User talk:JeremyMcCracken
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
 Archives |
| 2005-2007 |
Hello, wikipedia users. This is Jeremy. Please feel free to leave comments.
[edit] Thuringowa suburbs
Hi mate thanks for your comments, but i have added some links here that show on the 22 February 2007, i changed the list of suburbs that was in the City of Thuringowa page to a suburbs template, link 1: [1] And then on the 7 July 2007 the user Thewinchester moved the template to the very bottom of the page and removed the Suburbs heading from the page (along with most of the page) so if the Surburbs page was to be deleted, no one would know what suburbs used to in Thuringowa and this is a big part of the history. i would like to remove the template from the bottom of the City of Thuringowa page and add a list of the Former suburbs under a Suburb heading. And also on your comment...Thuringowa has a long 128 year history and back in the 1800's almost all of what is now Townsville was Thuringowa, so if i was to add all of the suburbs that used to be in Thuringowa, i would have to make the list a lot longer.
Also They didn't get deleted because they where existing suburbs of a no longer existent city, Thuringowa merged into Townsville on the 15th of March 2008, and when this merge took place last week, what was Thuringowa city, became Townsville. Thanks again Thuringowacityrep (talk) 09:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] I checked the date
and I'm pretty sure in Springfield Township, Summit County, Ohio it is still March 31. :) --ZimZalaBim talk 02:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] April Fools
Nobody found me funny... sigh... well I'm not going to bother reverting all of that, we'll be serious this April 1st. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- It made me laugh! :) You're now at the official Wikipedia:April fools page. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 19:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Holy schnikes I made it after all! Yay for free publicity. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Proletariat
Hi, I did a bit of work on The Proletariat. It's not done, but I hope I've addressed your concerns Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Proletariat. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Left on my user page
Dear Mr McCracken,
(a name I remember from learning FORTRAN forty years ago - are you related).
This is the first time your name has come to my attention.
I defend my children as any mother would, and anyone will get it in the neck, unless they prove that 'back garden' is not a worthy insertion in the wikipedia.
I have defeated:
- |not a garden like a rose garden
- |not a sufficiently distinctive activity
- |not something I like|
- |not in another encyclopedia
- |not because, I hate you
- |not because, the term is too trivial
- |not because, I can't think of a reason, but I don't like it anyway
It's because there ought to be an entry, for something not yet defined and described.
That's what's an encyclopedia's for. Chasnor15 (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Incivility
None of my comments are uncivil; they are simply strongly and robustly held and expressed.
I find on the wholly Wiki rather mealy mouthed in its pronouncements. I rather expect the dreaded H to have a note saying: "On the whole H was really rather a nasty piece of work".
MCCracken, who I think became a fundamentalist style American preacher, having written the last word on Fortran, wrote a magnificent book on it. Personally I was more of an Algol man myself. And I programmed using - paper tape- archaeocomputing - Not yet in Wiki I fear. Thus, thus were the days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasnor15 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 April 2008
[edit] Diagonal intercept clipping
Why do you think wikipedia is being used to generate notability here? This stuff has already been published at a conference. It is accessible to everybody. Agreed, it is not the best of wikipedia pages at the moment, but that is not reason enough for deletion. --Weedrat (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PD sources
almost all plant information is us govt derived sources is in origin Public Domain, from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. DGG (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Untitled message
(Was left without its own heading)
Richard Echeverria (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log) Delete no sources to indicate this person's notability - making instruments for notable people doesn't make you notable, any more than making cheeseburgers for them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete As PeR rEaSoN aBoVe XCharltonTilliDieXTalk/Contribs 18:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Keep if sources can be found. If he does build instruments for a co-founder of REM I'd call him notable, but we can't know that he actually does with the article unsourced. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In clarity, it makes more sense to replace the word 'people' with 'musician' in the above reference. Then relevancy becomes pronounced and understandable. So, if I made custom golf clubs for Tiger Woods which of course were not commercially made, that indeed would make me notable. The only 'rational' reason I can see for this deletion is that it is not sourced as you say. It does grieve me to think of all the 'notable', fascinating and truthfull information that will get deleted and have no home due to so-called notability. Somehow to me the premise of Wiki's is just that: publishing truthfull and notable information that otherwise is unpublished. If in fact information is published somewhere else making it notable/sourced then why go to Wikipedia to begin with? Just go to the notable/published source. Right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Headsails (talk • contribs) 14:01, 10 April 2008
[edit] Thank you and Help Me
i am working on this wikipedia page for Dean Karr www.wikipedia.com/Dean_Karr
Dean and i are corresponding on what should be posted
he asked me to post the bio that he uses everywhere, which is the one at imdb then i was told that if i didn't take it down, the page would be deleted and you know, that long list of credits is a lot of work. so i deleted it, but i suck at writing bios so nothing has replaced it yet. NOW, i'm being told it's going to be deleted again! i don't know what to do or what i'm missing.
