User talk:Jake Wartenberg

If you are upset that I reverted your edit, and you want a reply consisting of more than "What are you talking about?", please link to the article in question.

Click here to leave me a message

Robert Beckford

The statements I have added to the criticism section on the Robert Beckford page are to balance fair and reasonable. No academic criticism hads been cited and no vandalism has been commited. Please stop harrassing fellow wikipedians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.178.44 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read this talk page's header. The manner in witch your posted your comment is very disruptive (I have repaired the damage). Regarding your criticism, please see WP:NPOV and stop trying to insert your own point of view into this encyclopedia.--Jake Wartenberg^Talk 20:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not "point of view" to emphasise the lack of cited academic criticism in the criticism section of an article about an academic, rather balancing out the truth more fairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.178.44 (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that you were emphasizing far too much. But I have noticed that you have voluntarily toned down your language, and appreciate it. Do you think that you can accept the current revision I have made as a compromise? Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 18:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Robert Beckford

 – --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Hush" was not written by Deep Purple.

The song "Hush" was not "written" by Deep Purple. In fact, they are the second artist to record a cover of that song! (The first one was Billy Joe Royal) The song was written by Joe South. Check out the article under his name and you'll see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.99.144.208 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I bet you're right, as I know absolutely nothing on the topic. But you need to cite a source, and probably say who wrote the song in the same place that you make that assertion. Cheers, and happy editing! --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 20:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern.

Hello,

I am very sorry to this result. However, I have just made an account on Wikipedia-- and are not that familiar with these sort of guidelines (Yes, I have read the beginners section) I am shocked by your warnings towards me; even though I have presented thus, evidence of the truth.

Such as? I would like you and me to agree upon this conflict between Greater and Metro Vancouver Personally , I would go with both because the district still uses Greater Vancouver in the water and plumage systems ; Environment Canada still uses Greater Vancouver in Watches and Warnings, etc. I would also go with Metro Vancouver 50% because it is metropolitan , but who doesn't know that Vancouver's a populous city? Everyone knows Toronto is a metropolitan city, and it still uses GTA [Greater Toronto Area]

Hopefully you can agree upon with me ; I am just fixing up some sentence flaws, I am unclear of how this is called Vandalism [Yes again, I have read through the guidelines, however to this myself I am unclear]

PS. The Picture about Arbutus Ridge is looking upon Downtown Vancouver ; to be more specific.

Thank you in regards; Please talk to me if you have any concerns or questions.

Thank you the most sincerely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiarecooll (talk • contribs) 03:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments are not the best place for extended discussion. Please discuss controversial changes you intent to make on the article's talk page. In the meantime, I have restored the article to it's original version. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 03:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to reply here, Jake. :) Regards, — Aitias // discussion 03:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy Crap! I did not realize that Huggle had done that, and have withdrawn my report. I need to pay closer attention ;) Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 03:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Aitias // discussion 03:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have vandalized the page, "even though I didn't know about it until I read the Vandalizehelppage" but saying sorry doesnt hurt :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiarecooll (talk • contribs) 04:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly does not. Welcome to Wikipedia! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 04:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are very kind; and thank you Happy Holidays

but although, I need some help. Personally, about the Metro and Greater Vancouver thing I really want to do something about it; (i have been changing some sentence structure but) however I keep on getting the vandalized message.

Should I go to the controversial page site?

Oops , sorry I forgot to sign. Iiarecooll (talk) 04:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what you mean when you say "the controversial page site". In any event, you should read this discussion, if you have not already. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 04:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and regards

Sorry for causing trouble for everybody on this Christmas Day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiarecooll (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Iiarecooll (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 04:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Prince Albert Sask

I made an edit on the PA page while not logged on, you reverted the edit claiming it was vandalism, that took time for me to right and I logged on and was about to start adding references. Please read and evaluate whether or not is vandalism. Best KermitCrack —Preceding unsigned comment added by KermitCrack (talk • contribs) 03:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay. In the future, please leave an edit summary, so people like me know what is going on. Happy editing! Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 03:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

vit K carboxylase.

Dude: I am not vandalizing the article. The FURTHER READING list has NOTHING to do with the enzyme, save the last three book references. My name is Steve Presnell and I have written a good section of the vit K article and I wrote the Vit K carboxylase article years ago. Please delete the URTHER READING, save the THREE book ones. The three references to the review articles are fine (1-3) Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.230.27 (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You are currently involved in what is called an edit war. If you continue to violate the three-revert rule I can assure you that you will be blocked from editing for a period of at least 24 hours. Please discuss your changes with User:Alansohn, who reverted you edit in the first place. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 18:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry

i am sorry for my vandalism. i was really hyper at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobmofe (talk • contribs) 18:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but please don't do anything like that again. --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 19:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

sorry

sorry for all the vandalism. my little brother put all of that stuff when i wasnt on the computer. i hope that there was no trouble —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amurciano123 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, but please try to keep this kind of thing from happening in the future. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 21:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a bundle for reverting this edit to my talkpage. Man, it's amazing how persistant some of these vandals are. After you intercepted that message, Ray johanson posted two more times. It was kind of funny to see my own talk page on huggle. AND to not be the one to revert and warn. Nice userboxes, too.. I might use a couple. (Especially the Vandalism Information one)

After checking out your edits, I have to wonder exactly who disputes your awesomeness. I'd assume it's the vandals.

𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 03:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. Happy editing! --Jake Wartenberg^Talk 05:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

complaint.

I have provided credible evidence of the Incest rate of Bushmills, Ireland and you continue to disrupt my post. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmuntzawesome (talk • contribs) 06:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your source does check out. Sorry about that. I have added back that information in a more acceptable manner (one sentence does not deserve two sections) under "Demographics". Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 07:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a false complaint. The "source" is a copy of a vandalised Wikipedia article. Robmuntzawesome has been doing a lot of vandalism, you can see this in his contribs. XLerate (talk) 07:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. I guess I'm too nice/gullible. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 07:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Child’s Play (Star Trek: Voyager)

Your reversal of my deletion of the notability question of the Voyager episode Child's Play seems to indicate you can have even more fun by naming all the other Voyager episodes as not notable enough for WP. In other words, since WP carries all Voyager episodes as articles, either you should mark all of them as not notable or reinstate my deletion. Please note that I indicated the purpose of my deletion clearly in the history, as -notability. Please also verify the WP stub line before deleting edits next time, to see the context. Thanks. 99.145.106.177 (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I was responding not to the removal of the template, but to the addition of a second "Plot" section (I don't think we need two of those). It should all fixed now. Sorry for any confusion. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 07:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You Have New Messages

So now wet yourself! Lol! Anyway, I was really here to give you this (I just stumbled into your userboxes).

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your great Vandal work and for reverting vandals on my pages. Cheers and Happy Editing. :) Andy (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I saved it here. Cheers, Jake Wartenberg^Talk 16:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Shut up

wtf???