Archives

1, 2, 3

On December 19 you tagged Alan Kaplinsky as likely copy-pasted from someplace else. My quick search found no evidence to that effect, and you didn't provide a source. Why did you tag it? Huon (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used the copypaste tag and not the copyvio tag precisely because I could not find a source. I was wary of some of the elements of the article, specifically the list of notable cases and the integration of an unattributed quote unsourced quote in the lead paragraph, that made it likely that the article text was copied from somewhere else. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. The article certainly has some problems (such as WP:OR or WP:SYN), but it didn't look copy-pasted to me, and since you removed the tag, the issue seems resolved. Again, thanks! Huon (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RJaguar3, thanks again for your comments on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 GA review. As it's been about three weeks since the last update, I was wondering if you are still planning on conducting the GA review. I understand if you've been busy, and I'm happy to continue work with you on the review if you'd like to continue it. But if reviewing the article is something you don't think you have the time for, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know and perhaps allow another editor to conduct the review. Either way, thanks for your work thus far. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I now have the five books referenced in the article and have been thoroughly reviewing the article and the cited references. I am currently up through the 1992 amendments, and I should be able to get the article finished this weekend. Thanks again for your patience. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic! Thanks for all of your hard work. I look forward to your comments. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prototime, I've been sick this weekend (when I was planning to go through a major chunk of the article), so the review should be finished next week. Thank you for your patience. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the GA review can wait; feel better soon. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RJaguar3, thanks again for your fantastic GA review. I'm not sure if you're interested in voting rights- or law-related articles more generally, but if so I would enjoy collaborating with you to work on improving some of them. I've been thinking about taking a stab at Equal Protection Clause, Voter ID laws in the United States, or Felony disenfranchisement sometime soon (in addition to continuing to polish the VRA article), but I have relatively eclectic interests so I'm open to working on other articles in these areas too. Feel free to ping me if you're ever interested in working together. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is JAMS (alternative dispute resolution). JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RJaguar3, and thank you for your message. As it is stated in the article (Avalon Hill):

In early 1984, on the occasion of the release of third edition RuneQuest, Avalon Hill included in all RuneQuest boxes a single advertising flyer (see image, right) announcing the launch of HEROES

I guess it can be explained, by some way, in the description page of the file... but I don't know how this exactly could be done... Any advice would be most welcome. Kintaro (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kintaro: I corrected the DI tag on the file page. The issue still stands that the non-free use rationale on the file page does not explain why usage of the image on Avalon Hill satisfies WP:NFCC#8. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all? I guess you think that NFCC#8 is able to be applied to the image... that is? because in my case I simply do not agree with you. The image illustrates the text and thus brings a reference to it. Kintaro (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RJaguar3, thanks again for your thoughtful GA review of Voting Rights Act of 1965. I wanted to let you know that the article is currently a Featured Article Candidate, in case you'd like to give any feedback on its candidacy; the FAC entry is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voting Rights Act of 1965/archive1. Beyond a good amount of copyediting and polishing, the article isn't too different from when you conducted the GA review, except that some of the text describing the Act's amendments was moved to a child article (Amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965) in light of how lengthy the article was. The FAC has been mostly quiet thus far, and given your insight, I would greatly appreciate your feedback on the article's candidacy. Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy deletion for File:Heroes advertising flyer.jpg as the uploader makes some claims on the talk page which may or may not be relevant. If you still feel this image has WP:NFCC issues (I'm not commenting either way), I recommend that you take the discussion to WP:FFD as I feel that the uploader should be given a full discussion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I just wanted to let you know that I folded four of your nominations in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 July 8 into one multi-nomination entry, (per WP:FFD instructions) so that they can be discussed all the same time, without having to post the same message four times.

Hope that's okay.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, that's okay. Thank you for doing that. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RJaguar3, there's an anon under the IP of 76.19.217.41, claiming Legends end date was on December 29, 1995, according to LegendsWikia. That definitely can't be it, and I was wondering if you can help so I won't get into a war with the person, who could possibly continue. I tried once and then another. --64.134.26.86 (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's me. I am Grundle2600. I never try to hide the identity of my socks. It's interesting that everyone was OK with the edits from this particular sock until they started to suspect that it was a sock. The only reason I was banned in the first place was to prevent me from adding reliably sourced info that was critical of Obama. Many articles created by my various socks are still in existence, and the content that I added is still in them. I never should have been banned in the first place. Lkiode43 (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete every news open image on all television stations (including WCBS-TV, KCBS-TV etc.) since they won't visually identify the station and provide critical commentary that the article text alone cannot. Strafidlo (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just thought you should know for future reference that the IP-hopping edit warrior at King v. Burwell has been disrupting Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since at least September 8. The page has been semi-protected a number of times as a result, and they have repeatedly come back and reverted after the semi-prot expired. They were also blocked at one point early on. Based on their geolocation data and edit history I suspect this person is personally involved in Obamacare litigation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and closed the request you posted for the redirect Dark Forest on WP:RFD. Since you are claiming that there is no primary topic, your request would actually be a move request to move Dark Forest (disambiguation) over Dark Forest per WP:DABNAME. In effect, I have moved the discussion over to Talk:Dark Forest (disambiguation) as a move request. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- having followed your conversation on the "redirect" page, I was able to read the stuff in ars technica about Komodia. For now, I added a chunk within the Superfish article; I think Komodia needs its own page, but I don't have the Wikipedia chops to write it. I don't know if you have the time or inclination to do so, but I thought I'd write, as I saw you were editing the Superfish page. Best -- Bruiserid (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to discuss my edit on the "Bundling of Microsoft Windows" Wikipedia page. You have expressed doubts about trustworthiness of root.cz, which is understandable if you are not Czech.

