604:
is that Jewell is unsure how to go about making changes to her profile herself and has asked for my help. She was extremely distressed to find that the year of her birth, her hometown, and her birth name had been posted here and she asked me if I could please try to fix what she considered to be a major problem. She understands that her recent legal issues have indeed already caused her legal name to be made available to the public (should they go looking for it), but her feeling is that the average
Internet surfer would be far less likely to stumble across an article about her court case than they would by deliberately looking her up on Knowledge.
123:. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that for security reasons, VandalProof's creator requires it's users to have made 250 edits to articles, which you have not. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future.
31:
612:
only made changes when the involved party has asked for my help. One model/producer (who is quite computer-literate and did not ask for my help) was shocked to see that whoever had set up "her" Wiki page had done so with an utterly laughable amount of error in both grammar and spelling. Models I know usually try to divert attention away from "their" Knowledge profiles because they never know what will show up on there next.
608:
hometowns are published somewhere, people with less-than-kind intentions practically jump to find our families and share whatever they (think they) know about us. I know so many women and men who have suffered greatly because of this and have also experienced it myself. (Yes, right. We made the choice to join this industry and we should be prepared for the consequences. Of course it's more complicated than that.)
81:
by another admin, I can only say that it comes down to a admin's individual interpretaion of the criteria and the specific article. My interpretation was that the articles I untagged didn't clearly match the criteria (if there is doubt in the mind of the reviewing admin, they must err on the side of not deleting). Cheers
615:
Well, that's pretty much all I have to say and I'm sorry to have droned on so long. Please know that I definitely DO NOT want to get into any kind of a battle with ANYONE over information posted here. Knowledge has such great potential as a source of useful and entertaining information. I just want
603:
I feel that I need to make something clear. Those of you who moderate (or whatever the more appropriate term might be) seem to be under the impression that I am trying to force my "P.O.V." about Jewell
Marceau (and others) upon the readers of Knowledge. This is definitely NOT the case! What IS true
384:
Please examine deletion policy. CSD-A7 applies only to articles which have been deleted through a consensus process, not articles which have been unilaterally deleted via PROD or speedily. Your invocation of A7 was thus inappropriate with regards to that article, and it has been restored. Please use
80:
Thanks for your note. As far as I could see the articles didn't meet either the "no content" or "no context" criteria for speedy deletion. They did contain some content (albeit not very much) and there was enough context to enable further expansion. As for the fact that similar articles were deleted
611:
Many adult models really dislike
Knowledge because literally anyone with a grudge, a bad attitude, or just a cruel streak can come on here and say anything they want. I cannot even begin to tell you how many blatant -- even ridiculous inaccuracies I have found in the pages of Knowledge...but I have
607:
We in the adult industry certainly understand that "civilians" have very little knowledge of how frightening it can be to become "famous" simply for performing in adult movies. We deal with stalkers, cyberstalkers and...erm...overly-ardent fans on a daily basis. Whenever our legal names and/or
290:
I don't know how to leave messages, but you are unbelieveble! Deleting my article when it clearly said "Unless you can improve, don't remove." I have a copy of this article on my computer and will keep posting it, I don't go to school. - Well_Well4.
357:
Ok, are you manually logging in from inside VandalProof? Under option 2 of the "Your login request failed" message, select "logging into
Knowledge", and enter your username and password. If you have done this, make sure you have cookies enabled in
461:
on articles with a clear consensus to Delete, instead reserve your votes for places where your opinion can potentially affect the outcome. This will establish that you pick your battles and avoid the appearance that you are an extreme
442:
despite the fact that they were agreed upon through a democratic process involving consensus and super-majority. By voting in clear contradiction to agreed upon standards (rather than only voting Keep on the close cases as regards
427:
I'm not waging any battle; I've looked at many bios that I decline to vote on, and many of those have a delete consensus already. However, I think the delete guidelines allow enough judgement that I am consistent with them.
480:
If you do all of these things, I highly doubt that you would receive so much attention and you would be vastly more effective at accomplishing your end goal of lowering the standards for inclusion in
Knowledge.
