User talk:Jesse Viviano

Welcome!

Hello, Jesse Viviano, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  AndyZ 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jesse, for your message about Speedy Deletion Templates I'm still learning! Marina C (2) 08:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I move a page with multiple sections to BJAODN? Cut and paste did not get good results.

What didn't work? If you use the edit button at the top, instead of the sections editor, it should be easy to cut exactly the part you want. You may then have to change the level headings, to make them appropriate. Adding an extre '=' on either side of the section heading will make it do down a heading (making it a subheading). — 199 17:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was creating section headings that really should have been subheadings. I leanred from someone else's subsequent corrections. Jesse Viviano 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for that. I must have forgotten to do that, thanks for taking the time to let me know. --Wisden17 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do everything that I needed to do in reporting Primetime's latest sockpuppet, did I miss something, or do I just need to jump straight to requeting a CheckUser? The suspected sockpuppet is User:Djf2006. Jesse Viviano 21:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked User:Djf2006 straight away. Checkuser isn't required when it's an obvious case. I probably would have just reported this to WP:ANI. To be honest I'm not familiar with the sockpuppet process, but use {{helpme}} again if you want a run-down on that for next time.--Commander Keane 21:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you should add {Sockpuppet|Primetime}.--Commander Keane 21:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this article as vandalism. It seems to be a hoax but is there a pattern from this particular user. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have only gotten one warning, since I did not know it was wrong until I had already made both pages. You warned me after both vandalisms. Sorry --Mountain Dew 03:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message on my talk page. It is good to see that the criteria on hoaxes has been tightened up. Capitalistroadster 03:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the message. I'll make a note of it. Jon513 17:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse, Why did you remove the Zero mile picture from the Nagpur article? Under the Creative Commons License, the image can be reproduced for noncommercial purposes. I don't believe that the article Nagpur is has a commercial intent. I will try to re-insert the image into the picture.

Jimbo Wales himself stated that such images uploaded after May 19, 2005 must be speedily deleted in this post in the Wikipedia mailing list. The GFDL, which is the license that Wikipedia licenses its material under, requires that such material be able to be used for commercial purposes. Creative Commons licensed files used on Wikipedia must allow commercial use and derivatives to be allowed here. Jesse Viviano 14:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Please do not confuse me with User:Ae 3, whom you blocked for one month, when you read my comment. Since I have marked the image with the {{Promotional}} tag and placed the URL of the web page in the image description page, should the changes to remove the image from Kaci Brown be reverted, or should I nominate the image for speedy deletion as a copyvio because 48 hours have not yet passed and it is not used in Kaci Brown?"

I'll mark it with {{orfud}} and if it isn't used within seven days, it will be deleted automatically. In my opinion, it can now be added back to the Kaci Brown article, though that particular article isn't on my watchlist. If you want to do that, please go ahead and then remove the ophaned tag. Thanks for tracking down the source! --Yamla 17:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. I'll clean up my additions (and make the page into a simple redirect) in a little while. I probably should have done exactly that a long time ago, when I learned that /Primetime belonged on WP:LTA. And double thank you for contacting me on wikt (where I can notice it) and not here! --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 03:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've since been given reason to doubt that last batch of sockpuppets, as Primetime now has a copycat, or two. I'm also not sure that considerable cross-project tracking is warranted anymore...especially when I am not well versed on the Wikipedia subtleties. So I'll leave of the dubious additions for now. But thanks again. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 04:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up about closing this AFD. It's taken care of now. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed the speedy deletion tag I left on Banana Pod Spider. I am quoting this from the non-criteria section of the criteria for speedy deletion (emphasis added is mine):

* Hoaxes: Articles that present unverifiable and probably false ideas, theories, or subjects. Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous, but remotely plausible articles should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum.

I believe that Banana Pod Spider falls into the loophole that I highlighted to flush obvious hoaxes down the bit bucket. First, no spider has a backbone. Second, if the animal in question had a backbone, it would go into the phylum Chordata because that phylum is reserved for all animals with a backbone. Third, there is no way one can chemically get phosphorus from potassium because the two are different elements as in the following quoted garbage from the hoax: "The spider has a special gland found in NO other animal known to man. It has a gland called the "lonomial gland". It is used for manipulating potassium, in two major functions. In the first, it uses potassium, and changes it's chemical structure to become phosphorus." One could use radioactivity to do the job, but that is physics, not chemistry. This is why I believe that this article ie not plausible at all, and therefore falls under CSD G3. Jesse Viviano 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your background in arachnology and chemistry is obviously better than mine. However, the fact that you required 160 words to convince me that this is a hoax tells us that perhaps this isn't obvious vandalism, which is what CSD:G3 is really meant to handle. In any case, the 5-day Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process should take care of this. Owen× ☎ 23:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed like random trolling, and both said account had already been blocked separately anyway. Sorry about that. Circeus 00:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This 'Kitten Vandal' abuse page is facism against kittens. Cease and desist making anti-kitten comments. +KittyMeow 16:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]