Wikipedia

User talk:Jac16888/Archive 16

< User talk:Jac16888
Latest comment: 12 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 19 December 2011
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20

Talkback

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Hello, Jac16888. You have new messages at WhatamIdoing's talk page.
Message added 01:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Message

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I got your message about me making an nonconstructive edit to American Black Bear. I never made an edit to American Black Bear.... Besides, I never edited Wikipedia before either... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.67.242 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it was someone else that made that edit, b/c I have never ever edited Wikipedia before. And I can assure you, I'm not lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.67.242 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Banca Macquarie

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please I would like to change back the title of user:pastolin87/banca macquarie to banca Macquarie only

many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.64.45 (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC) otherwise we should delete it because it is a company, and not mine.. Oppure se sai cpme trasferirla nella pagina italiana saresti di grande aiuto!

This is the English wikipedia, all articles need to be in English--Jac16888 Talk 09:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Message

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the feedback on the reverting. I didn't realize it was copyrighted content, it's good we have an active community to correct and fix others mistakes.Groudon185 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Flint

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I was hoping if you could restore my article: Flint (Author) Please! I know that this message isn't enough but I hope you'll consider this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiaoDIao (talk • contribs) 10:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk--Jac16888 Talk 11:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

American Goodies

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please excuse my request to have American Goodies to be added as a retailer to the Mountain Dew page. Although this would benefit my business, my request's purpose was to enrich the reader's experience by helping them to find a retailer. I guess that is why Stateside Candy has been added to the list amongst others on articles such as the Lucky Charms one.

Regards, Richard www.americangoodies.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich833 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Email addresses

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Who says where that email addresses are not allowed? For what reason? http addresses are allowed -- so why should email not be allowed? I did not find anything in the wikipedia policies, which prevents me froom showing my email address here. Please explain your reason to me -- soon.

Kind Regards Peter Foelsche — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExcessPhase (talk • contribs) 14:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Right here, one of our most important policy pages. Not only does adding your own email address make you vunerable to spammers, it is also a form of self-promotion, which is exactly what you are trying to do on the Automatic differentiation page by adding your own package--Jac16888 Talk 14:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please explain to me, why my contribution was deleted again (automatic differentiation). I did not see anything in any part of wikiepedia, which says anything about not leaving email addresses. Obviously it is allowed to leave http addresses. So why not email addresses? This is my email address! So -- show me some part in the wikipedia policies (which has not just been added by you) which tells me to remove my email address.

Kind Regards Peter Foelsche — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExcessPhase (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK -- am I enabled to remove references to all other packages including their webaddresses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExcessPhase (talk • contribs) 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you not bother to read the link I provided? "Wikipedia is not a directory" "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic". You could, except that it would be petty and clearly your way of trying to make a point. Do you not see that it is clearly not appropriate to include in the list a package which can only be accessed by emailing you personally? How is anyone to know that its even the correct thing you would send back anyone, it could be a virus or stuffed with malware or anything--Jac16888 Talk 15:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Inadvertant use of rollback

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your message. You're right about my inadvertant use of rollback. I'm away from home and i'm using my rather unitelligent i-pad to look thru my watchlist. While flicking thru the list i must have triggered the rollback button without realising. Thank you for your swift response in recognising this and rectifying. No thanks to user:Medeis who over-reacts, however. --Bill Reid | (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, done it myself on a regular pc more than once--Jac16888 Talk 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
 
Hello, Jac16888. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
Message added 12:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 12:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, this comment was probably not the best to say. As I said in reply, it could be taken as a personal attack. Even to me it seems like one; however, I am not all that bothered by it. Be careful next time, though. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 12:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice, very passive aggressive there. I notice that you have yet to give any real reason for why your pages protected--Jac16888 Talk 12:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure? Because I swear I specifically said that I requested protection of my userpage because it was my userpage. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 12:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
And thats a real reason is it? Or is it a case of I did it because I could?--Jac16888 Talk 12:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Stop trying to dodge the original topic. You made a personal attack that both me and B.wilson took very seriously. Even you, as an admin, are not exempt from any rule, which also includes "No personal attacks". LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 12:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm dodging? You say I made a personal attack, I disagree, what would you like to happen now?--Jac16888 Talk 13:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd either like you to stop with the personal attacks or stop and apologize to me and B.wilson. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 13:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Very well, please accept my most humble apologies for the terrible personal attacks I made against you. You know its remarkable how often people who don't get their way are the victim of personal attacks. Now please stop wasting my time and go bother someone else--Jac16888 Talk 23:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm fine that you refused to protect my page, I don't whine and complain when I don't get my way. What I'm NOT fine with, however, is that you made false accusations about my intentions, such as "this is simply another case of a user wasting time with pointless requests simply because they can, or because they want more hats". That was more than rude. As an administrator, I truly believe you know better than to make personal attacks without understanding the entire situation, and the intention of the user who requests the page to be protected. --Bryce Wilson | talk 10:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello! From a noob looking for some insight from a seasoned editor.

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello Jac16888,

I hope all's well. I admit I was a little upset that you deleted my talk page, but then realized that it was a talk page I inadvertently created while trying to sign-up for an account and then couldn't figure out how to delete. Thanks for that!

