This is an archive of past discussions with User:Indubitably. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hahaha, I'd not even seen that. Haven't been looking at my watchlist. XD That's great. Hahaha. Sorry 'bout yours... not as great. :p Jennavecia (Talk)19:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Bad times, indeed. But good luck with the Huggling and all~
LaPianista(T•C•S•R) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Well, judging by your picture, you are a very hot woman. Nice shirt. Anyway, fair enough, I'll stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.230.244 (talk • contribs)
If you see the the "epic fail" again don't bother with a warning, just go straight for the block button. They have been away for a few months but I guess they must be bored again and have decided to return. CambridgeBayWeatherHave a gorilla22:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, there. About the current situation at Elizabeth Gracen, I would like to point out that www.elizabethgracen.net is not the actress's official site, but a libelous page. Please check it to see what I mean. This IP user has been trying to add it to the article for at least a year and has been reverted ever since. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I've read your rules, don't worry! Actually,
I have my own page. Blacky98
You could find me, BUT someone is deleting
all my stuff. :( I warned 'em on emoticons
I'm 10. OK, bye... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.79.60 (talk) 23:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You reverted my edit on the Gaokerena page, saying it was "unconstructive". I'd like to let you know that this was not vandalism, the versions of the myth I have heard actually name the donkey as the Rightous Ass, as silly as that sounds. I mean no ill intent, I just wanted to clear that up. :) 66.63.86.156 (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm the guy who edited the grolm article to eliminate the implication that the entire species survives on its own dead. In The Wheel of Time series, they are very violent and barbaric creatures that will eat each other when the opportunity arises, but by no means does "their diet consist of their own dead", unless there is something really profound in the books I haven't read yet. I'm just a little baffled as to why you reverted the edit for being unconstructive. Is this something done by default to everyone who doesn't have an account because of the high percentage of vandalizing retards?
Sorry if I screwed up the code a bit, I'm a wiki noob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.94.157 (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Not all IP edits are reverted. If the code was messed up, that's probably the reason for the revert. Or if the information appeared to be inaccurate and lacked a source. If you can link me to the edit that I reverted, that would be most helpful. I may have made a mistake with the revert. Jennavecia (Talk)00:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I found the edit and I have struck the warning from your talk page and left my apologies there, as well as reverted myself. Regards, Jennavecia (Talk)02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You might not be aware of this, but templating long term users, like you did here is generally considered impolite. Please have a quick read of the essay on templating regulars and perhaps consider leaving an apology.
Sorry, but you shouldn't just revert, I created this change and monitored it for an hour, but the thing it is about, sorry for the matrix-like wording: real.
You can't just remove it. A philosophical issue like reality and computer virtual reality IS A DEEPLY SERIOUS WARNING.
This box-content is the truth. Just check out the other story at sonic weaponry or check the dates of the wiki post and the february school shootings. I can also send you to ibm or virgin, but just bugger of, this revert is just not going to happen (it is too serious). Please check things out more seriously next time, this is the real thing! - Lord Santos
Right. Okay. Well, I'll keep that in mind. But, contrary to what you've stated above, I can just revert it, and I did. Your addition had three main issues as far as Wikipedia goes. 1/ It's what we refer to as original research, 2/ The article is on the movie and what you've added has absolutely nothing to do with it, and 3/ You placed it in the infobox, which isn't coded for it, so it didn't show up in the article page anyway. So, basically, it's going to continue to be removed, and if you continue to put it back, you'll lose your editing privileges. So please refrain from adding original research and stick to sourced information. Thanks, Jennavecia (Talk)20:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I told you I was going to do it...
Gazimoff has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!
Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Sorry J...U were right, i did not read te page good...Sorry for calling you a B, lol...By the way if you can put up a Pic of Carol that would be nice. Have a good night! Oh and sorry for writing on here, but i dont know how else to write to you and i dont want to write on Carol's page again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.112.5 (talk • contribs)
You know, you're an admin. You can just go ahead and block all the vandals. Thought I'd remind you. BTW, what's been up? I know, I'm a terrible friend. But how you been? --Jayron32.talk.contribs12:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Wait.... I'm an admin!?! :O zOMG! \o/ Woooo! Go me. Oh wait, I knew that. ;)
I'm using Huggle, and the block function is borked, so we just auto-report everything. I'm good by the way. I got promoted! It's good times. How are you and yours? Jennavecia (Talk)12:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Promoted? Does that mean you're like head waitress? Or even better than that? We're awesome. We're expecting another son in January, and Andrew has become more time-consuming, which is why I'm not as active as I used to be. You could drop me a line on Facebook sometime too... I check that from time to time... --Jayron32.talk.contribs12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I rarely use FB, but I'll try... for you! Uhm... I'm a crew leader and I'm training to be an assistant manager. :D Hey... jump on Yahoo or IRC. There's BRC news that's neither funny or bathrobe related, but important. Oh, and CONGRATS! Jennavecia (Talk)12:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I was going to ask the same thing, but it appears that Jayron beat me to it. Not that I mind doing the dirty work! Congrats on the AM position! Just stay away from anything that is a salary position!! --Kralizec! (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if my edit summary in I'm a PC[1]was less than clear. I removed the line about Seinfeld because although he did appear in the Microsoft ads just before this series, he does not have any involvement and does not appear in these particular ads at all. Sorry if I appeared to revert brusquely, I didn't mean too and was just focused.76.224.68.237 (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Jennavecia, sorry but it looks like your revert and my revert of each other is being used by Arcayne as a basis to remove me. I hope I honestly characterized the interaction here:[2] Sorry for the bother, but as he used your name, and I needed to defend I thought you should know your stuff was being used.76.224.68.237 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Reporting to AIV
Just wondering why you are? Is this something to do with Huggle and the new "feature" regarding the flag to stop talk page edits? I seem to remember reading that somewhere. Just seemed odd to see your name at AIV! Pedro : Chat 14:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, see here and there's also the section a couple up #Whazzup. :) Huggle's block feature is borked. It blocks them from using their talk page automatically, so it's currently disabled and instead auto-reports to AIV. Jennavecia (Talk)14:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahh, yeah if I'd bothered to read the above section that would have saved some time! Still, makes it easy for us non hugglers - if you report I block on sight- if you could tell me your prefered block duration at the same time it would be even easier :)Pedro : Chat 14:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It's an automatic thing. I just revert the edit, it scans the talk page, if a final warning has already been issued, it bypasses the warning step and reports directly to AIV. It's one click revert. Just use your discretion. Jennavecia (Talk)14:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
To remember it, I'd have to have already known it... :p But I like the way it's set up. I don't mind reporting, I just don't want to keep repeating why. :D Jennavecia (Talk)01:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)
Hey there Jennavecia! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!
You have got to be kidding. There is no way that my edit could possibly be considered "vandalism". I simply reverted a bad edit. Why did I revert the edit? Because... it's not a "copyright violation" to include the list on an article about a list. That edit went against Wikipedia's policy on copyright paranoia. Maybe you should actually read my edit before you automatically assume that the evil IP address has vandalized the page.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Is the list in the same order in the magazine article as it is in your edit? Okay. Copyright infringement. We can't republish their list. We can talk about it and cite it. Jennavecia (Talk)14:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It is not copyright infringement to say which titles were included on the list. For example: after the AFI aired their list of the 100 greatest American movies, countless websites and newspapers said which films were on the list, including Wikipedia.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference. Lists compiled from readership/viewership polls (such as the AFI lists) are not the same as lists published as editorial opinion (such as TV Guide lists). Arguably a seemingly minor distinction, perhaps, but it's one we make all the same. Notice, for example, that we don't have an article for People Magazine's 100 Most Beautiful People, and while we do have Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century, the actual list is not included, rather prose is written from it, pulling out certain names and discussing. Jennavecia (Talk)19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding my changes to Bookrunner, I simply removed a list of almost random news articles that happened to mention bookrunners in the titles. The articles are not explanatory about the role of bookrunner and shed no light on the subject of the page. I removed them cos they violated the "wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of info" guideline. How about you revert your revert? 128.118.87.29 (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for that. I reverted myself and deleted your talk page, which only had the one edit from me. Thanks for using the edit summary feature... it helps when people like me read them. *facepalm* Regards, Jennavecia (Talk)21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Help us select good versions of WP:ROCK articles for inclusion on the Wikipedia 0.7 release! Find out more about Wikipedia 0.7 selection on the project talk page and add your thoughts to the discussion. If you are personally responsible for a Featured or Good Article listed here, please the select a version to include in Wikipedia 0.7 on that page if you haven't already. Page versions must be selected by October 20.
Can you please look at that? This would be unfortunate if someone gets a warning for three reverts over one word. Also, if you get a chance, please look at my Huggle reverts. I want to make sure the warnings coincide with the edits I 'rollback'. XF Lawtalk at me14:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I checked over a few of your last 100 edits and everything looked good to me. I also read the article you created. Nice work. I upgraded it to start class. You should consider doing a DYK on it. The last paragraph would make for a good hook. :) Jennavecia (Talk)16:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We have permission to use the copyrighted material because we are actually the ones that conduted the interview of the artist Stones as we do with tons of other rappers. The HipHopDoc's user page was created because we have tons of information on tons of artists that we felt like we should share with the wikipedia community. (HipHopDoc (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC))
Damn right, you're not. It's shameful. How many times have you had to revert yourself this week, or fix your own mistakes? Srs, go take a nap. Jennavecia (Talk)19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Wait...did I miss the part where you broke the project again? Multiple Laras? Wow, what an achievement! haha ——Possum (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It's me again. I just want to tell you about 213.1.225.11(talk·contribs·WHOIS), he/she has been deleting portions of a page content, templates, etc, and doing other unconstructive edits like this. Please keep a watch on this user's edits, and block him/her when he/she is doing another edit like all these. -Porchcrop(talk|contributions)06:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not your personal WP:AIV. I reverted your warning from his talk page considering there was already a final warning, which was issued two minutes after his last edit, and yours came two days later. That's not only unnecessary, it's inappropriate. Jennavecia (Talk)12:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah OK I know what I did on the Pollock Halls page isn't how it's done, but it sort of pissed me off how someone can say an area is more friendly than another, scientific as that is.
