User talk:Clubjuggle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Clubjuggle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:

It appears that you are interested in editing our road articles. If you are, then here is a list of pages that may be of interest to you:

Highways Project (worldwide)
U.S. Roads Project (U.S. only)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pennsylvania Turnpike

Thanks for the concern - I just used the correct template - we are getting rid of the USRD cleanup templates. Unfortunately I am just taking what was already there (which also was vague) and applying the proper resources. If need be, we can remove it until we get an idea of what's actually not properly sourced. master son^{T - C} 07:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Thanks for your help master son^{T - C} 08:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Thanks for the revert!

No problemo. Maybe it's time to get a {{UBX/vandalized}} userbox to keep track of the vandalism count-- AngelOfSadness talk 22:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure go right ahead. A vandal a while back replaced my userpage with "21 times"(obviously he read the UB) as before his edit the UB had a vandalism count of 20. And who says vandals aren't observant. Here's the page diff and the page diff of another observant vandal. The second one has to be my favourite of all vandalism edits made to my userpage.:D-- AngelOfSadness talk 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a boot load of them without humour aswell like replacing my userpage with "PLUR" after I reverted their vandalism off that particular article. And then there's the insults. You get called every name known to man on the mainspace and userpage/talkpage after reverting their vandalism. AngelOfSadness talk 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm thanking you for reverting vandalism on my userpage. Thanks :D AngelOfSadness talk 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could return the favor, sorry it was needed! Some people's computers should have ignition interlock devices connected to the power button. --Clubjuggle 17:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Maybe it'll read the amount of humour in the vandal or lack of humour. It gets annoying reverting "blanked the page" edits sometimes. I'm just glad there's vandals, when vandalising, imitates popular culture. Like this which is identical to what Weird Al did in his White & Nerdy video. Everything is the same except for the font colour and the article. AngelOfSadness talk 17:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Task Force Invite (Join Us!)

You are being recruited by the Salem Witch Trials Task Force, a collaborative project committed to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Salem Witch Trials. Join us!

Psdubow 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because I see that you revert vandalism and we need someone to concentrate on concistantly reverting vandalism on articles about or having to do with the Salem Witch Trials. Psdubow 22:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of enemies in Doom

We have a way of working called WP:BRD. I have been bold in redirecting an article that is full of information frowned upon by WP:NOT. If a person reverts it for an actual reason, a discussion happens. Random anons and new users rambling about how the information is important and people trying to force a discussion don't equate into it at all. Due to that, I am going to redirect it again. If you believe that the article can pass WP:FICT and WP:WAF, feel free to revert, but please actually state that. TTN 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:TTN

Don't template the regulars, please.
TTN obviously knew what he was doing (by that I mean he was not just some random vandal or newbie blanking a page, he was redirecting an article that had what he saw as game guide content), so he wasn't simply blanking all or part of the article. It's not always bad for someone to remove content from an article if it's unencyclopedic.
This is a content dispute, not simple page blanking.

Note that I don't have an opinion on the article at hand, as I have little knowledge of the subject. — Malcolm (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the correction. --Clubjuggle 01:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism??

I received this from you:

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to User:SchuminWeb, you will be blocked from editing. Clubjuggle 14:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how did I vandalise exactly? I would like an amicable solution to this situation. Sorry if I have treaded on anyones toes by the way. 86.40.208.5 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Though technically permissible, it is generally considered mildly uncivil to edit others' user pages without permission, and removing content without a good reason *is* vandalism, especially if you are holding that content hostage to get your demands met or just to make a WP:POINT.

As to whether SchuminWeb's actions reflect on his inclusionist philosophy, it is important to remember that in his role as administrator, his job is to execute policy in a manner consistent with the policies and philosophy of Wikipedia, which may differ at times from his own personal philosophy. I'm guessing this is a speedy-deletion question. If that is the case, the article was probably tagged for speedy deletion by another person. The criteria for speedy deletion are well-defined, and his role in the process is to say 'yes, it meets this criterion' or 'no, it doesn't.' In any case it is important to remember that inclusionism does not necesarrily mean include everything indiscriminately.

If you have a disagreement with policy, the appropriate place to try to effect change of that policy is on the appropriate policy's talk page. If you believe an article's deletion was inconsistent with policy, you can request a deletion review. Shooting the messenger, though, is not likely to land you anywhere except on the wrong side of a block.

