User talk:VanishedUser93487782

Yo jf, whazzup. I added some stuff to your Jabbor Gibson page. Fellow H&Rer Miraculouschaos 05:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article Mean Croboys[edit]

If you wish to nominate an article for deletion, you should follow the guidelines at WP:AFD. Bjelleklang - talk 00:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article had already been nominated for speedy deletion, and in fact has been deleted. Thank you for your input, though. Jfiling 02:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know, the user that created it was a sockpuppet of a known vandal, which was discovered at the same time. Bjelleklang - talk 02:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. I've just graduated from newbie status, I guess, so I was not aware of that fact. Jfiling 02:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salford Jets[edit]

The article claims that Mike Sweeney is with Piccadilly Radio, so the first thing I did was to see if we had an article on that, and we do. Since he's a DJ, that gives him some claim of notability. Next, it states they had a 1980 hit, so there's a second claim of notability. {{nn-band}} was really meant for articles like (to give a really obvious example), "XXX is a rock music band with four people. They've played some high school gigs and are getting ready to release a demo album." Basically, CSD A7 (nn-band, nn-club, nn-bio) can only be applied when there is no assertion of significance/importance at all or the assertion is so ridiculous that it can't possibly be true ("Joe Schmoe is king of the USA"). What differs among administrators is what qualifies as an "assertion," although most of us set the bar pretty low. The intention of speedy deletion is really to eliminate discussion on articles that have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving AfD so that we all save our time and energy by not dealing with 100% loser articles. So you were pretty close with your application of it. A7 just got expanded to include groups of people recently so we're still testing the waters and figuring out where exactly the line is. The more conservative route is to go to AfD whenever in doubt; if the article is speediable, it will be figured out soon enough (and you'll also get a good idea of what qualifies as speedy and what doesn't). If you're doing new page patrol, you might consider looking at User:Jnothman/afd_helper to make AfD nominations easier. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 08:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the good advice. I'll follow your link, and consider this a good learning experience. Jfiling 08:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V7ndotcom Elursrebmem Deletion[edit]

Hi, I noticed you voted to on the abovementioned article. Initialy I wanted to keep it, but when I compared it to Nigritude ultramarine and Seraphim proudleduck it seems obvious that all theese articles are repating the same info:

It's a search contest
It has begin/end dates
It has a prize
It uses a unique phrase that is not used before

I'd like to urge you to change your vote to Redirect to SEO Contest where I have created already made a copy of the article. This way they dont have "their own article" but they are mentioned in the encyclopedia. Seems like a compromise to me. Right now w/ all the Delete, Keep, And Redirect votes it will be hard to reach a compromise.This user has left wikipedia 22:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've instructed wiki that you are vandalizing the KM site[edit]

and I've requested that they ban you from the site.

wikipedia is now aware of your actions and are advising me on how[edit]

to proceed to deal with your violations of user code and harrassment of posters to the KM entry

Um, who are you? Jfiling 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did I Vandalilse the KASHMIR page[edit]

By adding a link to an active blog on Kashmir by a Kashmiri is that Vandalising and I have never ever been to any terrorism in pakistan link , and here Wiki is telling me I vandalised that page????

This is utter nonsense, I am an established wriiter in Kashmir and a link to my Blog is vandalising.

Can you make me understand how you, a non-kashmiri, is to decide what is right and what is wrong. How are you to decide the authenticity of any person???

203.135.21.45 06:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Kashmir[reply]

I am not sure whre I should be reponding to your response. But here it goes:

I added the link in external links only in pages of Kashmir, Srinagar and Kashmir Conflict. I have seen the same sites being repeated over and over again on all pages of Kashmir which represent the minority view. Why is that not wrong. Is it just becasue they have well organsied websites? Is now a well-organsied website the criteria for un-biasness! Further I have not beeen Vandalising any page at all.

All I did was add a couple of links, which thanfully have been removed, becasue as far as the issue of Kashmir is concerned wikipedia's information is biased and based on fiction. People who wrote that did well and good. But, such biased information came under no fire! An unbiased link is, ofcourse, spam.

Good day sir.

203.135.21.45 18:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Kashmir[reply]

I have added the links of muslim and pro movement newspaper greater kashmir and if you remove them i shall be assured of your baisness and soft-corner for the non-muslimns of kashmir whose links appear on each and evry topic of kashmir, however unrelated. and why isnt that spam.

203.135.21.45 20:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)kashmir[reply]

thanks[edit]

I am sorry for being rude. I guess I should register, better way to help in this then. So, if I add the links to the newspaper greater kashmir on most pages related to kashmir (as if the case with www.ikashmir.com or www.kashmir-information.com or other minority community sites, who even add subdomains like www.ikashmir.com/abc under different headings) it won't be considered spam and will be allowed to stay. If you might have observed I deleted the link to my blog from all pages, almost.

203.135.21.45 06:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)kashmir[reply]

Kashmir Observers credibilty is unquestionable.. All kashmiris know that and no one can misled us any more... having resources and painting news in color may make one big newspaper but never the best..

HELP[edit]

[Kashmir Observers] credibilty is unquestionable.. All kashmiris know that and no one can misled us any more... having resources and painting news in color may make one big newspaper but never the best..

Quorn[edit]

While I may have been a bit fanciful in my reason for the edit on the Quorn page, I think that the revision I made not only was relevant, but didn't violate NPOV in any way. Could you please explain to me why you feel that the information I added violated NPOV? I ask especially because this is the first time (except for some revert wars I got into the middle of regarding Kashmir) I have ever been accused of being in violation. Considering that I cited the information I included, and it is most relevant to the controversy, I would appreciate an explanation, or else I can only assume that you have made a bad-faith edit on the Quorn entry. 02:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Colorful anecdotes are not needed in this article, especially the one you added. It was clearly added to be gratuitous, not to add to the allergy issue of the product which is covered well already. Why haven't you gone to the article about Peanut or any other food that people can be allergic to and added specific, graphic descriptions of those reactions? Why not one of the other examples instead of the one you choose? Obviously, the quote (including a double !!) is inflamatory and meant to discredit the product, or just to gross people out. I absolutely stand behind my edit - the specifics of someone's diarrhea is not needed in this article. Nightngle 16:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rack (torture)[edit]

Can you please provide the grounds on which you judged my contribution to be an instance of vandalism?.Hakeem.gadi 01:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:JabborGibson.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:JabborGibson.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings[edit]

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

August 2009[edit]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Mark Shapiro. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. --sanfranman59 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Input request[edit]

You have contributed to article The Really Big Show (formerly Rizzo on the Radio). This article is currently being considered for deletion. Please consider providing input at the article's discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Really_Big_Show. Levdr1lp (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Jfiling. 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]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Jfiling. 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]

Attacks at Talk:Gender identity[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Gender identity in this edit. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Mathglot (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Talk:Gender identity, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gugrak (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]