please help me.
Rikkisixx (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dean Karr
i added a couple articles (still trying to find some interviews) and threw together a quick bio
www.wikipedia.org/dean_karr
what do you think? is that enough to keep the page up? Rikkisixx (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
well honestly im not sure what else to do all the articles and interviews for dean are apparently no longer google-able
i have put in all that i can... i just dont get how else to prove the guy is "notable" enough not to be deleted.
Rikkisixx (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] needin more help
hey youve been so helpful so far i noticed all of the photos i put up are gone and im being asked for a fair use rationale and im reading the page about it and im just not quite getting it could you explain it in "this is my first wikipedia page and im learning very much as i go" terms? Rikkisixx (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion nomination of Valhalla High School, Valhalla
Hello, JeremyMcCracken. Thanks for keeping an eye out on article quality. I'm dropping you a note to let you know that I have removed the speedy deletion template that you placed on Valhalla High School, Valhalla because the article does not seem to fit the speedy deletion criterion. WP:CSD#A7 is for non-controversial deletions only and explicitly excludes schools. Please contribute to the ongoing AfD if you'd like to argue for deletion. Feel free to let me know at my talk page if you'd like to discuss this further. Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] North Korea mediation
Hi. I wanted to tell you I asked User:PhilKnight to tell me if I'm wrong to think that the mediation efforts you provide at Talk:North Korea are not a bit inappropriate considering the Mediation Cabal own statement of mission on its page. Please do not take it personnaly, I may be wrong but I'm quite surprised of the way you handled this (see my last questions at Talk:North Korea. PhilKnight came earlier in the discussion, and since he is quite familiar with MedCab I thought he would be neutral in his assesment. Mthibault (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- That's a bit what I'm concerned about, when I mediate I tend to remain neutral on the dispute and get others uninvolved editors to give opinions. Mthibault (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Third Opinion on Harley-Davidson article
I almost missed your comment IRT the Mediation Cabal... thanks for the guidance, I didn't realize that the 3O was for two party mediation. I was going by the guidelines on conflict resolution and arbitration procedures, sounded like 3O was the first step. Guess I missed something. Thanks!
Supersquid (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 3O
Hi, just letting you know that I answered to your opinion here. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] MC Employee here
Right. MC had InQTel funding, and later a DARPA/NSF grant. None of this is (or ever was) a secret. I'm not editing the page because of COI concerns, but I'm nobody's sock or meat, how do I go about proving this to you? MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Third party
Thank you for your comment on Talk:H.H. Moran Mar Baselios Mar Thoma Didymos I. We're having substantial problems with User:Arunvroy that I don't know quite how to address. He is (fortunately) submitting contributions on topics on which I have scant pov or knowledge, for that matter. My bias tends more to improving the article. The user has tried to demonstrate some point by moving articles around without discussion. This happens often enough and happened today if you look.
The use of the disallowed honorific His Holiness is a triviality but one he insists on. There are a lot of other honorifics that he uses. He does not appear to engage in dialogue much so I'm getting no feedback.