I'm curious. What was the subject of the article, and what was the reason given for deletion? --Clubjuggle 14:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I will not tell you. Better not give the other side the better chance and all that. 86.40.208.5 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As soon as we start taking sides we make this into an adverserial situation that it does not need to be. Wikipedia is not about winners and losers, it is about consensus. You have the ear of a neutral and disinterested third party who would like to help you find a solution. Why not avail yourself of that? --Clubjuggle 14:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason is because the moment I tell you who I am is the moment you will take a side. I have previously been banned from this place for voicing an opinion, which was later regarded to be trolling. Excuse me for being wary of trusting admins who promise neutrality and consensus. My experience has been that people tend to take sides all the time in these sort of situations, usually the side your buddy takes. 86.40.208.5 15:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, nor am I SchuminWeb's friend. Though I have voiced my own concerns about the way he goes about things, I do believe he generally acts in good faith. That said, one can act in good faith and still make a mistake. To this point you seem quick to question SchuminWeb's motivations and honesty, as well as my own, and slow to get to the substance of the debate. Frankly, it's not unreasonable to interpret that as trolling. As to who you are, I could care less who you are and never asked that. All I care about is the substance of the debate, which I will ask for one last time. --Clubjuggle 16:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am loath to call it a debate. More like a disagreement.

It goes way back to an article called 'Redboy'. The article concerned a mythical creature in my local area who has been written about by Patrick Kavanagh, among others. Now, when I and a friend attempted to get the article up, it was up for speedy deletion. This was fair enough, I messaged the person who put it up to ask for time, I put up a 'hangon' template and posted a message in the talk page pleading for a little time. Now, I went back to edit the article and spent a solid half an hour writing and researching. When I cliced the button at the bottom to add it, the thing had been deleted and I had lost my work.

Rightly teed off, I posted a message on Schuminwebs userpage about it, to which he did not reply but rather cited some bullshit legal mumbo jumbo at me. When I went back to recreate the link, he deleted that also.

I was eventually banned for disagreeing with the speedy deletion policy as I tried to change this deletion policy over on the Village pump.

I am not usually an aggressive man, I am actually quite civil. But the level of sheer and utter passive-aggresiveness, arrogance and downright rudeness I received from Schuminweb has convinced me that he is not a man to be talked to reasonably.

All I want is a proper explanation from him as to why he deleted the redboy article. Even after pleading for a little time to improve it, he deleted it anyway. That to me smacks of masochism. 86.40.208.5 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I now assume you have no interest in mediating? 86.40.208.5 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

~~::No... I just got busy with other stuff and have not had a chance to reply yet. --Clubjuggle 19:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)~~

Ok, sorry for the slow reply.

To be honest, when I asked for the details of your disagreement, I failed to consider the possibility that you are a WP:SOCK of a previously banned user. In this situation, what I'm probably supposed to do is report you at WP:SSP; however, I gave you my word that I would hear you and and give you a fair chance to resolve this amicably. My word is good, and therefore unless and until I see evidence to the contrary, I will continue to operate with the assumption that you wish to understand and play by the rules.

The first and most important thing you can do to help yourself is to stop posting at or about User:SchuminWeb and User Talk:SchuminWeb. Keep in mind that as a WP:SOCK of a banned user, you are already starting with at least 2½ strikes against you. Calling attention to yourself will accomplish little but getting yourself banned a third time. I know you're angry, perhaps justifiably so, but acting out of anger will help neither yourself nor the project. Let it go and move on.

Next, before adding content, read the content guidelines, especially WP:NOTE, WP:RS, WP:V and especially WP:NOT, keeping in mind however that WP:NOT#PAPER is not in and of itself considered a valid argument for inclusion. When you're done reading them, read them again, then carefully consider whether your article topic is likely to meet those guidelines. If you think it can meet those criteria, then it may be best to work on the article outside of Mainspace to get it ready for posting. You are welcome to use User:Clubjuggle/Sandbox/Redboy as a sandbox to do so. I've also asked a friendly admin if she could pull a copy of the deleted article and post it to that page.

I'll be out for most of the evening (US Eastern Time) but if you have any questions feel free to post them here.--Clubjuggle 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but-in; but it looks as if you're being taken for a ride. The anonymous aggrieved user stated: "The article concerned a mythical creature in my local area who has been written about by Patrick Kavanagh, among others. Now, when I and a friend attempted to get the article up, it was up for speedy deletion." Yet the article posted into your sandbox space is about a non-notable band. It is possible that somebody tried to post a separate article about a nn band after the article about the mythical creature was deleted - but unlikely. B1atv 05:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just read further down when anonymous IP confirmed that this wasn't the article he was talking about. B1atv 06:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Need a Favor

