User talk:Jmcnamera

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

You can introduce yourself on the new user log.
You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp as well.
Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 00:33, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Edward Kienholz reference on Iwo Jima flag

Saw your note. Wikipedia does not have the most intuitive interface, so this is the only way i know to respond. I have to ask the same question about Black Flag. Is it cited and is it relevant? I cited Edward Kienholz with another wikipedia page. I can add more definitive sources if you insist. Since the Kienholz piece, which is a seminal American pop art piece, was made well before Black Flag even existed, I would argue that it is even more relevant than Black Flag as an anti-establishment reference example. I honestly thought I was being quite constructive by adding my edits and have taken time out of my busy schedule to provide the reference. The level of hostility from the administrators who keep rolling back my changes is shocking, and it is even more shocking that anyone would consider Black Flag constructive, but not Edward Kienholz. If you are not aware of his importance, that is OK. Take some time to go and read about art history first. THEN, if you still disagree, we should discuss. Just because YOU have never heard of him doesn't mean he is not relevant to the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocmarts (talk • contribs) 03:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sami al-Arian

Hi, I saw you recently reverted vandalism on Sami al-Arian. You may want to add this page to your watchlist. Such sensitive topics are often magnets for vandalism. KazakhPol 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi your edit to Sami al-Arian was reverted by DieWeibeRose. I thought you might like to know. I suggest you post an explanation for why you dispute his addition to the page on the talk page. Regards, KazakhPol 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The {{sprotect}} template should only be applied to pages if you are in fact semi-protecting the page, and you need to be an administrator to do that. You can request semi-protection if you wish, but misleadingly adding the template to pages that aren't protected is likely to be seen as vandalism. Thanks – Qxz 13:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages like that tend to get vandalised a lot, and there's not a lot that can be done about it without preventing all legitimate contributions as well. If the vandalism does seem to be particularly bad for a prolonged period of time, consider requesting temporary semi-protection; usually a page won't get protected without good reason, though. Thanks – Qxz 13:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killian documents

Thanks for your help with the page and for fixing Callmebc's vandalism to the talk page. I appreciate it. 74.77.222.188 03:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning on Killian documents authenticity issues

Surprise, surprise. Reverting things to your POV and removing refs over and over and over again is not exactly helping to improve the article. -BC aka Callmebc 00:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --JForget 01:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the edit summary of that article and considering IP's same similar edits, I've blocked you for 3rr violation for 24 hours. Please cease the edit warring, I had the page protected as well.--JForget 01:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killian redux

Must I yet again start noting your disruptive, highly suspicious behavior yet again? Please play nice. -BC aka Callmebc 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning on United States journalism scandals

You know the routine. You and SEWilco keep reverting the entry to a prior, highly POV and misleading version with the pretense that it's a "summary," and with no genuine attempt to explain your actions on the Talk page. Naughty, naughty.... -BC aka Callmebc 16:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you make these threats often. However I have not violated 3RR but you have violated it. You already have a Killian website at www.aheckofa.com that shows your POV. This long-standing article should be kept balanced and your edits are not helping. Jmcnamera 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mapes redundancy

The Mapes statements say twice that she later wrote a book, and it is not clear whether the blames Rove in the book or elsewhere. I think in the book she thinks Rove might have been involved in the attack on the story but not that the documents were planted; if that is the case then maybe another citation is needed. (SEWilco 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And Callmebc gave me a 3RR warning for 1 revert. Check your tally as his math seems a little off. (SEWilco 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Inquiry

Hello, fellow Wikipedia editor. It has come to my attention you have been involved with the editor Callmebc. It's my general belief that this user has acted uncivilly and inappropriately to the point that their actions ought to be considered and commented on by our peers. Seeing as how you have been apart of this user's unacceptable behavior (e.g. [1]), along with myself and others, I come to ask you whether you will certify the basis for requesting comments on this user's conduct. ~ UBeR 01:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nomination for Frankie Housley was successful

On January 28, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frankie Housley, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

You're the first editor who seems to have taken in that WNDL42's version of the Obama/Insight/madrassa story is itself a smear. Last I looked, I'd managed to clean up the version at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008‎ but I've let Insight (magazine) metastasize in the hope the stink would raise some help‎, mostly let Jeffrey T. Kuhner go, and wasn't aware of what had happened at United States journalism scandals‎ until recently. I can't make this a full time job, although he's turning me into a near-SPA, and so far all that have turned up are enablers and cohorts. Until you. Andyvphil (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Insight part of the story is old hat, but Obama-in-a-turban is the very latest change being rung on the Obama/Muslim part. But that article[2] got deleted... Not as old hat as Rathergate, tho. I had my own exchanges with callmebc awhile back. Interesting work on the docs themselves, but he kept confusing implausible speculation with a plausible alternative. Anyway, Wndl42's POV is mostly anti-Moonie rather than tied to the current election, it seems. Andyvphil (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review...

Hi Jmcnamera, please take a look at two sets of edits trying to (a) "push" the "muslim" angle wrt Barak Obama here, and to censor the Unification Church ownership of Insight (while also coat racking the Insight smear) here.

A quick look at the editor's contributions history shows a virtually single-issue pattern of tendentious edits along these lines that has been frequently supported by members of the Unification Church. Your contributions have helped take the "heat of the battle" out of the journalism scandals article, but please comment when and where you can if you begin seeing the same issues as I have been seeing since I joined Wikipedia late last year. Thanks, WNDL42 (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States Inclusionist (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article nominated for deletion

I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iconic people listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iconic people. Since you had some involvement with the Iconic people redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Cunard (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of beaches in Hawaii

WP:DRIVEBY tagging is discouraged on Wikipedia. Please take your concerns to the talk page before adding a notability tag to List of beaches in Hawaii for a second time. I'm concerned that you misunderstand how and why the tag is used, so I would like to discuss it with you on the talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evading blocks via sock IPs

WP:SPI is the page you want. Thanks, Black Kite 15:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]