If you wouldn't mind humouring me a little further, I am a student at the University of Toronto as part of our course we are required to pick an article to edit and engage with the Wikipedia community and then write a paper on our experiences. I'm finding that the article Telecenter isn't active at all... Is there anyway I can engage the editors (some of whom haven't edited since 2007) or even beacon people to join in? Also, I was thinking about 'testing' Wikipedia's correction abilities by planting obviously bogus information. How could I do this without upsetting any of the editors? I've already put up a banner on the talk page to point out that I am editing the article for the purposes of an assignment - I've provided links to the course page etc.

Please advise.

Kind regards,

Mrawahi (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Mrawahi

Our course wikipage: INF1001

Hey there. I'm not Jac, but a guy who's got Jac's talkpage watchlisted. So, to start off on your points: Planting bogus info would constitute disruptive editing, if that's something your instructor wants you to do, than I'd suggest telling them that it could result in a block from editing. Try looking at Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles, or see Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes for more info about why you are not supposed to create hoaxes. About Telecenter (I assume you mean Telecentre), I'd suggest contacting the top five editors, 169.139.19.228, 212.234.43.1, Koda Traore, Fernant and Simesa, along with the latest contributing editor (76.168.194.144) by starting a discussion about collaboration on the article's talk page and posting (Template:Talkback on their talkpages. Another idea is to ask someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, which is a group specifically designed to help collaborations on such articles (the article's talk wasn't tagged with any of these groups, so I chose the most likely one). Hope this helps. Welcome to Wikipedia, mon ami! See you around! Buggie111 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Replied on their talk page (Buggie you wrote this while I was writing my reply, and another "stalker" edit conflicted with me on Mrawahis talk page too, aren't I the popular one)--Jac16888 Talk 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Jac16888,

I just wanted to thank you for your useful tips! I visited the wiki project pages you recommended. Even though I didn't manage to garner interest in the article, I did manage to get some good tips from knowledgeable Wikipedians in the field.

Hopefully the article will start to look better as of this evening...

All the best,

Mrawahi (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, if you need any more help you know where to find me--Jac16888 Talk 19:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


Hey Jac16888,

It's me again, I figured I'd keep this message within the 'Thanks' heading to avoid making your talk page even longer. On the Telecenter article that I have begun editing, we have a notes "and" a references section, is this necessary, or would it make more sense to consolidate all the reference? I noticed this as I surfed through articles that have been characterized as good.

I would have asked this on the telecenter discussion page , but it seems like I'm the only editor at the moment :/

Thanks for your help, A junior Wikipedian Mrawahi (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Mrawahi, you're right, generally you keep related discussions under the same heading, just to make things clearer. As for telecentre, in this case I'd say you're spot on. Some articles have seperate notes and references sections because the notes are actual notes (e.g. it should be noted that bob was a woman), but in this case everything under the notes section is clearly actually a reference, so the article would be better if the notes section was called the references. However, the actual links in the current reference section aren't being used to reference anything specific, if that makes sense, rather they appear to be there as general reading material. My advice would be to first rename the note section to references. Then, I would have a look through the articles in the current refs section to see if it can be used as a direct citation for any text within the article (the same ref can be used as a cite for multiple points, see WP:CITE), then I would combine any you can't use for citations with the External links section and call it Further reading. Then, if you feel up to it I would suggest going through that section and pruning it where necessary, I suspect some of the links don't meet our Wikipedia:External links policies. Hope all of the above makes sense to you, not 100% sure of it myself. Best of luck--Jac16888 Talk 15:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Page John Dorus

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why did you delete the page John Dorus? Just asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRunsCanada (talk • contribs) 15:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it was just you boasting and adding rubbish. Thats not what Wikipedia is for--Jac16888 Talk 16:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Recreated page

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

FYI: You recently deleted Kriminalstika and it looks like the same editor has recreated it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Gone again, thanks--Jac16888 Talk 10:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

AFC page

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I had just taken a glance to the revisions history and I already wanted to contact you. What kind of content? Inline text or a whole article? I have found a reference to that template for the procedure to request translations. If I must add the article to translate, I shall do that suddenly.

Mormegil 87.18.30.152 (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't really understand you. The article is already in English, so there is no need for the template. If you're wanting to have the article translated from the Italian wikipedia, you need to follow the instructions at WP:TRANSLATION--Jac16888 Talk 20:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
From that page:
If the English article does not yet exist,
  • you must first create the article on English Wikipedia as a stub article, explaining or defining the subject of the article in a sentence or two;
  • then immediately tag your stub article with a translation template, as above.
Mormegil 87.18.30.152 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Well there you go then, wait for some at the AFC page to move it to the mainspace then add the template from that page--Jac16888 Talk 20:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
See if I understood. I should leave the article like I had written it and wait it is approved. Then I should insert the template. Is it right? (Really I am sure I did not understand nothing of what you have written....)
Mormegil 87.18.30.152 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Having a hard time understanding you too. Yes, you need to wait for it to be approved, then insert the {{Expand Italian}} template--Jac16888 Talk 21:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Hello Jac16888! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 00:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nexialism deleted in 2008

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I propose to restore this page for the following reasons:

  1. the term becomes more popular. We're launching a project with this name in my company...
  2. there is a good page on the topic in the french Wikipedia
  3. there is a red link to it on A._E._van_Vogt and The_Voyage_of_the_Space_Beagle
  4. I searched for it, so it should have existed ;-)

What do you think ? if the article was a stub shorter than the french article, I volunteer to do the translation from french.

--User:Goulu 13:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The page as it existed in 2008 was simply a redirect to Connectivism. If you want to create a new article then by all means go ahead, although with regards to what you said about your company, please bear in mind WP:COI--Jac16888 Talk 14:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hoax??

