Jump to content

User talk:Action Jackson IV

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Action Jackson IV (talk | contribs) at 06:03, 1 September 2007 (→Giving Warnings: chat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please help on 'September 11 2001 attack' article

We need as many editors to help stop this as we can get. --BewareTheIlluminati ~

Your message

Thanks very much. Take care, --Guinnog 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, the wording of some of your Wikipedia:edit summaries has frequently been unnecessarily harsh and confrontational, sometimes containing personal attacks. Please keep in mind that edit summaries remain in the page histories permanently, so it is important that they be civil. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to "fucking moron", which I feel more accurately summarizes the position of people not knowing how to grasp the finer subtleties of the most basic table (yet feeling perfectly qualified to edit an encyclopedia), I think "dummy" is well within bounds. --Action Jackson IV 22:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and in any event, that's hardly the only instance. Please stop it. Newyorkbrad 22:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I disagree with you. Shall I catalog my every edit, and the pains I took to soften what needs to be said? WP:Action Jackson's edits and why softening the truth won't help Wikipedia? Are you that perturbed? Shall we take this to the Touchy-feely brigade? Why not focus your efforts on fixing inaccurate edits, instead of pretending to be some wonderful public servant? --Action Jackson IV 22:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudeness and incivility are not needed on wikipedia and there are plenty of ways to explain yourself without resorting to them. Please familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL. Cburnett 05:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing tag on Complexity classes P and NP

Hello. You placed a Template:Cleanup-confusing tag on Complexity classes P and NP. Unfortunately, you didn't explain what you're finding confusing. You said that "the first paragraph makes little to no sense and would benefit from a more grammatical rewrite". However, in my view, it does make sense and its grammar is also fine. Please be more specific what the problem is. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zydeisland

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel Talk 22:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right-o. So, just for clarity (and I'm not trying to sound like an ass, though this is an ass's favorite argument) - if Joe Fifth Grader writes an article on "Miss Henning", which includes text to the effect of "A quick Google will reveal the importance of her contributions to Dullsville Elementary School", this (clearly non-notable) article is to go through WP:AFD, not speedy delete? --Action Jackson IV 23:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read what you wrote and see what you're asserting - though to my eyes the article really doesn't mention any notibility beyond a request to Google, which as I stated brings up about 174 hits, most of which are spam in other web forums. --Action Jackson IV 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having 16,000 players could be seen by some as notable. I have no idea if that claim is true or not (determining that is for AFD) but it's an assertion of real notability, so I can't speedy it. It's kind of a judgment call, really, left up to the admin that looks at it. The 5th grade teacher article wouldn't present even a remotely convincing assertion of notability, whereas this one might be notable (if true) so I thought it would be best to get input from the rest of the community. Kafziel Talk 00:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd figure 16,000 people would manage at least 500 Google hits. I'll look into it and throw it by AFD! Thanks for everything. --Action Jackson IV 00:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. For what it's worth, I'd probably lean toward deleting it (and will probably show up to take a look at the evidence and voice my opinion at AFD). But when you're going through this much crap you just don't have time to do the thorough investigations and debates that can be done at AFD. Kafziel Talk 01:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha - and I'm not even going to click that link :-D DELETE GEORGE DUBYA, NOT NOTABLE; WHY WAS MY ARTICLE ON THIS BAND / THAT BAND / WHO REALLY SHOT JFK AND CAUSED 9/11 / PASSIVE NEW AGE PIZZA THERAPY AND ISOTOPIC ISOLATION REMOVED -- I can imagine. Anyway, the AFD is up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zydeisland (no clue would the Wiki formatting of that would be - I'm a content editor, not a web guru, dang it). --Action Jackson IV 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 08:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Hart cleanup

Hiya, you put a "cleanup" tag on the Owen Hart article - but I can't see why, it's a chronological run through of his wrestling career, his death and what happened after he died so could you please enlighten me as to what needs to be cleaned up?? MPJ-DK 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The prose in general is convoluted and, if you'll pardon me, poorly written. For instance:


This is a massive run-on sentence. A better version of this would be:


.

Feel free to contact me with any further questions! --Action Jackson IV 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright that's actually a fair point on re-read MPJ-DK 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to do a cleanup of the article to make it easier to read I hope, could you give it a read through? I left the cleanup tag on the page until someone else has had a look at the article. MPJ-DK 13:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. I'm currently reading it right now (sorry for the delay), and while definitely better, there are still little niggles here and there. Nothing major, I'll go through and polish 'er up real good-like. --Action Jackson IV 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet space program conspiracy accusations hoax

