Welcome!

Hello, James Carroll, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

BTW - regarding merging Taxi-dance hall to Taxi dancer, I only suggested this since the articles (at this point) look quite similar. If you're intending to expand them both, please free free to delete the merge suggestion. In general, there's no need to ask anyone's permission to do much of anything around here - Be bold is one of the key concepts. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove images from this article with first getting a consensus to do so on the talk page. Also, please do not continue to remove the hatnote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the removals (thought a bot was going after me), but in both cases I thought that they would not be missed. Just started a discussion on the photo on your talk page, and I'll mention the hatnot there as well.James Carroll (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James, your huge revisions to the Mitchell Brothers' O'Farrell Theatre were destructive and pointless. I'm going to see about having your work undone. Shame on you. SnoozeKing (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you cannot say that you were not warned, on Talk:Lap dance I have pointed you to the Wikipedia definition of WP:VANDALISM, and it clearly doesn't apply to Candleabracadabra's edits to the article, so you are completely unjustified in reverting him, and then reverting me immediately afterwards, despite the very clear explanation I posted on the talk page. You have now taken the first two steps into WP:EDITWARRING, which, if you continue on this path, will wind up with your being blocked by an admin for a short period of time. By your actions, you have succeeded in turning the content dispute into a behavioral problem, which it has not been before, but, unfortunately for you, it is 'your behavior which will be the locus of any admin action. You have a chance to back away from the brink: if you self-revert your most recent edit before anyone else does, it will not be considered to be a reversion. Please consider doing this, calming down, and coming back and discussing your content differences with C. here, as called for by WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. It's really the right thing to do.

This is a substantial duplication of a comment I posted on the article talk page, which I'm posting here to be sure that you seen it. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much what I said to Rick Block, and basically sums up what must be done:

You or one of your admin associates needs to look more closely at the incident. These guys ignored the article for years, and it stagnated. After doing much work cleaning it up and adding research, User:Candleabracadabra without any discussion on the Talk Page and during a late night hour, removed the majority of my work, cutting the article in half. His accomplice, Beyond My Ken who also has deleted the same work has received many complaints from users about his excessive reverts, his use of profanity in his comments, and has even been disciplined many multiple times for Edit Warring (see link below). I will not work on this article, or any other articles, unless User:Candleabracadabra and Beyond My Ken are banned from the page, in order to preserve the much researched and referenced work that I have invested in. Do you really think that any volunteer would continue with this type of treatment?

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion to Beyond My Ken

https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beyond_My_Ken&direction=prev&oldid=589258371

It was later found out that the large deletion that initiated the edit war was done by a sockpuppet known as User:Candleabracadabra . As soon as I reverted the sockpuppett's deletion, Beyond My Ken came in and repeated the sockpuppets deletion. Were the two working together? James Carroll (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mark other people's reverts as vandalism, just because you don't like that version, as you did here, here, and here. Thanks, Epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the large deletion done to my edits that are discussed here, was done by a sockpuppet know as User:Candleabracadabra . His account has since been closed. When a user is so sleazy to use a sockpuppet scheme to delete sourced content, it seems appropriate that it should be labeled vandalism.James Carroll (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Lap dance. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

As a postscript to this block, let me say cool off. Discuss your proposed changes and additions on the talk page, and obtain consensus for them before implementing. Try slowing down and doing this one change at a time. bd2412 T 05:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, James Carroll. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 13:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the 3 articles that I have committed to working on this winter, I really need to include a handful of historic photos from the San Francisco Public Library. The library was accommodating and had me submit this form to get their permission, despite the fact that many of the photos seem like they are Public Domain (see Permission Form at right). They granted permission in all cases.

I previously had one photo accepted as Fair Use, but photo-admin user:Stefan2 insisted it had to have its resolution reduced, as the photo was from the 1940s [ https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/File:International_Settlement_1940s_San_Francisco_Pacific_Street_FaceWest_Crp1.jpg ].

I am very confused as to what can be submitted as Public Domain (would enable more detailed scan resolutions as well), and what ones I need to process as Fair Use. Under a Fair Use submission process, I faced further difficulties by a photo-admin who placed another historic photo in the Non-Free Review limbo [ https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review ], thus creating another obstacle to getting a 150 year old photo accepted, despite its permissions from from the San Francisco Public Library and a lack of evidence of a copyright owner. [ see https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Pacific_Street_Docks_Ferry_Boat_1860s_San_Francisco_LibraryCode_AAC-2278.jpg ].

Here is how SF Library presents the Full Record of information concerning the photos that have been granted permission. In some cases the photos are before 1923, and some are later. None of the photos I need have the "Restrictions May Apply" phrase upon them, which would suggest a possible copyright claim [ example: http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1008421~S0 ].

