User talk:Jbhunley

User page Talk page Dashboard Scratchpad Templates Sandbox

Talk page Nice things people have left me Sanctions I am aware of
Please place any GS or DS notices on this page

There is a User:JBH that made 25 edits back in 2005. I have no relation to that user.

Click HERE to start a new section below.

Speedy deletion of Gigantic (video game)

Yesterday (a couple days ago?) this page I created was speedily deleted for being "unambiguous advertising" and/or lacking notability. I didn't log in until after it was deleted. Could you point me to the admin who deleted the page so I can retrieve its contents and improve it? Thanks. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I found out who it was. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 06:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Lilia Poustovit

Hi! I'm not sure that I'm writing in the right place, but I'd like to say that your comment about autobiography is wrong. I'm actually writting about my aunt, and she contributed to the world fashion industry a lot to be here. Thanks! --Poustovit (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Poustovit: Yes, this is the right place. ...OK.... All I have to go on is the user name. While your aunt looks like an interesting lady and passes out notability criteria, you should familiarize yourself with out conflict of interest guidelines.

Right now the article needs some trimming to make to make it more neutral. I understand it can be hard, she is your aunt and you are proud of her and it shows through. The problem is it should not show through. If you would like, once you get the draft finished, I would be happy to look it over. Try to watch the superlatives when your write for example:

Lilia Poustovit (Ukrainian: Лі́лія Григорівна Пустові́т; born 9 December 1968) is one of the most successful Ukrainian fashion designers, founder of POUSTOVIT brand, the President of Ukraine Fashion Syndicate.

Written more neutrally would be:

Lilia Poustovit (Ukrainian: Лі́лія Григорівна Пустові́т; born 9 December 1968) is a Ukrainian fashion designer. She founded the brand PROUSTOVIT in 1998. She is currently the President of Ukraine Fashion Syndicate.

I know the prose is dry but do dry first then make it flow. You want to avoid is anything that sounds like promotion. When you write about your subject think of what Encyclopedia Britanica would say and how they would say it. Cheers. JBH (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Poustovit: I have done a quick run through on the first part of the article. Down to 'Creation of brand' I would suggest a re-write like I did with the lines above with the lines below. The stores listed in the lead (in my version) should be moved down into the body and end the lead with "...concept stores." They should go in a "History of POUSTOVIT" section. My edits can be found in Draft:Lilia Poustovit/Suggested Edits so they do not mess up your AFC review. JBH (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I followed your advice, hope it'll be Ok! Poustovit (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Poustovit: Glad to be of assistance. I hope it helps. I would suggest that you work through all of the "In..." disconnected sentences and make complete paragraphs. It will help a lot with readability. Jbh (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Admin Help Request

I moved a draft article from User:Samira Koppikar to Draft:Samira Koppikar using the button on the AFC tag. The associated talk page was moved as well. I was able to remove the redirect on the user page but not the talk page. Draft talk:Samira Koppikar only needs to be moved back to User talk:Samira Koppikar.

If this is something a regular user can do please leave me a note on how to do it if I run across a similar situation. If not how do I just get to the User talk page to remove the redirect? I tried undoing the edit that placed the redirect on the talk page but that did not work. Thank you for cleaning up my error. JBH (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The "undo" links don't work to undo moves (or page creations), but you can manually move a page back if the redirect created by the original move hasn't been edited in the meantime. If the redirect's history is non-trivial you'll indeed need an admin to delete it before moving back the page; {{db-move}} is the appropriate speedy deletion template.

