User talk:Josefritz

Zealous Fuel

{{hangon}} You are not permitted to act as sole arbiter. This is a shared and democratic process and I do not accept your judgment. Please put it back. I will concede all your suggested edits to unconfirmed information.

(In response to this post)

While the band is legitimate, and they did indeed release a CD, they still did not seem to reach the notability standards of Wikipedia. The strongest guideline we have for that is at WP:MUSIC. If you can show me how they meet the standards laid out on that page, I will be happy to undo my deletion. The original article also contained phrases like "it appears" and "was rumored", which would have to be removed. Be aware that even if I were to undelete it, it would most likely go to AFD (Articles for Deletion) and be deleted there unless it meets WP:MUSIC and such information can be verified from an outside source. I will re-create the article as a sub-page of your userpage for you to work on it. Turnstep 17:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{hangon}} They appear on CMJ Music Charts that meets the notibility requirement. These are readily visible on google books. Please restore the article.

JoseFritz

Corrections have been made and a reply post made under your user talk. 68.80.79.215 01:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)JoseFritz[reply]

Deletion

{{hangon}} Good grief. Gene Klavan was a famous disc jockey. That's like asking why Jesus needs an entry. Put it back. Nothing is more offensive than creating something only to watch it destroyed. It's almost worse when it's information. People who want to destroy information are not editor, they are censors and revisionists, opponents of education and knowledge. Please stop yourself.

A tag has been placed on Gene Klavan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BURNyA 23:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of Gene Klavan

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Gene Klavan. For legal reasons, we will delete copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites (http://tenwatts.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html in this case) or from printed material.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Gene Klavan with a link to where we can find that note;
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article's talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Gene Klavan with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own original words to avoid any copyright infringement. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 23:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the writer of the original article! I cannot plagiarize myself! I sent an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication as you instructed to no result! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.50.11 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright infringement in Frank Wolcott

I've been looking at the new article, Frank Wolcott, that you created, and it appears to be a refactored version of this page. This may constitute as plagiarism, but I wanted to hear from you first before I tagged the article as such. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks! --Ioeth 14:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I received no response, so I've tagged the article for review. --Ioeth 15:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Wolcott and the Lincoln County Regulators

I see that you've added Wolcott's name to the list of Lincoln County Regulators, but I'm not seeing the connection in any of your references. True, Wolcott's group was called "Regulators", however, they participated in the conflict known as the Johnson County War, which was in Wyoming, while the Lincoln County War took place in New Mexico. Are you sure that you don't have your "Regulators" mixed up? Please respond on my talk page to clarify this discrepancy or I will have to remove the information. Thanks! --Ioeth 14:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the reference, as it's evident that the link is unsubstantiated. --Ioeth 14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in Talk:Frank Wolcott, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Ioeth 16:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Single+Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Single+Cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Palda Records

{{hangon}} It is not about a band it is a record label from the 1940s based in Pennsylvania. Your disinterest in the history of the record industry notwithstanding, please put it back. Before the merger frenzy of the 1950s there were no major labels. The history of the record industry before then was exclusively a history of hundreds of small labels. Your argument is akin to saying there was no history before that.

A tag has been placed on Palda Records 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 band, 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 musical topics.

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. ninety:one 18:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you've noticed or not, but this was clearly two years ago... ninety:one (reply on my talk) 00:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like most people who actually are experts in this field, I lack the spare tim eto chase every edit... unlike you unemployed, dogmatic, deletionist zealots.Josefritz (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{hangon}} Put it back!

Again, you've come to my page demanding I "put it back". This is now two years and eight months after the article was tagged for deletion. I'm not an administrator, and as I did not delete the article I could not restore it even if I wanted to. I suggest you ask the deleting admin, User:Hersfold, if he would be able to restore it to your userspace for you. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 10:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen that you're now describing me as "unemployed" and a "deletionist" (twice). I should remind you that making personal attacks (even rather feeble ones like those) isn't likely to get you anywhere. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 10:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page, but just in case you missed it: I deleted this article well over two years ago, so I'm a little confused about why you're still irritated about this. If you feel the record label is notable and can provide sufficent sources to justify that claim, go ahead and recreate the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you can delete articles at any time, I can certainly ask for reinstatement at any time. The duration is irrelevant, your deletion was hasty, and the rationale specious. Put it back. Josefritz (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josefritz for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry, disruption, and harassment. (blocked by –MuZemike 21:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Josefritz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am innocent on all counts. I do not have multipel accounts, I was not abusive and I am not harassing. My insult, if any was given, was the adjective "dogmatic." I'd argue it's an accurate descriptor of any deletionist who has deleted thousands of articles. This deletion was made by Hersfold in error which she refused to correct. In response, I was vindictively accused by Hersfold of sock puppetry after contesting the deletion. It was an abuse of Wikipolicy that has become standard among dogmatic deletionists. I have co-workers that also edit Wikipedia possibly leading to Hersfolds dismissive assumption. I find it offensive and infuriating. Obviously I will no longer be donating to Wikipedia. Deletionists being essentially modern day book-burners are beyond redemption and certainly beyond any hope of conversion.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but unblock requests that attack other editors are not permitted. Please read our guide to requesting unblocks and try again. TN X Man 23:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For the record, I'm male. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Josefritz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Q ^{T C} 01:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