This is a list of the photos which SF Library has granted permission, but am unsure how to process them through Wikipedia.

http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1006314~S0

http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1011628~S0

http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1003649~S0

http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1011640~S0

http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1014012~S0

http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/record=b1017169~S0

It is greatly appreciated if someone could help me out with this. Thanx. James Carroll (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Street Artists Program of San Francisco at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not reviewing the DYK nomination and have made no edits to the article. My only contribution was striking a poorly-constructed hook from the DYK nomination. Please reach your consensus without me, as I have no interest in the article itself. Thanks C679 18:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem. James Carroll (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 February 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Street Artists Program of San Francisco, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that San Francisco artists and craftspeople fought the police and city hall for years to bring about a Street Artists Program that lets them legally sell their work on the city's sidewalks? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Street Artists Program of San Francisco. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it may be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dancehalls of Pacific Street Facing West San Francisco 1909 SFLibraryCode AAB-6692 CropA.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spider Kellys Dance Hall with Little Egypt 1911 SFLibraryCode AAB-1265 mono.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Spider Kellys Dance Hall with Little Egypt 1911 SFLibraryCode AAB-1265 mono.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dancehalls of Pacific Street Facing West San Francisco 1909 SFLibraryCode AAB-6692 CropA.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 March 1 if you are interested in preserving them. Thank you. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	File:Jelly Roll Morton and friends (1918).gif. Result! Keep up the good work. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 March 1#Terrific Street, Peripitus beat me to close it and TLSuda beat me to deleting the old revisions of the image. Hah, I guess I'm getting old and slow. James086^Talk 17:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in contributing to this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Yes, I do have something that I would like to contribute.James Carroll (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new section on Talk:Street Artists Program of San Francisco. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James -- I saw your note on the COM sockpuppet investigation page, as well as here -- I'm a little confused; what do you mean? Both Candleabracadabra and the sockmaster ChildofMidnight are indefinitely blocked (Candleabracadabra and CoM). If you spot any new sockpuppets feel free to open a new investigation subpage, and you can restore any material deleted by the editor. All the best -- Antandrus (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has finally come out that User:Candleabracadabra has run a sock puppet scheme to further his twisted point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive . I was also one of this jerk's victims when he did a Mass Deletion of much work that I had researched and sourced. You can read about it here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lap_dance/Archive_2

Why did you censor my Complaint from the record of his Investigation? My complaint belongs in his Investigation as it may add insight for others who now have to correct the other twisted stunts and edits that this disingenuous person, User:Candleabracadabra , has caused. And from what I have seen of recent and rapid deletions to Candleabracadabra's Talk Page, it seems that User:TheCatalyst31 might be the same person as User:Candleabracadabra and may also need to be investigated for sock puppetry. I am very disturbed that you and others like User:Ebyabe have censored my words, and even censored attempted discussions on your Talk Pages, just to protect a disingenuous individual such as Candleabracadabra.

Wikipedia is fragile document in that its research depends on a "code of personal honor" for its Sources. How can one expect a "code of honor" when an individual is so twisted that they must run a deceitful activity like sock puppetry to force their point of view?James Carroll (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? I was one of the people who participated in the sockpuppetry investigation, and I don't appreciate the baseless personal attack. As for your earlier comments, there's no need to grave dance on the talk page of an indefinitely blocked editor. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To look at Candleabracadabra's Talk Page, it looks like nothing has happened at all -- like he is still in business. It is too easy not to see the sock puppet notice on his main page. It makes sense to also have a notification on his talk page -- that he is a sock puppet and has been found to be a disingenuous and deceitful individual -- so that other who are considering reversing his bogus edits are encouraged and not discouraged. You claim that Candleabracadabra needs to be protected from "personal attacks" while I feel that a fraud like Candleabracadabra deserves no such courtesy. The facts of his deceptions should be made obvious, not hidden. It is very likely that Candleabracadabra will return with yet a new identity and we will need facts about his old identity to flesh him out. James Carroll (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candleabracadabra was permanently blocked 4 months ago. So the issue is academic. If more socks appear, they will be dealt with. Have a happy new year. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 02:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not offered a valid reason why my factual posts should be censored from a Talk Page. James Carroll (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you put it in an archive page, which are for recordkeeping purposes. Which I mentioned in the edit summary. If you want your new concerns addressed, please add them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Have a nice day. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 18:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dancehalls of Pacific Street Facing West San Francisco 1909 SFLibraryCode AAB-6692 CropA.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, James Carroll. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]