User talk:Jayjg/Archive 38

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page. If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Use headlines when starting new talk topics. *Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. *Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

"Obama administration health care proposal"

You recently deleted several articles, including "Obama administration health care proposal." Please take a second look at that decision. The AfD began with a false assertion (that the administration supposedly has no proposal, so there is nothing to write about), put there by someone who had made several deletions turning the article into a straw man. In fact, "The President's Plan" is clearly published on the White House website, and the WP article on it listed 19 secondary sources in addition to the three primary sources (2 White House + 1 CBO). The 19 secondary sources included the three largest newspapers in the United States. The initial 'votes' were based on the straw man version. The restored version barely had time for consideration before the deletion. (Less than two days.) Now, WP has no article on The President's Plan for what is probably the leading issue of our time. His plan is only mentioned briefly in other articles, e.g. the reform debate article which is so long that WP is automatically suggesting it be broken into smaller articles.TVC 15 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I can only interpret the consensus of the AfD discussion, and the consensus was clearly to delete. If you want to contest this deletion, please feel free to do so at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Done: [1]. It's my first attempt and I may have got the formatting wrong, so I'll check that and try to fix if necessary.TVC 15 (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

==Deletion review for Obama administration health care proposal==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Obama administration health care proposal. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Is it possible to notify the editors who had contributed to the page? I tried to find the history tab but it's gone. Deletion was favored by a small number of editors, while a larger number had contributed to the article. I think the earlier editors may not have known the article was nominated for deletion, as I didn't know until less than two days before you deleted it.TVC 15 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just following up on this. I would appreciate being able to notify the contributors to the article and its talk page. If you check the history, I think you'll find the nominator for deletion never even attempted to discuss the article on its talk page. Even though the article has been deleted, it would seem reasonable to provide this information about its revision history.TVC 15 (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, at WP:DRV it's best to get uninvolved editors to review the deletion, rather than people who might be biased as a result of their previous work on an article. WP:DRV is a place to review deletion decisions, and is not supposed to be a second round of AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the text of the deleted article may end up going into the larger article of which it was said to be a fork. The text remains available via Google, but that doesn't notify the editors. (BTW, the DRV process seems to focus on whether policies were cited, rather than whether they were applied correctly, which seems odd. The result is a determined deleter can nominate an article when people are away, and get it deleted before they come back, as happened in this case.)TVC 15 (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that DRV focuses on whether applicable policies and guidelines were applied correctly, and consensus was assessed accurately. The reason a week is given for the AfD is to allow sufficient time for people to make their arguments. I understand that you believe that wasn't enough time in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I personally had been away, and none of the other editors who had contributed to the article participated in the AfD so I think they were likely away also. Most of the article had been contributed by others, and the article had been stable for quite some time - then the nominator made some deletions and then nominated the whole article for deletion, without even trying to contribute first. Also, I had never experienced an AfD before; I thought they were mainly for non-notable subjects, which obviously didn't apply in this case (although the nominator claimed falsely that the President had no Plan and thus there was nothing to write about). I was very surprised to see the article suddenly deleted. Frankly, it feels like witnessing a virtual arson. Is there some way to find the list of people who contributed to the article?TVC 15 (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Winona Ryder

Why was the Russian-American Jews category removed from this page? I am neither Jewish nor did I add this category, but I was just curious. I sometimes watch this page. Her paternal grandparents were Russian Jews. Her father is a Russian Jew and she considers herself Jewish. What guidelines are to be followed on Wiki?--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: because no reliable sources describe her as a "Russian-American Jew". Longer answer: a Russian-American Jew is a Russian Jew who moved to the United States, or (much more rarely), an American Jew who moved to Russia. One could argue that the children of two Russian Jews, even if born in the U.S., are, in some sense, "Russian-American Jews" as well. But when it's one grandparent or two, in a whole mix of things, then the term is meaningless. How far would you take it? If someone had one great-great-great-grandparent who was a Russian Jew, would that make them a "Russian-American Jew" too? There are many Wikipedia editors who, for some unfathomable reason, like to slot people into as many ethnicity buckets as possible, based on an odd one-drop rule mentality. It makes no sense, and in any event, violates WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to see the reasoning. I understand where you are coming from. Irish Catholics like Enya are listed as Irish Catholic (sourced and added by me I might add), and Pierce Brosnan is Irish, a naturalized American, but still Irish-Catholic. He isn't Irish-American, which would mean he was born in America (don't know why people keep adding that category). Moira Kelly's parents are born in Ireland, but she was born in the United States. She has the categories Irish-American and American-Catholics. However, when I've spoken to Irish-Americans, especially first generation Americans, they refer themselves as Irish Catholic. I get the grandparent aspect of your argument, and have to agree. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I wasn't disagreeing with you by the way, just wanted the reasoning fleshed out, so maybe others could see why as well. Take care.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Actually, Pierce Brosnan is without doubt Irish-American, since he holds both Irish and American citizenships. "-American" means an American citizen, not that you were born in America. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, this was discussed, and he is a naturalized citizen. The naturalized American category fits best. Irish American generally refers to people of Irish descent, not nationality. Pierce Brosnan became a citizen when he was middle-aged. He still holds his Irish passport, too. The Irish-American category was unanimously removed, and the Irish-Catholic category remains as well. He spent most his life in Ireland. Even Irish people consider him Irish, but a naturalized American. It's also less confusing for people, more so due to the fact that he became an "American" at a much older age. Irish Americans are Julia Roberts, Eric Roberts, etc. The category implies less ties with Ireland. I'd argue leaving both if he was a U.S citizen as a child or early teenager. I am a Persian-American, born in Iran in 1981, but have lived in Texas since the age of 1 month. My parents have lived in the U.S. since 1971, and we all became U.S. Citizens in 1982. However, we all retain our Iranian citizenship. I am Persian-American/Iranian-American, but my parents aren't really. I also call myself Iranian because that is my ethnicity, Indo-European yes, but my ethnicity is Iranian. I guess it's one of those nit-picky things. I agree with you that you can still call him Irish-American, technically, but the term by itself is used with restrictions. Most people refer to Pierce Brosnan as Irish, and mention the naturalization. The same for Sir Anthony Hopkins. People still call him Welsh.