My response was not an attack. My response was and is that this is an abuse of the blocking system. The accusations were factually wrong, thus the block was inappropriate. This does not yet resemble the good faith I am promised int the Guide to Appealing Blocks.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Josefritz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How do I address the reason for my block if the reason for blocking my account is false? I am not and do not have sockpuppets. I am not even computer literate enough to attempt such a thing. I am not abusive. I used no profanity and only one questionable adjective; "dogmatic". I stand by that adjective as accurate and fair. Where do I complain about dogmatic deletionists and vindictive blocking? Does a casual user have recourse when wronged by an editor? The rate of growth at Wikipedia is slowing, it's predicted to plateau in approximately 5 years. Events like this are why. It drives off contributors like me: literate educated people who are interested in the interesting. Wikipedia is supposed to be the "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." But it's not working like that. Allow me the latitude to get a bit philosophical. On Wikipedia's own Wikipedia page it is written that the structure has been "criticized for failing to accommodate inexperienced users." (That's me.) Creation takes time and effort. Deletion does not. I'd argue that deletion should require more defense than inclusion, especially in the face of your shrinking growth rate. Right now administrators and Editors are flush with power, you are big fish in a little bowl. It probably feels good, that sense of not just power but of inclusion and community. But in 5 years, when Wikipedia has plateaued, your bowl will start feeling a little smaller. You will begin to miss people like us not because you enjoy destroying our works, but because our works are actually valuable contributions. But by then we may have by and large moved on to other pursuits. This site is just one in a rapidly growing internet. Wikipedia would then become just a bloated Encyclopedia Britannica, static and irrelevant. I don't think that's what you want.

Decline reason:

As I am not a CheckUser, I cannot verify that you are editing from a work computer/network where other editors may have edited, hence the sockpuppet-like behaviour. However with regard to the other 'charges': you did not just use the word "dogmatic" in your personal attack - the phrase you used was unlike you unemployed, dogmatic, deletionist zealots - this is harassment and disruptive behaviour. This was over an article which was deleted 2 years ago, and which you have just noticed? You were asked to provide sources which showed the notability (if you had done that, the article may well have been restored) - but you chose to be abusive instead. I see no reason to unblock you, and so I am declining your unblock request -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Josefritz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

"Sock-puppet like" does not a sock puppet make. In fact I have co-workers who are also casual Wikipedia editors, the 2 in question and surely more I don't know about. This cannot be the first time that co-workers have been Wikipedia contributors. If CheckUser cannot make that distinction that is a serious problem. Veg for example has been a member 2 years longer than Hersfold. You can see in Veg's history that he is a long time contributor and corrector of actual vandalism. I by comparison am a novice contributor, of more recent vintage. I can't apologize for something I did not do. That's really a kangaroo court sort of imposition. However, You are right I did call Hersfold a "unemployed, dogmatic, deletionist zealot." I have no way to know if she is or is not employed and that suggestion is wrong and I shouldn't have done it. But her record of deletionism is available for all to see and the accusation of dogmatic, zealous deletionism is therefore accurate and reasonable. I was nto asked to provide three sources I was told that the band was non-notable. It's a record label, not a band, the deletion was therefore in haste.

I really believed that anyone could contribute to Wikipedia. It turns out that I was wrong. Res ipsa loquitur.

