User talk:Johnleemk/Archive4
BAO1984
I'm still a newbie I don't know where to pm you. Why did you delete this article? The information here is better than some "worthless" articles floating around. And I'm still editing it. I'm still gathering 'sources' and seems you guys are not convince? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Yunaffx (talk • contribs)
basic life ignorance
It is this editor's opinion that "15-year old computer nerds" lack sufficient life experience and understanding of human nature to make effective admins. But congrats in any case, and enjoy high school. -Naif 03:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- John:
- Just a heads-up, but my belief is that User:Naif above is a troll. Some points:
- Is having a peculiar argument regarding Street harassment with Ambi (talk · contribs), and looks like he's started wikistalking him. See Talk:Street harassment for some details. --Calton | Talk 05:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- OK, Calton, so first it's sly little insinuations that I'm a wikistalker, and now you're tracking down my edits to make them on other user pages... Hello? Is this an elaborate trolling attempt? Some esoteric irony accessible only to you? It's starting to get scary how my handle is showing up in all your edits... is this the love that dare not speak its name? -Naif 05:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Block
I think that a block is in order for 12.161.0.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Izehar (talk) 18:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Deleting schools you don't like
I am simply responding in kind to Max rspct's deletion of schools. If you block me, then to be consistent please block Max rspt, too, for an equal amount of time. He started the erase schools you don't like contest, as you can see from History. Hogeye 18:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Relisting AfDs
Thanks for the reminder. I had been doing it previously. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Help with Leslie Cheung Article
Hi Johnleemk: I came across you when I was reading your statements on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malaysian_lock-up_detainee_abuse_scandal and note that you're a Wikipedia admin. I would like to invite you to take a look at the situation on the Leslie Cheung article. You will note that the article needs a lot of copyediting, fact verification/citation/referencing and in general, cleaned up to be held up to Wikipedia standards. I have tried to copyedit, request for the main contributor to cite references in the article, etc. But this main contributor insists on deleting such edits and even tags on the page calling for copyedit, fact verification help. Please review the article and add your comments in. I think someone else needs to tell Augest, the main contributor to the article that Wikipedia is not his/her personal Web site and that articles need to be held to a higher standard. Thanks. --speedoflight | talk to me 18:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Quick adjustment
On the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish inventors, you put that the decision was a keep although, in fact, there was a 13 to 8 vote to delete, therefore the decision is, in fact, a no consensus. If you could please adjust that to fairly represent the discussion, I would much appreciate it. Thanks a lot. Antidote 18:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I realize that no consensus means keep, but most people see a keep as meaning the majority voted keep. A no consensus however is just a default keep because a consensus was not reached. In terms of future debates on this article, it is unfair to have people believe the article was voted to keep when it wasnt. I would much appreciate if the article was just given a no consensus much like the other administrators have been doing to other articles. Otherwise, it just seems unfair. Thanks a lot. Antidote 19:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Johnleemk. Antidote 07:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Johnleemk,
Don't mind if you can take a look at the above FAC? Thanks!
Gtplanet
Hey John. You recently deleted (or was party in the deletion) of an article called "Gtplanet", as a "non-notable website". In fact, although the article was originally created by a member not affiliated with the staff of the site (and thus "vanity" is entirely justified as a claim), the site is THE LARGEST resource for the MOST POPULAR game on the MOST POPULAR console on the market. I do hope that, in light of this information, you reverse this decision (and retitle it so that the capitals are in the right place - it ought to have been GTPlanet). I do not know if this is the most appropriate place to discuss this, but no others were immediately apparent. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.68.143.164 (talk • contribs) (moved from User:Johnleemk)
My apologies - as I said, no other place was immediately apparent. I have now added the text and corroborative evidence in the Wikipedia:Deletion_review section. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.68.143.164 (talk • contribs)
Vandalism
im sorry plz forgive me i didnt even think it would show up bro but i do have a constructive addition tho —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.111.105.238 (talk • contribs)
Can you please block this user?