100% agree with you on Winona Ryder and similar cases. On a random note, I am amazed at the living person category. I guess it makes sense, since there are many notable people who have passed away, but what about all those notable people who are alive and DON'T have the living person category? LOL Sorry, I am in the mood to find something this lame amusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeSoul7981 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever consensus was reached on the article Talk: page was incorrect. As Wikipedia's Irish American article says in its lead: "Irish Americans (Irish: Gael-Mheiriceánaigh) are citizens of the United States who trace their ancestry to Ireland.": Not people born in America who trace their ancestry to Ireland, but citizens of the United States who trace their ancestry to Ireland. In Wikipedia terms, someone is Irish American if reliable sources describe them that way. For example, "Irish American actor who was perhaps best known for playing James Bond in a series of films." "Pierce Brosnan." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dre McFly Article for deletion

Everything Was Proved On My Article No FICTION i'm trying to find some proof about MTV TRL but the pictures was lost and the show was cancelled . A lot was done with my article and BET and im trying to find more internet proof i provided pictures, accomplishments , magazines , Television and More. Nothing was made up and the artist has notability. I'm Begging For You To Restore This Article. Thank You , Have A Blessed Day. If Theirs Anything THat Does not belong can you please just remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.14.174 (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The place to request article restoration is WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proteans Software Solutions

Hi Jayjg, I'm disappointed on the deletion of Proteans Software Solutions. There were only 3 votes and the article got deleted on 2:1. I still consider this company has notable mentions in reliable sources. Please reconsider this for undelete or for more discussion. Vipin Hari || talk 10:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there were 4 !votes: Smerdis of Tlön, Samboy, and Pcap all !voted to delete, and you !voted to keep. So the article actually "got deleted on 3:1". Moreover, you had no response to Pcap's points. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article: Barry Weeks

Jayig,

Is there any way to view articles and their revision history once they've been deleted? If so, would you please show me how to do this? Thanks!

paul klenk ^talk 16:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Only admins can do that. What were you looking for? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the last version of the article before it was deleted, and the last version of the article before I edited it (which is about a day or so prior). paul klenk ^talk 09:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you want to improve it so that it could be brought to WP:DRV? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but someone else might. paul klenk ^talk 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you run into anyone who does, please feel free to send them to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article: War of Legends

Dude, can you return the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Legends article? It was originally removed for having no third party sources, well the game is now launched and had a ton of third party references in the article. As for notability: USA today and the Financial Times were calling it a big deal so I would have thought that counted. I get why you removed it (necro of a naff entry that had previously been speedy deleted) but I think if you check the changes in the situation of the subject (its been launched, it has references, it's notable) you'll see its now all groovy. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.7.174 (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to contest the article deletion, you'll have to do it at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the direct :-)Wolhound (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That graph

I placed the (modified) penile sensitivity graph on the penis page with what I believe was some genuinely neutral text. It has been reverted, and I have asked for the opinions of other editors. Since you commented on the matter elsewhere, I thought you may interested Johncoz (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of Reality

Hi there. Back in 2005 you discussed this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. The article has since been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One Shot (JLS song)

