User talk:Andjam

Archives:

• User talk:Andjam/Archive1 - main talk
• User talk:Andjam/Archive2 - more talk prior to my move to Massachusetts
• User talk:Andjam/Archive3 - talk subsequent to my move to Massachusetts
• User talk:Andjam/Archive4 - talk while I was in Massachusetts, and since I returned
• User talk:Andjam/Speedy1 - I read all user talk messages, but especially enjoy the vicious ones and refractor them to a page of their own.

Your interest in my wikipedian contributions

Apparently, you once asked me "What gives?" regarding my contribution to page of the user FairNBalanced in juxtaposition to my claim that my contribution to the Sacha Baron Cohen‎ page was my first. Clearly, you did not read the dates of my contributions to those respective pages, or else you would have noticed that my contribution to the Sacha Baron Cohen‎ was clearly my first, as it predated the other "contribution" by 25 days. Not only that, but I had also made a comment on a talk page of Junius Spencer Morgan. All of these contributions are easily verifiable and clearly marked. Now then, was there a point to your question?Shabeki (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment I made was

Your edit to User talk:FairNBalanced

Hi Shabeki,

According to your comment here, you first edited wikipedia on 13 January, 2007. And yet here, you leave a comment on the talk page of a user who last edited in October 2006. What gives? Andjam 00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asking you why you were leaving a message to a user who stopped editing wikipedia before you first started editing. Andjam (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So I could have a better idea of what conforms to wikipedia's standards and (judging by his rather acrimonious departure) what does not. That, and the chance to say goodbye to a rather brusque guy I never had the misfortune of meeting. Any other questions?Shabeki (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Why say goodbye to someone you never met? Andjam (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically, very few wikipedia users have met one another. That in itself does not preclude people from saying a few words of goodbye if a person leaves the community. While I never knew the person during his tenure here, I nonetheless saw it fitting to say a few parting words given his history of apparently leaving such comments of a similarly strong nature. Perhaps it would seem foolish to leave a comment for someone who would (allegedly) never read it. But obviously, you read it and your interest in it has been so piqued as to ask me about it repeatedly. So apparently, it served its intended effect.Shabeki (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

I'll be removing the NPOV and BLP warning tags next week unless someone objects as the discussion has died out and the article seems to have settled in at an generally acceptable version. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agavi

What is your interest in this article anyway? –– Lid^(Talk) 03:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sydney meetup

See you there! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

In case you couldn't find me. My talk page etc. is thisaway --> ...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to get in touch some time. Andjam (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Daniel Brandt (prosecutor)

A tag has been placed on Daniel Brandt (prosecutor) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I use Twinkle for new-page patrol, so it must be some sort of bug in Twinkle. I've never noticed that before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll send a note to the Twinkle developers, because I would definitely not call speedy-tagging "minor." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wael Abbas

I don't have any memory of it, as I'm making about 50-75 edits per minute. If you thought it was a good faith edit, please feel free to restore it. Cheers, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey thank you for your response on putting the article on deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Wael abbas, cause I was merely only trying to add useful information on Wikipedia. Sorry for the late response, Cheers! (Abdowiki 21:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Your recent requests for deletion

Hi,
I would advise your to take care of WP:POINT.
It is not constructive to start these processes a few minutes after discovering two articles that do not fit the way you see wp and without reading the talk pages or discuss there... Ceedjee (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

accepted/excepted

Wow, that's embarrassing. I don't know if I've ever made that spelling mistake before... I must have been feeling passionate and writing quickly when I prepared the cfd. Thanks for pointing it out anyway. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

unrealistic and offensive

I accept your comments regarding minor changes. Speaking of poor etiquette.... Common sense would indicate that the citation for the characterization of honor killings in Iran as "unrealistic and offensive" would be the citation at the end of the sentence. I don't think it's too much to ask for an editor to read the citation before marking citation etc????? Thank you. Huangdi (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Taner Akçam

Most of the sources are in English. Which claims are you referring to? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the note, I think there was a security breach with some scripting, and I've cleaned it up now. But what a weird thing to spam... thanks again. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Honore killyng

You misunderstood me. The article honour is at that spelling. --erachima talk 21:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent

Now that was an awesome edit summary.. :D Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of customs considered abhorrent

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of customs considered abhorrent, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Largo Plazo (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment edits