I have moved back the user talk page to its original location. Huon (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Huon:Thank you for the information and help. JBH (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Samira Koppikar

Hi, I just noticed this accidently, while surfing thru. As far as I am aware only users with reviewer rights can accept or decline any AfC submissions. But [User:Mahensingha] does not have reviewer rights - see link - [1] - he only has rollback right. Just for you information. How can he decline or comment on for any AfC? May be you would like to educate him on this. Thanks! Jethwarp (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jethwarp: Thanks for the comment. Actually the reviewer right is for reviewing edits to articles protected by WP:Pending changes. The people allowed to review AFC submissions are listed in WP:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. Mahensingha is listed there and is able to review AFC requests. They are certainly qualified to do so and seem to pretty good at it. We just happen to disagree on how Draft:Samira Koppikar was handled in particular and we have worked together to solve the issue. Cheers. JBH (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info - I was not aware of it. But I think Wikipedia should change the policy about, which editors should qualify for such a serious job and increase the total no of edits or total no of articles created by one user - who can enlist oneself at WP:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. Anyways, it was nice to talk to you. Cheers!!!Jethwarp (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ius Laboris

Hi, Jbhunley. Thanks for patrolling this article. But I'm wondering about the tags. Has anyone disputed the neutrality of the article? It doesn't even have a talk page yet. About the written like an advertisement, I was afraid that might happen. But the first thing a client wants to know a law firm is, how is rated in Chambers? So I wrote the rating in Chambers. And the fact is that this network selects the top-rated law firms in each country. That's how they get in, and the network's reason for being. Don't you think we should mention that? Thanks. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Margin1522: That you even consider "...the first thing a client wants to know..." is what makes it an advertisement. That is why it was tagged as such. As the editor who patrolled the page I am the one disputing the neutrality. You should not be thinking about customers at all. When you write about a subject think of what Encyclopedia Britanica would say and how they would say it. Jbh (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I realize from discussions at AfD that many editors on Wikipedia have an extreme aversion to saying anything good about organizations engaged in profit-making activities. Let's ask another question. Are they any good? The legal profession has a well functioning ranking system for recognizing the best firms. General reputation, outcomes, service... These firms are good. Chambers has 150 researchers who investigate these things, and that's what they say. It seems like we should be able to mention that they are good. I could have loaded the article up with cites to the effect that they have cooperated with this or that organization and published this or that study, for the purpose of getting the requisite three cites from independent reliable sources. But I like the system we have for academic journals. There is a rating system, and if they rate high enough they pass, and if they don't they fail. It's a better indicator of notability and makes for a cleaner article. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Margin1522: The text is not as bad as I thought on first reading. I have removed the tags. I did remove the direct competitive comparison starting "Unlike..." though. If you want to compare it to other types of firms please find some sources that make the comparison.

On the down side, I took a closer look at the sources. You need to find several reliable sources to verify their notability because the ones you have not are not sufficient.

• The Chambers and Partners is a WP:SPS per "Firm profile submitted by Ius Laboris"
• The FT source is just a list.
• The Legal 500 ref is a marketing guide so looks like not WP:RS

If you have been hanging out at AfD I am sure you know why the above issues are a problem. As it it I seriously doubt it would pass an AfD. Jbh (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is true. Part of the problem is that the two leading directories both allow firms to contribute descriptions of themselves. I have toned it down a bit more, as I now see that it was likely to trigger the "spammy" reaction. Thanks for the comments. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Calvary at Saint-Herbot near Plonévez-du-Faou and the Chapelle Saint-Herbot

Thank you for your encouraging comment Weglinde (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Tjuan Benafactor