465:
Clearly articulate your objection to deletion of an article. Something like: "Clearly verifiable with multiple sources, not original research, readily expandable to meet some of the requirements of
491:
I would reformat
Mattvhm's comments so that they look like replies, but I wouldn't remove them. I'm a bit despondent about how this has turned out - I'm of a mind to refer it for review. -
399:
I think that FCYTravis was wrong to overrule us, and furthermore, it's very damaging to wikipedia to see administrators warring like this. Kershner, I've written a comment at
234:
so that I could write the article there. Right now I have that as a redirect to the family, but it would be better if there was a real article rather than a redirect.
501:
Concerning deletions on my talk page... I think I just removed some copyright stuff, and nothing else. At least that was my intention... not much time right now...
164:
The original description was sufficiently vague that that was in fact how I read it. :) Your new version certainly meets the standards required for inclusion.
150:
On June 17, you marked this article for speedy deletion because you alleged it was about a "club." In fact, the subject of the article is a sourcebook for a
578:
Hi
Kershner, you can copy my monobook.js. That adds a lot of stuff though, so if you only want the signatures you can pick and choose from usermain.js.
252:
FYI, He vandalized my user page a few minutes ago. After reverting the vandalism, I turned him in for an
Administrator intervention against vandalism. —
410:
Escalate to what? It's not like this is some sort of egregious issue - just a mistake, it's been corrected and that's the end as far as I'm concerned.
197:
The intent of a nav box is to allow a user to jump to pages of similar interest. Your nav box is large and unweildy and has been inserted as the
69:
95:
Yes, having re-read the content, I think you are right that this is a speedy. I see that it has already been deleted by another admin. Thanks
470:
307:
438:
My issue, and clearly that of many of my peers, is that you arbitrarily refuse to support the policies contained in
447:) you are attempting to thwart the consensus on a case-by-case basis. My recommendation to you is in three parts:
117:
106:
38:
205:) and it won't get deleted. If a nav box is larger than the content of the article, the nav box doesn't belong.
144:
528:
template. Only people and groups of people who do not claim notability can be speedy deleted in this way for nn.
469:." This would prevent others from attacking your arguments as irrelevant (like the many attacks on your use of
535:
270:
303:
299:
295:
284:
259:
269:
Thanks for the heads up. This guy is out of control and I'm fairly sure that he's a sockpuppet for
558:
530:
72:. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
492:
402:
47:
17:
586:
254:
245:
370:
359:
179:
Why are you removing my nav boxes? They are exactly the same as the ones used for parishes of
136:
221:
201:
content on dozens of pages. Create all of the articles, then make a small nav box (as here
151:
329:
96:
82:
502:
429:
411:
390:
188:
518:
Hello
Kershner. I'm afraid nn websites are not covered under CSD, so I changed to the
545:
522:
482:
466:
444:
439:
386:
274:
235:
206:
165:
155:
363:
343:
333:
129:
454:. This will establish that you have standards and that not everything meets them.
187:. Do you intend to remove these as well. I would like you to stop removing them.
565:
548:
538:
505:
495:
485:
432:
414:
405:
393:
372:
346:
336:
277:
263:
238:
231:
224:
209:
191:
168:
158:
138:
99:
85:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
582:
562:
512:
328:
Why on earth have you tagged a userpage for speedy delete? Namely this one:
184:
401:]. If Travis wants to escalate this, we'll have to get an adjudication. -
378:
180:
65:
202:
154:. I've since fleshed out the article to help clarify things.--
25:
389:
process if you wish to delete articles which are in dispute.
544:
Thanks for the help. I'll do the same in the future.
557:
Hey, thought I'd bring this to your attention aswell:
64:An article that you have been involved in editing,
450:Find articles clearly worthy of deletion and vote
8:
616:to help/protect my friends whenever I can.
125:Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.
342:My apologies - the page had been moved.
70:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Man Law
230:I just wish I knew something about the
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
24:
29:
1:
619:Most Sincerely, Darla Crane
60:Man Law listed for deletion
116:Thank you for applying for
633:
566:20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
549:02:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
539:01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
506:01:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
496:00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
486:22:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
433:21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
415:23:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
406:22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
394:20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
373:19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
347:12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
337:12:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
278:21:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
264:21:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
239:17:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
225:16:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
210:19:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
192:19:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
169:17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
159:16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
145:Living Greyhawk Gazetteer
139:23:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
100:22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
86:19:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
471:Knowledge is not paper
310:) 03:09, June 19, 2006
387:articles for deletion
68:, has been listed at
42:of past discussions.