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just wanted to inform you that your page was posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_suspected_hoax_articles - someone put that this page is a hoax? I know I'm newer to Wiki, but that just doesn't seem right - I don't know if you upset someone, but they think you are a hoax. Thought you might want to check in on this. Barbiegurl676 (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It was just a mistake made in this edit, someone accidentally added this page to the category rather than linking to it--Jac16888 Talk 00:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Lauren Zettle

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I may have done this wrong but I was trying to delete a page about myself that was made as a joke by one of my friends. The info on the page is not correct nor truthful. I tried doing a speedy deletion but you declined it - how am I to go about getting this page deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loloperk (talk • contribs) 23:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the page for deletion, since neither source works to back it up--Jac16888 Talk 00:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University 2008 Knife Attack deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed you deleted my "Southern Adventist University 2008 Knife Attack" article.

I did not have a chance to insert my sources before you deleted it. Could you please re-instate it so I can add sources so it will become a legitimate article? I understand why you deleted it, but I had not finished with it yet. Thanks.

Here are my sources in case you would like to see them before hand. http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/emma-florence-cunliffe/southern-accent-sept-2008-apr-2009-volume-v64-llo/page-58-southern-accent-sept-2008-apr-2009-volume-v64-llo.shtml http://emilyy.jour342.com/?feed=rss2&cat=18 http://www.archive.org/stream/southernaccentse64coll/southernaccentse64coll_djvu.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swallace35 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

None of those sources have anything to do with your article as far as I can tell, and even if they did they're don't appear to be reliable sources. You cannot make articles accusing people of serious crimes unless you have some excellent sources (i.e. reliable news articles), unreferenced accusations are a good way to get sued. If you're able to come up with some usable references I suggest you try starting the article again in your userspace--Jac16888 Talk 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you re-instated the article in my user space since so I don't have to start over again from scratch then? The sources are from the school's newspaper compilations. You have to do a CTRL+F to search for the info about the attack since it is mixed in with other stuff. That's as reliable as you're going to get when it comes to small town disturbances like this one.

I'm new to this and I'm just trying to figure out how everything works. Thanks for helping me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swallace35 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If thats the best sources you can get, they're just not good enough. Also, looking over the article again, it doesn't seem to actually be notable enough for an article, the lack of sources suggests the same. I'm not going to restore it because without sources its potentially libellous, if you can come up with something better and which suggests notabilty of the event I'll consider it--Jac16888 Talk 03:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Talkback

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can you please let me know if my edit request is reliably sourced and if so add it to the list. I have messaged the other page editor but have received no response. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_YouTube_personalities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicks king (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Panzerlehrbridgade 9

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Jac16888,

I mean no disrespect, does the following Infobox template look like the english "Military Unit Infobox"? I do not mean the attributes after the "=". That is what I'm trying to fix without any hassle. Simply felt it needed to be changed to english since it was on the English Wikipedia not the German Wikipedia.

{{Infobox Militärische Einheit |Name= Panzerlehrbrigade 9 |Bild=[[File:Coat of Arms of the GE Armoured Brigade 9.svg|100px|Coat of arms Panzerlehrbrigade 9]] |Beschriftung=Formation sign |Daten= |Startdatum=1 June 1958 |Enddatum= |Land= [[File:Flag of Germany.svg|15px]] [[Germany]] |Streitkräfte= [[Bundeswehr]] |Teilstreitkraft= [[File:Bundeswehr_Logo_Heer_with_lettering.svg|15px]] [[German Army]] |Truppengattung= |Typ= Intervention forces |Unterstellte_Einheiten= [[File:Coat of Arms of the GE Armoured Brigade 9.svg|15px|Coat of arms]] HQ Coy</br> [[File:Panzerbataillon 33.jpg|15px|Coat of arms]] 33rd Tank Bn</br> [[File:AufklLehrKp 90.jpg|15px|Coat of arms]]90th Recce Demo Coy</br> [[File:Panzerpionierlehrkompanie 90.jpg|15px|Coat of arms]]90th Armd Engr Demo Coy</br> [[File:PzGrenLehrBtl 92.PNG|15px|Coat of arms]]92nd Pz Gren Demo Bn</br> [[File:Panzerlehrbataillon 93.jpg|15px|Coat of arms]] 93rd Tank Bn</br> [[File:LogBtl 141.jpg|15px|Coat of arms]] 141st Log Bn</br> [[File:PzArtLehrBtl 325.jpg|15px|Coat of arms]] 325th Armd Arty Bn |Mannstärke= ~5,000 men |Teil_von= [[File:Coat of Arms of the 1st GE Armoured Division.svg|15px]] [[1st Armoured Division (Germany)|1st Panzer Division]] |Stationierungsort= [[Munster (Örtze)|Munster]] (HQ location)</br> [[Neustadt am Rübenberge]] |Stationierungsort_Bezeichnung=Locations |Spitzname= |Schutzpatron= |Motto= |Farben= |Farben_Bezeichnung= |Marsch= |Maskottchen= |Ausrüstung= |Ausrüstung_Bezeichnung= |Schlachten= |Schlachten_Bezeichnung= |Jahrestage= |Auszeichnungen= |battle_honours= <!-- Commanders --> |Kommandeur1=[[Oberst]] [[Bernd Schütt]] |Kommandeur1_Bezeichnung=Commander |Kommandeur2= |Kommandeur2_Bezeichnung= |Kommandeur3= |Kommandeur3_Bezeichnung= |Wichtige_Kommadeure= <!-- Insignien --> |Identifikationssymbol= |Identifikationssymbol_Bezeichnung= |Identifikationssymbol2= |Identifikationssymbol2_Bezeichnung= |Identifikationssymbol3= |Identifikationssymbol3_Bezeichnung= <!-- Luftfahrzeuge --> |Luftfahrzeug_Schlacht= |Luftfahrzeug_Bomber= |Luftfahrzeug_EloKa= |Luftfahrzeug_Kampf= |Luftfahrzeug_Abfangen= |Luftfahrzeug_Patrouille= |Luftfahrzeug_Aufklärung= |Luftfahrzeug_Training= |Luftfahrzeug_Transport= }}