I actually did see him/them mentioned in the players not paid love of the game article that was referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jholky (talk • contribs) 15:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It was a passing incidental mention that said the new owner had a stage name. About the only thing it is good for is that the guy owns the team. It does nothing for notability but if you want to use it to say he is optimistic about his ABA team go for it. Jbh (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for your review of Guththila Kavyaya. Pradeep583 (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GabrielF (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, you may not be using your time on this wisely, see [2] Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Thank you. I did rename the article to Political appointees in the administration of George W. Bush that were members of PNAC yesterday. DHeyward noted a problem with the new name by removing Dick Cheney from the list and Ubikwit changed it back to List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush I guess that change did not get noted on the AfD page.Ubikwit noted the change at the top. I missed it. I will make note of it there. Do you have any suggestions for a proper name? I think we are pretty much stuck with 'member' backed up by WP:POVNAMING. Jbh (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am rather at a loss to understand, how those of you who put the work in won't bend on that and creatively find a more acceptable terminology also consistent with the facts and that will not hand those who want to throw your work away a club. You know the sources and what varying ways you might refer to them ('connected', 'were signers of PNAC documents' or something, perhaps). As for those who do want to throw your work away, probably best to take the advice of those more sympathetic to the position you are in - I repeat, policy allows you to change the name now, and until you get it "right" enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We're working on it. "Connected" might work; it isn't very different from "associated". I think that the current version is succinct, and I see that you have thrown your support behind the term "members", which seems to be what is under assault. If we don't use "PNAC members", then it seems you wind up with "People connected to/associated with PNAC that...", or something along those lines, which seems to dilute the import of the relationship.

One alternative approach might be "Members of the Bush administration that were associated with/connected to PNAC".

I think that JBH has done an excellent job in explicating what the individuals on the list have been doing to earn their RS "members" designation, and Fyddlestix and me have contributed to elaborating that as well. If you have any suggestions, by all means, please join in. Until we have something better, I'm inclined to think simple is potentially the least problematic.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Alanscottwalker: The naming issue seems to have been a problem dating back to when this was a list in the PNAC article. The problem is that there are no terms which someone will not complain about. 'Signatories/Signers' is too loose (50 or so people). Connected is too loose (huge list of 'people who signed a letter or contributed a paper). Both of which Collect objects strongly and continiously to. 'Signatories of the 1998 Letter to Clinton on Iraq and/or PNAC Statement of Principles' is unwieldy. Other names that is has actually been moved to are.

• List of Members of the Administration of George W. Bush who are strongly associated with Project for the New American Century
• List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush
• List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush
• Political appointees in the administration of George W. Bush that were members of PNAC

There is no obstinacy here, I and, I believe, the others are truly at a loss. The only title that has not been tried that has been suggested on the talk page is:

• List of PNAC members that served in the administration of George W Bush

I just can not see a good way to avoid 'members' or 'associated with' particularly since, as far as I can tell, all of the strong sources use one or the other. The issue seems to me to be one particular editor will use quite literally any pedantic claim to keep this table out of the encyclopedia. Take a look at the 5 previous times this material was discussed on the PNAC talk page and at BLPN.Diffs exist near the top of the page in Fyddlestix first comment at AfD. He was recently joined by a long dorment account ODear Not saying one is a SOCK of the other, not even by implication who, if I were less involved, I would tag as an SPA. Maybe you can see something that we can not. That is the value of new eyes. Jbh (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Continue working, but while yes, 'members' passes for deletion as renaming articles is another process, it obviously will not fly, so don't take my 'just policy' support at AfD to heart - it appears it will not get you anywhere, you're not dealing with one editor anymore. Paraphrase is what we try to do. And actually, no, signers who went in the administation is a subset - not the whole set. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By his own admission, Dear ODear apparently was an alternate account of Is Not A. The latter having been blocked when that came to light, it's just Dear ODear now.

On naming: my two cents are that we should limit the table to: people who either founded/staffed PNAC, people who signed the statement of purposes, and people who signed the Iraq letter. Those are the only criteria that the more reliable/reputable sources use to tie people to the group, and I think we should stick to that. If we stuck to those criteria, the table could be titled "signatories of key PNAC policy statements with ties to the Bush Administration" or some such. Everyone currently in the table signed either the Statement or the Letter, so I think that's all that's needed. Note, however, that Ubikwit is currently trying to expand the scope of the table, using some less-than-stellar sources. I don't think that is helping the case for keeping the table. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's probably a moot point anyway, the AFD discussions seems to be headed for a "delete." Fyddlestix (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Milosevic letter may not be "key", but the Rebuilding America's Defenses certainly was, and the contributors are described as "Participants" on the last page of the doc, etc. They weren't just "signatories", they helped produce the document, and that is an important fact. Some of them also signed other documents, increasing the weight for their inclusion as "members". That report also seems to be the most substantial document they produced, it seems, and generated as much controversy as the Clinton letter. Recall that it is the only document that has its own dedicated section in the main article.