320:Ok, delete it then.
220:Sorry about that :}
362:, then try again.
248:vandalism heads-up
18:User talk:Kershner
590:
316:The Magic Cottage
312:
298:comment added by
54:
53:
48:current talk page
624:
592:
585:
527:
521:
423:Waging no battle
368:
311:
292:
152:campaign setting
134:
33:
32:
26:
632:
631:
627:
626:
625:
623:
622:
621:
598:
579:
576:
525:
519:
516:
425:
382:
364:
355:
330:User:OnyxSATVIL
326:
318:
293:
288:
250:
218:
177:
148:
130:
113:Dear Kershner,
111:
93:
78:
73:
62:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
630:
628:
600:Hello there!
597:
594:
575:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
552:
551:
515:
510:
509:
508:
489:
488:
477:
476:
475:
474:
463:
455:
424:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
381:
376:
354:
351:
350:
349:
325:
322:
317:
314:
287:
282:
281:
280:
249:
243:
242:
241:
217:
214:
213:
212:
176:
173:
172:
171:
147:
142:
110:
103:
92:
91:RE: Robo-Logan
89:
77:
76:RE: R.L. Stine
74:
63:
61:
58:
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
629:
620:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
595:
593:
591:
588:
584:
573:
567:
564:
560:
559:Allhiphop.com
556:
555:
554:
553:
550:
547:
543:
542:
541:
540:
537:
533:
532:
524:
514:
511:
507:
504:
500:
499:
498:
497:
494:
493:Richardcavell
487:
484:
479:
478:
472:
468:
464:
462:inclusionist.
460:
456:
453:
449:
448:
446:
441:
437:
436:
435:
434:
431:
422:
416:
413:
409:
408:
407:
404:
403:Richardcavell
400:
398:
397:
396:
395:
392:
388:
380:
377:
375:
374:
371:
369:
367:
361:
352:
348:
345:
341:
340:
339:
338:
335:
331:
323:
321:
315:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
286:
283:
279:
276:
272:
271:HilaryDuff123
268:
267:
266:
265:
261:
257:
256:
247:
244:
240:
237:
233:
229:
228:
227:
226:
223:
215:
211:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
194:
193:
190:
186:
182:
174:
170:
167:
163:
162:
161:
160:
157:
153:
146:
143:
141:
140:
137:
135:
133:
127:
126:
122:
119:
114:
108:
104:
102:
101:
98:
90:
88:
87:
84:
75:
71:
67:
59:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
580:
577:
529:
517:
490:
458:
457:Do not vote
451:
426:
383:
365:
356:
327:
319:
289:
253:
251:
219:
198:
178:
149:
131:
128:
124:
120:
118:VandalProof!
115:
112:
94:
79:
55:
43:
37:
353:VandalProof
294:—Preceding
232:Oreo (fish)
222:GrahamBould
216:Oreo (fish)
109:Application
107:VandalProof
36:This is an
587:2006-06-22
300:Well_well4
285:Well_Well4
97:TigerShark
83:TigerShark
574:signature
536:rant-line
513:AllHipHop
412:FCYTravis
391:FCYTravis
189:Talskiddy
185:Restormel
175:Nav Boxes
546:Kershner
531:Blnguyen
483:Kershner
308:contribs
296:unsigned
275:Kershner
236:Kershner
207:Kershner
166:Kershner
156:Robbstrd
66:Man Law
596:My Plea
379:Lawtons
366:Prodego
344:Viridae
334:Viridae
181:Penwith
132:Prodego
39:archive
589:07:45Z
467:WP:BIO
452:Delete
445:WP:BIO
440:WP:BIO
324:db-bio
255:C.Fred
583:Quarl
563:whoda
246:HD123
203:Truro
105:Your
16:<
523:prod
503:snug
459:Keep
430:snug
385:the
304:talk
260:talk
199:only
183:and
121:(VP)
561:--
534:|
526:}}
520:{{
473:).
360:IE
332:.
306:•
273:.
262:)
581:—
302:(
258:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.