Adamdaley (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I know but if you look on the actual article, it displays in English. Since Template:Infobox military unit exists thought if it bothers you that much you can just copy and paste it over, using the english displayed on the article to fill it in--Jac16888 Talk 10:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Consistency is the one of the important items on Wikipedia? This is clearly not Consistency. Adamdaley (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Haha, wikipedia articles are incredibly nonconsistent. As I already said, WP:SOFIXIT, you can tell from the article that "Startdatum" displays as "Formation", shouldn't take you long to change it across--Jac16888 Talk 10:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Then people higher up should help make the english wikipedia more consistent. Adamdaley (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
There is nobody higher up, there are just people with a few extra tools to perform needed tasks. Don't know how else I can say this, but fixing this would not be difficult for someone who cared... so do it yourself--Jac16888 Talk 10:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what is wrong with Admin's lately, but they are certainly don't give a damn about english Wikipedia. I don't mean to be direspectful. On the other hand, I'm doing my best to help make english Wikipedia better. Doing my best to get backlogs completed among other things that normal users ask us Coordinators for my WikiProject, which I'm willing to help. Trying to be a good user and Coordinator to get articles improved and assessed higher than "Start". Adamdaley (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how me suggesting you that you do something yourself, rather than filling up one of my own excessive backlogs (take a look at WP:PNT) means I don't give a damn. The time you've spent here on my page you could have already fixed it instead of trying to find someone else to do it for you--Jac16888 Talk 11:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Atrius Health page

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

You recently deleted the Atrius Health page for speedy deletion while I was adding in the necessary in-line and other citations. Would it be possible to have the page completed to a full review can be done before deleting it?

Thank you, Delia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddeblois (talk • contribs) 17:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged the article for deletion again. You appear to have a conflict of interest, and the article is blatantly promotional. Please have a read of WP:NEUTRAL and WP:COI--Jac16888 Talk 17:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Space Technology Hall of Fame

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please help me. There is a page for the Space technology hall of fame that should read Space Technology Hall of Fame (initial caps). This is a legitimate honor bestowed upon space innovators -not a for profit corp or revenue-producing venture. I ahve tried unsuccessfull for two years to figure out how to fix the incorrect title. So I created a new page with the same info with plans to delete the old page and fix links. That backfired when you deltede the NEW correct page. So, can you delete the OLD page or correct the title by capitalizing the name. My goal is to provide information about this honor, not to create issues -- i just can't figure out how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inputpersona (talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a closer look at Space Technology Hall of Fame . I deleted the initial version you created incorrectly with a cut and paste move, as explained in the notice on your talk page. Then I moved the original uncap'd article to that title. So its now capitalised and has the proper page history intact--Jac16888 Talk 19:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you!

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please, you and your friends never delete all of my cartoons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I WILL PUNISH YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HowtoMakeaCartoon (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you! Keep posting hoax articles and I will punish you. By which I mean I will block you--Jac16888 Talk 20:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Secure Mobile Collaboration

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi

I am an emplouyee of Copiun (www.copiun.com) and I had created a page - Secure Mobile Collaboration. I got a notification that siad there was a copyright violation with Copiun. How can I overcome this? As I indicated, I am an employee of Copiun that holds the patent

Thanks Diwakar diwakar@copiun.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwakarhp (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, we have no way of knowing that you have the right to the content, you would need to go through WP:OTRS. Second, we don't want the content as it stands anyway, it is a blatant advert and I have deleted it again for that reason. Thirdly since you work for the company you have a clear conflict of interest. Finally it does not appear that it meets our notability standards anyway. Please have a read of WP:SPAM, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST and WP:NOTABLE--Jac16888 Talk 00:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Disculpe, solo quiero editar el artículo de William Irwin Thompson pero en español. En lineas generales ya está listo, solo faltaría el subirlo en el Spanish Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcel dyllp (talk • contribs) 05:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Analytic Sciences Corporation

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Night of the Big Wind (also posting to Jac16888's Talk Page):

A tag has been placed on The Analytic Sciences Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam andWikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night of the Big Wind talk14:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I was very surprised to find your notice of "Speedy deletion" for this article. Where is the "unambiguous advertising"? The article cites either facts or (in one instance) a claim by TASC, namely its self-description -- caveated by statement "The firm describes itself as" thus making this also a fact-only statement. The entry's tone is decidedly neutral, with no word of praise and few (if any) qualifying adjectives. PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY: (1) The firm is new, so there is little history or information available -- that's why I wrote it. (2) What you seem to have taken for "unambiguous advertising" is in fact rather negative. If you had read through the entry carefully, you should have noticed that the firm has had: (a) very few wins of note since inception, (b) an initial period of firing (clearly implied by the spate of rehiring), and(c) an unflattering (but straightforwardly and factually stated) origin, namely TASC's spin-off by Northrop Grumman driven by new need to comply with WSARA, not because anyone had identified the spin-off as an advantageous business decision -- all information TASC no doubt would not like to have "advertised" in a highly factual, neutral account like the one I have written. Perhaps if I had written an article with some kind of bias or motive (as your flagging has suggested), then you woud not have missed the implications of the entry -- the price of even-handed, neutral writing?
  • Further, let me state here clearly that I have no affinity nor affiliation with TASC: can you please state the same?