Before you edit the comments of another editor, it's usually a good idea to run it by the editor in question first. In this case, me. And incidentally, I don't think there's any BLP issue in that instance. It's hardly defamatory to a person use a recent commonly-reported controversy involving a high-profile political figure as the basis of a joke, even if the "controversy" has been settled to have become a "non-issue". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP tends to be revert first, ask questions later. I've raised it at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Accusation_about_Sarah_Palin. Andjam (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it's not really anything to do with BLP. It wasn't defamatory toward any living person. It was a reference to an unnamed (and apparently nonexistent) person at a political rally, not one against Palin. You don't edit others' comments unless there is a clear violation. It wouldn't have hurt to wait a few hours by at least notifying me first. Or at least let me know what you had done, rather than letting me discover it myself. In terms of your approach, in this case you reverted but then asked no questions. That would have been a minimum courtesy that I thought I could have expected. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonfictional parents who killed their children

I'm planning on nominating Category:Parents who killed their children for deletion at some stage, and I wanted to let you know that it won't be intended as trying to prove a point. Andjam (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice.

Since you feel that misinterpretation may be a concern, you may wish to add a parenthetical disclaimer in the nomination too. - jc37 20:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sarah Palin, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rashik Khalidi

Sorry. You are quite right.Historicist (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Historicist

What is "coatracking content" ?

When you deleted the internet filtering stuff from Stephen Conroy's page, your description was "Deleting coatracking content". What does this mean? cojoco (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.cojoco (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel the last para at Michael Atkinson is a coatrack? Timeshift (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Gov. Palin again

I am the one who added the information about Gov. Palin defeating the Republican incumbent governor in the Republican primary and then a former two-term Democratic governor in the general election. I added that information months ago, then someone else added the names of, and links to, the two governors. The information is also available in the "governor" section.

I am the one who added the information. Hello4321 (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

query Andjam - RE: Reversion of poorly referenced claims Internet censorship

the Senator edited his blog post after it was quoted by others, his post in it's original form no longer exists except as fragmentary quotes, the page pointed to includes the subsequent user posts with the quotes,

i am sorry the Senator decided to erase the direct evidence.

the filters in use in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and China do NOT block peer to peer, therefore Australia will have the most oppressive filter on the planet. thats a simple fact.

how then is the section innaccurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.91.7 (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

yes but...

Hello, Andjam. You have new messages at Flaming's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Censorship

You know, it honestly wasn't, at least not on a conscious level. After two weeks of parsing everything I was told for levels for meaning, being extremely careful about how I phrased questions, being wary of what written amterial I left in hotel rooms, etc. I was so relieved to get home to freedom that even the absurd politics of a Wikipedia debate seemed wonderful. I'm not much of a Freud fan, but on a subconscious level, you are probably correct.Historicist (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Graf

A year ago, you stubbified the article on Peter Graf because of BLP concerns. The article was then converted to a redirection to Steffi Graf because you had removed so much content that there was no point in having a separate article. I was not sure what BLP meant, but I now think that it means biography of living people, and I assume that your concerns were that there were no references whatsoever. I then checked whether much has been written about Peter Graf, which it has. It seems therefore that he is notable. So, does this mean that if I should write a new article and provide references for all the statements in the article that this would be the correct procedure, or have I got it all wrong? Coyets (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Cat Stevens

Hello, Andjam. You have new messages at Tvoz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tvoz/talk 03:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics FAR

I have nominated Australia at the Winter Olympics for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment

It sounded like a personal attack because it had nothing to do with the AFD and it is only about an editor. Joe Chill (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Holsworthy Barracks terror plot

I hope that you will look at this AFD.Historicist (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Exploding donkey

I have nominated Exploding donkey, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding donkey. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from St. Paul's College, Sydney

Hello Andjam, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to St. Paul's College, Sydney has been removed. It was removed by Shuggyg with the following edit summary 'I object. this page is somewhat subjectively written, and not 100% up to date, however if you read the talk pages I will explain why the page should be changed, but not deleted.~~~~'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Shuggyg before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:IceDreamZaliSH2010.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IceDreamZaliSH2010.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stamp of Alisa Camplin 2002.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stamp of Alisa Camplin 2002.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stamp of Steven Bradbury 2002.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stamp of Steven Bradbury 2002.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Baruch College

I ran into this article and saw serious copyvio issues. I saw that you made a major revert some time back. It looks like I might have to do the same. I have removed a large portion for serious copyvio's from different places. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Brisbane Paralympics workshop and meetup

	Brisbane Meetup Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi. Your work on the Paralympics was noted at v:The History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia/List of contributors and I was wondering if you might be interested in being funded to attend our Paralympics Workshop in Brisbane on 26 & 27 May. Details can be found at v:The History of the Paralympic Movement in Australia/Meetings/Brisbane 26 May 2012, Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane/5 and [1]. Hope you are able to attend; let me know soon so we can arrange travel! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm no longer active in Wikipedia. I've acquired other time sinks over the past few years. Andjam (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)