Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:34, 4 January 2010

Welcome

Hello JettaMann and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Good work on the Atheism page; those little errors are terribly hard to catch. I'm glad you've chosen to join us. This is a great project with lots of dedicated people, which might seem intimidating at times, but don't let anything discourage you. Be bold!, explore, and contribute. Try to be civil by following simple guidelines and signing your talk comments with ~~~~ but never forget that one of our central tenets is to ignore all rules.

If you want to learn more, Misplaced Pages:Tutorial is the place to go, but eventually the following links might also come in handy:
Help
FAQ
Glossary
Manual of Style

Float around until you find something that tickles your fancy. One easy way to do this is to hit the random page button in the navigation bar to the left. Additionally, the Community Portal offers a more structured way to become acquainted with the many great committees and groups that focus on specific tasks. My personal favorite stomping grounds are Misplaced Pages:Translation into English as well as the cleanup, welcoming, and counter-vandalism committees. Finally, the Wikimedia Foundation has several other wiki projects that you might enjoy. If you have any more questions, always feel free to ask me anything on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Draeco 20:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Who are you? -- JettaMann

That's not a polite way to respond to a polite welcome. Please read WP:CIVIL.

Are you kidding? Don't bite the newcomers yourself... heqs 20:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you propose to add controversial concepts based on flimsy evidence, consider suggesting it on article talk pages (reached by the "discussion" link at the top of each article) before adding to the article. I believe all of your edits yesterday/early today have been removed by regular editors of those articles for various reasons relating to the claims being doubtful and not well supported by quality references. See WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Welcome to Misplaced Pages, perhaps you should choose less controversial edits until you become more familiar with Misplaced Pages standards and policies. --Scott Davis 14:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott, I agree the source provided for the Aborigine origins with Neanderthal man was not conclusive enough, so I added more data (including DNA evidence which is pretty hard to argue with) in the Neanderthal discussion page. Hope this clears that issue up for you. -- JettaMann

Jetta man do some damn research. the "friend" is Aaron Russo, and he went on to make a documentary "America:Freedom to Fascism" after he learned these things, and ended his friendship with Rockefeller —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.226.176 (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Signing your comments

Hi JettaMann, make sure you sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~ , and it will show up like this: Awiseman 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Vigor Microlight

A tag has been placed on Vigor Microlight, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually delete the page — I'm not an admin, and have no burning desire to be one. I just tag an article with a speedy delete, then an admin has to come along and agree with me to make it happen. I like it that way, as it gives some "backup" to make sure I don't tag something for no good reason. You can always re-post the article, but someone else may do a speedy delete too (I'll leave it alone), at which time you'd better figure it needs to be rewritten, or else just give up on it. I've been on your side of this kind of issue, too. Realkyhick 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Polar Bear

I added the ref to your paragraph. I think I did it right. Of course it'd be lovely to find the sources that the paper used. Shenme 04:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

On the Edge: The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Commodore

On 28 April 2006, you added a lot of links to www.commodorebook.com . Two of these have been identified as spam , and I can't see why most of the others could be considered relevant. A book should be in #References only if content from the book has been used in the article (hence "references"), which I see no evidence of. Links to a page offering to sell the book are probably spam. Do you have any reasons to keep these links on other pages? ⇌Elektron 13:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's one of two books that deal with the topic of Commodore, MOS Technologies, etc... I think these are listed in further reading? That seems entirely appropriate for people who want more in depth information. JettaMann 13:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of them have been removed with explanations in the edit comments (a lot of them not by me). Only add it to "references" if it has been used in the creation of the article (the section title "sources" is nonstandard), and "external links" if it's something worth looking at that doesn't just try to sell you something. In this case, a Harvard-style reference would've been more appropriate (in "Further reading", which most of them weren't), or preferably, read the book, add to the article, and use <ref> tags so it's obvious what relevance the book has (as has been done here. ⇌Elektron 10:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ehh, that's not the case. Originally the links pointed the actual site for the book, which was claimed to be an ad. So as a compromise with Altari they were pointed to the current cite, with an actual excerpt, that is not promoted as an ad and has a simple link at the end of the page to buy the book. The book is a valid reference and source for Commodore history and well known by researchers and the Commodore community. I've put back some of them, and changed the link to a review of the book. Also corrected the links you changed to the title of the excerpt and the isbn but left out the title. --Marty Goldberg 17:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of MicroGraphicImage

A tag has been placed on MicroGraphicImage requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, 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 article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Rudget _{Contributions} 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Response - on talk page. Regards, Rudget _{Contributions} 15:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted but I've restored it. Please fix the tone of the article and add references so that it does not appear to be original research. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Games By Apollo

A tag has been placed on Games By Apollo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, 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 article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Brewcrewer 07:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Added "wait" tag as per guidelines. Put discussion on article's talk page. Rewrote the entire entry, provided references, etc. Removed tags as per guidelines. --Marty Goldberg 09:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the consensus of the article's editors. --Jagz (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Your 15:44, 21 April 2008 revision of Bill Ayers article contradicts Weather Underground article

In one of your 21 April 2008 revisions of Bill Ayers you added text describing the Weather Underground as "a group responsible for the bombing murders of several people." This contradicts the main Weather Underground article. Please explain. Joeljunk (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Partial reversion on introductory treatment of Harold Wilson's approach to socialism

Hello, JettaMann.