I would love to help you but I'm not an admin. Sorry :(. But I checked the article deletion log and NawlinWiki was the last admin to delete it. Woohookitty and SchuminWeb also deleted it before NawlinWiki. AngelOfSadness talk 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redboy

Content has been pasted to User:Clubjuggle/Sandbox/Redboy per your request. NawlinWiki 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my article, someone else created that after (It was a bit of a surprise actually) Mine was the article before that. Its all immaterial though, because I really don't want to rewrite it. Thanks for all the effort though. I suppose you could say that you've restored my faith in Wikipedia :-) 86.40.208.5 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could do so. --Clubjuggle 03:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Ethical question

Revert all the way. Seriously they may "go boom" but there's no point on keeping that in the article as it's pointing out the obvious in a fairly childish way. :D AngelOfSadness talk 20:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tousche :-P. Really, was put in there by a child??? I really must know :D AngelOfSadness talk 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I know some nonsense edits are hard to revert because they make us laugh like this one on my userpage a while back. I almost was going to keep it as it was but I reverted it. Anyway this one is my favourite of the vandalism edits to my userpage seeing as the vandal at least looked at the userboxes before editing :D. AngelOfSadness talk 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here every single time I look at it. I didn't want to revert it but I was thinking that someone else would come along soon enough to remove/revert it as it's at the top of the page. :D AngelOfSadness talk 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking one's own userpage

It may be so but it is frowned upon. I believe Talk pages should be archived instead. It is true that the page history will show it anyway but I feel it is better for other editors to see this one made a mishap. If they stay clean after one warning, then they become good editors and I see no problem there. If they are habitual vandals and they keep blanking after every warning, it is harder to search and determine if you have to issue a level 3 or level 4 or what have you. Just my opinion, of course. Happy wiking! Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to IP vandals, you generally revert their acts of talk page blanking. Unless of course they are a minor vandal AND have stated in their edit summary that they have read the warning(s). Otherwise it'll just look as though they're trying to cover up their crimes. Again, that's my interpretation of the WP policy.--Just James ^T/C 13:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair enough interpretation, but I have a couple concerns with it, specifically:

(1) In the case I referenced the person was given a second vandalism warning for blanking his own talk page. As I understand it, blanking one's own talk page, while frowned upon, is not in fact vandalism. My interpretation is that a warning is therefore inappropriate. I'm more than OK with being wrong on that point, but I'd like to know [i]why[/i] I'm wrong.

(2) Likewise, if the person does have the right to remove warnings from his own talk page, I can see reverting the warnings for the sake of noting the warnings in the edit summary ("rv blanking of 1st & 2nd level level vandalism notices") but if they then blank them again, is it really appropriate to revert it a second time?

Again, I welcome any responses or corrections. I'm trying to learn. Thanks, --Clubjuggle 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Just James. I may not have stated it so eloquently but it is my opinion also that by blanking they are trying to cover up their deeds. If you don't want the blemish to show, don't vandalize, period. As WP policy does not forbid this practice in writing (so far), you cannot enforce it. I generally eye those vandals with a closer scrutiny for a while afterwards, checking their contributions page often and nail them for any un-reported new vandalism. When they reach a point they need to be blocked I go to WP:AIV and report them. If blocking them is what it takes for them to learn to behave in society, then so be it. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll find a number of administrators agree with me. They (and I) believe it is important to keep a record of previous conversations, so vandals (and normal WP users) are encouraged to archive their old conversations/warnings. When I first started using WP I was involved in an editing dispute and let's just say I acted inappropriately. I was cautioned but I blanked the warning. Someone reverted this act of page blanking, but again I blanked the page. However, I later reverted this and you will now find the warning in my first talk page archive. I think it's important to understand that no one really owns their user/user talk pages on Wikipedia. For example, users don't have the right to use their page to say something nasty about someone else.--Just James ^T/C 01:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page!--Just James ^T/C 05:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Yarrr!

Yarr-harr-harr. Ahoy Cap'n. Ye are me Jack Tar. We be never found in Davy Jones' Locker. Lets guzzle down our grub and grog before pillagers come a knockin' :D AngelOfSadness talk 17:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Eeeeeee! If them Sharkbait yank our swag, they'll be kissin' the gunner's daughter, be fish feed n' be Keyhauled before ye can say Shiver Me timbers!!. AngelOfSadness talk 21:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Congratulations!

