Notice |
|||
Line 733: | Line 733: | ||
{{trout}} vs. [[WP:TRUTH|TRUTH]] [[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 19:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC) |
{{trout}} vs. [[WP:TRUTH|TRUTH]] [[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 19:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|Erlbaeko}} Not sure of the point you are trying to make but I think it is really cool someone actually used the [[WP:TROUT]] button! If you are arguing for the old "Verifiability not truth" that old saw is long depricated and we use editorial judgement when examining sources. Whatever it is we should discuss it over on [[Talk:Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war]]. Cheers! [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:14pt;color:#886600">J</span><span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;font-size:10pt;color:#886600">bh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 19:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC) |
:{{ping|Erlbaeko}} Not sure of the point you are trying to make but I think it is really cool someone actually used the [[WP:TROUT]] button! If you are arguing for the old "Verifiability not truth" that old saw is long depricated and we use editorial judgement when examining sources. Whatever it is we should discuss it over on [[Talk:Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war]]. Cheers! [[User:Jbhunley|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:14pt;color:#886600">J</span><span style="font-family:Lucida Calligraphy;font-size:10pt;color:#886600">bh</span>]][[User_talk:Jbhunley|<span style="color: #00888F"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 19:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
==Notification== |
|||
Please, note that all articles related to the [[Syrian Civil War]], broadly construed, are placed under [[WP:1RR]] (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). Thank you. |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|'''Please read this notification carefully:'''<br>A [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|general sanctions]] for pages related to the [[Syrian Civil War]] and the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]. The details of these sanctions are described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''[[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|one revert per twenty-four hours restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]]. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|here]]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
|||
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. |
|||
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg |
|||
| icon size = 50px}} |
|||
[[User:Erlbaeko|Erlbaeko]] ([[User talk:Erlbaeko|talk]]) 16:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:25, 4 September 2015
Please place any GS or DS notices on this page
2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec |
There is a User:JBH that made 25 edits back in 2005. I have no relation to that user.
Click to start a new section below.
Speedy deletion of Gigantic (video game)
Yesterday (a couple days ago?) this page I created was speedily deleted for being "unambiguous advertising" and/or lacking notability. I didn't log in until after it was deleted. Could you point me to the admin who deleted the page so I can retrieve its contents and improve it? Thanks. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind, I found out who it was. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 06:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not sure that I'm writing in the right place, but I'd like to say that your comment about autobiography is wrong. I'm actually writting about my aunt, and she contributed to the world fashion industry a lot to be here. Thanks! --Poustovit (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Poustovit: Yes, this is the right place. ...OK.... All I have to go on is the user name. While your aunt looks like an interesting lady and passes out notability criteria, you should familiarize yourself with out conflict of interest guidelines.
Right now the article needs some trimming to make to make it more neutral. I understand it can be hard, she is your aunt and you are proud of her and it shows through. The problem is it should not show through. If you would like, once you get the draft finished, I would be happy to look it over. Try to watch the superlatives when your write for example:
Lilia Poustovit (Ukrainian: Лі́лія Григорівна Пустові́т; born 9 December 1968) is one of the most successful Ukrainian fashion designers, founder of POUSTOVIT brand, the President of Ukraine Fashion Syndicate.
- Written more neutrally would be:
Lilia Poustovit (Ukrainian: Лі́лія Григорівна Пустові́т; born 9 December 1968) is a Ukrainian fashion designer. She founded the brand PROUSTOVIT in 1998. She is currently the President of Ukraine Fashion Syndicate.
- I know the prose is dry but do dry first then make it flow. You want to avoid is anything that sounds like promotion. When you write about your subject think of what Encyclopedia Britanica would say and how they would say it. Cheers. JBH (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Poustovit: I have done a quick run through on the first part of the article. Down to 'Creation of brand' I would suggest a re-write like I did with the lines above with the lines below. The stores listed in the lead (in my version) should be moved down into the body and end the lead with "...concept stores." They should go in a "History of POUSTOVIT" section. My edits can be found in Draft:Lilia Poustovit/Suggested Edits so they do not mess up your AFC review. JBH (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I followed your advice, hope it'll be Ok! Poustovit (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Poustovit: Glad to be of assistance. I hope it helps. I would suggest that you work through all of the "In..." disconnected sentences and make complete paragraphs. It will help a lot with readability. Jbh (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Admin Help Request
I moved a draft article from User:Samira Koppikar to Draft:Samira Koppikar using the button on the AFC tag. The associated talk page was moved as well. I was able to remove the redirect on the user page but not the talk page. Draft talk:Samira Koppikar only needs to be moved back to User talk:Samira Koppikar.
If this is something a regular user can do please leave me a note on how to do it if I run across a similar situation. If not how do I just get to the User talk page to remove the redirect? I tried undoing the edit that placed the redirect on the talk page but that did not work. Thank you for cleaning up my error. JBH (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- The "undo" links don't work to undo moves (or page creations), but you can manually move a page back if the redirect created by the original move hasn't been edited in the meantime. If the redirect's history is non-trivial you'll indeed need an admin to delete it before moving back the page; {{db-move}} is the appropriate speedy deletion template.
- I have moved back the user talk page to its original location. Huon (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed this accidently, while surfing thru. As far as I am aware only users with reviewer rights can accept or decline any AfC submissions. But [User:Mahensingha] does not have reviewer rights - see link - [1] - he only has rollback right. Just for you information. How can he decline or comment on for any AfC? May be you would like to educate him on this. Thanks! Jethwarp (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Jethwarp: Thanks for the comment. Actually the reviewer right is for reviewing edits to articles protected by WP:Pending changes. The people allowed to review AFC submissions are listed in WP:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. Mahensingha is listed there and is able to review AFC requests. They are certainly qualified to do so and seem to pretty good at it. We just happen to disagree on how Draft:Samira Koppikar was handled in particular and we have worked together to solve the issue. Cheers. JBH (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info - I was not aware of it. But I think Wikipedia should change the policy about, which editors should qualify for such a serious job and increase the total no of edits or total no of articles created by one user - who can enlist oneself at WP:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. Anyways, it was nice to talk to you. Cheers!!!Jethwarp (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Jbhunley. Thanks for patrolling this article. But I'm wondering about the tags. Has anyone disputed the neutrality of the article? It doesn't even have a talk page yet. About the written like an advertisement, I was afraid that might happen. But the first thing a client wants to know a law firm is, how is rated in Chambers? So I wrote the rating in Chambers. And the fact is that this network selects the top-rated law firms in each country. That's how they get in, and the network's reason for being. Don't you think we should mention that? Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Margin1522: That you even consider
"...the first thing a client wants to know..."
is what makes it an advertisement. That is why it was tagged as such. As the editor who patrolled the page I am the one disputing the neutrality. You should not be thinking about customers at all. When you write about a subject think of what Encyclopedia Britanica would say and how they would say it. Jbh (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)- OK, I realize from discussions at AfD that many editors on Wikipedia have an extreme aversion to saying anything good about organizations engaged in profit-making activities. Let's ask another question. Are they any good? The legal profession has a well functioning ranking system for recognizing the best firms. General reputation, outcomes, service... These firms are good. Chambers has 150 researchers who investigate these things, and that's what they say. It seems like we should be able to mention that they are good. I could have loaded the article up with cites to the effect that they have cooperated with this or that organization and published this or that study, for the purpose of getting the requisite three cites from independent reliable sources. But I like the system we have for academic journals. There is a rating system, and if they rate high enough they pass, and if they don't they fail. It's a better indicator of notability and makes for a cleaner article. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Margin1522: The text is not as bad as I thought on first reading. I have removed the tags. I did remove the direct competitive comparison starting "Unlike..." though. If you want to compare it to other types of firms please find some sources that make the comparison.
On the down side, I took a closer look at the sources. You need to find several reliable sources to verify their notability because the ones you have not are not sufficient.
- If you have been hanging out at AfD I am sure you know why the above issues are a problem. As it it I seriously doubt it would pass an AfD. Jbh (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is true. Part of the problem is that the two leading directories both allow firms to contribute descriptions of themselves. I have toned it down a bit more, as I now see that it was likely to trigger the "spammy" reaction. Thanks for the comments. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Margin1522: The text is not as bad as I thought on first reading. I have removed the tags. I did remove the direct competitive comparison starting "Unlike..." though. If you want to compare it to other types of firms please find some sources that make the comparison.
- OK, I realize from discussions at AfD that many editors on Wikipedia have an extreme aversion to saying anything good about organizations engaged in profit-making activities. Let's ask another question. Are they any good? The legal profession has a well functioning ranking system for recognizing the best firms. General reputation, outcomes, service... These firms are good. Chambers has 150 researchers who investigate these things, and that's what they say. It seems like we should be able to mention that they are good. I could have loaded the article up with cites to the effect that they have cooperated with this or that organization and published this or that study, for the purpose of getting the requisite three cites from independent reliable sources. But I like the system we have for academic journals. There is a rating system, and if they rate high enough they pass, and if they don't they fail. It's a better indicator of notability and makes for a cleaner article. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Calvary at Saint-Herbot near Plonévez-du-Faou and the Chapelle Saint-Herbot
Thank you for your encouraging comment Weglinde (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Tjuan Benafactor
I actually did see him/them mentioned in the players not paid love of the game article that was referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jholky (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- It was a passing incidental mention that said the new owner had a stage name. About the only thing it is good for is that the guy owns the team. It does nothing for notability but if you want to use it to say he is optimistic about his ABA team go for it. Jbh (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you very much for your review of Guththila Kavyaya. Pradeep583 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GabrielF (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, you may not be using your time on this wisely, see [2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Alanscottwalker: Thank you. I did rename the article to Political appointees in the administration of George W. Bush that were members of PNAC yesterday. DHeyward noted a problem with the new name by removing Dick Cheney from the list and Ubikwit changed it back to List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush
I guess that change did not get noted on the AfD page.Ubikwit noted the change at the top. I missed it. I will make note of it there. Do you have any suggestions for a proper name? I think we are pretty much stuck with 'member' backed up by WP:POVNAMING. Jbh (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Alanscottwalker: Thank you. I did rename the article to Political appointees in the administration of George W. Bush that were members of PNAC yesterday. DHeyward noted a problem with the new name by removing Dick Cheney from the list and Ubikwit changed it back to List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush
- I am rather at a loss to understand, how those of you who put the work in won't bend on that and creatively find a more acceptable terminology also consistent with the facts and that will not hand those who want to throw your work away a club. You know the sources and what varying ways you might refer to them ('connected', 'were signers of PNAC documents' or something, perhaps). As for those who do want to throw your work away, probably best to take the advice of those more sympathetic to the position you are in - I repeat, policy allows you to change the name now, and until you get it "right" enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- We're working on it. "Connected" might work; it isn't very different from "associated". I think that the current version is succinct, and I see that you have thrown your support behind the term "members", which seems to be what is under assault. If we don't use "PNAC members", then it seems you wind up with "People connected to/associated with PNAC that...", or something along those lines, which seems to dilute the import of the relationship.