Hello! I patrol hoaxes, and I noticed your tag on this article. Can you clarify (preferably on Talk: Soviet space program conspiracy accusations) which part you think is a hoax? I did some quick googling around on "Ledovsky" and found what looks to have been the source (albeit not necessarily a reliable one), as well as a few other mentions. (excerpt from book, searchable book, newspaper article). Hoax or not, the section needs some citations! Anyway, please update the talk page when you have a moment. Thanks, Shunpiker 02:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. It was just meant to relate to that one sub-section (Aleksei Ledovsky) - too bad there isn't a section-only template. Anyway, what aroused my suspicion was the generic "conspiracy theory" ring to it - a "High-ranking Czech communist" leaked - in addition to the complete... I don't know, for lack of a better term, "idiocy" in the situation (maybe it's just the way it's described - taking a cockpit big enough for a dog and ripping out half the machinery to stuff a human in there. It would take a pretty heavy dose of naive idealism to imagine anything but disaster resulting from that). Anyway - if you see sources, and this isn't just a case of "things made up in school one day", then I have no problem with it. --Action Jackson IV 04:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Zappa's Läther

Hi! Just to say that I enjoyed you edit to the Läther story. I reverted most of it - as you noticed - simply because it was too long and detailed and is therefore better suited for the article of the album. I am happy to see that you did not regard my edit as a negative one. I have personally no strong opinion about the whole issue, so I tried to make an edit that was as objective as possible. Glad that you liked it, and your edit is perfect! Cheers! --HJ 09:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! I was going to leave a message on your talk page as well - your edit was quite a pleasant surprise. Reading the diff, I was already groaning and preparing myself for a giant editwar - but was nearly dumbstruck with joy when I actually read it. Too bad that a lot of what we know for certain about Zappa comes from sources that the current Wiki-acracy would deem "non-verified" - USENET posts, fan studies, and a lot of connect-the-dotting. The man himself couldn't even accurately date most of his live material, yet if it came down to an editwar you know which side the ArbCom would fall on. Anyway, enough disjointed ramblings - glad you liked my edit as much as I liked yours. --Action Jackson IV 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mars

Re your edit - is that so? I've always believed that story - where did you here the opposite? regards, sbandrews (t) 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, ty, funny the things we take for granted though, its always good to question facts, kind regards sbandrews (t) 19:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Mayor Quimby deleting warning messages

He deleted the conversation we were having, but I'm not gonna revert it since he's allowed to do so...then he deleted the part I posted afterwards defending his actions..why? I'm not sure, but that's none of my business. Anyway, read the conversation here. Mostly the last reply, but you can read that whole thing if you like, it's just the last reply that's most important though. I'm not gonna say it's not frustrating...trust me..I know how frustrating it can be, and I think it should be a policy that you are not allowed to delete warning messages on your own talk page. But, unfortunately, it isn't, so he was/is allowed to do so. I do dis-like when people do that, but it's allowed so I can't do anything about it. Bsroiaadn 05:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irenic

"Dict def" isn't a criterion for speedy deletion. John Reaves (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but {{nocontext}} certainly is. --Action Jackson IV 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, and that's why I deleted it. Just pointing out the futility in adding non-CSD tags. John Reaves (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Razor26

Thanks for the update mate, yeah- i do like to see someone getting scrutinised so much when they deserve it so much. Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal case on RDRAM

I've commented on the RDRAM mediation request here. YechielMan 01:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tagging

Hi, I noticed you've been doing a lot of CSD tagging lately. First up, you're doing a great job, keep it up. And secondly, the pages really only need one tag (I've seen you tag a few with 2 or 3 different speedy reasons). Thanks again for helping out, happy editing. --Michael Billington (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do tend to agree that the page will be noticed faster if you give it more than one tag - that's probably why I found them in the first place. Anyway, it is only the visual clutter of multiple speedy templates that I'm worried about, so there's no issue with me if you want to keep doing that. Cheers, and to echo myself again: keep up the quality work, we need more people to help with things like this. --Michael Billington (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must, however, make sure that the articles meet the criteria; it's not enough for you to judge that the subject is not notable, the article must make no claim to the significance of its subject. If it makes such a claim and you don't believe it, then an AfD is the correct route. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah. That's a no-brainer. Are you thinking about a specific example? The only article that comes to mind is one whose statement of notability completely failed WP:V and according to the CSD criteria, would have therefore qualified as a nocontext. --Action Jackson IV 12:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Protheroe. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the diff. Probably would have been better as a nocontext, but I don't see a simple "well-known" as being an assertation of anything. See above discussion in re: ZydeIsland. --Action Jackson IV 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is just being started, some leeway should be granted; it wasn't clearly a bad-faith opening, and I'd say that it did enough to warrant holding off on a speedy tag. The way it developed bore that out (maybe I'm depending upon hindsight a little, I don't know). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Army Staff Sgt. Christopher R. Webb.

