User talk:Jkelly

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

A landslide victory for The JPS (aka RFA thanks)

Hey, Jkelly, thank you so much for your vote and comments in my RfA, which passed with an overwhelming consensus of 95/2/2. I was very surprised and flattered that the community has entrusted me with these lovely new toys. I ripped open the box and started playing with them as soon as I got them, and I've already had the pleasure of deleting random nonsense/attacks/copyvios tonight.
If I ever do anything wrong, or can help in some way, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will do my best to correct my mistake, or whatever...
Now, to that bottle of wine waiting for me...

The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable blocking by Jonathunder

Hi, I am sorry for bothering you, but can you please look here and comment on the matter? Thanks. FunkyFly 03:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FYROM blog (again)

Well, I agree with you, as I have already agreed in that page before, again and again and again... I think the problem lies in what people tend to define as article improvement. For me, for example, (as for many other users, not necessarily Greek, like here and here), the ultimate article improvement for this particular article, would be to have a fairly elaborate analysis of the naming dispute. Hence, the name of the article itself, is a huge article improvement issue. The funny comments about your name (here and here), aim to illustrate that being a Republic does not necessarily require others to be forced to call you exactly as you demand! I find it very humorous and very improving. Ofcourse, you can disagree on my (and the others') priorities considering improvement, but you must admit that it is a very amusing parallel... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 08:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify; I'm not actually grumpy about it. Jkelly 20:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you wouldn't be J. Your humor is evident. Did it make you think though? NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 20:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. I don't think FWKAT would be automatically adminned. In fact, I think that when FWKAT discussed applying for EU admin membership, I would make it widely known that I would vote "Strong oppose -- username, also other issues.", and some other editors would think I was being completely unreasonable, while others would say "Well, Jkelly has been a trusted admin for a while now, and we should probably be careful here." Jkelly 22:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... You mean that you'd just oppose because he dared mess with your name -OR- would you oppose to FWKAT applying for adminship as FWKAT, rather than as "Republic of Jkelly"? I really am puzzled, but then again, maybe it was intentional... NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 22:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca / Emberverse series

I thought mentioning the series in the section on WICCA IN POPULAR FICTION would be appropriate - the Wiccan religion and those who practce it are a major theme of the novel -Paullaw

Exodus 17 1/2

It's at 22:17 in the link given in the article. I could believe that different Bible translations give slightly different verse numberings, though. FreplySpang (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, you know those English kings, can't turn your back on them.... :-) Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last reply

In the series of my last contributions, I post my reply to your text on my user page. In case you wish to reply to me you are welcome to send me an e-mail of post a comment on my blog.

You may feel that I behave strangely. It is obvious since you don't know now more than one-and-half year struggle on cs: during which I was desysopped as a bureacrat. If you are interested in problems of small wikies, then you can read m:Requests for comments/Cswiki issues, m:Meta:Babel#Czech Wikipedia in disarray and before it will deleted [1] as well.

In my view conflicts with some cs: editors are unsolveable. They or me should leave cs:, there is no place for both the parties. These conflict was often transmissed to Meta and now to en:. This is unhappy because both Meta and en: has nothing to do with cs:. But I am sorry that both Meta editors and Board of Directors did nothing to improve the situation, they just washed their hands like Pontius Pilate. Their choice but I cannot participate at the project where my rights are overlooked. I am fully decided, it is not a question of one conflict here.

"You can still edit your User talk page even while blocked." ??? Is that technically possible? I never heard about it.

I hate translating, I find it very boring work. And my English is not perfect as well.

So I wish you good luck and thank you for your deleting of my pages. -- Vít Zvánovec 10:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock

You blocked User:Intermediary - I have reverted all his edits to talk pages - is that ok? Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - I know this is an on going problem. I just didn't want to get "done" for pretending to be an admin! Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 21:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty_Of_Sevres

It is an original wikipedia image. I have seen this image in a book published before 1930. Treaty of Sevres dates to 1919. It may be originated from the original agreements or somewhere close... I have added colors.--OttomanReference 23:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

Karma to Burn

Hello, please excuse my poor formatting/etiquette, I am quite unfamiliar with talk pages and suchlike. I am responsible for interfering with the Karma to Burn articles, would appreciate help repairing links and disambiguating. Also, it appears the band has a self-titled album which complicates matters. Would greatly appreciate any guidance. Salkádar.