- One alternative approach might be "Members of the Bush administration that were associated with/connected to PNAC".
- I think that JBH has done an excellent job in explicating what the individuals on the list have been doing to earn their RS "members" designation, and Fyddlestix and me have contributed to elaborating that as well. If you have any suggestions, by all means, please join in. Until we have something better, I'm inclined to think simple is potentially the least problematic.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Alanscottwalker: The naming issue seems to have been a problem dating back to when this was a list in the PNAC article. The problem is that there are no terms which someone will not complain about. 'Signatories/Signers' is too loose (50 or so people). Connected is too loose (huge list of 'people who signed a letter or contributed a paper). Both of which Collect objects strongly and continiously to. 'Signatories of the 1998 Letter to Clinton on Iraq and/or PNAC Statement of Principles' is unwieldy. Other names that is has actually been moved to are.
- List of Members of the Administration of George W. Bush who are strongly associated with Project for the New American Century
- List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush
- List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush
- Political appointees in the administration of George W. Bush that were members of PNAC
- There is no obstinacy here, I and, I believe, the others are truly at a loss. The only title that has not been tried that has been suggested on the talk page is:
- List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush
- I just can not see a good way to avoid 'members' or 'associated with' particularly since, as far as I can tell, all of the strong sources use one or the other. The issue seems to me to be one particular editor will use quite literally any pedantic claim to keep this table out of the encyclopedia. Take a look at the 5 previous times this material was discussed on the PNAC talk page and at BLPN.Diffs exist near the top of the page in Fyddlestix first comment at AfD. He was recently joined by a long dorment account ODear Not saying one is a SOCK of the other, not even by implication who, if I were less involved, I would tag as an SPA. Maybe you can see something that we can not. That is the value of new eyes. Jbh (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Continue working, but while yes, 'members' passes for deletion as renaming articles is another process, it obviously will not fly, so don't take my 'just policy' support at AfD to heart - it appears it will not get you anywhere, you're not dealing with one editor anymore. Paraphrase is what we try to do. And actually, no, signers who went in the administation is a subset - not the whole set. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)By his own admission, Dear ODear apparently was an alternate account of Is Not A. The latter having been blocked when that came to light, it's just Dear ODear now.
- On naming: my two cents are that we should limit the table to: people who either founded/staffed PNAC, people who signed the statement of purposes, and people who signed the Iraq letter. Those are the only criteria that the more reliable/reputable sources use to tie people to the group, and I think we should stick to that. If we stuck to those criteria, the table could be titled "signatories of key PNAC policy statements with ties to the Bush Administration" or some such. Everyone currently in the table signed either the Statement or the Letter, so I think that's all that's needed. Note, however, that Ubikwit is currently trying to expand the scope of the table, using some less-than-stellar sources. I don't think that is helping the case for keeping the table. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's probably a moot point anyway, the AFD discussions seems to be headed for a "delete." Fyddlestix (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the Milosevic letter may not be "key", but the Rebuilding America's Defenses certainly was, and the contributors are described as "Participants" on the last page of the doc, etc. They weren't just "signatories", they helped produce the document, and that is an important fact. Some of them also signed other documents, increasing the weight for their inclusion as "members". That report also seems to be the most substantial document they produced, it seems, and generated as much controversy as the Clinton letter. Recall that it is the only document that has its own dedicated section in the main article.
- I'm not sure what to think about the "War on Terror" letter, but I've only seen one source tying one administration member to it thus far. I think signing multiple letters speaks in favor of inclusion, but we should defer to secondary sources, I suppose.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is debatable who he is the 'alternate account' of since when the ODear account started editing after the is_not_a block it had about 10 edits and had last edited in 2012. The claim that is_not_a was the alternate of a nearly three year dormant account is not, in my opinion, supportable. I have no idea who the original account was but ODear it was not.
- On the naming issue as Alanscottwalker noted, the discriminator is 'served in the administration..' not signed a document. So I suggest we try:
- Signers of PNAC policy statements or letters who served in the administration of George W Bush
Jbh (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- That might work, but let's make a new list if we're going to brain storm this here.
- If delineating the subset is deemed to be an issue (which I don't see with the current title), then inverting the application of "members" would seem to be more direct, so let me list that again.
- Members of the Bush administration that were associated with/connected to/members of PNAC
- In light of my awakening to the import of the aforementioned report[3]--which was not signed by anybody but produced by a large number of participants (who are listed on the last page), six of whom (that I know of) went on to become members of the Bush administration. They all seem to have signed other letters, but since this was a document they participated in producing, it is significant in an additional register.
- Stephen Cambone
- Eliot Cohen
- I. Lewis Libby
- Abram Shulsky
- Paul Wolfowitz
- Dov Zakheim
- --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Signers of PNAC policy statements or letters who served in the administration of George W Bush
JbH: ::::::::Better, you could make it shorter by striking "policy", and perhaps "or letters" or "PNAC statement and letter signers . . ." But all of you strongly agree then do it, then present it at the AfD (you heard them). Ubikwit just cover that document in the main article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- That would work, as none of the six would be lost from the list, but let's ponder that title.
- Do you see anything problematic with the sentence-inverted version I suggested?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- You mean the words "associated with/connected to/members" in a title? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, those are selections of possible alternatives at that juncture in the title. I meant overall, but of course, if you have separate opinions on the use of those several alternatives, by all means, opine away to your hearts content.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- JbH's has the chronology right, I can see someone arguing that 'no they were not in the admin and signed.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, maybe I'm just to sleep-deprived and can't think straight, but it seems to me that such a reading would amount to a grammatically incorrect reading of the phrasing including "that", which definitely limits the scope (of the subset) in both the above-proposed version and the current version.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think, 'you are writing for the . . . ' and you should just keep that in mind. I don't have much more time to say anything on this. Good luck! Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, maybe I'm just to sleep-deprived and can't think straight, but it seems to me that such a reading would amount to a grammatically incorrect reading of the phrasing including "that", which definitely limits the scope (of the subset) in both the above-proposed version and the current version.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- JbH's has the chronology right, I can see someone arguing that 'no they were not in the admin and signed.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, those are selections of possible alternatives at that juncture in the title. I meant overall, but of course, if you have separate opinions on the use of those several alternatives, by all means, opine away to your hearts content.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- You mean the words "associated with/connected to/members" in a title? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think 'associated with' has been roundly shot down by people at AfD so 'associated with\connected to' would face the same or worse opposition. per ASW what does everyone think of:
- PNAC statement and letter signers who served in the administration of George W Bush
who served in the administration of George W Bush
- PNAC statement and letter signers who served in the administration of George W Bush
- I see no real issues with this particularly if the list is tied tightly to the PNAC article. Possibly someone could link the list into place in the PNAC article. Many complaints is that the list is a POV Fork while the intention is for it to be a sub-article. Jbh (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is it just me or does "statement and letter signers" sound awkward?
- I would favor something along the lines of simply "PNAC participants", assuming that members is considered a fail (I'm not convinced of that given the plethora of increasingly growing RS cites).
- If the PNAC wants to portray themselves as a loose collective without members, we have to rise to the challenge to describe them as a cohesive group. I think we're on the way, but not there yet.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Right now I am more concerned with addressing as many of the Delete complaints as possible. While I think we have policy solidly on our side the shear number of Deletes will possibly influence a closing admin. Also quite literally anything that would make the article look like a POV Fork rather than a sub-article-list might be an issue. A MERGE would be the best objective outcome but, from my reading of Collect's comments such as BLP is an "absolute policy" I think we will be right back where we started and fighting *what* to merge.
I find the perennial obstinate pedantic sophistry this content has been subject to incomprehensible. In a less experienced editor I would have dealt with it at ANI but in this situation it would turn into a drama infused political nightmare. It only took 3 minutes from the time I told Collect take the article to AfD and articulate his arguments there for another long term editor to pop up and do it using his SYNTH argument. My frustration with this is pretty high as I am sure it has become increasingly easy to tell. I guess this is nothing compared to the edit war last month at Danish pastry over what to call the bloody things.
Oh, to get back on topic. Yes it does sound a bit awkward. How about:
- People who signed PNAC's policy documents and served in the administration of George W Bush
Jbh (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that we need to beat the merge angle as well as the delete angle. There are 21 people on the list, so you're original concern about UNDUE is in play only because the table is too big and requires its own article so as not to overwhelm the main article.
- I don't like the "People..." phrasing, as mentioned above, because it dilutes the import.
- At present I don't have any better ideas than inverting the sentence...
- I appreciate ASW's participation, but I'm not convinced that "members" is ruled out, because too many peer-reviewed sources use that characterization.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- People who signed PNAC's policy documents and served in the administration of George W Bush
- Right now I am more concerned with addressing as many of the Delete complaints as possible. While I think we have policy solidly on our side the shear number of Deletes will possibly influence a closing admin. Also quite literally anything that would make the article look like a POV Fork rather than a sub-article-list might be an issue. A MERGE would be the best objective outcome but, from my reading of Collect's comments such as BLP is an "absolute policy" I think we will be right back where we started and fighting *what* to merge.