I would like an admin to stop him from moving articles around without discussion. Blocking his account for a day or two might get his attention. I's appreciate your suggestions on how to proceed. This involves about a dozen or so articles on the same religious topic: Catholicos of the East. Student7 (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetaCarta
You voted "speedy keep" on this AFD, but it is unclear which of the speedy keep criteria this meets. Can you please return to the AFD and clarify, or if you find that a speedy keep is in fact not appropriate, amend to "strong keep" or something else? Thanks. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Jeremy, I want to thank you for your intention to inform me about this discussion. I dind'n know about this discussion and now it's a little bit too late, so I won't involve in this discussion. In fact, the isue is closed for me. The users EconomistBR, Buffer v2, JdeJ and NeroN BG succeded to impose their personal POV by organizing a voting where some of their "fellows" have gladly voted for their porposals. I already wrote here what I think about those user and I think it's useless to start a new dispute with those vadals (indeed, I know what I say). Just try to compare the scientific value of most of my sources with the sources of those "fellows". The only reliable source they brought was Encyclopedia Britannica. The CIA is not a reliable source because: 1) The CIA doesn't provide a definition about C.E. and 2) the informations about CE from CIA are strongly biased (see also the discussion about the CIA maps from 1996 and 2001, brought by the user EconomistBR here and here and here and here, but few weeks later his attitude about the same map here and here and here and here and here) Notice also his warmongering behavior (that strogly conflicts with the first information provided in the demagogic and euphemistic Babel of his user page, as well as the defamatory offences against me (calling me a "pro-Romania fanatic").
So, the only reliable sources brought by them was Encyclopaedia Britannica. But in how far can they say that most definitions exclude Romania (and Croatia too)? Isn't it a personal POV-pushing and an original research as long as the sources were not counted? Why did'n they support my porposal, that excluded further interpretations about the "number" of sources that include or exclude Romania (and Croatia too)? I had scientific sources for each sentence of my proposal (even for the inclusion of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). Why didn't the try to porpose some improvings of the information (and of the spelling too)?
But what can I say? EconomistBR didn't really have sources for his claim (excepting Encyclopaedia Britannica), but he campagined more or less for the proposal of his fellow Buffer (he is a sockpuppet of Careuc) in other talk pages, obviously avoiding to mention my proposal. See here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here) Very interesting is also the fact that he avoided to announce this voting in the talk page of the countries/regions/cities that he didn't want to include in the article: Romania, Croatia and also the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxemburg. Who knows what voting result we would have if EconomistBR would have been honest enough to involve both parties.
So what can I say? EconomistBR did't provide reliable sources (excepting Enc. Brit.), he also did't brought logical arguments in the duscussion (but permanent accusings against me), but he was smarter than I because he campaigned exclusively for the version he wanted to impose and he succeeded. As you can see, by handling smart, everybody can impose hin personal POV in Wikipedia. The scientific quality of the sources and the quality of arguments are useless here. Only smart vandals like EconomistBR and his fellows can succeed in Wikipedia.
This was my last edit. I'm not involved in any edit war about this article anymore because I am completely disgusted about those unhonest users. My current reticency doesn't mean that I agreee with the article and this edit of Careuc's sockpuppet doesn't coincide with the opinion of those users who disagree with the content of the article (including me). Maybe the user Panel 2008, who also disagrees with the "Proposal II" still wants to discuss the isse, but I am out of here.
Have a nice day. --Olahus (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Olahus is playing victim again, all the while making me look like a manipulative monster.
Let's analyse this new wave of false accusatision and gross distortions of reality.
- 1-"but few weeks later his attitude about the same map"
- I did change my opinion about that CIA map, that's because I am flexible. I change my opinions whenever I understand that they are wrong.
- That CIA map Olahus mentioned is out of date, I accepted that but he didn't.
- 2-"Notice also his warmongering behavior"
- I am not a warmonger, I was the first to propose a peace resolution to end edit warring on the CE article. Olahus prefers to wage edit warring until the other side gives up.