What, doesn't a Bronze Star and dying for your country for anything anymore? He was on the front page of latimes.com and flags were ordered to be flown at half mast by Gov. Schwarzenegger. What exactly disqualifies him from an article? I joined Wikipedia after waiting two day from a block that never should have existed and spent six hours reasearching and writing an article to show his mother and widow. This is not a biased heroic tribute to my BFF, I'm not promoting a stupid band, and there are 342 stubs on army personel so what's wrong with a fleshed out article? It wasn't too long, it wasn't written poorly, and I did everthing I could to make it comform to the appearance of other articles. I have reference links to newspapers and I not really that biased because I didn't even talk to him in the last five years. So can you please give me a good reason not to have his article up? 

Thanks.

Everyone understands the knife. 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMSSI

You tagged this article for speedy deletion as having already been deleted under Articles for Deletion, but you didn't include a link to the previous AfD discussion, and I don't see it in the article's log. Was it deleted under another name? can you link to the deletion discussion for me, so I can verify? -FisherQueen (Talk) 04:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh

Its a free country I can do what I want. Its in the constitution. --IFellSoGoodForSomeReason 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.

You may have just condemned a 15 year old soul to death. Thanks for saying that what I said was a hoax. I can hear them trying to open the door now. --~{Soul Architect}~ 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tensai Hilra

Allright, I guess your vendictive.

I know my article is short, but when I submit and overwrite it, please do not go back and set it as Nonsense. I have alot planned and I am sorry I do not have the resources together to make it something spectacular immediately. TensaiHilra 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Tucker

This isn't an attack page; she really is a porn actor. I did add a prod tag, though, as she doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria for porn actors. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way- since I've taken the CSD tags off of two of your articles today, and don't want you to feel unloved at all- I think you rock; I've been deleting your tagged articles all afternoon, and appreciate the work you're doing on patrol. Go, you! -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


speedy tags and warnings

Hi. Thanks a lot for your work on new articles. Please remember to properly warn the authors that their articles are up for deletion. Many admins (myself included) take for granted that this is done but when it isn't there's a great chance that articles about non-notable people/bands/companies will be re-created because newbies will just assume that their page was deleted by accident. Thanks, Pascal.Tesson 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at your contributions and I also see that you're getting quite a bit of unfriendly messages from editors whose page you nominated to deletion and by the looks of it you actually do warn editors! So all apologies if the above message is superfluous. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

Speedy deletion as A7 is only to be used if there is no claim whatever to notability. See WP:CSD. An article saying someone is the head of an academic department is a clear and unmistakable assertion of notability. I and other admins will not delete such articles. Please keep on marking material suitable for deletion, but don't overuse speedy. DGG

I would assume this rides on an acceptance of department heads being inherently notable. Was this message really necessary? --Action Jackson IV 22:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't assume that they are inherently notable, but that the article makes an assertion of notability. The assertion can still be disputed, but through a proposed deletion, or through discussion in the WP:AFD process. Please take DGG's comments as a point for improvement, not as him being a WP:DICK. Sancho 23:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's only an assertation of notability if someone sees the assertation, if true, as inherently notable. For instance, "foo is a human being", "foo is made from plastic and hydrogenated corn syrup", "foo is the only bar at Foobar Conglomerated would not seem to be making any claim of notability. There were plenty of ways DGG could have phrased that which would have been more personable. "I and other admins will not delete such articles" - apparently this isn't true, as the article was eventually deleted. --Action Jackson IV 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stefano Sgarlata

I also wanted to let you know I removed a speedy tag that you placed on the article Stefano Sgarlata. You used the A1 criteria, but I felt that there was enough context to have the article qualify as a stub. You can read description of A1 at WP:CSD or ask me if you have any questions. See you around. Sancho 23:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

db-divisive

Please don't use {{db-divisive}} on userboxes within a user's namespace. You can read the general criteria for its usage here. You may want to try WP:MFD. Kuru talk 22:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaymation

The "google" search seems to be the "end all" in this.

I understand it has Little in content VIA this term - HOWEVER, the the return does show a history with the term older than "you made this up!"

It is also the correct term for gay animation. Something that NEEDS to be addressed. Sadly, Gaymation (gay animation) is over looked with yaoi (gay japanimation) and other terms used as a coverall and it's not correct.

I can understand the entry being short at this time. It won't as I *plan* to build up the entry with a true history of GLBT animation and give the needed "source"

But I reiterate: It's only a poorly searched term because sites like this are keeping the REAL and Correct term away from public eye because a "slang" catchall has a better google rank.

Still around?

I'm on hold for your reply and would like to know if adding to the topic is going to be a waste of my time. Thanks.

Gaymation v2

I assume you have gone off line and added the dispute to the Gaymation: talk page

Giving Warnings

Please make sure that you give the correct user a warning for an edit. In the case of Sports Injuries, the page originator was not the one who added the copyright violation. - Smashville 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out - I should have gone through the revision history, I just assumed that it was the work of a user who copy-pasted the copyvio material and wrote a brief leader. Thanks for your diligence. --Action Jackson IV 06:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Action_Jackson_IV&oldid=154965447"