- (edit conflict) I think 'associated with' has been roundly shot down by people at AfD so 'associated with\connected to' would face the same or worse opposition. per ASW what does everyone think of:
I understand where you are coming from. Right now I am exploring the ideas that ASW is bringing up because his view point to closer to those who must be convinced. It is a way for me to break out of my POV and prevent tunnel vision. Since this article and PNAC has been more confrontational than collaborative I try to keep from getting into a mental rut. Since I think this information belongs in the encyclopedia I am trying to look for ways that address the concerns of those who can be won over while I have ceased to care about the opinion of the obstinate few since they will not ever change their minds and contribute nothing to the solution. This has become a situation where politics and compromise are as important or more so than simply being 'right' so I think we should proceed as if 'members' is out for the title since so many have complained about the term. I have seen several admins vote Delete in this AfD with, in my opinion, a less than firm grasp of the policies involved. Like it or not my bet that the name is the linchpin issue. If that can be addressed many of those Deletes drop out. The next issue is the POV Fork issue, that can be mostly handled by placing a link to the list in the proper place in the PNAC article. I dropped it into 'See Also' when I created it but it needs a better, more integrated place, I just do not know where it would fit best. Maybe a sub-section or an in-text prose link. If those two things are addressed it will be very hard to close the AfD as Delete.
For possible titles how about -
- Signers of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush
or inverted -
- Advisors and members of the George W Bush administration who signed PNAC's documents
Jbh (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'd prefer the first of those two. I think that it is short and compact, and addresses the issues.
- Let's wait for Fyddlestix to weigh in on this.
- I'll try and look at the link scenario tomorrow.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK thanks... I'll ping @Fyddlestix: Jbh (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I like the first one too, although I would swap "signatories" for "signers." Fyddlestix (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK thanks... I'll ping @Fyddlestix: Jbh (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- OK, done.
- Check this source (entirety of p. 15) in relation to the discussion at my Talk.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)The number of figures associated with PNAC that had been members of the Reagan or the first Bush administration and the number that would take up office with the administration of the second President Bush demonstrate that it is not merely a question of employees and budgets.[4] Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty, Stuart Elden, Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2009, p.15]
Dead horses...
In good faith, I would interpret this not as a threat, but as a suggestion to "stop beating a dead horse". Now I don't think the state of the horse is clear yet (wether at AN/I or in the clip), but interpreting the edit as a threat seems to be a sign of the general lack of good faith in this conflict, and is unlikely to contribute to a constructive resolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Stephan Schulz: Thank you for the advice. Yes, good faith is pretty much gone at this point and I really regret that. Like I said here and when I posted, I would not consider it a threat from Collect or anyone whose online track record I was familiar with. ODear on the other is re-activated dormant account that started editing after the blocking of User:Is_not_a an 'alternate' account of an unknown user. I have no clue what is going through their head. I asked them to strike the comment for clarity, they are active now and have not done so. Threats of getting me with rules - fine, no worries. Even the faintest hint of RL from an unknown user I have zero-tolerance because things like that can spin badly out of control without the slightest warning. I have taken enough risks in my life to know that you mitigate the ones you can. I admit I am sensitive to such things. Jbh (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can understand that, but I'm not sure this approach is mitigating anything. In a pinch, you might ask for clarification in a less public place (like their user page). More heat is not, I think, what we need. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry that you misinterpreted a joke.
- Perhaps your exaggerated reaction may give you some empathy about the state of living persons who are targetted by Larouchites and troll armies, and who have had their kids' names etc. put on their articles. Consider what happened to Richard Flacks. Dear0Dear 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can understand that, but I'm not sure this approach is mitigating anything. In a pinch, you might ask for clarification in a less public place (like their user page). More heat is not, I think, what we need. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
@Stephan Schulz: Matter is closed. Jbh (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Thanks, - MrX 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of Discovery of the neutron
I suspect you did not do proper research before putting this page up for speedy deletion. In any case, we have worked quite long and hard at developing this page from many sources and extensive discussions. Wikipedia is the original here. I write mainly because it is a curious problem, however - many external websites are copying wholesale from wikipedia, often without acknowledging this fact, which leads to the problem of citing these external websites that have been copied from wikipedia, etc. But thanks for your diligence! Bdushaw (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Bdushaw: I was very surprised when the whole thing came up matching other sites because it is a great article. Since it showed as a recent new page I did not think to consider that Wikipedia might have been the source. Sorry if I caused any problems. Jbh (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- The effort may not be without positive contribution in the sense it really raises the question about what to do with external articles that copy from wikipedia. One of the links you found does acknowledge wikipedia as the source, the other doesn't. The general question could get tricky to resolve in a happy manner; may just require more work to sort out the provenance of material. Bdushaw (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Bdushaw: I guess it might be possible if enough authors were available or one person wrote a large chunk of the material for them to send a DMCA Takedown Notice to the non-attributing sites. I'm not sure how that works here but I have seen photographers on Commons handle it like that for their pictures. Anyway nice article, no wonder others want it. :) Jbh (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- The effort may not be without positive contribution in the sense it really raises the question about what to do with external articles that copy from wikipedia. One of the links you found does acknowledge wikipedia as the source, the other doesn't. The general question could get tricky to resolve in a happy manner; may just require more work to sort out the provenance of material. Bdushaw (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
stub tags
Hallo, Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like PNK College which already has a specific stub tag - it just wastes the time of other editors. Thanks. PamD 16:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- @PamD: Sorry, I missed the Indian university stub tag. I make sure to double check going forward. Jbh (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration Case Opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment by Verminator04
I have resolved your speedy deletion request for Janetta Rebold Benton by adding the appropriate copyleft statement to the original website. Please remove your request.
- @Verminator04: - Please read WP:COPYVIO for more information on Wikipedia's policies copying text. An administrator will take a closer look at the page. What you place here must be written in your own words, not copied from another site. I would also recommend that you take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you for your understanding. Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ Jbh (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley: - My edits are in compliance with the Conflict of Interest guidelines, and the appropriate copyleft notice is in place, ensuring compliance with the reuse guidelines. I have also reworded all text, ensuring that the content presented is 'in my own words'. Thanks. Verminator04 (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneath_the_Skin_(album) You should have deleted the article. I was forced to recreate it as a blank article to unfollow it which makes no sense of why Wikipedia does this. It was already deleted for duplicated of this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneath_the_Skin_(Of_Monsters_and_Men_album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- @JKruger13: Only administrators can delete articles but thank you for the information and for noting it is a duplicate on the talk page. An admin will follow up on the tag. Also, you can go to Special:Watchlist and choose 'edit your watch list' to un-watch a deleted article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley: Thanks.
Trouted
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
You have been trouted for: What is this
@JKruger13: - It is a way to tell an editor they have done something dumb that they really should have known better than to do. See WP:TROUT. Some people do not see the humor in a good trouting but I prefer it to some other ways people can express their displeasure. The template {{troutme}} placed at the top of your talk page makes the little icon you clicked on. Some editors place it there to let others know they do not mind being trouted to remind them of what they should know :) Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Deletion of Empress Of
I have my references posted and i'm posting more as I go along. the article is valid as this is for an up and coming musical artist with growing profile and fanbase. give me a break b.
- @Temp144: I removed the BLPPROD becuase it looks like Pitchfork is a RS. Please read WP:MUSICBIO carefully to see criteria for notability. Based on what is in the article and what I have found on a quick search the article likely would not pass AfD. Probably the easiest notability criteria to meet is if they have a song which has charted on a national chart. Jbh (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Johny Seth
This Page Has Provided the references of interviews and biodata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.58.250 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Elysium ( Dreampop band)
I didn't create that page-I moved it without a space. Wgolf (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Wgolf: Thanks for letting me know. I'm using Twinkle to do the CSD notifications. I guess it sees moves as creates, interesting... I will check the history and notify the creator. Jbh (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
All mirrors...
Hi. I've declined your speedy at the Beluga article (and the Coren bot's notice too) because both sites acknowledge that their text comes from Wikipedia. Your one even gives the full CC and GFDL bit at the bottom of the page. Mirrors and quotes are often a problem, but the WikiSnap does say at top of page that it's stuff from Wikipedia, and a look at the bottom provided the CC licensing. The other one started with ", so I scrolled down to the next " and found '- Wikipedia' at the end. On a side note, I've seen one of the current Belugas on the ground, and oh boy, was it big... I'd never heard of them, but thought it looked whale or porpoise like, and was interested when the person I was talking to at the airfield told me it was a Beluga and what it did. Peridon (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Peridon: Thanks for the note. New articles with text from Wikipedia mirrors have caught me a couple of times now - the cognitive dissonance of new here old there but from here throws me :) I will make sure to click through from the links Earwig's tool kicks out.
That must have been an impressive sight. Those two tiny looking engines do not look like they could get that thing off of the ground! Jbh (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- On closer inspection, it was a copy - of Airbus Beluga. I thought the wording looked familiar. It was the earlier article I'd read, and I was sure I had read it here - after seeing the plane. As to the plane, it's weird with that enormous blank 'forehead' and the little (by comparison) 'eyes' and 'nose' down at the bottom. It doesn't have all the seating, loos and floor storage that the airliner version does - cutting a lot of dead weight out, and most of the cargo has a lot of space inside it, so what it is lifting is volume not bulk. Peridon (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Use of the content of wikiarticles outside Wikipedia
This is asking for advice I am not prepared to give. If this question refers to a particular person's situation they should discuss it with their doctoral committee . Jbh (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hi, Jbhunley! I've noticed the context of the discussion from talk:discovery of the neutron about the use of wikiarticles outside wikipedia. What is the legal status of such uses? Does it involves plagiarism sometimes?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Speedy deletion declined: Wetpour
Hello Jbhunley. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wetpour, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional, not eligible for A7. Will PROD instead. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you so much Amina-daily (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC) |
@Amina-daily: - Thank you! Sheikh Muhammad Nura Khalid looks like quite a remarkable fellow. Glad to help out. I will keep him on my watch list and if you need any assistance please feel free to ask. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar | |
Why you remove my Wiki? 小玉 (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC) |
- @小玉: Thank you for the barnstar! I tagged the article Zion Lee for spedy deletion because it made no credible assertion of importance and was about a person. Please see out general notability guidelines for the criteria for an article on Wikipedia. I tagged Zion Lee again after it was recreated because it was a cross name space redirect to Wikipedia:Zion Lee, The Wikipedia name space is not used for articles. It is for material relating to the Wikipedia project. If you have any other questions of would like some help please let me know here. You might also want to read WP:FIRST it talks about how to create your first article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Bundling
Hello! Although we disagree on what the outcome of these AfDs should be, do you not agree we could get better input by bundling the Dethcentrik AfDs?-BusyWikipedian (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- @BusyWikipedian: In this case no. Albums and bands have different notability criteria WP:NALBUMS and WP:BAND. Each of the albums have different sources to be addressed although there is, in my opinion, no way those albums come within a mile of passing WP:NALBUM. One or two reviews, even in RS, does not constitute significant coverage and a couple of the albums do not have even that. Bundling would, as I read it, have them stand or fall as a group. Even if Deathcentrik passes AfD all that means is that the albums are not eligible for db-a7 not that they are notable. Jbh (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying why they cannot be bundled-BusyWikipedian (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar | |
How i want to create Zion Lee's Wikipedia? I hope somebody help me to create his Wikipedia, please! 小玉 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC) |
- @小玉: Thanks again for the barnstar but there is no need to leave one to leave me a new message you can just reply under your previous comment or add a new section at the bottom for a different question. How to edit talk pages gives a quick introduction.