I'm not sure what to think about the "War on Terror" letter, but I've only seen one source tying one administration member to it thus far. I think signing multiple letters speaks in favor of inclusion, but we should defer to secondary sources, I suppose.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It is debatable who he is the 'alternate account' of since when the ODear account started editing after the is_not_a block it had about 10 edits and had last edited in 2012. The claim that is_not_a was the alternate of a nearly three year dormant account is not, in my opinion, supportable. I have no idea who the original account was but ODear it was not.

On the naming issue as Alanscottwalker noted, the discriminator is 'served in the administration..' not signed a document. So I suggest we try:

• Signers of PNAC policy statements or letters who served in the administration of George W Bush
  Jbh (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That might work, but let's make a new list if we're going to brain storm this here.

If delineating the subset is deemed to be an issue (which I don't see with the current title), then inverting the application of "members" would seem to be more direct, so let me list that again.

• Members of the Bush administration that were associated with/connected to/members of PNAC

In light of my awakening to the import of the aforementioned report[3]--which was not signed by anybody but produced by a large number of participants (who are listed on the last page), six of whom (that I know of) went on to become members of the Bush administration. They all seem to have signed other letters, but since this was a document they participated in producing, it is significant in an additional register.

1. Stephen Cambone
2. Eliot Cohen
3. I. Lewis Libby
4. Abram Shulsky
5. Paul Wolfowitz
6. Dov Zakheim

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

JbH: ::::::::Better, you could make it shorter by striking "policy", and perhaps "or letters" or "PNAC statement and letter signers . . ." But all of you strongly agree then do it, then present it at the AfD (you heard them). Ubikwit just cover that document in the main article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That would work, as none of the six would be lost from the list, but let's ponder that title.

Do you see anything problematic with the sentence-inverted version I suggested?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean the words "associated with/connected to/members" in a title? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No, those are selections of possible alternatives at that juncture in the title. I meant overall, but of course, if you have separate opinions on the use of those several alternatives, by all means, opine away to your hearts content.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

JbH's has the chronology right, I can see someone arguing that 'no they were not in the admin and signed.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm just to sleep-deprived and can't think straight, but it seems to me that such a reading would amount to a grammatically incorrect reading of the phrasing including "that", which definitely limits the scope (of the subset) in both the above-proposed version and the current version.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think, 'you are writing for the . . . ' and you should just keep that in mind. I don't have much more time to say anything on this. Good luck! Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think 'associated with' has been roundly shot down by people at AfD so 'associated with\connected to' would face the same or worse opposition. per ASW what does everyone think of:

• PNAC statement and letter signers who served in the administration of George W Bush
  who served in the administration of George W Bush
  

I see no real issues with this particularly if the list is tied tightly to the PNAC article. Possibly someone could link the list into place in the PNAC article. Many complaints is that the list is a POV Fork while the intention is for it to be a sub-article. Jbh (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me or does "statement and letter signers" sound awkward?

I would favor something along the lines of simply "PNAC participants", assuming that members is considered a fail (I'm not convinced of that given the plethora of increasingly growing RS cites).

If the PNAC wants to portray themselves as a loose collective without members, we have to rise to the challenge to describe them as a cohesive group. I think we're on the way, but not there yet.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Right now I am more concerned with addressing as many of the Delete complaints as possible. While I think we have policy solidly on our side the shear number of Deletes will possibly influence a closing admin. Also quite literally anything that would make the article look like a POV Fork rather than a sub-article-list might be an issue. A MERGE would be the best objective outcome but, from my reading of Collect's comments such as BLP is an "absolute policy" I think we will be right back where we started and fighting *what* to merge.

