User talk:Jtdirl
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Please come back when the time is right
Hey Jt - I noticed that you blanked your page... :( I'm also embarrassed to say that I only now just read what your user page said before it was blanked - even though you wrote that back in November. Truth is, that over the last couple years I've transitioned from wikiholism to workaholism and devote minimal time to Wikipedia and since the middle of last year, the foundation. As with you, I don't have time to do much vandal fighting - The only articles I watch are the ones I helped to get featured and my major contributions of late are in trying to improve those articles to current FA standards when they come up for FAR. But, I don't much worry about most of the other articles I've contributed to since my experience over five years (wow - it really has been that long) is that articles of mediocre and lessor quality either stay about the same or improve slowly. Rarely do they significantly degrade for long.
However, as you rightly state, above average and great articles must be watched closely to prevent degradation to mediocrity. That is why I have great hope that the long-sought stable version feature will help us keep quality edits by periodically recognizing good versions; any new edits would have to be compared to the previous stable version before a new stable version is marked. I truly hope that that will give us the edge we need to much more easily defend great content from being edited into mediocrity . When that day comes I hope you can find the time to come back and help us in this most noble of endeavors. Until then, your edits and your presence will be greatly missed by me and I'm sure by many others. Hopefully, those damn annoying bots will be fixed by then as well. :)
Your friend,
-- mav 00:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Just dropped by
Hi. Just dropped in to say hello in case you are listening. I've got plenty of "issues" with wikipedia at the moment, and often wish you were still here so I could share them with you. Deb (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Mav, Deb and the others who have been in contact.
I must admit that I miss posting enormously. I loved Wikipedia. But towards the end the bot madness just drove me to frustration. I was a prolific poster and as such added in thousands of articles and hundreds of images. It was the images issue that bugged me. I'd upload images using the rules that existed, only to find that one set of templates had been abandoned and a new set, and a new set of rules, introduced. So I'd go through the images again, and then find six months later they'd changed again.
It was one thing when users were contracting people to point out problems with images. But it was quite another when the bot madness started and longstanding posters found their pages absolutely jammed with messages accusing them of using the wrong categorisation when they had used the correct one at the time. I just got fed up, especially when bots were informing me that images that were 100% with the right categorisation were still wrong simply because the technical command used for a graphic had now been changed by it, not by me. If people insist on continually changing rules then it should be THEIR responsibility to fix the problems THEIR decisions cause, rather than having bots blaming people who were innocent of anything.
Most of us posting in my group and my area just got completely fed up and left. Often I would only be back occasionally to check an article, only to find more ludicrous bot messages all over. Sometimes I lost the head completely - I suppose the posts just reminded me of all the frustration I had felt when I ended up leaving. I posted some rather strong comments *blush*. Apologies to anyone who was offended. (I noticed how one person who complained about by use of the f-word to reply to one particularly pointless bot message saying that I should have uploaded something to Commons even though Commons did not take those sort of images at the time the picture was uploaded, a few months later posted back to say that now HE had been hit by the bot madness over a rule change that meant his images were now all wrong and he was accused of putting in wrong templates, and now he realised just how frustrated I felt. He, as I and countless others did, just left the project.)
Anyway, as I said, thank you to everyone for posting supportive comments. I really do miss posting, but I just cannot be bothered dealing with the bot madness any more. I just felt like rolling my eyes when I got a bot message saying that a picture I took of a 100 year old newspaper that ceased to be published before anyone here was born, had copyright problems, when the only problem was that, yet again, the correct tag to use when in 2005 I uploaded the image is now incorrect because a new one has been created, throwing the thousands of images uploaded under the old tag into limbo. I was tempted in frustration to go and delete all the hundreds of images I created, but didn't. lol. But I am not fixing anything. So don't bother posting for me to do it. If images go into limbo because of someone else's decision on changing tags and templates, that is their problem. And if perfectly valid images are deleted and articles turned into a mess, that is their responsibility. I pointed out that problem repeatedly while I was here. I was the one constantly urging that Wikipedia set out rigid rules on images from day 1. That didn't happen, and the result has been a complete mess which I and the others now being blamed for are not going to fix. If Wikipedia had done what we urged years ago, there would not be a problem now.
Enough said. Take care everyone. Thanks for the support. FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: I'll quote the last line of my previous message again.