The most important thing you need to establish for your article subject is notability. Out general notability guidelines set out those criteria and there are special criteria if they are a musician, scholar, athlete etc. The Wikipedia Teahouse has a group of volunteers who specialize in helping people get their first article done and explaining all of out policies and guidelines. Cheers Jbh (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I did mean to ping you before making the request
I don't really think you care, just mentioning because I meant to drop you a note first, but then forgot to. Duh. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Factchecker atyourservice: No problem, it was not an improper request and I left a note on the Workshop talk page so the Arbs would know it was OK both parties. I hope they at least read the post but I can see a lot of back and forth growing from it on the Workshop page. If there are any particular extracts you think would be of use you might be able to use it in an analysis section or one of the proposal comments. I will not object to that since I wrote it in the context of the case.
I am still amazed at all of the drama that came out of that list!Jbh (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- More than just a ping is necessary to thank you both for conferring. It displays the leadership necessary for retaining editors. @FCAYS talk.. . Buster Seven Talk 15:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
- JbH. Your efficiency and concern for responsible notification is commendable. . Buster Seven Talk 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- More than just a ping is necessary to thank you both for conferring. It displays the leadership necessary for retaining editors. @FCAYS talk.. . Buster Seven Talk 15:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--MONGO 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's
Hi,
You have recently reviewed a Wikipedia article I published and I was hoping you can give me a bit more details about why you have included it in the "considered for deletion" list.
Since your last moderation, I have added more sources, made a few text changes, and I think the article is much better now. Kindly let me know if there is anything else I should change or edit. Comment by Felician89
- @Felician89: hi. I nominated the article Monitor_Backlinks for deletion because I feel it does not meet our notability guidelines for companies or our general notability guidelines. In particular blog coverage and funding announcements do not lend a company notability. See WP:ORGIN and WP:CORPDEPTH for more detail on those points. Once the company has some significant, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources a Wikipedia article would be appropriate. Jbh (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
trying up load my project landlord article.. please help MuzicFan1981 (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
i don't know why my page have got deleted i just found a photo on the internet that i think is not copyrighted so please come check my page out to see before i upload my article again thank you. my page name is muzicfan1981,
- @MuzicFan1981: - Not sure what you are asking. The article you mentioned was not deleted. If you want to post a photo you must have a license for it, a fair use rational or it must be in the public domain. All of these things must be documented per the instructions when you upload. Jbh (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- is a public domain the internet of what if i know the guy who did the photo for the chrome (RAPPER) article i created ? if i know his website can i put that in the picture uploader to pass the copyrights requirements Comment by MusicFan1981 Jbh (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- If I understand your question properly, no just because an image is on the Internet it is not public domain. See WP:Copyrights for how to go about getting a proper license or release to use media on Wikipedia. If you know the subject of the article you should read out conflict of interest guidelines. Also, please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ doing so will insert your user name and a date/time stamp. This might be some help to you as you get started on Wikipedia - How to edit talk pages. Please let me know if I can be of further help. Jbh (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- is a public domain the internet of what if i know the guy who did the photo for the chrome (RAPPER) article i created ? if i know his website can i put that in the picture uploader to pass the copyrights requirements Comment by MusicFan1981 Jbh (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of this article, expanded it with four other sources, and nominated it for Did you know. In general, if you see an article that is cited to a dedicated piece in a usually reliable source (in this case an official obituary in the Daily Telegraph, a British broadsheet newspaper generally considered acceptable for BLPs), you should avoid CSD and go to AfD instead (or, even better, improve the article!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: OK. Will do. I just saw the one liner simply saying she was 'eccentric hotelier' and I guess my cynicism took over. Nice job on improving the article. Jbh (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, every now and again we all get grumpy, angry mastodon defence takes over and we hit the revert / delete buttons. Still, imagine if you'd done this! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Wow! :) Jbh (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, every now and again we all get grumpy, angry mastodon defence takes over and we hit the revert / delete buttons. Still, imagine if you'd done this! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello Jbhunley
Thanks for filling the references of my recently created articles. You were very fast and efficient. Its so painful that your first and only article, Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush was deleted per consensus at AfD· I'm really sorry about this and I hate to see your article deleted again in the future. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page, if you need help on article creation. Happy editing. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£
- @Wikicology: Thank you, glad to be able to do something constructive even if only little things. The article deletion is no real concern. It was a table someone else made that I spun out as part of trying to resolve a content dispute. Lots of drama ensued that led to an Arbcom case being opened over the behavior of one of the other participants in that dispute.
Thank you for the offer of help, I may well take you up on it when I get the guts to write in an area I have some knowledge or find something innocuous and engaging from going through new pages. For now gnoming about keeps my busy when I'm otherwise bored and do not want to engage with real life :) Jbh (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Newspapers.com access
Hi Jbhunley,
You should be able to sign in and get full access to Newspapers.com now. HazelAB (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm 1Potato2Potato3Potato4. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, WWE 2K (Mobile Game ), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- @1Potato2Potato3Potato4: Thank you for catching that. I missed the copyvio. Jbh (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- No problem. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Paula Peters unreferenced?
It looks like you flagged the article on Paula Peters as not containing any references; however it also looks like this problem is now fixed. Does the article's author have the authority to remove the flags?Ssenier (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Ssenier: Yes. Once a reliable source is used to support a claim any editor can remove the BLPPROD. Clean up tags can be removed by any editor who does not feel they apply or that the problem has been fixed.
The Paula Peters article needs to be edited to conform to Wikipedia standards and seems to be a bit promotional to me but that is only my, rather strict, opinion. Otherwise it is a nice article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much!Ssenier (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
doriscarnival
Thank you for your comments and advice. I will modify my page to suit your requirments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doriscarnival (talk • contribs) 15:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Doriscarnival: Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. I tagged Carnival Group International Holdings Limited with a speedy delete tag because it contains large amounts of text copy/pasted from another source. This is against Wikipedia policy please see WP:COPYRIGHT for more information. Also please do not remove speedy delete tags from articles you have created like you did here and remember to sign your talk page comments with
~~~~
. Please feel free to contact me here or {{ping}} me from the article talk page in you need assistance. Based on your user name and the title of the article you are editing please read our policies on conflict of interest Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Third Opinion
Hey, JBH, thanks for helping at the 3O project. Just a couple of words of advice: When you take a request, be sure to remove it from the list (as stated in the last bullet point of "Providing third opinions" on the 3O page), even if you're not going to issue a 3O instantly (but if you're not going to issue one right away do as you did and put a note on the article talk page saying that you're working on it), but in any event remove the listing before you give the 3O. Second, convention has it that we volunteers don't annotate the request list except to indicate if a request has been reinserted after being removed for being stale (with something like "Second request" or somesuch). Both of those are no big deal and just part of the 3O learning curve and, again, we're really glad you've joined the 3O community of volunteers. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- @TransporterMan: Will do. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is under construction. Did you not read the template? -MacRùsgail (talk)
- @MacRusgail: I could not find significant coverage when I did WP:BEFORE. All I saw were blog entries and and marketing. I do not question the author's notability. If you can show the book meets WP:NBOOK I will withdraw my AfD nomination. Jbh (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you're such a Smart Alec, why didn't you realise you don't AfD articles while they're under construction. That's the whole point of the template, to stop premature judgement, such as yours.
- If you did notice it at all. Rude. -MacRùsgail (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC) p.s. The internet is actually not one of the best places to look for references anyway, since most of the links disappear after a year or two. Hard copy is better, if you can get hold of it. Google is not a research tool, it's a slightly creepy corporation which happens to run a search engine.
I've turned this article into a redirect to the author, and will continue writing it somewhere I can do so without harassment.
In future, note the template.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @MacRusgail: I understand your frustration but name calling only reflects poorly on you. If the book passes WP:NBOOK post the Keep argument at AfD, show the sources and I will withdraw the nomination just as I offered before your last comment. I took a closer look at the book because if the first thing an article creator has to say about a book it that it was a $0.99 special at Amazon I want to take a much closer look at its notability. I found a book published by Amazon's self-publishing house, with some blog coverage, some passing mention and sales material. Jbh (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I couldn't give a flying whatever about name calling. You nominated an article while an under construction template was on it. The only time that would properly apply if it that was piece of vandalism. You've taken up much of the time I would have actually spent improving the article.
- Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm logging off Wikipedia. I've got more important things to do like writing a letter to a debt agency.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC) p.s. The article is now a redirect...
- (edit conflict)@MacRusgail: Sorry, I am going to have to revert that redirect. Please note that the AfD notice says. Do not remove this notice and Do not blank the page. You have removed the AfD notice at least twice and now blanked it. Please follow the proper procedures. (Wow! I just looked you up on Xtools. None of this should be new to you.) PS {{under construction}} on an article in Main space is not a bar to AfD it is an informational notice. I am sorry if this upsets you. Jbh (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Aricooperdavis. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Guimiliau Parish close, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. aricooperdavis (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Aricooperdavis: OK. Would you mind saying what you found to be in error? I understand it is possible I missed something and it would help me to understand what it might be so I do not repeat an error. Thank you for your time. Jbh (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Whoops, I thought that I'd accidentally reviewed it before I'd finished checking it, so I unreviewed it again - sorry about that! Looking at it, though, it seems to have been poorly translated from French, and doesn't contain enough context. For example the first sentence "The enclos paroissial of Guimiliau" contains two non-english words and doesn't have a full stop, whilst nowhere does the page mention where the "enclos" actually is, or that it's a parish close (apart from the title). It seems like it could do with quite a bit more work, but since that's not a criteria for reviewing AfC submissions, I think I've acted in error. Sorry again! aricooperdavis (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Aricooperdavis: No problem. Mistakes are just part of doing the work - we all make them now and then. When I the note I figured it as likely I had made one as you. Enjoy your weekend. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Jbh, you too. aricooperdavis (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Aricooperdavis: No problem. Mistakes are just part of doing the work - we all make them now and then. When I the note I figured it as likely I had made one as you. Enjoy your weekend. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Whoops, I thought that I'd accidentally reviewed it before I'd finished checking it, so I unreviewed it again - sorry about that! Looking at it, though, it seems to have been poorly translated from French, and doesn't contain enough context. For example the first sentence "The enclos paroissial of Guimiliau" contains two non-english words and doesn't have a full stop, whilst nowhere does the page mention where the "enclos" actually is, or that it's a parish close (apart from the title). It seems like it could do with quite a bit more work, but since that's not a criteria for reviewing AfC submissions, I think I've acted in error. Sorry again! aricooperdavis (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the PROD on this article and taken it to AFD instead. I think a fuller evaluation of the sources is in order. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Debate on Splashed White in gypsies
This is in relation to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splashed_white
I am the IP user who initially brought up the concerns regarding original research, and I've just found the rest of the debate. I just wanted to say thanks for your assistance with helping resolve this. I believe the original research has now been removed, and I am satisfied with how the article is now worded.
Incidentally, I believe you mentioned you were genuinely interested in the topic, so I thought you might be interested in some information I've uncovered. I asked the Gypsy Vanner Society for clarification with regard to 'blagdon' and the general summary of their reply was that it was a phenotype that could include (but not necessarily limited to) patterns which were genetically sabino or draft-type sabino. They explicitly stated the former is present in the breed. Draft-type sabino can't be tested for, so is unknown, however this is present all through the clydesdale breed, which was heavily used as foundation stock for the gypsy breed, so it's plausible that it is also present. Because of the definition of blagdon as just a phenotype, it can't be ruled out that it also includes some very weird looking SW1 horses. Unlikely, especially considering the lack of normal looking SW1 gypsies, but not impossible, so to have the article phrased as it currently is is suitable.
I'm not planning on adding this to any article, since personal communications aren't exactly verifiable resources, but I thought you might find it interesting since you expressed an interest. Thanks again for your help.
14.2.119.6 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information and I am glad the article text came out in a way that works for you. Doing the research for that was fascinating. I wonder if breeders will start to take advantage of the cheap fast whole genome sequencing becoming available. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It will be really interesting to watch the results of this field as genetic testing becomes more prevalent. Speaking of which, W20 is looking like the main culprit behind the "four socks and blaze" version of blagdon. Some gypsies have tested positive for it, as have a large group of other horses from a very diverse group of breeds, all of whom appear to share this phenotype. It would appear W20 is very prevalent. Some more info if you're curious:
http://practicalhorsegenetics.com.au/index.php?test=w20
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23659293
Hi jbh, please suggest what I should do. should I change the template? About the links, I shall read more and place it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J A Srivathsan (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Hi jbh, please suggest what I should do. should I change the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J A Srivathsan (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- @J A Srivathsan: I am not sure what template you mean. As far as the {{db-band}} speedy deletion template goes it was originally placed by Everymorning who I just pinged. Maybe they can explain their thinking on placing it. My thought is you might want to read our general notability guidelines, notability criteria for bands/musicians and our policies on reliable sources to get an idea of what is required to be considered notable for Wikipedia.
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for coming to my talk page to ask questions rather than continuing to remove the speedy tag. Please let me know if I can be of help. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with
~~~~
that will cause your name and the date to be inserted. Jbh (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC) - @Jbhunley: Thank you so much. I shall chat with Everymorning about this matter. Thanks once again.J A Srivathsan (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Dinesh Vaghela
Hi,
Please help me in getting rid of the issues with the page Dinesh Vaghela
Also, when searched on Google, the page does not appear on the first page of the search.
PLEASE HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirvaghela (talk • contribs) 07:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Kabirvaghela. I see you have put quite a bit of work into the article. I have taken a closer look at it and I see two major problems. The first is that much of the text is taken directly from articles found on the web. This is not allowed here because of WP:COPYRIGHT issues. This can be solved restating the material in your own words and I can try to help some with that.
The second issue is more of a problem. I am unsure whether the subject of the article passed our general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will look through the sources in the article but you have put in a lot of things like books he has written or published that are not really appropriate at first glance. Clearing those out will take some time. I will ask another editor who is more experienced in Indian topics than I to take a look and ask for their opinion [5] since I am not familiar with Indian politics and what notable coverage is.
You can help a lot with this by finding articles from independent, third party reliable sources which talk about him. This means sources that are not written or published by him, his party, his campaign or anyone related to him. Please understand that it is almost certain that the article will be much shorter than it is now and if notability can not be established there will be an Articles for Deletion discussion opened to discuss the notability of the subject.
I will do what I can with the article. As to the Google search results that is not something Wikipedia has any control over and is based on Google's search algorithm. Cheers. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with
~~~~
. This will insert your user name and date automatically. Jbh (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Added diff of help request for reference. Jbh (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)- @Kabirvaghela: I have re-written the article based on the sources and text available to address the copyright issue and to remove material not supported by sources. While looking into the subject I could not find any really significant coverage. I tried using both 'Vaghela' and alternate spelling 'Waghela'. As it stands it is likely I will need to nominate the article at WP:AFD. If you can find some sources in the next couple of days maybe that can be avoided. Please see notability for politicians and general notability guidelines for our criteria for articles. Also please see reliable sources for the types of sources needed. Please note that the sources must be independent of him and his party. We need things like newspaper articles that talk about him in a significant way. Mere mentions of his name or minor quotes do not contribute to notability. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you so much for your guidance.
~~~~
- @Kabirvaghela: You are quite welcome. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Also, the 'nowiki' and 'code' tags are just how I got the four ~ to display without the software inserting my signature in their place. When you sign just use the four ~ at the end. Here is a quick primer on talk pages you might find helpful: How to edit talk pages Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley:oh! thank you once again. i'm a new user, please bare with me :D--Kabir Vaghela (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Kabir Vaghela, the way to improve the article is not to turn it into a unsourced hagiography. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. --NeilN talk to me 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kabirvaghela: Based on the lack of better sources in the rewrite I have decided to nominate the article for AfD. The subject does not meet our notability criteria for politicians or our general notability criteria.If the article is deleted at AfD then when/if the subject wins a notable election or gets more substantial coverage in reliable sources the article can be recreated based on the new material. JbhTalk 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Cool new signature! --NeilN talk to me 18:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Kabirvaghela: Based on the lack of better sources in the rewrite I have decided to nominate the article for AfD. The subject does not meet our notability criteria for politicians or our general notability criteria.If the article is deleted at AfD then when/if the subject wins a notable election or gets more substantial coverage in reliable sources the article can be recreated based on the new material. JbhTalk 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Kabir Vaghela, the way to improve the article is not to turn it into a unsourced hagiography. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. --NeilN talk to me 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley:How do i stop the article from getting deleted?
- should i restore the article to the date that you edited it? --Kabir Vaghela (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- What you need to do is find some high quality sources like national newspapers that discuss the subject in depth not simply mention his name in passing or relate a small quote. I have given you links to the notability criteria several times and the relevant criteria are mentioned in my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Vaghela.
When I did the re-write I simply used the material that was present in the article and removed the copyright violations and presented it per WP:NPOV. I searched for more sources, also using an alternate spelling, and found nothing of note which I could use to improve the article. While the article's wording was more in line with our policies in the version I wrote is still did not pass out notability guidelines. You should present your arguments for keeping the article at the AfD discussion. You can continue to improve the article while the discussion goes on. Cheers. JbhTalk 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- What you need to do is find some high quality sources like national newspapers that discuss the subject in depth not simply mention his name in passing or relate a small quote. I have given you links to the notability criteria several times and the relevant criteria are mentioned in my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Vaghela.
Delete Bonny Norton?
I've added a reference to an encyclopedia article on Bonny Norton (Higgins, 2011), plus a number of external links, but it's still suggested that it be deleted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espensj (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Espensj: Sorry, I misread the cite as something she had written as opposed to something written about. The article is paywalled and I made a bad assumption. I removed the BLPPROD. JbhTalk 22:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
AFD
Hi JBH, I did not make any recent changes to Sugar Mountain Farm nor did I remove the AFD tag. I would like to request a week to work on putting together the citations on notability that CorporateM asked for. Pubwvj (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- It is OK to continue to improve the article and present sources while the AfD is ongoing. AfD generally lasts at least seven days so you should have time. Please carefully read WP:N, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Please note that AfD is not a vote (That is why comments there are called !votes) rather arguments are based on Wikipedia policies. One good, policy based, !vote should 'win' over a dozen !votes that are not based on policy. It is best when you comment at AfD to cite the particular part of the guidelines the article meets and what you feel makes it meet them.
I nominated the article because the back and forth was getting tiresome and while I initially felt the notability was a bit questionable I really respect CorporateM's opinion on this type of thing, so that tipped me from meh to delete. JbhTalk 15:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Pubwvj: In case I have not mentioned it I really appreciate and respect the way you have backed off direct editing of the article since I got involved. JbhTalk 15:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, JBH. I appreciate your help with understanding the Wiki process and with improving the article. I am not a Wiki expert. I'm a farmer. I know a lot about rotational grazing, growing pasture, growing pigs on pasture, naturally raising animals, USDA regulations, building a USDA/State inspected butcher shop, concrete, boar taint, selective breeding and what we do. I'm barely skimming the surface of learning about Wiki. My understanding of Wiki is low. What I have added to the article in the past was based on what I thought I was being told by previous editors to do. I appreciate the feedback. The terminology and abbreviations are a bit overwhelming. Thank you for the references to read which you listed above. It will take me some time to assimilate them. Pubwvj (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Pubwvj: Yes, Wikipedia can be arcane. What all of those links boil down to is several independent, third party, reliable sources that talk about the subject in detail are needed to demonstrate notability. Sources that do not exert strong editorial control, self published sources, those that make only passing mentions or brief quotes and those that do not discuss the subject in depth do not count towards notability although some may be useful for supporting part of the article.
If you have any questions about the guidelines or sources you think might demonstrate notability feel free to ask me. I will be happy to give my opinion but please understand that my opinion counts no more or less than any other editor and others quite possibly will disagree. Cheers. JbhTalk 16:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Pubwvj: Yes, Wikipedia can be arcane. What all of those links boil down to is several independent, third party, reliable sources that talk about the subject in detail are needed to demonstrate notability. Sources that do not exert strong editorial control, self published sources, those that make only passing mentions or brief quotes and those that do not discuss the subject in depth do not count towards notability although some may be useful for supporting part of the article.
- Thank you, JBH. I appreciate your help with understanding the Wiki process and with improving the article. I am not a Wiki expert. I'm a farmer. I know a lot about rotational grazing, growing pasture, growing pigs on pasture, naturally raising animals, USDA regulations, building a USDA/State inspected butcher shop, concrete, boar taint, selective breeding and what we do. I'm barely skimming the surface of learning about Wiki. My understanding of Wiki is low. What I have added to the article in the past was based on what I thought I was being told by previous editors to do. I appreciate the feedback. The terminology and abbreviations are a bit overwhelming. Thank you for the references to read which you listed above. It will take me some time to assimilate them. Pubwvj (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: Sugar Mountain Farm AfD
JB, I am curious why articles like this one Valentine Richmond History Center which has clearly been edited by COI editors associated with the museum and doesn't yet have a single reliable source independent of the topic cited in the article (since its creation in 2006) gets a free pass on COI and GNG yet we are more than willing to do almost anything to suppress content like Sugar Mountain Farm? Just curious! --Mike Cline (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Mike Cline: Because of how Wikipedia is organized often no one will notice a problem at an article until someone either directly calls an editor's attention to the matter, as you have done, or the issue spills over onto one of our internal noticeboards. I took a quick look at the article, since everything was, as you said, cited to their web page I also took a brief look for material on the web. I found two local articles on the Valentine itself The Valentine Richmond History Center, Reopening This Weekend: Richmond History Center Now Just 'The Valentine' and one on a current exhibit there Beard Wars: Civil War Generals and their Bewhiskered Modern-Day Counterparts which can be used to improve the article.
Regarding COI the obvious COI editor, ValentineRHC, has not edited since 2012. If you have concerns about the others you can bring the issue up at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. With respect to 'suppressing content' at Sugar Mountain Farm I would disagree with that characterization. There are a lot of passing mentions but no real in depth coverage that speaks to notability. Possibly more will be found but it is my experience that when a COI editor has been working on an article for a long time, particularly against an opposing editor as in this case, they will have already put in the best sources they can find along with all of the other questionable ones.
I hope I was able to address your concerns, at least to an extent, if you have any other questions or concerns please ask. JbhTalk 19:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- JB thanks. I indeed realize things slip through the cracks. But even the local sources you listed may support content, but do they rise to the level of GNG. Using the same logic that CorporateM used to remove most content sources from the Sugar Mountain Farm article (the owner of the farm obviously contributed to those sources therefore they aren't reliable was the logic he used) I strongly suspect that this museum's PR function contributed to the pieces you cited. It's really the double standard we tolerate and perpetuate with our "Blood in the water" COI approach that I am railing against, not you in particular. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Mike Cline: That I do understand. My personal views are kind of deletionist and I would support the equivalent of BLPPROD for everything. I think the reason managed COI articles get 'picked on' is the more editors whose attention are drawn to an article the bigger chance someone will notice it does not meet our standards. While one that is just created and left alone only needs to get through New Page Patrol and no one will ever notice it. Cheers. JbhTalk 22:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- JB thanks. I indeed realize things slip through the cracks. But even the local sources you listed may support content, but do they rise to the level of GNG. Using the same logic that CorporateM used to remove most content sources from the Sugar Mountain Farm article (the owner of the farm obviously contributed to those sources therefore they aren't reliable was the logic he used) I strongly suspect that this museum's PR function contributed to the pieces you cited. It's really the double standard we tolerate and perpetuate with our "Blood in the water" COI approach that I am railing against, not you in particular. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
HI Jbhunley
stop correcting my stuff, its the correct stuff so stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewpich (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Matthewpich: I tagged Selena Gomez (singer and actress) for speedy deletion because all the article consists of is
"Selena Gomez is a singer and actress. She is really awesome. She was born on 7/22/92"
this is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please read our guide to writing your first article and check out the Wikipedia Tea House for information on what is needed to write an article which meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please let me know if I can be of help. Cheers. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with~~~~
. This will insert your user name and date automatically. JbhTalk 02:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment from Mgfrid about Misha Frid] Article
Sorry, it's not autobiography. I write about Misha Frid from his account (we are friends) and we write an article including references and information from other sources (our autobiography is only on his official website) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgfrid (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Mgfrid: Welcome to Wikipedia I understand that our policies can be confusing at first. Please see our policies on conflict of interest. Also it is not permitted to use another editors account see our User name policy for details. Please sign up for your own account before you continue editing and note on the article talk page and the new accounts talk page that you have changed accounts and that you previously edited under the Mgfrid account. This allows for proper copyright attribution and prevents you from running afoul our policy about using multiple accounts. If you have any questions or need assistance please feel free to contact me on my talk page or you can ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE. JbhTalk 02:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with
~~~~
. This will insert your user name and date automatically. JbhTalk 02:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Pings
I don't think you added the 4 tildes when you resigned, or did you? It only works if you do that, if it even works then. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Dougweller: Yes, it was only a couple of seconds between edits so I deleted the old sig and resigned. Thank you for checking though, I have been caught by that mistake before. JbhTalk 12:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration Case
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Thank you. It is extremely unlikely I will participate beyond the comment I made in the RfAr. JbhTalk 18:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Submit an article in Wikipedia
Hi Thanks for editing and guiding me with regards to Wikipedia pages , wanted to understand when can i submit a page to Wikipedia or how to publish an article in Wikipedia Avi130988 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Avi130988
- @Avi130988: The article you are writing now is live on Wikipedia it is published the instant you create the article in Main space. That is why you see people working on it at the same time as you are. A lot of new editors use Wikipedia Articles for Creation to get input on their article and have it formally reviewed by an experienced editor before it is published to Main space. I hope this answers your question, if I did not or you need something else please let me know. Cheers. JbhTalk 19:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
16-line format sample messages
Thank you for including some sample messages in the talk page. I'm a Ham operator, not military, so am just now learning the format.
I moved your samples into a table, and added a voice (ACP-125) version. Can you proof this to make sure I got everything in the right format line? I'm pretty sure I blew a couple of them. Peter K. Sheerin 22:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Peter K. Sheerin: Wow! The article looks great. You have done a lot with it since I first looked at it. I would be glad go over the table. It might take me a day or so. I need to take a look at the standards documents to be sure of line numbering/naming since I either write out messages from memory/templates or have a terminal that spits them out. Although on first glance I see a couple of things. It should be made clearer in the 126/127/127-sup format is the TO and INFO lines are one call sign/RI per line. For instance:
TO: XXX9YYY AAA XXX9ZZZ AAA XXX7WWW BBB INFO: YYY6UUU BBB PPP6GGG AAA TTT6HHH CCCC
Rather than:
TO: XXX9YYY AAA, XXX9ZZZ AAA, XXX7WWW BBB INFO: YYY6UUU BBB, PPP6GGG AAA, TTT6HHH CCCC
- That seems to just be a formatting issue with how long my example texts are though. In the examples I gave there is no group count because that is generally only specified in CODRESS messages but the line is there. The from line also generally has a routing indicator, I probably just forgot it in the example. Something I am not sure if is in the standard or not is the classification line is also used to specify SERVICE (Operator to operator) message types as well as classification. In that case it would read CLASSIFICATION SVC rather than CLASSIFICATION. On line 4 the ZRN UUU is a security warning which is an example of an HI/OP SIG. It was put in automatically when I made the example and can be removed if you like.
The standards vary some between agencies and services. For instance the US State Department is a little different from US Military (US State Dept - ACP-127 FORMAT LINES). The samples I gave is what my terminal spits out and is how US Army and Army MARS format things. I am also an amateur radio operator and volunteer with Navy MARS, our format is slightly different, mainly in routing indicator and DTG. Some formats use the Julian Day Number in the header as well.
One comment, off the top, is you might want to reconsider some of the listed documents, they do not really have anything to do with the message format itself. For instance, if I remember correctly, FM 11-490-7 is the document which creates and tasks MARS but it has none of our operating procedures. Many, if mot most of the documents listed seem to be like that.
I think it would be very interesting to go through some of the old documents to see how the standard changed over time and how it varies in implementation. Great job! Please let me know if I can help in any other way. I will get back to you on the table soon. JbhTalk 23:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- @PetesGuide: Looks like i pinged the wrong account. Also see notes on article talk page. JbhTalk 01:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley: Thanks for the compliments! I wanted to get this format documented before too many more people forget proper message exchange procedures, like the folks who thought ICS-213 was suitable as a radio message form. ;-) I populated the references with every manual I thought might be relevant, and will whittle them out as I keep working on the article. Yeah; formatting plain text in table cells is un-fun. I need to add some HTML line breaks in there. Already know of the State Dept. manual, but am loathe to try to decode its cryptic content.
DE K6WEB
Peter K. Sheerin 21:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Youch! I am fearfully amazed at some ARES/RACES organizations training and capabilities. The ICS does not really consider formal, digital message traffic and Amateur Operators kind of need to make do when dealing with served agencies who are more used to filling out 'While You Were Out' message forms than documenting their message traffic. Of course the hams should be converting everything to RADIOGRAM format before sending but many of the examples I have seen just use the ICS 213 blank in FLMSG. There is no uniformity of training and procedures across jurisdictions. That is one of the main reasons I prefer to work with MARS, there is at least a base line of training and expertise.
I wrote a quick extract of a couple of lines from DOS on the talk page [6]. If something like that would help you please let me know. PS Just FYI your call sign might give out more personal information than you intend ie QSL. If it does you can have WP:OVERSIGHT remove it from public view. JbhTalk 00:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Youch! I am fearfully amazed at some ARES/RACES organizations training and capabilities. The ICS does not really consider formal, digital message traffic and Amateur Operators kind of need to make do when dealing with served agencies who are more used to filling out 'While You Were Out' message forms than documenting their message traffic. Of course the hams should be converting everything to RADIOGRAM format before sending but many of the examples I have seen just use the ICS 213 blank in FLMSG. There is no uniformity of training and procedures across jurisdictions. That is one of the main reasons I prefer to work with MARS, there is at least a base line of training and expertise.