RE: Wp Admin

Hello! I hope you're well; I'm on a wikibreak of sorts ... ha! But thank you for your note and request: I appreciate it! I've been similarly encouraged by others to become a Wp Administrator.

However, I respectfully decline to an RfAdmin or to become an Admin at this time. I feel that my current level of activity would not be helped or hindered by becoming an Admin. I may reconsider this at some later date (and one of the advocates I mentioned wants to nominate me later), but I'm not ambitious – or perhaps foolish? ;) – enough to pass that bar just yet.

Please let me know if you've any questions; thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility vs harassment

Admins are going to indef-block and the community at large will ban users who harass Wikipedians offsite. Perhaps a policy against users who harass Wikipedians offsite is in order. What you voted for is not that. WAS 4.250 02:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little baffled by resistance to [a policy against] people who choose to set up websites devoted to attacking editors here, discussing at length, for instance, speculation about their home addresses or how Jewish they are. I know of no resistance to that potential policy. Again, what you voted for is not that. WAS 4.250 18:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and I are clearly reading the section differently. Yes. Wikipedia:No personal attacks states "Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks." and "Accusatory comments such as Bob is a troll, or Jane is a bad editor can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." which makes sense in the context of a talk page where it is appropriate to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and in general "they hurt the Wikipedia community". But the proposed addition seeks to ban engaging in the same behavior elsewhere where same behavior includes calling someone a troll! Wikipedia is not the world and humans have a variety of interests and obligations and perceptions. A reporter should feel free to write a truthful article in a newspaper without being told they commented on a person rather than content. A policy against harrassment and against someone warring against Wikipedia makes sense. Piggybacking this subsection onto NPA does not make make sense. The one is defending "us" against those who have chosen to be "them". The other is about maintaining a proper focus on the job at hand - writing an encyclopedia - where "Comment on content, not on the contributor" makes good sense. Conflating distinct goals is a bad idea. WAS 4.250 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong image

Re: Image:Rcmp_food_5937.jpg. Oops, this isn't the image I intended to download, but one of the ones I saved in the process of looking for various suitable images. I honestly got confused as to which was the CBC one. Is there a way of replacing it with the one linked here? Fishhead64 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chola dynasty FAC

Hi! I have removed two images with the copyright problems and replace one with a free image. Please have a look at Chola dynasty and leave your comments. thanks Parthi (Venu62) 00:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Burnside FAC

I have provided a fair use rationale for that image in answer to your objection, do you have any other concerns in relation to the article? Thanks for commenting! michael ^talk 04:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you still have any qualms, you have not replied yet. michael ^talk 11:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Image:Guru jazzmatazz.jpg

Best to just delete it, it's an orphaned image now, and has been replaced by a higher quality, more recent, and most importantly, free, photograph (image:Guru.jpg) --Krackpipe 12:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Could you help me in the Template:Spice Girls, User:Rimmers keeps reverting the template on to a big template and I think that a small template is better, it's looks organized and not cluttered pls pls help me--2hot4u2handle 15:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COPYRIGHT

In reply to your comment, I know for a fact that all those old post cards are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. I grew up with those images. I know the kin of the photographers who took them. They are no copyrighted. But WIkipedians are going to do whatever they want with something they don't know about anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter. Almost Famous 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the collage, I'm talking about the old post cards. The collage is a whole different thing. The tag on the collage says: "possibly." Truth be told, I'm not sure which tag to use for it. Almost Famous 21:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images I know for a fact are Public Domain, The collage that appears on the Long Island Page, as well as the old post cards that are posted. One is on the LI Page, the other two are on the Casco Bay Lines page. One is of the Aucocisco, Customs House Wharf, and the one on the LI page is actually of LI. No one owns the copyright to the LI one, it's original has been archived by the historical society (an organization that I am a member of.) The other two old post cards never had a copyright on them. Anyone can take them and print their own post cards if they want. The collage was released by the town, which is why it has been posted on other websites. The date on the collage is the date of the town's incorporation, not the date of any copyright. All these images can be found in my recent history. Almost Famous 21:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]