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

  • Please take a moment to look at author profile pages before making such generic statements
  • Overall, please be sure to read both articles and about authors more carefully before you slap inaccurate assessments on them

--Aboudaqn (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I was not the one who nominated the article for speedy deletion, I decided that it is not in fact spam and therefore did not delete it.--Jac16888 Talk 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Already answered once with the above which you removed, but yes, I have no affinity nor affiliation with TASC--Jac16888 Talk 12:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

User: Ahmad Nauman to Ahmad Nauman

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please grant me the access to change my Article from User:Ahmad Nauman to Ahmad Nauman. Its my Original Name and want to here with my specific name. Please. Ahmad Nauman 17:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If you make that move, then it will no longer be your WP:USERPAGE, it will be an WP:ARTICLE, and since you do not appear to be WP:NOTABLE, it will be deleted. Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK--Jac16888 Talk 17:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Snappi

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, to your mind, isn't it a promotional article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppMakr I was writing an article about Snappii you deleted. May I ask you, what's the difference? thanks!

Alexandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandra.kwc (talk • contribs) 13:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The AppMakr article at least contains valid, 3rd party [[WP:REF|references unlike yours, which are necessary to demonstrate notability. Also the existence of another article does not justify the existence of yours, WP:OTHERSTUFF--Jac16888 Talk 13:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

deletion of article

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

you deleted my article Rab deens its for my citizenship class about bullyiing i'm trying to make it look like someone actually meaningfully hurt someone by writing this and showing it to everyone, I want my class to write there opinions on this thanks bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike-woolsey99 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thats not what wikipedia is for, if you continue to create the article you will be blocked--Jac16888 Talk 18:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi me again on Rab deens. The other teachers have did it this year the other citizenship teacher did one but she has deleted it herself since she used it it has been used in previous years aswell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike-woolsey99 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that, since only admins can delete pages, and besides it doesn't matter. You cannot create that page. End of story. Create it again and I will block your account--Jac16888 Talk 18:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

hi me again. The other teacher is an adminastrator he also does GCSE ict (computers) aswell ( he's a nerd!) so please. and I personally think that making a real wiki about bullying would be evil this is for as class you can delete it in 24 hours! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike-woolsey99 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not interested. Either you're telling the truth, in which case the article will be deleted immediately because its not what wikipedia is for, or you're lying, in which case it will still be deleted immediately as an attack page. I don't know how I can make this any clearer--Jac16888 Talk 18:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) He's welcome to use his own computers and school resources as he sees fit. However, Wikipedia is not his playground, and nobody is permitted to use it for purposes other than those within site policy. There is no grade period for abusing our resources. DMacks (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bedding

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

I created a wiki page about bed linens in Bulgarian language but it was deleted from you because it is similar to "Bedding" - I inserted some unique to our region information and I am willing to continue expanding the topic even creating topics related to it. Did I do something wrong or should i submit the information in another way so that it shows that it is related to the "Bedding". I did read all the info about creating a new article but I'm new to this

Please reply. Nikolay Todorov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautylinens (talk • contribs) 11:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is the English Wikipedia, i.e. all content should be in English. Not to mention the fact that your article added nothing important that isn't covered at Bedding and had no sources or references--Jac16888 Talk 11:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry again - ill check the Bulgarian version of Wikipedia PS: I was just adding more content and the references - its hard for a newcomer to understand how they work so it took me some time ( meanwhile you deleted the page). I am sorry for the trouble again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beautylinens (talk • contribs) 11:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Redirects to List of Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo manga volumes