Burp2006 also has a grudge against FireFox. See FF's userpage's recent history for evidence.--ViolinGirl♪ 16:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
|
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page! |
Democratic Youth Federation of Iraq - AfD closing
Hello Johnleemk! A question to you as you were closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Youth Federation of Iraq - why did you choose to keep it? With what it currently has - a mere rewording of the title - it's not a wikipedia article; as one of the voters confirmed, there's nothing of value which could be derived from translation of the arabic original. Could you kindly explain you reasoning please? Thanks in advance, and regards - Introvert talk 07:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I see what you are saying... it is in English now, you bet :) but is it an article? I was doubtful about having such a lame stub behind a blue link. Wouldn't it be rather misleading? Maybe better keep a red link and hope it'll motivate a someone to actually create a real article, rather than tolerate such a poor subsubstub. But, who knows, maybe it's the other way around..? - maybe another editor would find it easier to add info into a stub but would hesitate to write an article anew. You see, this is the very question which I, as a someone who's been helping out at WP:PNT, have to answer every so often: does this stuff merit a translation, will it make an article -- or there's no hope? I guess, for this particular one, it'd be fine with me to leave it as is, not a big deal (and a redirect to the "main party" article wouldn't seem to be the right thing to do anyway). Appreciate your response, though, kind of helped to think it through. Thanks! - Introvert talk 08:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I quote:
- Don't be a playa' hata'. Your nonsense is enough. Go get a life. I'll help you by blocking you. 31 hours should be enough to lose your virginity, no? And then I'm sure occupation with paying for child support should be enough to give you a life outside vandalism of an online encyclopedia. Johnleemk | Talk 14:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't that seem a bit harsh? I've removed your comment from the user's talk page, and replaced it with a more simple one and without personal attacks. See WP:NPA. Thanks. IanManka 16:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Ms. Spears
How do u cite —the preceding unsigned comment is by 222.165.172.131 (talk • contribs)
Vandalism
Thanks for the help reverting the Massachusetts Wrestling article (twice now!). That same IP range (User:216.20.1.218) has been responsible for deleting the entire contents of MassWrestling.com's privately run wikis, forcing me to ban their IP range from the site I run. How, by chance did you happen to notice the entire page deletion? Does being a SysOp enable you to review drastic deletions like that which happened? Why has this IP (range) been given multiple "final warnings"? Please block this IP from further vandalism. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 129.10.116.80 (talk • contribs)
King George
I think using such informal nicknames that could be seen as politically motivated should not be allowed. On top of that, I have never heard either President Bush nor Geo. Steinbrenner refered to by that name. A lot of other names, both good and bad, yes. This sort of fluff stirkes at the heart of why Wikipedia has such a low reputation as evidenced by recent news stories. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)
Bill Clinton
Can you tell me what was factually incorrect about my revision to Bill Clinton's article? The Constitution requires a 2/3 majority. It is not correct to say he was acquitted. He was found guilty my a simple majority of senators but not the necessary 2/3. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)
Clinton article...
How else do you illustrate facts then? I meant to call no value judgements simply clear up the facts. He was not acquitted as the article states. Also, the word "resignation" is not even appropriate as his ability to practice before the Supreme Court was suspended. Is suspension somehow neutral but not resignation? —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)
Clinton article
I did not realize that I had removed the reference to the four charges of the House and have no objection to them being there. However, to delete other facts that are beyond question goes too far. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)
Thank you...
I have attempted to re-edit the Bill Clinton article based upon your recommendations. Hopefully, it will suffice. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)
hi, there is an organized campaign to save the above self-promotional vanity games-club page from deletion.... i'm wondering if you'd be willing to take a look and voice your opinion? normally i wouldnt care but (a) i hate organized campaigns from groups of users (especially when they have vested interests but dont declare them) and (b) when challenged about it, they suggested i try it myself! so here i am.... cheers! Zzzzz 20:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Bill Clinton
I have changed the Bill Clinton impeachment to read the number of senators who voted guility vs. not guilty in following with how the impeachment trial on Andrew Johnson is portrayed on wikipedia. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.209.2.94 (talk • contribs)
Um, this anonymous user is spreading misinformation ... the Senate vote was 50-50 on one charge and 55-45 to acquit on the other. I think he's using debate over the wording to try to insert this factual inaccuracy into the articles. --Jfruh 04:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)