I find the perennial obstinate pedantic sophistry this content has been subject to incomprehensible. In a less experienced editor I would have dealt with it at ANI but in this situation it would turn into a drama infused political nightmare. It only took 3 minutes from the time I told Collect take the article to AfD and articulate his arguments there for another long term editor to pop up and do it using his SYNTH argument. My frustration with this is pretty high as I am sure it has become increasingly easy to tell. I guess this is nothing compared to the edit war last month at Danish pastry over what to call the bloody things.

Oh, to get back on topic. Yes it does sound a bit awkward. How about:

• People who signed PNAC's policy documents and served in the administration of George W Bush
  Jbh (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we need to beat the merge angle as well as the delete angle. There are 21 people on the list, so you're original concern about UNDUE is in play only because the table is too big and requires its own article so as not to overwhelm the main article.

I don't like the "People..." phrasing, as mentioned above, because it dilutes the import.

At present I don't have any better ideas than inverting the sentence...

I appreciate ASW's participation, but I'm not convinced that "members" is ruled out, because too many peer-reviewed sources use that characterization.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. Right now I am exploring the ideas that ASW is bringing up because his view point to closer to those who must be convinced. It is a way for me to break out of my POV and prevent tunnel vision. Since this article and PNAC has been more confrontational than collaborative I try to keep from getting into a mental rut. Since I think this information belongs in the encyclopedia I am trying to look for ways that address the concerns of those who can be won over while I have ceased to care about the opinion of the obstinate few since they will not ever change their minds and contribute nothing to the solution. This has become a situation where politics and compromise are as important or more so than simply being 'right' so I think we should proceed as if 'members' is out for the title since so many have complained about the term. I have seen several admins vote Delete in this AfD with, in my opinion, a less than firm grasp of the policies involved. Like it or not my bet that the name is the linchpin issue. If that can be addressed many of those Deletes drop out. The next issue is the POV Fork issue, that can be mostly handled by placing a link to the list in the proper place in the PNAC article. I dropped it into 'See Also' when I created it but it needs a better, more integrated place, I just do not know where it would fit best. Maybe a sub-section or an in-text prose link. If those two things are addressed it will be very hard to close the AfD as Delete.

For possible titles how about -

• Signers of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush

or inverted -

• Advisors and members of the George W Bush administration who signed PNAC's documents
  

Jbh (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer the first of those two. I think that it is short and compact, and addresses the issues.

Let's wait for Fyddlestix to weigh in on this.

I'll try and look at the link scenario tomorrow.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks... I'll ping @Fyddlestix: Jbh (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the first one too, although I would swap "signatories" for "signers." Fyddlestix (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Jbh (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: If you are OK with:

• Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush

would you please make the move. Thanks. Jbh (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, done.

Check this source (entirety of p. 15) in relation to the discussion at my Talk.

The number of figures associated with PNAC that had been members of the Reagan or the first Bush administration and the number that would take up office with the administration of the second President Bush demonstrate that it is not merely a question of employees and budgets.[4] Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty, Stuart Elden, Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2009, p.15]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Dead horses...

In good faith, I would interpret this not as a threat, but as a suggestion to "stop beating a dead horse". Now I don't think the state of the horse is clear yet (wether at AN/I or in the clip), but interpreting the edit as a threat seems to be a sign of the general lack of good faith in this conflict, and is unlikely to contribute to a constructive resolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: Thank you for the advice. Yes, good faith is pretty much gone at this point and I really regret that. Like I said here and when I posted, I would not consider it a threat from Collect or anyone whose online track record I was familiar with. ODear on the other is re-activated dormant account that started editing after the blocking of User:Is_not_a an 'alternate' account of an unknown user. I have no clue what is going through their head. I asked them to strike the comment for clarity, they are active now and have not done so. Threats of getting me with rules - fine, no worries. Even the faintest hint of RL from an unknown user I have zero-tolerance because things like that can spin badly out of control without the slightest warning. I have taken enough risks in my life to know that you mitigate the ones you can. I admit I am sensitive to such things. Jbh (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that, but I'm not sure this approach is mitigating anything. In a pinch, you might ask for clarification in a less public place (like their user page). More heat is not, I think, what we need. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you misinterpreted a joke.