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hey there,

You've made quite a mess out of this article. You may want to clean up after yourself. You may also want to address the crowd about this at WT:ANIME, because I doubt your changes will stick for long if left undiscussed. Regards, Goodraise 12:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh bugger, didn't realise they were actually transcluded, I've reverted myself. I stand by my rationale though, they are just excessive fancruft, like lists of every garfield or snoopy comic, and intend to get rid of them properly when I have a spare moment--Jac16888 Talk 12:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, if your rationale boils down to "chapter titles are fancruft", then you may consider yourself reverted. The chapter titles of a notable manga are no less legitimate as article content than the episode titles of a notable television show. Goodraise 17:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Well lets see. I'd say the comparison is less that of tv shows & episodes, and more like a list of comic titles. We don't list the title of every spiderman/batman/superman/etc comic, but rather each collection/storyline, as is already done on the main page. Second of all, for almost all of them the editors adding them have not bothered to translate them, and the ones they have are translated poorly, as happens when you try and translate a name. Third of all, the chapter titles are entirely unnreferenced so we have no way of knowing if they're even accurate. Finally there is the fact that the seperate articles are entirely without context or content except for the tables, no referenced content, not even an explanation of what the page is or a link to the main page--Jac16888 Talk 17:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
To keep the discussion focused, I'll respond to your first point only for now. What makes you think a manga chapter is more akin to a Spider-Man comic than to an episode of a television show? I can't say I know a lot about Spider-Man comics; I'd have to guess as to what exactly a collection or storyline is in this context. On the other hand, I don't see a flaw in my analogy either. The only difference I see is that one is primarily aired and watched on TV, while the others is primarily printed and read on paper. That does not seem to me to infer that the titles of one are of greater importance than the titles of the other. Goodraise 19:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer you respond to all points, unless you're unable to. I was going by comics because the two are similar genres (regularly/weekly released cartoon books etc, plus manga is japanese for comic). There are other differences, for example tv shows do not have thousands of episodes, you'll note that the shows do that, i.e. soaps such as General Hospital, (which has a staggering 12,000 episodes) there is not list of episodes, there are broad history articles instead. The shows we do list episodes for are generally referenceable, for each individual episode title and more--Jac16888 Talk 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, let me elaborate on why I'd rather discuss your first point first. a) Your other points have relevance only to the redirected pages and b) discussing them will have been a wasted effort if your first point is accepted by consensus. (I don't know about you, but I'd rather not waste time discussing potentially moot points.) c) If manga chapter titles are fancruft and should be removed, they'd have to be removed from a whole lot of other pages as well. Even if I were to concede all your other points as entirely true and endorse redirecting of the pages in question here as the logical consequence, your first point would still need to discussed for all those other pages. d) The strongest argument I currently see against redirecting, that being the current state of the volume list discouraging even the addition of chapter titles in a hypothetical proper way, relies on the chapter titles not being fancruft.

Returning to the part of our discussion spawned by your first point. Well, I suppose we can agree that similar things ought to be treated similarly. As you point out, TV shows don't have thousands of episodes, except for the shows that do. It's the same with manga series. They don't have thousands of chapters, except for the ones that do. Excuse me for repeating myself, but I still don't see a relevant difference here. What I also don't see is unverifiable (let alone unreferenceable) content on these pages. All you have to do to verify one of the titles is to pick up the volume in which the chapter was published. Where's the problem with that? Goodraise 05:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

[[WP:OTHERSTUFF|The existence of other such similar articles does not justify the existence of these. I think you've missed my point when it comes to tv & comics vs manga, what I was trying to say is that in the case of comics, and tv shows with a great deal of episodes, we don't generally list every episode, we have a broad summary articles instead, that is the comparison I was trying to make, and asking someone to go take a look for themselves is not how we verify things, you could say the same thing for anything, there needs to be reliable references. The current volume list is quite long, but there is no reason it can't be broken down again into more sensible articles. For example, you could create an article which has the volume titles and instead of listing the chapters has an actual summary of each volume, which IMO would be a lot more useful to anybody than a list of chapters. It could include useful & verifiable content such as sales, critical reception etc. However this all depends on editors being willing to make an effort which, considering the people responsible for the articles can't even be bothered to translate most of the titles, is unlikely to happen--Jac16888 Talk 11:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how OTHERSTUFF is relevant here. It's not as if I tried to justify an article's existence with the existence of similar articles. Curiously enough, you are trying to use the equally invalid inverse of OTHERSTUFF: "There is no article 'X of A' so there should not be an article 'X of B' either." You see, I perfectly understood what you were saying. What you need to understand is that we're in this discussion for different reasons. I don't particularly care what happens to these lists. What I'm concerned with is whether manga chapter titles should ever be listed in Wikipedia articles. Unless you concede that this is proper under normal conditions, I'd be wasting my time arguing with you about whether it should be done under extraordinary circumstances such as a series of exceptional length like Kochikame.

Well, I don't know about you, but when I verify something I do go take a look for myself. And when I write articles, I provide my prospective readers with the means to do so also. In most cases I do so using footnoted references. In some cases, however, a reader would be justified to consider their intelligence insulted if I did that. This is one of those cases. It should be obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that the source of the title of a chapter is the book the article says the chapter is in. To put it yet another way: There's reliable sources there; they're just not repeated in the references section.

Seeing as you keep voicing your opinion that manga chapter titles are fancruft, you'll excuse me for repeating that you have yet to produce a rationale for that opinion. I certainly hope I'm not asking too great an effort of you with this. Goodraise 15:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

VenusAngelic

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hello, please could you kindly restore my article about VenusAngelic, my daughter, I was not finished with editing, I wanted to post her resume singing with Rumi Shishido in Japan and her acting in the movie Achtung, ferting, Charlie etc, including photos and evidence. It is my first article, so maybe I didn't know I have to finish or it will be quickly reviewed, I thought I had more time... Sorry. Please let me know!

best regards Margaret — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggie.7537 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Maggie.7537. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Coomie

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was trying to search up my favourite word 'coomie' but i see it was blocked by you can you please unblock this page, because already 700 people have searched it up. thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yayapersie (talk • contribs) 07:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Request

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could you delete Star Trek XII? It redirect to Star Trek 2 and i plan on renaming Star Trek 2 Star Trek XII It would be most appreciated. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 22:27 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems another admin has already done so--Jac16888 Talk 16:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: page calum whitham