Decline reason:

I tried to engage you in discussion rather than simply declining, to see whether you were willing to simply work in collaboration with others in a useful way. Since you've made it clear that you are not, there's no reason to leave this request open. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Again, I'm male, and I somewhat resent being referred to as "she" after I've already pointed out above that I am male. As for your other comments, I find it unbelievable that you say that your statements (attacks) are wrong and then proceed to defend them. As for your other comments, I told you before the SPI was even filed, "If you feel this is notable and can provide sufficient references for it, you're welcome to recreate the article." (diff). I even offered to help you with a recreation later on: diff. I also explained to you (in that same diff) that A7 does still apply to record labels and your interpretation of the speedy deletion criterion is incorrect. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really male? Why is your user name Hers-fold? Sincerely, I took that as an artful literati reference to a vagina. I mistook you for an ardent feminist, and that was compounded when true to the politically incorrect caricature, you were easily offended. I apologize for mistaking your gender but you can see how one might make that assumption as you are both very sensitive and your user-name is a euphemism for female genitalia. I missed your correction above initially. My name. Jose Fritz was once mistaken as a play on Josef Fritzl.. which it is not.

But your gender, be it he, she, trans, hermaphrodite or eunuch is irrelevant. You are a deletionist and calling you dogmatic or zealous is not offensive since you are one proudly. So I take that part of the ban to be false. I did not harass you. I nagged you. I have always believed if you make a mess it is your job to clean it up. You deleted it, it is your obligation to restore it. I do not have the original entry and cannot do so myself. You also accused me of being a sock puppet. This is so egregiously wrong I don't know where to begin. It is an action that if not intented maliciously, at least displays no good faith.

Regardless these kind of overkill responses to "rudeness" do harm to Wikipedia. It's something that the math bears out. I can promise to be more polite. Had I known you were a delicate flower I'd have been a bit more gentle in my machismo Hispanic ardor ☺. }}

I've removed your second unblock request; it isn't necessary to make a second request while the first one is still open. I think you'll find that you will only be unblocked by an administrator who is convinced that your participation will be good for the encyclopedia- that is, that you will refrain from engaging co-workers to take your side in editing disputes, that your articles will be well sourced, and that you will get along peacefully with other users. I know, for my own part, that I believed your claim not to be a sockpuppet, but I didn't do the unblock, because I was concerned about these other issues. Of course, the person who blocked you is the most appropriate one to unblock you, anyway. I don't know how that person feels about the question. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That you promise to be polite in the same comment that you claim that all women are over-sensitive and easily offended, use the derogatory term 'deletionist,' which appears to mean for you 'anyone who supports deleting an article I created,' and the derogatory terms 'dogmatic' and 'zealot,' and mock Hersfold as a 'delicate flower' is interesting. Is that comment an example of your good manners? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Josefritz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I absolutely do not claim that all women are over-sensitive and easily offended. I claim that is the politically incorrect caricature...A caricature, not a truism. The combination of his purported offense, and the vagina euphemism led me to think he was exaggerating or being sarcastic in a politically incorrect way. While at first that was hard to believe, I now know he's just a sensitive dude. They do exist, John Boehner was weeping on TV just yesterday. I use the term deletionist to describe Hersfold because he is one. Deletionists do exist, and zealots exist as well. There are even a Wikipedia pages for those terms. They are not derogatory terms. It's like arguing that male, female, African, Estonian, Republican, Democrat are derogatory words. They are just adjectives. Hersfold's history lists a huge number of deletions which makes his deletionist leanings self-evident.

So if I'm not a sock puppet (and don't have one), and I'm not being abusive... why am I banned? is this really all it takes? Has this white men's club become that exclusive that we blue collar vaqueros aren't welcome?

Decline reason:

At first it was because (especially considering you had just been asked nicely not to do that) you had two open requests. But after reading your request, I wouldn't have done it even if it were the only one. An editor as prone to throwing pity parties for him/herself as you are is not likely to be a good collaborator with anyone here. I am sending my regrets. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The reason Wikipedia has rules requiring politeness is that politeness is the only way to get anything done, at a collaborative project like Wikipedia. Take yourself as an example. Your goal was to restore the article Palda Records. Hersfold said that he'd be happy to restore it, if you'd share a few sources that could be added to show the subject's notability. You tried insulting Hersfold, but that did not get the article restored. You tried getting several co-workers to edit on your behalf, but that did not get the article restored- it only resulted in your getting blocked for the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Hersfold offered again to restore the article if you'd share some good sources that can be added to it, since the original article didn't have any. You ignored his offer, and instead insulted him again, which didn't get the article restored. Now you've tried accusing us all of racism, and that didn't get the article restored, either. The only thing you haven't tried is actually sharing some sources, which was the first thing Hersfold said to you, and the only thing that would have accomplished your goal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User is now evading the block as User:93.97.118.7, which makes any further discussion of unblocking moot. If he wasn't socking before, he is now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of William Erwin Antony

The article William Erwin Antony has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references in 2006. No independent reliable sources found today. Fails WP:V

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]