However, the online magazine has a Czech Wikipedia entry dating to 2004 http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root.cz and I have been able to find english Wikipedia pages that already reference to it (you can just search the English Wikipedia for "root.cz" to see for yourself).

Google translator can translate the article so one can understand its meaning and, for instance, appreciate that it contains scanned documents from the refund process.

Therefore, I kindly ask you to reconsider your revert and restore my contribution. --213.211.57.37 (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RJaguar3 and CoffeeWithMarkets:

I procedurally closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Spyware. I agree with your general premise, and had the existing discussion and related work not already been in-progress I might have recommended deletion redirect-but-keep-the-page-history. If you have any questions about why I did what I did, please ask.

If you think it's time to close the ongoing discussion, I'm sure there are admins and other "uninvolved" experienced editors out there who would be willing to take a look at it and see if it is ripe for closure and if it is, close it. Given that there isn't an overwhelming consensus one way or the other and that I have my own opinion on the matter, it would be improper for me to close it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think this should be merged with Vanderbilt University. There is already referenced info about this in the main article, and it seems redundant and unnecessary. Would you agree?Zigzig20s (talk) 03:24, 8 October 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) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: edits to Noel Biderman's page. I'm a journalist. What's the best way to reach out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.184.80 (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have activated the "Email this user" feature, so, if you register an account, you can log in, then click the "Email this user" link on the tools panel when you visit my userpage. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 08:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RJaguar3. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RJaguar3,

My name is Ryan Deto and I am a reporter at the Pittsburgh City Paper in Pittsburgh, PA. I am writing a story about politicians and wikipedia and have been following the career of PA House Speaker Mike Turzai closely for years. Looking through Turzai's wikipedia page, edits have been made, criticism has been added and removed. I noticed that your contributions have been straight forward and without much bias. I was hoping you could provide me some insight on wikipedia editing and how it relates to politicians, etc. Maybe we can have an interview and you can share your experiences editing on wikipedia. Think we can set up a time to talk this week? Since wikipedia editors are anonymous, we can do the same for the story, and just attribute any quotes or information to you to your username, unless you prefer to use your real name. My deadline is Friday July 7 at noon. you can contact me at 412-316-3342 x162 or can email me at ryandeto@pghcitypaper.com Let me know. Best, Ryan Deto, Staff Writer, Pittsburgh City Paper

Hello, I updated your edit of Trivia Trap. There were 2 errors misquoted from the source which you cited: 1) You changed "American Film Institute" to "American Film International"; 2) the author said there was a "format flaw", not a "gameplay flaw". It was a matter of flow of the show, not validity of the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelkfla (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, RJaguar3. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was curious about an edit you made to the Hot Hot Hot (meme) page back in 2010: https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Hot_Hot_Hot_%28meme%29&diff=prev&oldid=355836026. You inserted that the song was written by John Tesh, but I haven't been able to find any other sources for that. Where did you discover that information? Is it verified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.240.102.169 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You founded, per Wikia, the U.S. Game Shows Wiki. We recently had vandals causing a lot of trouble there. The person you made into an admin, Neubauer, never helped us. We had to tell the Volunteer Spam Task Force (VSTF) about the vandalism. The vandalism was ceased and the vandals banned, but it is a very time-consuming task to repeatedly revert vandals' illegal edits.—Bde1982 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since I’m now convinced that the last Legends of the Hidden Temple airdate in 1995 isn’t December 29, I was wondering when the show’s last aired episode aired. The wiki currently says November 24, which could be more accurate than December 29. June 27 is clearly wrong as a few airdates after June 27 have been confirmed. Let me know when you have an answer.

Alec Borden (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RJaguar3. 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 RJaguar3! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:RJaguar3/Jeopardy! strategy, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:RJaguar3/Jeopardy! strategy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:RJaguar3/Jeopardy! strategy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AldezD (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Jeopardy! contestants is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jeopardy! contestants (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

AldezD (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Maximum Drive has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Zero soruces found

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maximum Drive is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maximum Drive until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beach Clash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beach Clash until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]