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The reasons for deleting the page gives me the impression that you were under the impression that it was malicious and intended to harass an individual. This was entirely not that case and was intended ( and received as) a practical joke and the named individual indeed enjoyed it. I feel it a great shame that you could not see the humor in this, nor the wit and creativity required to make it, I would therefore ask that you and other Wikipedia editors be not so prejudice against articles and to possibly take a step back and not lust to delete any page with any amount of humor Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.252.70 (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a serious project, not a playground, and we have no way of knowing whether or not your attack was serious. If all you're here to do is play around, then I suggest you look elsewhere before you find yourself blocked--Jac16888 Talk 16:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

consider the vast majority of articles on wikipedia are very incorrect on what they say and are usually edited by young children. In actual fact if you use wikipedia as a source of infomation on any education project you will be asked to do the whole thing again, so I don't know how you would differentiate between a "malicious" article and a non malicious article. especially since around 40% of this article is factually correct...considerably more than most of the "informative" articles on the site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.252.70 (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia articles have been proven to be very accurate, and any idiot knows that you don't use an encyclopedia to do your homework, you use it as a starting point then follow the sources. However its irrelevant, regardless of how accurate of funny it may be, wikipedia is not here for you to make a funny page taking the piss out of your friend. So don't--Jac16888 Talk 16:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

actually not every "idiot" would, I know from doing university reports that you do follow the sources, you know but not everyone does. Wikipedia has never been proven to be a reliable source and most of the source links on almost every article are either broken, outdated or somehow made up

Thats because Wikipedia is not a reliable source genius, no encyclopedia should be used as a source. So you're checked every single source have you? Must have taken a while, now go waste your time somewhere else and stop wasting mine--Jac16888 Talk 16:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

you just said wikipedia articles are accurate...and now you say wikipedia is not a reliable source don't contradict yourself. and on some articles where I know they are completely wrong yes I do check the sources and as for wasting time...you have deleted near 23,000 articles...for what purpose? there's around 10 million english articles I doubt very much the odd joke article would make a difference to the integrity of the already battered wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.252.70 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I said Wikipedia is accurate, which by and large it is, however that does not make it a reliable source. Didn't they teach you in school that you don't use an encyclopedia as a source? Why are you checking the sources of such an unreliable place then? Just go use something else to help you with your homework. Yes, thats 23,000 useless pieces of crap, like yours, and deleting every single one made this place better and less "battered". I'm not interested in discussing this further with you, your page was deleted because it didn't belong here. End of story--Jac16888 Talk 17:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked the sources to see where the incorrect information came from and no, not until I did my own project in college was I properly told about sourcing, however I was never daft enough to use wikipedia in any way so it was never an issue and the article wasn't even mine, but if it brought laughter to several people, people enjoyed writing it is it really useless? consider most of the information on wikipedia is incorrect anyway the article probably had more of a use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.252.70 (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Barnstar

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Guidance Barnstar
Given with respect and admiration to Jac16888 for all you do here, and for having a cooler and smarter head than I did. Thanks. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Page deletion inquiry

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

I received notice that you have deleted InspireDifferent page due to unambiguous advertising. I am actually building a page for our organization which will mirror other advertising agencies that are on Wikipedia, ex Interbrand, Cossette...

Can you please let me know why our page was deleted and when it can be reinstated?

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspiredifferent (talk • contribs) 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You gave several reasons right there. "We" and "our" for example, we do not allow shared or role accounts. The page was clearly promotional, as is your intention here. We have very clear conflict of interest rules, you creating a page about your own company is a blatant violation. My intent was to delete your userpage, not your talk page as I accidentally did, so I've restored that, and deleted the userpagee, please note that it is not your page--Jac16888 Talk 23:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Khattar Talk Page

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for your guidance! Khani100 (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Khani100

No problem--Jac16888 Talk 12:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Twitter status message Template

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a template to generate a direct link to the Twitter status message. You can use this template to navigate directly to the Tweet or to refer someone directly to any Tweet in your wiki. You can use this template freely wherever you need to refer any tweets/twitter users of Twitter#Features for your external references or some other places. --Jenith Michael Raj (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Twitter_status

Why're you telling me this?--Jac16888 Talk 11:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Bapatla Article is Protected.

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could you please make the article "Bapatla" available to all the users? I Studied at this place and have so much to write about it.


Just so you know, I have made a separate request on the talk page of the article.

Tamirisadp (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Alfred Article War

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You must protect this article, The Mysteries of Alfred Hedgehog beacuse it has many vandalism going on, if there is vandalism in this article undo it NewFranco (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Requests for protection are handled at WP:RFPP--Jac16888 Talk 23:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Thanks for your help, I tried to delete the vandalism on the Alfred the Hedgehog article but they vandalized the article again NewFranco (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

request for block

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

i am requesting that Alphanator4 be blocked as he is using a vandalisum only account, chamboalfa8 is also using a vandalisum only account and we are on a shared network so i am requesting that i do not be autoblocked. i am keen on making helpful contributions and not vandalising pages. i request this with imidiate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polka man 4000 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/برنامه کاربردی موبایل

