing of these sources. There is not one reference cited. Please cite these. Jokerst44 19:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here is how you archive that way I generally do (the cut and paste method). First off, create an archive page such as User talk:Jokerst44/archive1. Then, edit the page, select all the sections you want to move to archive and cut them (ctrl+x on a PC). Then, open up the archive page, edit it and paste what you cut out (ctrl+v on most pc's). Voila!, you have archived your talk page. Then, you can find a way to display links to your archive, I.E., copy my archive box at the top of my page and fill in links to your archive instead of mine. Hope this helped! Good luck and if you need any help, lemme know. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome...Thanks! Jokerst44 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]