User talk:Jaysbro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Am I crazy if I talk to myself?
hi Jaysbro; I seem to have been slightly overzealous in deleting spam links. As you will undoubtedly know, links keep popping up on finance pages which do not add anything to an entry, but are solely to get readers to use certain services. I tend to take a (perhaps slightly too) cynical view of all these commercial links. Which means that I sometimes inadvertendly delete links that actually do add something to a discussion. I do apologize if I deleted a link which would have explained the concept of closed-end funds better than the current entry. ~~
Contents |
[edit] Thanks!
Thanks for the tip on Roberts. I feel like a tool, but I really appreciate the info. jengod 18:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Turin
The page has returned to Turin from Torino. Please see the brief discussion at Torino. --Walter Görlitz 21:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re Bloggs
Articles that are linked to, but haven't been created, are often referred to as "red links" on Wikipedia becuase they show up as red links. You'll find many red links throughout the encyclopaedia. Just because the article doesn't exist yet doesn't mean that the link is invalid and needs to be changed. If you look at the history of the Bloggs page, you'll see that the editor before you added the "Blogg" link deliberately, in anticipation of an article being written on the surname Blogg. Waggers 19:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Video Game Article
Hey! I saw that you created a new video game article- consider joining the Computer and Video Games WikiProject! I've added your article to the list of new articles, and attributed it to you. --PresN 21:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD Nomination: PocketDish
I've nominated the article PocketDish for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that PocketDish satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PocketDish. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of PocketDish during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Sandstein 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dsummer/UnumProvident controversy
Jaysbro, thanks for the note. I'm new and learning. I'll try again with edits but thought my documentation (footnotes) validated the copy I submitted. I did not intentionally mean to violate the rules -- again, I'm still learning. Thanks for your advisory.
(regarding posting: Jaysbro 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)) I want to let you know that I was not intentionally violating any rules by editing the page. I felt my edits were supported with verified footnotes, and thought them to be acceptable. I do understand that I cannot copy/paste existing content from other sites and will correct and resubmit as you've instructed. My apologies -- I'm still learning how this works. --the preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsummer
[edit] Vidas de Fuego
I've created another version of the page at Talk:Vidas_de_Fuego/Temp as per the copyvio template. Does it pass the copyvio requirements? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 07:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- After I found that it was moved to the Vidas_de_Fuego/Temp, it looks good. See the Vidas de Fuego talk page. Jaysbro 15:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- If there is no objection to this, we should move the Temp article over to the original as soon as possible Robert Moore 17:51 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't the usual way to do things to wait a week to see if the original editor wants to raise an objection? Jaysbro 16:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] See also Vidas de Fuego/Temp
The article you tagged as being a possible copyright infringement is being recreated as the article in this subject line. I don't know enough about this area to put a tag like that on an article. It appeared as a see-also in the Ugly Betty article. Thanks, Ronbo76 20:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FairTax
Banners should be used after discussion of the issues and if needed to get additional editor resources. You need to explain your concerns and how you think they should be addressed. Morphh (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