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for that! I was very confused on what to do, so I figured: "When in doubt, bring it to AfD." I guess I'll know for next time. Master&Expert (Talk) 14:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No worries. The best way to do is to tag it with {{Notenglish}}, and list it at WP:PNT, and if it meets a speedy criteria its still eligible--Jac16888 Talk 14:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but that's actually what I initially did. Then I entered the term into Google and figured it's probably not something that would survive based on Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, so I delisted it from there and brought it to AfD. Master&Expert (Talk) 15:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok. Its best to leave it listed on PNT until its been deleted or translated, same thing with removing the notenglish tag--Jac16888 Talk 15:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but it obviously doesn't satisfy inclusion criteria, and it looks as though it may take a while before someone actually notices a nomination there, which is why I decided to bring it up at AfD. Master&Expert (Talk) 15:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you mean to say it's best to have a PNT run concurrently with an AfD nomination. I guess I understand, although there doesn't seem to be much point in doing so. Master&Expert (Talk) 15:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Thats right. The point is that if you remove it from PNT, then those of us who operate there have no way of knowing about it, which makes it less likely it will be dealt with quickly. --Jac16888 Talk 15:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I see. So it's a fairly active noticeboard, I gather? Master&Expert (Talk) 15:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if you feel as if I'm arguing with you. That is not my intention. I just wanted to get clarification over why it is important to keep a proposal at PNT active while there is an ongoing AfD discussion likely to result in deletion. But thanks anyways. Master&Expert (Talk) 15:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Check out the history, its a got a lot of listings at the moment, but they're the ones that don't meet any deletion criteria, the pages which can be speedied generally are deleted quickly--Jac16888 Talk 15:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I understand now, thanks. Master&Expert (Talk) 15:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh...

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

While this may be true, I don't think now's the time to fan the flames - giving somebody more fuel for a fire when they're coming down from a bad mood is not the best idea. I won't revert you, but I'd suggest that you self-revert. m.o.p 18:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not happening. Natty has to understand that they cannot make threats to get their way, and pointing out that their threats are meaningless is the best way to do so--Jac16888 Talk 18:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
That's how you antagonize someone. We've already shown that they won't get anywhere with threats (after all, they're blocked, aren't they?) - we don't need to punch them in the face with truth. We want to be nice about this. m.o.p 19:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and also - common sense dictates that we should not speak for the Foundation when it comes to legal matters. We're supposed to block, explain and ignore until an apology comes forth. We are not lawyers or the WMF's legal counsel; we don't have the right to give definitive statements on how the law works, no matter how thorough our understanding of it is. That's the second reason I'd strongly suggest reverting your edit. m.o.p 19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how it's remotely antagonising when it's just pointing out a page they should have already been shown, and I fail to see why exactly we should be nice about this. This is a person who is angry at not getting their own way so they threatened another editor, that doesn't suggest they're somebody we want editing here anyway. And your second point makes no sense whatsoever, I was pointing them to a well known page that clearly and simply demonstrates why they have no legal right to edit Wikipedia, if you don't agree with that then I suggest you MFD WP:FREESPEECH. I stand by my comment, and see no convincing reason to remove it, if it causes Natty to react badly then it will just demonstrate further that they should not be here--Jac16888 Talk 19:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't seem entirely constructive, that's all. If you had presented it in a 'nicer' format ("Here's our page on free speech and how it's relevant on Wikipedia!" or something), that would be OK. As it stands, it just seems like another kick at the downed horse. And why we should be nice? Because we should always be nice; I see no reason to be dismissive or spiteful towards anyone. That's a personal opinion, of course. Doesn't matter, though - I'll let the comment stand, even if I disagree with the intent. Cheers, m.o.p 19:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sir

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Sir ...why do you delete the page of Wale Afees Arogundade? I will be happy to hear from You sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walemirjam (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it was unreferenced, which is vital--Jac16888 Talk 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Maxime Old

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, I am annecaro961, and I was working on an art designer Maxime Old when you choose to delete it. The reason you give is "unambiguous advertising". This artist is dead and has been well known enough to be in charge with many liners' decoration since the 30th. Actually we do have an exibition about The paquebot France wright now in Paris, anf any of his contribution are displayed. That why I have decided tou write this article that has been accepted on french wikipedia. Thanks to tell me if you coud give me access back to my page thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annecaro961 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was extremely biased and promotional, Wikipedia articles need to be neutral--Jac16888 Talk 14:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I dropped {{firstarticle}} on Annecaro961's talk page. Might help them out. --GraemeL (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

St. Brendan Political Party

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Jac16888, I am a representative of this party and I have came in all respect to ask you to not delete this page. We are an actual party trying to grow and we would greatly appreciate are page not being deleted, Sincerly, Emt6131 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emt6131 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No--Jac16888 Talk 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Message

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Not cool Bro i want my article back It is 100% and Should be free to the public this man Has passed away and deserves to have a wikipedia page that is all he ever wanted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThugNugs (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied on their talk page--Jac16888 Talk 16:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sir i read them i just want you to leave my page alone it is fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThugNugs (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Henri Hebert-Allemond Page

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why did you delete my page? It wasn't vulgar and it didn't violate anything. It was a true bio... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henri Hebert-Allemond (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Makhdoom (clan)

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please stop completely removing everything from this page simply because you believe it's been auto-translated.

Firstly, English isn't everyone's native language and when they type in it, it can become quite difficult to understand. This does not justify however, completely removing someone else's work. Your time would be better spent helping clean the content.

Secondly, you haven't any proof that it's been auto-translated. Information on this subject is hardly written anywhere, and it is extremely unlikely any such written information is available on the Internet, and especially not in a textual format given that it would be in Urdu.

Thank you for refraining from abusing your editor privileges in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.228.133 (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Auto-translated or not, it makes no difference, the content was virtually unintelligible and useless. If somebody is incapable of writing in a way that is useful then, no offence, they shouldn't be editing here. There are plenty of other Wikipedias in different languages, there is bound to be one for for the person who kept editing Makhdoom--Jac16888 Talk 13:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18→Archive 20
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jac16888/Archive_16&oldid=1145820584"