- 3- "the only reliable sources brought by them was Encyclopaedia Britannica."
- That's a lie we had plenty of sources, but Olahus chose to ignore those sources and actively scoured the Internet searching for sources agreeing with his POV.
- 4-"EconomistBR would have been honest enough to involve both parties."
- That's another lie and a distortion. I informed the major unbiased parties about Proposal II. Since Germany, Hungary, Poland and Austria are indisputably CE they are in a better position to impartially judge the proposal and that's what happened.
- I didn't inform Romania or the other parties because those parties are biased and would contaminate the Proposal II with their POV.
- 5-" obviously avoiding to mention my proposal"
- Another distortion, I was actively discussing your proposal when you started to ignore me and stopped answering my comments.
- 6-"because he campaigned exclusively for the version he wanted to impose"
- I didn't campaign, I simply informed the major unbiased parties that Proposal II would define CE and that it was under vote. I informed the unbiased parties so that more people would opine on Proposal II.
- 7-Olahus "is a pro-Romania fanatic".
- IMO he is viciously nationalist and inflexible when it comes to Romania. He will disregard any sources that are not favarable to Romania, he will also wage edit warring until the page is edited in a way that is favorable to his Romania.
-
- I appologise for writing so much on your talk page but I tried to be as brief as possible.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I really don't know why this discussion is taking place on Jeremy's talk page, but since I've been attacked (yet again) by Olahus, I will defend myself. I've explained it before - why I used a sockpuppet. I had no idea what sock puppetry was in the first place - and even though lack of knowledge about the rules is not an excuse, I will say this: I used it because I thought Olahus had a personal issue with me. If you look at the history of the page, ANY edit I made, they were reverting. So I used careuc once or twice to try and get my edits through successfully - and when it failed, I stopped using the account. At that time I was made aware what sock puppetry was as well, and the account was not used again. So really, it was an honest mistake, with justified intentions. So Olahus, stop bringing it up. I'm not sure why you want this explained to you countless number of times. It seems that you do it every time when you don't get your way (ask any other editors and they will agree - when Olahus doesn't get his way, he'll resort to attacks such as these). I'm not interested in your little childhood games.
- Furthermore, you are one to attack me on sock puppetry? I am convinced that Panel 2008 and Marc KJH (who has been banned) are meatpuppets of Olahus. Their first edits took place during the edit warring (on the same day interestingly) - all their edits are concentrated on Central Europe, and they have been there to back him when they were needed. Panel 2008 is by far the most biased editor concerning this article, pushing his Romanian nationalistic agenda, allowing for no compromise whatsoever. Olahus is obviously biased as well - although his POV agenda is more subtle - but still very obvious. Ask anyone involved in this dispute and they will agree.
- And like I explained Olahus, your proposal is full of holes. It's funny how you argue mine is original research and POVish, when yours is even more, in that it picks and chooses various views, and ignores others. In fact, there are many other sources which contradict your proposal - which is why it failed to gain any support. I even told you what I disagreed with your proposal, and encouraged you to change it up to match my satisfaction, but you didn't. You leave no room for compromise. And consensus is consensus... Would you give it up already? Everyone agrees that the current state of the article, while not the perfect solution, is the best one at the moment. --Buffer v2 (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Please, please discuss this issue at the medcab page. Thanks, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Afd: Blues Metal
No hard feelings, but thanks for clarifying. You have a point in that the article is not complete OR, and I understand your desire to give newly created articles a chance to grow. While I do not consider "Blues Metal" to be enough of an actual genre to merit its own individual article, I would not have nominated this article for deletion if its content was not so subjective or if it contained cited references for its many claims. Should someone come along and turn this into a good encyclopedic article with a few references, I would be fine with keeping the article. Unfortunately, while someone may be capable of making this article worth keeping, I believe that the article's creator has fully demonstrated (on the afd page) that he/she is completely incapable (at least at this point in time) of writing a good objective article on this subject with references. I would try to fix it myself, but, as I said, in my personal opinion I think that the fusion of blues and metal gets enough coverage in the heavy metal article, because the "fusion" style of "blues metal" is really nothing more than the early stages of metal, when it was still developing from blues-influenced rock. There is also a whole article on blues rock. Anyway, that was my thinking with regard to this whole afd. Thanks for your message. I feel like a tourist (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Brian Sherwin