You recently made changes to the introductory section on Harold Wilson's brand of socialism. I accept that some of these changes were a marked improvement, as they removed an earlier speculative section ("suggesting" Wilson's attitude to traditional left wing approaches). This change is to be applauded. However, I propose that the additional changes -- which almost entirely focused attention on the "social reform" area of the Wilson governments' record, at the expense of his goals on opportunity, technology and growth -- create a confusion and imbalance between what Wilson himself set out to do and what a certain part of his administration (the Home Office largely under Roy Jenkins) undertook. If one reads Wilson's own speeches, e.g., from the 1964 campaign, his own area of focus seems clear. I recognize that you have also asked for citation(s) to back up the article's claim that Wilson personally had little interest in the Jenkins agenda. While I think this is well known, I accept the challenge, and will just need a little more time to find suitable quotes to support this point. Best regards. Nandt1 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thd citation requested has now been supplied. Nandt1 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Giving a little more thought to how to deal with the issues raised, I am now proposing a new reference to the social legislation in the introduction, but separated from the discussion on Wilson's approach to socialism. The larger significance of the "socialism" discussion, that we should try not to lose here, is that attitudes to public ownership have represented a central fissure within the Labour Party almost ever since the Attlee government lost office. Thus Gaitskell tried but failed to change Clause Four of the constitution, opposed by Bevan; much later Foot re-emphasized the left's traditional values; more recently, Blair actually changed the Party's constitution. Where does Wilson fit into this story? The Harold Wilson article argues that he basically fudged the issue -- neither changing the letter of the constitution, nor doing very much to put it into practise. Regards. Nandt1 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing a proposed edit on the following page: Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please contribute in a constructive manner. Thank you, and don't forget to sign your messages on the Talk page with four tildes. ~~~~ Marx0728 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your changes to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ‎

You recently removed factual content from Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. This is problematic and contested. Please use the talk page to explain your edits. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Stop referring to fellow editors as "AGW activists" please. Scjessey (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is quite enough. You're going to get blocked now. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard notification

Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent personal attacks and disruptive editing by User:JettaMann, where I've requested that you be blocked and/or topic-banned for your persistent disruptive and abusive behaviour. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Following the multiple warnings for disruptive tendentious editing and personal attacks above, I have blocked you for 10 days, hoping that the discussion on that Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident will by then have calmed down somewhat. You have probably noticed that a community-imposed topic ban for you on that topic area is also on the table, so I would strongly recommmend when you come back from the block, even if you haven't been banned by then, you should tread very carefully in that area or preferably choose to avoid the field altogether, because if you continue behaving like you did you will most likely incur more sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

JettaMann (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did a bit more research into my ban and now see what happened here. Let me give you my side of these accusations.

The first accusation I want to dismiss is that I have a "history" of "disruptive tendentious editing". I have been a registered Misplaced Pages editor for many years and made thousands of edits (see my history). In that whole time there are perhaps 6 disagreements/discussions that have cropped up in my talk page, all of them have been friendly, and I have made no attempt to erase this history. Furthermore, the disagreements happened when I was new and didn't understand Misplaced Pages's many rules at that time. I admit they were mistakes and didn't repeat them. So I hope we can dismiss this accusation once and for all.

The second accusation I want to dismiss is that I have engaged in any personal attacks. In the discussion page for Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident I merely proposed three changes to the article: 1. Allow reactions from people other than those who support the AGW theory (Global Warming). Currently it only lists reactions from AGW theory supporters. 2. Make the wording for the Emails sections less POV. Currently it does read as though a AGW apologist wrote this and is attempting damage control from the leaked emails. I merely suggested putting facts only, such as "There were xx emails stolen, and of those xx received significant airtime in the media." 3. I further proposed listing the quotes from email that received significant airtime by the media.

These were all made in good faith and are reasonable suggestions for discussion, but it became immediately clear to me that we had at least three gatekeepers in particular rejected these for no other reason than they didn't like truth and facts. They only wanted the article to be AGW positive, and so rejected any calls for balance or fairness in the article. I had several respected scientists I wanted to quote, and they dismissed them for no rational reason other than they weren't AGW supporters. *Without insulting or attacking them* I pointed out that they are AGW activists, which they are. This is not an insult nor attacking them. Many others in the discussion list arrived at the same conclusion I had. Apparently they can call others "right wing" without problem, but calling them "AGW supporters" is heresy.

Now what these few guys have done is attack me, made unwarranted accusations, and deleted my threads from the discussion list. They also said I was attacking fellow editors, when in fact I said, "I was not calling Misplaced Pages editors AGW activists, just the AGW activists." As you can see on the ban page, one guy (no idea who he is) even rushed to my defense. This is a good indicator for my case.

Now I think you will agree this is a far cry from "attacking" anyone, it's just stating what many other editors also observed. However, as it turns out this mini-cabal of AGW activists ganged up on me as I now realize to have me banned. I would appreciate it if you would right this wrong.

Decline reason:

plenty of review of this block at this thread on ANI. Your block will expire in a matter of hours. I don't recommend calling folks you disagree with "slanted POV dicks" when your block expires. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, William Connolley, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

Your edit here adds negative material with dubious sources, while ignoring the ongoing discussion and active RfC on the talk page. And your edit here is a direct violation on WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Only warning.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Misplaced Pages's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Misplaced Pages page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Further reviewing your contributions, along with your recent lengthy block, I have requested enforcement at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#JettaMann. Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics