Talk:JOB (rolling papers)

Parent company material

I've commented out some material from the lead about the parent company. Nothing wrong with the content itself, just that it was misplaced. - brenneman ^{L} 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation style

• edit changing to older style
  

Why was this done? While the newer style is not required per se I don't see any reason given for the changes. The <ref> style is much cleaner and easier to use. - brenneman ^{L} 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Previously asked and answered, but I'll resummarize: (i) less user friendly; (ii) less utility (page numbers, etc); (iii) not mandatory. For the numerous detailed complaints and drawbacks of the newer ref system see [1] as well as the guideline itself. Furthermore, your failure to seek consensus for the change with editors who are actually editing the article and adding references is directly contravened by the guideline: Converting citation styles should not be done without first gaining consensus for the change on the article's talk page For further information, you should review the following arbcom decision [2]. --JJay 19:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. We don't ask permission for everything we do here. (Please see WP:BOLD.) Especially for something as trivial as this tiny amount of refs.
  2. The older version is actually much more difficult than the new version, I don't understand your resistance. If you don't understand it, just ask and I'll explain it.
  3. Why did you repeat "not mandatory" when I said the same thing? Are you actaully reading what I say before you respond?
  4. The page numbers simply typed in but for in named refs, so if you want page numbers don't use named tags. This didn't have any.

  But thanks for your reply.

  brenneman ^{L} 23:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• We have previously had the identical discussion and you were fully aware of my opposition to the new ref style [3], Therefore, I would encourage you not to switch ref styles without reason on articles where I am adding references. WP:BOLD does not override the requirement, as per the guideline, to seek consensus for non-required style changes of this type. I disagree that the new ref system is easier. To name a few, it complicates the task of adding references - something I do quite frequently. It adds extra reference coding into the article body , making it more difficult to write articles - something I do frequently. It makes it more difficult to review and edit all the references in a dedicated section. As I indicated, the problems with the style are spelled out at length in the guideline under the heading "Disadvantages and future improvements" [4]. The disadvantages of this ref system outweigh any advantages at this time. While awaiting the future improvements that may resolve these problems, I will not be using this alternative ref style. --JJay 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jobberi.gif

Image:Jobberi.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)