Hi. Can you give me more feedback about the Brian Sherwin bio I have been working on? My plan is to contribute bios for other art bloggers/writers of note like Edward Winkleman and Tyler Greene once I finish with the Sherwin bio. I'd also like to work on a bio for Yuliya Lanina if there is not one already. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC))
Hi Jeremy, I made some changes to the Sherwin bio. Check it out and let me know what you think if you have time. I also want to do some articles about the art fairs like Scope. Is there a limit on how many articles we can work on at one time or is it best to focus on one before moving on to others? Thanks again for your help. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC))
[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Akgt
Please see my comment. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted Page
Hi, Sorry this message is probably delayed in replying I posted a Wikipedia page About the UCAR Point of Presence (UPOP) which was deleted based on copyright infringement. I was asked my boss to post a pages of our varying projects UPoP, FRGP, NPAD, Web100, and BiSON. These pages generally are not readily accessible to the general public hence the creation to Wikipedia pages. As a starting point my supervisor asked that I copy our introduction pages from these projects with information to be added later or modified at a later date. When starting this project I was asked to complete other previous projects by my supervisor, before continuing on this one. Hence the delay in my response. To avoid the deletion of these pages in the future what are things you would suggest so that these pages may become a part of the Wikipedia community and not violate any terms of use? Again I apologize for the delay in responding to the original message and thank you for your help in helping us better our pages that we may post in the future. Ewaukau (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
RE: Thanks for your help and will look into both options Ewaukau (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Bill Moyers
You were one of only two outside editors to weigh in on this RFC. Things have moved on somewhat, and I've refreshed the RfC. Would appreciate your inputhere Andyvphil (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Inclusionism an issue at RfA
I noticed at your user page that you have the inclusionist user box displayed. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fordmadoxfraud is an example where nominee is being labasted for describing his inclusionist philosophy in his candidate description. This bothers me, and seems unfair. What do you think? --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reversion of protected page
Jeremy, following your advice I asked for protection of Getting_Things_Done. PeterSymonds protected it (edit: actually he did not protect the article but blocked the IP), and asked me not to revert myself. Would you be so kind to revert the IP's last deletion? Thank you! Lausianne (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assistance with Notability
Hello JeremyMcCracken- Earlier I had posted an article about s famous person and I made the mistake of calling her my client. I was okay when that one was deleted but now a specific user, Friday, is either deleting or putting anything I write up for deletion simple because I offended them. I wrote an article about Lorelei Mahoney, whom I have never met but admire greatly. I have provided sources, and even CNN.com/heroes reports on her, yet this member and two of their friends keep seconding each others opinion. How exactly does one deal with this situation where the notability is everywhere but there are just dishonest and malicious people using power to bother someone? Please help -GambinoManny (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Yes!
This is just what I was after--whats the right syntax there to make that white interior border the same shade as the light green background, to appear transparent? Thank you!! rootology (T) 05:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Intro and Request for Advice
Jeremy, since an anonymous editor said you were my "meat puppet" when he reverted your edit, I figured I should at least introduce myself. Three editors and one admin have asked this person (on multiple talk pages) to discuss his reasoning, all to no avail. Any suggestions? Kcren (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can't see the "discussion" either. I see that the page is now semi-protected (unsure what that means), but it is "protected" in the reverted state (citation link deleted). Is that the intent? Kcren (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Editor Assistance
I have read your reply on the page, I am sorry for reverting someones talkpage, I thought it would make it easier for admins to review the case, I wont do it again, Chafford (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:AFD.
Replied. Cheers, · AndonicO Engage. 23:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