They still exist, unless they were deleted and then recreated... I should have checked that. Hmm, I'll do that in a moment, but both show a clear conflict of interest. They are not neutrally written by any means. They read like advertisements. The formatting of text suggested it was a copy/paste from another site, but I did not find anything in a search of selected text. It may be best for you to request someone else write these articles at WP:RA. Jennavecia (Talk)18:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, okay. I see now. I use Huggle to patrol for vandalism and other edits in need of correction. It's a semi-automated tool that allows for quick review and revert. Normally, when an editor blanks a page, when the revert button his clicked, if that editor started the article, Huggle will automatically display a notice asking if the page should instead be deleted. In these cases, for whatever reason, that didn't happen. Sorry for the confusion. They're deleted now. Jennavecia (Talk)18:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right. Thanks, you can CSD delete the page if you please. I kind of find it interesting how much the discussion had died, and that now we're finally getting comments from anonymous users. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
CWii(Talk|Contribs) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Click for bigger, better to see it in its entirety. See 'In the news' and 'DYK'
Ok, so I know you're a rogue admin, but pissing off Jimbo is pushing the boat out. (Oh and note the section about Jimbo's love for Possums in DYK) ——Possum (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Ohhh but you just totally missed the part about Possums which was by far the most important piece of text O_O ——Possum (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious why wikipedia and the admins use a very arbitrary policy of allowing businesses to be linke dto the page. What criteria are used? Some are allowed and some not.
Seems that the admins simply ban people who try to edit pages without verifying if the information added is correct or not, and allow many edits that distort the truth. But then, I guess that is the history of the internet isn't it......
How is a related link to a business an appropriate link in this case when others have been removed? The link was not in the article, but was in the external links section.
Can you show me an example of some removed? As far as the location, we include relevant external links in the EL section of articles. They do not necessarily have to be in the body of the article. لennavecia04:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
small request
Take your pick. You can even enlarge it so there's more....
Hahahahahahahaha, OMG, I'm surprised that one wasn't written for me! XD Hahaha, o man, srsly, that pwns my page for real. Ah. لennavecia11:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Dear Jennavecia, thanks for your explanations. Endogenous -i should not be blocked. Your explanations will help me in the long run.
In case of IP 74.11.193.242, I disagree with you. I analyzed the edits of the IP and there is no doubt in my mind that the intention of the IP is to vandalize Wikipedia.
I've studied WP:BLOCK many times. I think we should mention in WP:BLOCK that when the intention of someone is to vandalize Wikipedia or cause trouble, the user may be blocked from editing for sometime. Thoughts?
I understand your frustration. And it may seem like common sense to block a user who, upon looking over their history, appears to have no other intention than vandalism. The issue is that if they've not edited recently, they may have already moved on. With IPs, they change and you don't know when that will happen. So with them in particular, we have to take extra care. Our warning system is in place for good reasons and we need to attempt to follow it fairly. When users have no received the appropriate set of warnings (there are, of course, exceptions), then they should not be blocked. Or, if they have received the full set, but have not edited since the final, we need to assume good faith that they've read the warnings and have taken them seriously. As an administrator, it's my responsibility to ensure all of that. لennavecia14:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
That was my error. From your report at RFPP, I thought it was a matter of British English vs American English for an article on a British band. Bad assumption on my part. I should not have assumed it would be that easy! Ha. I corrected myself immediately after. It should be English, which I've noted on the IP's talk page. لennavecia19:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
And ya, Malleus, considering England is part of Great Brittan... of course, he has a point... Those from England are still English. لennavecia19:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
He isn't often on and almost never when I am. The BRC chan is an invite chan and only ops can invite and invex. He's an op, I think, but he probably doesn't know how to add people as Freenode changed recently. Also, we don't invite anyone without chan consensus because of the personal IRL stuff we talk about. لennavecia12:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
From User:Myrecovery, to User:Jennavecia
I have stopped those unnecessary editing in talk pages. Please do not block me.
