Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:37, 8 November 2008

Homepage Talk Email Me! My Sandbox Vandalism Levels My Contributions My Edit Count Article Traffic

This user makes mistakes on RC patrol. (Report one)

I reply to all messages that are new on this page, so be sure to add it to your watchlist if you post something so you can see when I reply. Also remember to post your messages at the bottom of the talk page. Thanks, Jackelfive

License tagging for Image:Falcon FG.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Falcon FG.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit you made to Alexandra Hamilton, Duchess of Abercorn has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Prince of Canada 07:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my talk page. DiverseMentality 06:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page!jackelfive (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me too! DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hiya, thanks for your help with the vandals.  :) Just as an FYI though, users (even anons) are allowed to blank templates and block messages from their talkpages. See WP:BLANKING. So if I put a block message on a page and somebody deletes it, I don't really mind. They're still blocked, and if by blanking their talkpage, it de-escalates the situation, that's fine. Now, if they were blanking an unblock template so they could try multiple unblocks, that's a different story. But just blanking block messages or other warnings? Nah, it's okay.  :) Anyway, keep up the great work, --Elonka 05:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi - I've fulfilled your request for rollback. Please remember to use it only for the removal of obvious vandalism. You can find out more at WP:RBK or ask me for any help. Thanks for your hard work. Pedro :  Chat  08:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

On what basis are you rolling back changes because YOU find them "unconstructive"?

Who the hell died and made YOU god of all WIKI creation?

If someone makes a change which is in a TRIVIA section which identifies TRIVIA about the thing in question where do you get off eliminating them without any discussion of the matter? Tinpot dictator with delusions of godhood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.219.28 (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you find that something I reverted shouldn't have been, please notify me. As for the warning message, it is auto-generated and automatically added with the reversion. jackelfive (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why a legitimate link to an external source has been removed? The information is far from 'unconstructive' and my comments in the 'talk page' have also been rolled back... Solutioneering (talk) 07:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry it must have been an accident. I have undone my reversion. Thanks for letting me know. jackelfive (talk) 07:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks... Solutioneering (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

re Andrew Sullivan

Look at the edit and edit summary again; you're making a mistake.71.240.67.58 (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because it was removal of sourced content. jackelfive (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Irukandji Jellyfish

Hi umm... 'separate' is actually the correct spelling. The IP wasn't vandalising.   05:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you so much for reverting the edits made by User:68.151.219.103. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hindi is not understood in many places in south India. --Yusufd (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't removing that. I was removing the editing tests of This edit.--Jackelfive 11:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

52 Infantry Brigade

I have attempted theree times now to edit the web page concerning 52 Infantry Brigade but each time for some reason you have decided to revert it. I am the Chief of Staff of 52 Infantry Brigade so am probably better placed than you to determine what is correct. The information on future reorganisation is 12 months out of date and completely wrong. The Brigade is not the Armys focus for SLE and the units you say are coming to us as part of this reorg are not and are now units within other Brigades. Please undo your reverts and stay out of teh Armys business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.197.39 (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it because you did not explain why you removed such a large amount of content. In future, please provide and edit summary, in this case saying you were giving the article an update.--Jackelfive

Explanations of Canadian support for John Kerry

You recently reverted my deletion of this section. This section is original research and makes no reference to any studies that explain Canadian support for Kerry. The only source cited was from a column in a pro-Republican newspaper that also provided no evidence for its conclusions. Furthermore, other explanations are possible.

If you have no objections, I will delete this section. Please tell me how detailed the edit summary should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it because you left no edit summary, and you removed a very large amount of content. Before deleting such a large amount, I highly recommend discussing what you plan to do in the article's talk page. And then, in the edit summary, you should state why you removed it. In this case, you should mention that it was not properly sourced. Thanks, Jackelfive 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I did enter my views in the Talk page October 6th, but no one replied. There was discussion about removing the article in 2004, but no concensus was reached. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, go ahead with it, just make sure you clearly explain your intentions in the edit summary box. Jackelfive 10:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Recent Revert

Sorry, I had thought it was a vandal. \ / (⁂) 11:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries mate, I would've done the same thing.Jackelfive 11:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How is this nonconstructive? The account is blocked infedinitely. 75.3.130.139 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You removed a lot of content of others user pages and you did not explain why. Thanks, Jackelfive 05:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

look at the talk page of that article

.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.251.177 (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I thoought it was vandalism (removal of content) because you didn't explain why in your edit summary. Now that I know, I'll remove your warning from your talk page. Thanks, Jackelfive 05:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you remove it. That guy who keeps readding it is the one who is vandalizing if anything if you look at what tyheiy're adding. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Done. Oh and don't forget to sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) your IP address and time of post will be added automatically. Thanks, Jackelfive 05:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

Could you revert that IP user's edit again? He deleted the material, simply saying, "see talk" even though consensus has shifted our way. I warned him about edit warring so if he reverts again, I can get him blocked. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, I just quickly looked over the talk page, I didn't count up the consensus of votes. I'll tell the IP why. Thanks, Jackelfive 06:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a vote and they clearly do not have consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.251.177 (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

by the way even if wikipedia is a vote tyhey do not have the votes to add this material. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

When it comes to removal of content, there sould be a vote on the talk page. There are more saying they want to include the article than oppose, so it should be kept on. Only remove the content when there is strong opposition for it to be kept. In this case it doesn't even come close. Thanks, Jackelfive 06:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

no its the opposte. when you want to add defemation you have to have majority and they dont have majority. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

It is currently 4 - 5 in favour for it to be removed. Wait until there is a CLEAR CONSENSUS. Thanks, Jackelfive 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

please read wikipedia policy. if you want to add that kind of material you need clear consenss. they do not have it and then when i remove it clasim i need to consuensus to remove it. untrue. you need consesnus to add it. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

The material was already there when the vote started. The vote wasn't "should it be added", but "why was it removed". Also as a word of advice, there is no need to vote on pages, IP's votes are not counted. Thanks, Jackelfive 06:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

thats not true. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Let me remind you 96.232.251.177 that IP's votes do not count on talk pages. So your vote nor the "vandals" vote counts. I have voted in favour of keeping the material, so it is clearly far from consensus that the material should be removed. Also, if you are going to have an agument with AzureFury, please take it away from my talk page and maybe on to yours. Jackelfive 07:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

ok fine but i was just reponsind to him. i cant tell ghim on his talk bc he keeps deleting my comments so i have no choice but to say back here. what hes sayiong isnt true. sorry about that. 96.232.251.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Mediation request for John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 07:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 07:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Raped a baby

With his tiny cock