Hello, can you tell me if it was you that blocked One Shot (JLS song) the user you spoke to had re-recreated the page under a different title using the second word without a capital letter. I think the page should stay as the song has reached the top #10 it's noteable to have it's own page even if it wasn't a single which it is. Can you unlock it please so I can movie it to "One Shot (JLS song)" rather than "One shot (JLS song)" thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Shot (JLS song). If you wish to contest the deletion, please do so at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

An admin already re-directed the page for me, however I don't know which was it was. The song has reached the top 10 now. All the reasons listed on that page were no longer valid per 6.30pm GMT today. So can you tell me why you deleted it again? I put it alot of work into that page, and now you've deleted it for no reason. I would like it put back and I would like my edits restored. Jayy008 (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think the reasons for deleting it a month ago are no longer valid, then please take it to WP:DRV for review. Continually re-creating it is not the way to go. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you check the history and find out which admin moved the page for me? I will ask them to help. Also can you tell me where abouts on that page I should put my argument, thanks. PS. When you delete things, please be more careful and review it to see if the reasons for deleting it before are still valid, an admins job. Jayy008 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You should put it at the top of the WP:DRV page. The instructions there are pretty clear. P.S. My job as an admin is to assess AfD consensus and enforce it. In the future, when you wish to create an article that has been deleted via an AfD process, please ensure that you bring your reasoning to WP:DRV, where third parties can assess that reasoning for validity. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to me because when I read it it said put it in where the day is. And that template confuses me. I did not recreate the page. The page was there I merely added an infobox, and everything to the page. Can you please add it to WP:DRV for me. If not, can you re-direct me to an admin that will help. PS. I'm third party, I'm all for deleting pages that have no noteabilty because they're pointless. However when they are recreated no other admins delete them again, I suggest when you go to delete something see if there is reason to keep it. It saves wasting time deleting it then arguing it later. Jayy008 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't actually re-create the page, and apologize for implying that you did. Regarding the deletion process itself, I really only assess AfD arguments; my personal opinions about an article aren't relevant. That's the way admins are supposed to assess these things. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. I have done it now (added to that page). Jayy008 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, and good luck with the review. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman

Hi, I have no desire to get into an edit war with User:Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun, but it looks like one is starting. He and a new editor, User:Moshenanach, have as their sole goal the promotion of Rabbi Yisroel Ber Odesser's teachings and this popular mantra. They added information to the article with no regard for NPOV or RS and just started flooding the talk page with diatribes on all the discussions to date. All the things I corrected this morning were reverted an hour later. Could you please help me here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He has been blocked for a week, so you can probably go ahead now and bring the article back into line with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Something controversial

I have reverted your close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination). Sorry Jay, this is likely to piss you off, but you have given absolutely no reasoning behind why it is keep. I was writing up a detailed closure which was to delete, I'm going to post this now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've already closed it, so you can't re-close it. Feel free to ask me my reasoning, or take it to WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You should have added your reasoning to the AFD page. Especially on such a controversial issue. Don't undo my edit or undelete the article. I will put an AN/I thread about this so others can comment. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why you imagine this is a "controversial issue". The consensus was pretty clear, and no reasoning is required on the AfD page, though one would have been provided had it been asked for. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back to Jayjg's close, as it is the first one; an administrator's close cannot be unilaterally overturned by another administrator. Jayjg, please post your reasoning since this close appears to be controversial. Cunard (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you really should not have anything to do about it. Jay, I've noted this on WP:AN/I#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination). Could you please comment? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the article. Once the DRV is finished, I'm taking it back to AFD. This time hopefully the closer will give a detailed explanation as to their reasoning behind the keep/delete decision. Nothing personal, but that was a poor close. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that you asked a question. It is actually pretty controversial amongst skeptics and non-skeptics. As an evangelical Christian myself I have often been to this website, which I find faintly ridiculous. However, the reasons for notability were that it was referenced in two non-notable publications. Most of the deletes objected to this, and I cannot see why you thought it was notable enough to keep. It's a discussion after all, surely you would have been able to use some discernment and taken into account the opinion of those who wanted it deleted? I'm hoping you did take them into account. Anyway, as I say, I will be listing this on AFD again in a few days time. This time the closure will close with better reasoning.

I want to emphasise that while I overrode your decision, and risked annoying you considerably, it was not personal and as far as I'm concerned we are still friends. However, I respectfully suggest that the way that you closed this dicussion was not great. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ucucha 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review for S-Preme

Jayjg,

Can you please put the S-Preme page up for review? because it seems like the main reason why it was deleted the first time was because it had a lack of sources according to a comment posted on January 18th, but I didn't add any sources until about the 20th. I think I had a good 13 or so sources for the page and all of them were from credible sites and interviews.

Among the other reason, JBsupreme said that S-Preme wasn't a notable studio gangster which I have no idea what that even means. So can we put the page up for review please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymestyle (talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)