User talk:Jujutacular

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page.

  • Post new entries at the bottom of this page.
  • If I left you a message, please respond on your talk page. If you left me a message, I will respond here.
  • If you email me, please leave {{You've got mail}} here. I check this talk page more often than I check my email.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Appy Pie Inc Deletion[edit]

This article "Appy Pie Inc" was a brand new article that I created and I understand that my previous article "Appy Pie" was using press releases as sources and using some promotional terms but this was corrected in my latest article "Appy Pie Inc" as all the references that I used are notable sources also, If you refer to the below link http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=Q0FQLzIwMTMvMTIvMDIjQXIwMjUwMg then you will see Worlds largest selling english daily The Times of India covered Abhinav Girdhar's wedding and categorically mentions the fact that he is Founder of Appy Pie Inc, which I think is a very notable source, this along with other sources that I have previously added will make this article as a permanent fixture, Please advise me on next steps to un-delete this article. • Cxs107 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! As you know, the article was previously deleted via discussion, and confirmed at deletion review. I would suggest developing the article as a draft at Articles for Creation. Jujutacular (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I have already done that please see the sources of this page "12 in total" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Appy_Pie all the sources are highly reputable and there is no reason I can think of this page to be deleted, also I want the article Name as Appy Pie Inc and not just Appy Pie, how should I go about this? • Cxs107 (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I have moved your draft to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Appy Pie Inc, per your request. The AFC queue is somewhat backlogged, so it will be some time before it is reviewed. Jujutacular (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Many Thanks • Cxs107 (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Jim Lawrence (ice hockey)[edit]

I do not know why I missed this earlier, but I have just come across this AfD concerning Jim Lawrence (ice hockey). I fail to understand how you came to your conclusion that there was a consensus to delete when ivotes were split 4-5 on whether to keep or delete. As required by WP:NSPORTS, the article did provide reliable sources showing that the subject met the sport specific criteria of WP:NHOCKEY, and all four of the “keep” votes argued that the subject did, indeed, meet the sport specific criteria.

Per WP:DELAFD, the deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, since it can not be reasonably concluded that there was a consensus for deletion, the page should properly be kept. I ask you to review your closing of this AfD, and to restore the article given there was no consensus for deletion. Dolovis (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As you seem to know, AFD operates on the basis of consensus, not just vote counting. My reading of the discussion is that those in favor of keeping did not adequately show that the subject meets WP:NHOCKEY. That is, why the Eredivisie is a "top professional league". Even disregarding this, no arguments were made that the subject is the topic of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is the basis for all of our notability guidelines. You are of course welcome to open a deletion review. Jujutacular (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thau protests[edit]

In regards to BRD kindly move it back to the original pending a move discussion as that is the proper avenue. Maybe its dissolved but election is called, so no ambiguity in crisis there .(Lihaas (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)).

Done! Cheers. Jujutacular (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Brickbat Revue[edit]

There was no debate. The page was marked for deletion. There was zero activity. There was written support. Then a very random deletion at the very end the day it was deleted. Almost as if people were waiting for the person who made the page to forget about it.

That does not seem very sportsmanlike to me.

If the decision was to delete until Brickbat Revue got off line support of it being archived in places of note then some time should have been given or that should have been said initially.

There was an entire month to make those comments and no one made any. It is almost as if they "debate" was fake and the decision was already made. That's fine, but why call it a debate if there didn't really seem to be any chance of it being a winnable debate if the person doesn't have online archival evidence.

I feel the page should be put back online with a set time for proof to be provided of its legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1635schl (talkcontribs) 20:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! My reading of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brickbat Revue was that there were no policy-based arguments made in favor of keeping the article. Please take a look at the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability. Specifically, a topic is considered notable if it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Each comment on the AFD page in favor of keeping the article had a reply that cited this guideline, but no response was ever made. The AFD was open for about 20 days, a standard AFD is only open for 7 days, so I believe that there was plenty of time to reach consensus. I don't see any reason to think that any of the editors had ulterior motives regarding the discussion. In fact, the other editors seem quite open to being convinced that the topic is notable if evidence is presented, as am I. Jujutacular (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jujutacular![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Jujutacular:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Peace sign.svg


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


POTD notification[edit]

Hi Jujutacular,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Humble Tower.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 14, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-01-14. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks great! Thank you. Jujutacular (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


The Suspect (2013 Film)[edit]

Dear Administrator Juju

Please advise if I could recover the deleted page as "The Suspect (2013 Film)" now, or any suggestion to have it being created again? The movie was released on December 24, 2013 in Korea and January 10, 2014 in USA. Please. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/10/movies/gong-yoo-stars-in-the-suspect.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 c

I have restored the article, it looks like there is indeed significant coverage available now. Thank you for following up with me :) Happy editing. Jujutacular (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism cleanup[edit]

Thanks for the deletions so far. Any chance you might finish the job? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I got the rest, let me know if you see anything else. Jujutacular (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry to be a bit short, but that hoax appears to have been deleted, with an unprotected page and unblocked user, then reappeared twice already. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the block settings. I was just about to ask you to do that. Widr (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. I just wanted to get the block out because it was clearly necessary. I then went back and saw that the account was only vandalism. Cheers. Jujutacular (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John C. Beale[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of John C. Beale at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (Clarification: I just think it'd be good to have the hook fact be more explicitly cited in the article—no big thing.) — AJDS talk 16:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I found his middle name here. StAnselm (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Jujutacular (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for John C. Beale[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bolschewismus ohne Maske.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bolschewismus ohne Maske.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)