Oh my Goodness. That has to be the prettiest barnstar I have ever seen and now I have one. Yay. Thank you so much I really appreciate it. I would print it out, frame it and hang it on my wall. Now if only I had a printer or a frame. :D Thanks again AngelOfSadness talk 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it because it had my name on it(well part of it :D)? This is definately my favourite barnstar as you put a lot of thought into it. Really I can't thank you enough. AngelOfSadness talk 21:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My userpage would be full of them if I knew that there was one, and people wouldn't get annoyed with me for talking like a pirate everyday of the Yaaarrr!!:D AngelOfSadness talk 16:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That is true but I wonder if anyone has every gotten blocked for talking in pirate. Like you can get blocked for not communticating in english on the english wikipedia. Now it leads me to my next point...Is there a pirate wikipedia??? AngelOfSadness talk 16:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Rats. The pirate wikipedia could be called something like "shivermepedia". I know it needs work :D. How about grog.wikipedia.org ? :D. It could work AngelOfSadness talk 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I like it a lot. Oh, I found this on youtube today. It explains itself and yes it is very pirate related :D. AngelOfSadness talk 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I love it. That song is going to be stuck in my head when I'm trying to go asleep :D AngelOfSadness talk 23:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why???? *begins to fake cry, then actually cry* AngelOfSadness talk 23:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Make it stop *tries to cover eyes and ears*. Good ole stop button: where would we be without you? After hearing that, th first song isn't that bad. AngelOfSadness talk 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh-huh. But there a worse songs in the world but my mind blanked any memory of them ;D AngelOfSadness talk 00:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay!!! *does a little dance* If I remember the songs, I'll send you the links via youtube :D AngelOfSadness talk 00:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it might take a while because it's only when I hear them that I remember my high dislike for them :D AngelOfSadness talk 00:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I think I better go to bed as it's 01:35 in the morning over here :D. And in case I don't see you later, good afternoon good evening and good night. AngelOfSadness talk 00:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dream pretty pictures! --Clubjuggle ^T/C 00:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] casus belli of 1948 war

All wars have a cause ? I would have say : all wars have causes. ;-)
But whatever, casus belli is a precise term with a precise juridic meaning; it is not synonim of cause(s) of the war.
And both (causes of the war) or (casus belli) should be sourced. Alithien 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a fair enough point, however an assertion that historians have not identified a casus belli would itself need citation -- one I think you'll have trouble finding. They may disagree on the casus belli, but that's very different from saying "none identified." I've reverted to the previous version but tagged it as citation needed. Feel free to discuss further on the article's talk page. --Clubjuggle 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for standing up for me. I appreciate it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I have little patience for incivility and am only too happy to do my little part to stop it. --Clubjuggle 23:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations... Again!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user talk page!--Just James ^T/C 11:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ares.

Heh, major slip up, I know. The worst thing by far is I almost warned myself. :-P · AndonicO ^Talk 20:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Just wondering what the serious action you were talking about is meant to be? 86.45.208.104 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socks

Before I was an admin and dealing with socks like this, I would normally ask an administrator familiar with the case to block the vandals. An AIV report would be rejected. Acalamari 19:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalSniper Application

Good day, and thank you for applying to use the counter-vandalism tool VandalSniper. I am pleased to inform you that your application has been accepted, and you are now approved to use the tool. You are now welcome to download the program - and be sure to read the features guide, if you have not already done so.

Please bear in mind that VandalSniper is a powerful program, and that misuse may result in your access being withdrawn by a moderator. Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any questions, and once again welcome to VandalSniper!

Kind regards,
Anthøny 13:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: User:72.10.113.123

It seems I misread the date. My bad. Feel free to revert, see ya around. Nol888 22:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

Very amusing conversation. Thanks for showing it to me! =) Just James ^T/C 06:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tops markets logo

A rationale was provided for Image:Tops Logo.jpg several months ago. Daniel Case 16:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops... so it is! I missed that the article title was listed on the rationale. Sorry. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hi, i vandalised your page by changing the "home many times my page has been vandalized" bar from 9 to 10, i then got criticised for vandalizing your page (which i can understand), but am still at a loss to why it has been changed back to 9, when surely it should have just stayed at 10!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Still no change —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, look, now worries, i'll change it for you!! woudln't want anything to be incorrect or unfactual on wikipedia now would we!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baddmind (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~

[edit] AfD nomination of Dude

An editor has nominated Dude, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dude and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Careful w/ edits

Howdy! You appear to have accidentally deleted a number of comments in an active talk page when posting. If it was because of an edit conflict, please be careful to make sure your edits don't happen at the expense of others. Sometimes it's necessary to copy your additions, then edit the page anew and paste them in to avoid this sort of thing. Cheers! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I actually did that, and for some reason the problem still happened. Not sure what went wrong, as it's the first time I've ever had this issue with an EC. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.