Faculty of Chemistry of Lodz University of Technology
I'm sorry for my incorrect revert of this article. I did not see a decision placed on top. On plwiki I'm used to place/found it at the bottom of AfD. I don't understand also the erasing all information with a redirection without first merging. Well, I see the specifics of enwiki. Regards, Chrumps (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Chrumps: No problem. Yes, on enwiki AfD close summaries are placed at the top. The history is still available for later use such as adding some information to the main article or if the topic later becomes notable. In general we do not have articles on University Faculties/Departments/Colleges unless they are notable in and of themselves as institutions. Anyway, enjoy editing on enwiki, I am sure it is going to be different than dewiki but I am sure you will catch on fast. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need any assistance. Cheers. JbhTalk 22:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.
For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Colors
Hi, I ask some opinion by your part on these discussions: Template talk:Union, Progress and Democracy/meta/color and Template talk:People's Party (Spain)/meta/color, because the user Impru20 doesn't want to change the color, even when I give references that states what is the real color used by these parties. He says that he want to discuss that, but he doesn't realised about the references. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Sfs90 and Impru20: As requested I took a look at the discussion on the above two articles. Again, like the prior discussion, I see little difference between the colors. In my opinion any time the color is referenced it should be the same as in the party's published style guide. However, as Impru20 mentioned on Template talk:Union, Progress and Democracy/meta/color there are sometimes technical issues which require another close colour to be used. In that case proper display of the graphic is more important than adhering slavishly to the style guide so long as it looks right.
TL;DR If we are stating the color used by the party we say what their style guide says ie the template should reflect the style guide. If we are creating graphics a consistent look (cf perceptual changes because of nearby colours) is more important. I am unfamiliar with how party colours are handled on Wikipedia in general so this is simply my off the cuff opinion. If there is some customary practice I an unfamiliar with please let me know. JbhTalk 15:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's the problem, that no one had a "customary practice", it looks that someone created the templates and the colors only by personal feelings. I don't look any similarity between the colors of UPyD and PSOE (as Impru20 said), and Impru20 is complaining only because he created a lot of maps, graphics and things related, that if we change the color of the party, he had to change all of them. In this case, if he's too compromised with all the Wiki project, he would have the time to correct all that. In the same way, I don't look any reference by Impru20 that sustains his possition; he doesn't gave any reference that says the UPyD color is the one that was used in the template since some time ago. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm complaining, among other things, because you are not even caring to discuss the issue before going on to push your edits forwards, which really annoys me. How much does it cost you to TALK? You have had several warnings by several users in the past because of your edit warring behaviour, and far from changing, you still keep maintaing the same behaviour.
- Now, on the issue itself: Sfs90, you before put forward some arguments to defend changing to a given color; now you want to change them to other different shades of those colors! So, before, you defended the logo colors; now you want to use the colors set in the manuals of style (something which, by the way, most parties don't even have). Do you realize I'm at the behest of a user who is constantly changing opinion and goes on to change colors using different arguments each time? How many times do you suggest I should change maps, charts and the such? Everytime you feel like to change the colors? Furthermore, the current colors are fine, and most of them are so established so as to keep armony within charts, graphics and maps. What's the necessity of changing the color templates, just because you feel like it, and disestablishing the entire consistency of colors in the charts? I'm really bothered of the little consideration you have for the work of others, that you don't even care to discuss with them.
- Customary practice, usually, is to use the color shade that best fits for Wikipedia uses, rather than use the same exact shade the party uses (as long as the color is similar to the one used by either the party or the media). That is so because parties frequently don't keep using the same shade of a given color and keep changing it, within the range of different shades of their corporative colors. So, instead keeping constantly changing party colors (unless a given party changes from blue to red, to say an example), the color shade that best fits for Wikipedia purposes are frequently used. Sometimes that color may coincide with the exact shade used by the party, sometimes don't. Just check Christian Democratic Union of Germany, Syriza, Democratic Party of Japan, Labour Party (United Kingdom), Conservative Party (United Kingdom), Social Democratic Party of Austria, Forza Italia (2013), Socialist Party (France), Socialist Party (Portugal), Freedom Party of Austria, etc. Impru20 (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Impru20: You know what's the difference? That the templates or the color that is written in the infobox doesn't have any references about the color. In the case of UPyD and Citizens (not PP, i'll concede you that they could use different shades) I give very reliable sources (the graphics identity manual used by them), and I don't see any about that in the parties you mention as examples. You see? If they have or don't any manual that states their colors, that's not my fault. In the case of UPyD and Citizens, they have one and states clearly the color. The precission is a thing that we should consider here in Wikipedia, and if we have references that support that, we could apply it. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I have to support the position of least disruption here. If the colours on the charts are not obviously visually wrong then keep them. The only time I fee we must stick to a party's MOS is when we explicitly state what colour they use ie if we were to say X party uses #ABABAB in an place a reader would see whether or not we are actually using #ACABAB in our graphics. There is no reason to go changing pre-existing and consistent graphics unless they are visually problematic nor do I see a problem with making a clean break, keeping the old graphics as is and moving forward with the MOS colour in the future so long as at this point you select one colour and stick with it moving on. JbhTalk 16:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Sfs90: In the case of Citizens, you will see that I accepted your change without serious discussion. The only issue arising then was that the source was unclear on the color that they were using, but was solved by using the hex provided by the party (also because differences were minimal and weren't noticeable to the naked eye, either).
- You just told it. "if we have references that support that, we could apply it". We "could", but we are not forced to.
- Anyway, I may concede on changing colors of small parties that have strict manual of styles and whose colors do not damage consistency, specially because changes are not difficult (there are few charts were UPyD color should be changed in order to accomplish this, for instance). I'll have to make further tests on UPyD, but I could concede on changing it. But, definitely, changing the color of major parties, such as PP, which don't even clings on to the same color shades, would require serious discussion and consensus because it would mean serious and major changes in consistency in charts between the different election articles and the such.
- However, next time you are to do something like this, if you see that the edit is disputed go and discuss the issue before trying to push your disputed edit forward. I tell you because you have these issues with many people, not just with me, and someday you may end up reported by someone who hasn't the patience I or others have. Impru20 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Impru20: You know what's the difference? That the templates or the color that is written in the infobox doesn't have any references about the color. In the case of UPyD and Citizens (not PP, i'll concede you that they could use different shades) I give very reliable sources (the graphics identity manual used by them), and I don't see any about that in the parties you mention as examples. You see? If they have or don't any manual that states their colors, that's not my fault. In the case of UPyD and Citizens, they have one and states clearly the color. The precission is a thing that we should consider here in Wikipedia, and if we have references that support that, we could apply it. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's the problem, that no one had a "customary practice", it looks that someone created the templates and the colors only by personal feelings. I don't look any similarity between the colors of UPyD and PSOE (as Impru20 said), and Impru20 is complaining only because he created a lot of maps, graphics and things related, that if we change the color of the party, he had to change all of them. In this case, if he's too compromised with all the Wiki project, he would have the time to correct all that. In the same way, I don't look any reference by Impru20 that sustains his possition; he doesn't gave any reference that says the UPyD color is the one that was used in the template since some time ago. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Harassment
Whining and blustering by a user who should know better but obviously does not. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Will you kindly blank off and leave me alone? I'm sick of you stalking me round Wikipedia. You wasted a whole evening of mine recently with your gauche nonsense. Your behaviour is a kind of abuse masquerading as some kind of house cleaning. If this continues I shall be placing an official complaint against you. Especially when an article is UNDER CONSTRUCTION. Plenty of other things I'd like to say to you, but I'm sure people say them to you offline if you behave like this.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@MacRusgail: Let me reply by collecting my response to your accusations and documentation of your actions in one place. As I said earlier, please take these matters to ANI if you feel I have acted improperly. Also, as I have said before, don't bluster and threaten - unless of course it makes you feel better - if so I am sorry that is the case but go right ahead and let off some steam. Maybe it will help you put our respective actions and responses in perspective. One thing I do want to make clear is any time you spend yelling at me via keyboard rather than improving an article is entirely your choice just as it has been all along.
Re: Edward Adrift
You of course know all of these things are wrong since during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter you:
I missed an {{under construction}} tag on an article almost a month ago and nominated a non-notable article too soon. Again, sorry. Your actions since then have been inappropriate and over the top and nothing has been done improperly on the current AfD are even more so. I took your accusation of going through your history [25] as an invitation to look at some of the articles you created recently. I found a book with no sources showing notability - The Steps of the Sun - an un-referenced BLP - Marion Arnott - and five articles sourced only to SF Encyclopedia.com - Joseph Addison (Scottish writer), James Peddie (author), Robert Hendrie Wilson, Mea Allan, Ismar Thiusen. I really like science fiction so in the spirit of cooperation and moving beyond our conflict, maybe we can work together constructively to improve these articles. No question SF Encyclopedia is RS but WP:NAUTHOR requires more and it might be fun to see what there is on those people. Maybe you could point me to some of the sources you use since, based on your comments you do not like search engines. JbhTalk 21:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
|
(Moving {{hab}} down a bit.) @MacRusgail: If you wish to engage with me please do so on the appropriate talk page or, if you like BOOMERANGS at ANI. Good day sir. JbhTalk 18:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Heh!
...that discipline does not always carry over to Wikipedia since I edit as a hobby and to relax.. You too? WTF is wrong with both of us? LOL! Montanabw(talk) 18:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Montanabw: LOL! Yes, maybe it is intellectual masochism :) ... I always find interesting people and topics which I might never have looked into when I edit Wikipedia and compared to RL it is almost impossible to get upset or angry for more than a few minutes here. Cheers! JbhTalk 21:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
FYI - Some of your CTU updates appear whitewashed.