As to the bots, they can f*** off.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtdirl (talk • contribs)
-
- Amen..Wish you wouldn't have left. Come back? --Veritas (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Meaththatch.jpg
Yet another rubbish message about pictures deleted . . . *sigh* FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Girlband (American band)
I have nominated Girlband (American band), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlband (American band). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Glad to see you
As one old hand here to another, I wanted to let you know I'm glad to see you editing again. Raul654 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] User talk:Sussexman
Hi. That editor was blocked by you in 2006 over a legal threat that seems to have been retracted by now, or at least the threatened editor now supports the user's unblock. Could you take a look at the talk page and consider whether or not he's fit to be unblocked, possibly with conditions? Sandstein (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, it turns out he's a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppeteer. Sandstein (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Vicky.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vicky.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Captain panda 03:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Irish Unionist Alliance
Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Irish Unionist Alliance, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Joseph Ratzinger
A tag has been placed on Joseph Ratzinger, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 03:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Irish Unionist Alliance
An editor has nominated Irish Unionist Alliance, 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/Irish Unionist Alliance 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) 22:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- No wonder this website is now a joke. An article about a political party, with references, is not acceptable. But articles about non-existent countries and cartoon characters are.
- This once was a credible website. Now it is a dumbed down laughing stock. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Signature
Hello, there. I don't want to worsen your already bad relations with Wikipedia, but the guideline on signatures does not allow the use of images. I have notified several editors with images in their signatures, and I always feel bad doing this, given that many of them are actually quite interesting, but there are valid arguments against such practices. For the record, I am not just blindly following the guideline for the sake of enforcing guidelines; I genuinely agree with the reason why this guideline was put in place. (Therefore, don't shoot the messenger—especially when the messenger possesses no bulletproof clothing, and the chances of you hitting his prized pocket watch are very small indeed.)
So that you should know, I have just read your goodbye message and you have my deepest sympathies as far as the image onslaught is concerned. Personally, I am in favour of limited bot activity in Wikipedia and only for cases where no significant harm can be done. The image area is one more or less foreign to me, I admit, but the few images I have uploaded (unrelated to articles) I have done so in the Commons, not here. In any case, if you feel like, you can come over for a chat (I am a good listener on-line, even though I talk a lot in real life). I am always interested in hearing other people's viewpoints about things, especially Wikipedia. (If you are not thrilled at the prospect, we could always discuss naming disputes, which seem to be in vogue nowadays.) Waltham, The Duke of 13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fear, welcome back. Hope you still have the admin-45 in your pocket ;) Mel, I've left. 78.19.41.167 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I should appreciate even the shortest of answers, Jtdirl. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome back
Glad to see you're editing again, If you have any problems, drop a note on my talk page. Raul654 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just popped in to say hello. Nice to see you back on here, too. Hope you'll stay with us awhile. You were missed :) - Alison ❤ 03:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:INA(ireland).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:INA(ireland).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hey!
When did you get back? And are you here to stay? I hope so - there have been some awful things going on round the royal naming conventions! Deb (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reversion
Hi there. Just wondering why you reverted one of my edits. It was a valid edit as the article is already in a sub-category of that category. Canterbury Tail talk 16:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- No probs, it happens. Done it myself often enough as well. Canterbury Tail talk 21:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox cardinalbiog documentation
Hi. I see you started Template:Infobox cardinalbiog - I've added some documentation to it as without instructions noone will use it, but I got a bit bored filling in what all the fields did and to be honest I wasn't completely sure what you intended for the "reason" field - would you mind editing it to make it clear? I've no particular interest in cardinals per se, I've just been filling in infoboxes for the Italy Project and figured that if I almost didn't bother using the template for want of a doc, then there must be others in the same boat.... FlagSteward (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] thanks!
Thank you for creating Template:Behave all those months ago. I use it from time to time because it really hits the nail on the head sometimes. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Daly, Cahal Brandan Cardinal.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Daly, Cahal Brandan Cardinal.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Docg 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Collins' portrait
As original uploader on the EN project, would you have any thoughts on (or anything to add to) this discussion? Guliolopez (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Davidtimble.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Davidtimble.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
- On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? One Night In Hackney303 17:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Capital "Advice"
Hi.
I see from the article-history that you are the creator of Advice (constitutional), and the person who originally stated that the term is frequently capitalised. There's now a wee dispute about that usage, at the article. An editor has decapitalised in the text, and placed a "fact" tag on the statement that "some constitutional writers, though not all, capitalise the word" (as "frequently capitalised" has become). If you have some input on this, and particularly some references to support that frequent use of capitalisation, please take part in resolving this, at the article. All the best,
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Npa6
Template:Npa6 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 07:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Vbc
Template:Vbc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 10:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Lang5
Template:Lang5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 10:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Tpv5
Template:Tpv5 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Irish states since 1171
Template:Irish states since 1171 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Rite and Reason
I have nominated Rite and Reason, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rite and Reason. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Brianfaulkner.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Brianfaulkner.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
-
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of Image:Piusxii.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Piusxii.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 23:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Blacktans.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Blacktans.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ?
When you sign your prsts with four tidles how do you get your name colorful like that?--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TfD nomination of Template:MIPblock
Template:MIPblock has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