The updates from 97.100.252.46 appear suspect. Providing an FYI as you've worked on the page in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Technical_University
Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.11.193 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
User talk:Conklinj
You appear to have warned Conklinj about the wrong article. I suspect that you meant Oil Content Meter rather than Oily water separator. I would have changed it myself but didn't want to incur the wrath of another editor complaining about re-factoring the comments of others!. Regards Velella Velella Talk 20:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Velella: Thank you for letting me know. I will add a note on their talk page. Cheers! JbhTalk 21:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
New Page Patrol
Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. When you tag articles as you did at Coordination Office for the Preservation of the Written Cultural Heritage, please consider using the message feature to inform the creator. 'Wikipedia is the encyclopedia can edit' often leaves new users with the impression that we do not have any rules or guidelines for article creation. Helping them by keeping them informed may help grow our contributor base. If you are not sure how to maximise the full potential of the Page Curation tool, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC}
- @Kudpung: Will do. I thought the Curation Tool left messages about the issues. Does it only do that if you leave a note? I have some stock messages I edit for other issues so I can write a some for curation issues. Is there something other than WP:FIRST which gives a good one screen tutorial on article standards? (It is often hard to know the experience of an editor without checking them in XTools for every article, which seems excessive, and treating a non-newbie seems to get much worse responses.) If not I can draft one similar to User:Jbhunley/Common policy misunderstandings and User:Jbhunley/How to edit talk pages which I sometimes use for new users or possibly some two-line notes phrased as 'reminders'. Any suggestions? JbhTalk 13:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung:I see from looking at that user's talk page that it does not even seem to leave a 'patroled' message. Based on the note you left there would something like:
be an appropriate message? Any suggestions on wording? JbhTalk 14:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Hi, my name is XXXX. I have just read your new article YYYY and have notices some ways it needs to be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. I have tagged the article with the specific issues. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. You can also stop by The Teahouse where there are very friendly volunteers who can be a great help. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.
- (edit conflict)::You need to let the user know in your own words what you have tagged. It only leaves automated messages when the article is tagged for one of the forms of deletion or COPYVIO. If there is only one issue to be addressed I usually leave a short note with a link to the related guideline, such as for example: "Your article has a lot of naked URLs. I have cleaned up the firsrt few for you so that you can see how it's done, perhaps you could take a moment now to do the others. More help & info at WP:CITE" oherwise I often paste my standard message "Thank you for creating XXX. I have tagged the articles as having some problems, please consider returning to the article and addressing those issues." If you want to know exacttly the degree or tone your message should take, you can easily see the user's experience by clicking on the info button.
- I know this all looks like a lot of work, but it is exactly what patrollers are supposed to be doing. For more information I recommend you also read WP:NPP and Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Hamed Zarei for afd
Hi I need Some time please give me some time to I collect reference.
- @Pepole made: As I mentioned on your talk page the AfD will run for at least seven days and I have no control over it beyond making the initial nomination. See my reply on your talk page for more information. Also please remember to sign your talk page posts with
~~~~
which will insert your user name and a time stamp. JbhTalk 19:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@jbhunley Thank You so much. I will collect some reference. and I will Send it for you. Please Say other adminastraterstrators to dont delete my article to I collect some References.
- @Pepole made: All you need to do is improve the article with the references. I am not an administrator here, just an editor like you. Also please remember to sign your talk page posts with
~~~~
which will insert your user name and a time stamp and read the 'How to edit talk pages' link I sent you. Other editors here respond much better when you communicate better. All anyone sees or knows about you here is how you present yourself when editing. Please take the time to learn how to do so properly. Cheers. JbhTalk 20:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I find a good reference please dont delete my article
Link 1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme hamed zarei on sums.ac.ir @jbhunley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepole made (talk • contribs) 10:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@jbhunley Thank You Very much, I add The references and I Delete The AFD massage, Becuse I talk to one of the Administrators and he said You Can Delete The AFD massage and I Delete it Please Dont Replace The AFD massage.
- @Pepole made: No you are not allowed to delete the AfD message from the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Jbhunley:Hi
I have Found Some References to Improve the Hamed Zarei's Article. Link http://researchgate.net/profile/Hamed_Zarei8 The others will be sent as soon as possible.109.203.191.192 (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @109.203.191.192: Thank you for the link. Unfortunately ResearchGate is not what we call a reliable source ie it is not published by an independent third party with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. Also, please bring your sources to the talk page of the article so discussion can take place in a centralized location and other editors, who do not watch my talk page, will be able to contribute to the discussion. Cheers. JbhTalk 13:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Draft: Adi Hasak
Hi. thank you for your help in editing the page I started. I believe I fixed the problem and linked to a reliable source so I removed the edit - was there something else you were recommending I fix? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhasak (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Jhasak: The citations are likely good enough to get rid of the BLPPROD but they are only bare mentions of the subject. What is needed are articles in independent, third party reliable sources which talk about the subject ie a major portion of the article is dedicated to the subject not just a quote or mention. Without that the article will fail our general notability guidelines as well as our more specific notability guidelines for authors. The article will be nominated for deletion unless notability notability can be verified
I know there are a lot of 'blue links' in the above but those are the policies and guidelines an article needs to meet for inclusion in Wikipedia. A good place to start is with 'Your first article'.
Based on your user name I need to ask if you have a conflict of interest with the article subject. If so you should restrict your editing to proposing edits and sources on the article talk page for other editors to consider. The reason for this is it is often difficult to maintain a neutral point of view when editing an article about yourself or someone you work with or are related to. You are, of course, free to participate in the deletion discussion if the article is nominated for deletion due to lact of notability.
I will keep the article on my watch list and see if enough coverage can be found. If you need anything you can leave a message on my talk page or, preferably, the article's talk page. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with
~~~~
which will insert your user name and a time stamp. You also might want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Cheers. JbhTalk 14:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) - @Jhasak:PS you might consider moving the article to Draft:Adi Hasak since right now it is live on the site as Adi Hasak. If you do not object I can move it into Draft space for you. JbhTalk 14:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Please check the links again. It references Adi Hasak as the creator of Shades of Blue and not simply as a cursory detail. There is no conflict of interest - all the information in there is reliable and objective. Getting more people to edit this as well soon. Thanks for your help .
Jhasak (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Jonathan
- @Jhasak: Several things. First, thank you for signing your post however posting a comment on the top of a talk page rather than in its proper position id improper. It only takes a few minutes to learn the proper way to properly edit talk pages. I have asked you to do so several times. At this point I feel your not doing so to be disruptive and frankly disrespectful.
Second, you have stated earlier that Adi Hasak is your father. That is the very definition of a conflict of interest. You are understandably proud of your father and from what you have written he has done some really cool things. However, if the sources you have provided are all there are he simply does not meet our notability criteria. I have previously linked our notability guidelines and the requirements for independent, third party reliable sources that talk specificly about him. Please take the time to read them and understand how they apply to your article and its subject. As a COI editor you have a great advantage in that you can just ask your father where there is coverage about him. Regretfully if some better sources are not found I will nominate the article for deletion. Sometimes, as a result of the deletion discussion, other sources can be found which result in the article being improved and kept if it can be brought up to Wikipedia standards. Otherwise it will be deleted. JbhTalk 15:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted page SDEWES Centre
Dear Jbh, I don't believe that the page should have been deleted, especially not so abruptly (during the night at my local time) - since it's not a citation from the page that was mentioned in nomination and also has references for every paragraph. The page also had more recent information in comparison to http://www.sdewes.org/home.php Eplaner (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Eplaner: I nominated the page for deletion because it was a copyright violation. Please see the deletion log entry. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. All articles must be written in your own words, not copied from another web site. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT for more information. The administrator who deleted the page is Jimfbleak who I have pinged. It typically requires agreement of at least two people that an article meets our criteria for speedy deletion for an article to be deleted, the nominator and the administrator who reviews the nomination and does the actual deletion.
If you have not done so you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations which must be met before a subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. You should also be familiar with what is a reliable source. If I can be of further help please let me know. You might want to consider our Articles for Creation process or visit the WP:TEAHOUSE where there are very friendly and capable volunteers who can help. Cheers. JbhTalk 09:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Eplaner:, The article was a copyright violation. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. Because copyright is a legal issue, there is nothing to discuss, which is why it was speedied. The text was also was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, but the original had spammy claims of success and importance. I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SDEWES_Centre&diff=667451811&oldid=667398457 these edits, mainly MoS. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Talk:InterContinental Asiana Saigon.
Thanks, I've replied directly and deleted the TP, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
why?
why did you do this - [26]? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Coolabahapple: Ooppss.. That has happened several times today. I didn't see that one. Thanks for catching it. My browser has been taking a while to load WikiEd (sometimes not loading it at all) when I start editing pages so when/if it finally loads my cursor jumps to the top of the page for a second. I do not know why it is happening but it has done so several times in the last day or so. Sorry. JbhTalk 02:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- no probs Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
comment on bilateral guideline
you might be interested in my comments here. Wikipedia talk:Notability (bilateral relations). LibStar (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
ping
You pinged me on the talk for bilateral relations... I'm really confused as to where the conversation is going but I'll try to respond. FYI, I think that particular user has issues with competence (he argues "snow keep" for the most obscure articles at AfD) and he completely fails to understand what significant coverage/GNG are. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | ||
1,696 pages patrolled in the last 12 months! Very good! Keep up the good work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC) |
Just a note . . .
. . . in appreciation of no-nonsense clarity, incontrovertible facts, and masterfully diplomatic turns of phrase :-) . Writegeist (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Writegeist: Thank you. I dislike when anyone tries to create their own version of reality, it makes it more difficult to address actual problems. The only way to prevent repetition from becoming reality is to challenge it. JbhTalk 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ross
about this - we have been trying to teach Ross WP's policies and guidelines and explain why we cannot make the changes he wants. we have gotten back WP:IDHT and he keeps pushing anyway. You will see this if you review the article talk page. I tried to help him and gave up. Maybe you will be able to get through to him, but that would be surprising. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Thank you for the heads up. I initially thought he was just a BLP subject with an issue (since he was posting to BLP as an IP). I now see he has been at this for a while. I am particularly concerned that he says he does not have an account here yet there is a Rick A. Ross who was active on the page recently and has been on Wikipedia both earlier this year and in 2008.
Oh well... I will try my best to get through to him and see where it goes. Cheers! JbhTalk 18:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Primeval
Hi, Thanks for spotting this rather odd edit [27], I simply used the AFD tool to redirect the BLP so I honestly can't understand or even explain how on earth Primeval ended up being redirected on itself ?, Anyway thanks again for spotting that, Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 02:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Trout vs. truth
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
vs. TRUTH Erlbaeko (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Erlbaeko: Not sure of the point you are trying to make but I think it is really cool someone actually used the WP:TROUT button! If you are arguing for the old "Verifiability not truth" that old saw is long depricated and we use editorial judgement when examining sources. Whatever it is we should discuss it over on Talk:Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war. Cheers! JbhTalk 19:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Notification
Please, note that all articles related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). Thank you.
Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.