Perhaps your exaggerated reaction may give you some empathy about the state of living persons who are targetted by Larouchites and troll armies, and who have had their kids' names etc. put on their articles. Consider what happened to Richard Flacks. Dear0Dear 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Consider the matter closed. As I said it was a funny video. Yes, I do understand their plight my opinion on BLPs is pretty strict but I do admit to not wanting to allow Public figures to PR manage their public acts. Anyway glad that's done with. Jbh (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: Matter is closed. Jbh (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, - MrX 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Discovery of the neutron

I suspect you did not do proper research before putting this page up for speedy deletion. In any case, we have worked quite long and hard at developing this page from many sources and extensive discussions. Wikipedia is the original here. I write mainly because it is a curious problem, however - many external websites are copying wholesale from wikipedia, often without acknowledging this fact, which leads to the problem of citing these external websites that have been copied from wikipedia, etc. But thanks for your diligence! Bdushaw (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: I was very surprised when the whole thing came up matching other sites because it is a great article. Since it showed as a recent new page I did not think to consider that Wikipedia might have been the source. Sorry if I caused any problems. Jbh (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The effort may not be without positive contribution in the sense it really raises the question about what to do with external articles that copy from wikipedia. One of the links you found does acknowledge wikipedia as the source, the other doesn't. The general question could get tricky to resolve in a happy manner; may just require more work to sort out the provenance of material. Bdushaw (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: I guess it might be possible if enough authors were available or one person wrote a large chunk of the material for them to send a DMCA Takedown Notice to the non-attributing sites. I'm not sure how that works here but I have seen photographers on Commons handle it like that for their pictures. Anyway nice article, no wonder others want it. :) Jbh (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

stub tags

Hallo, Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like PNK College which already has a specific stub tag - it just wastes the time of other editors. Thanks. PamD 16:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@PamD: Sorry, I missed the Indian university stub tag. I make sure to double check going forward. Jbh (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Jbh (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Verminator04

I have resolved your speedy deletion request for Janetta Rebold Benton by adding the appropriate copyleft statement to the original website. Please remove your request.

@Verminator04: - Please read WP:COPYVIO for more information on Wikipedia's policies copying text. An administrator will take a closer look at the page. What you place here must be written in your own words, not copied from another site. I would also recommend that you take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you for your understanding. Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ Jbh (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: - My edits are in compliance with the Conflict of Interest guidelines, and the appropriate copyleft notice is in place, ensuring compliance with the reuse guidelines. I have also reworded all text, ensuring that the content presented is 'in my own words'. Thanks. Verminator04 (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneath_the_Skin_(album) You should have deleted the article. I was forced to recreate it as a blank article to unfollow it which makes no sense of why Wikipedia does this. It was already deleted for duplicated of this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneath_the_Skin_(Of_Monsters_and_Men_album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@JKruger13: Only administrators can delete articles but thank you for the information and for noting it is a duplicate on the talk page. An admin will follow up on the tag. Also, you can go to Special:Watchlist and choose 'edit your watch list' to un-watch a deleted article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Thanks.

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: What is this

@JKruger13: - It is a way to tell an editor they have done something dumb that they really should have known better than to do. See WP:TROUT. Some people do not see the humor in a good trouting but I prefer it to some other ways people can express their displeasure. The template {{troutme}} placed at the top of your talk page makes the little icon you clicked on. Some editors place it there to let others know they do not mind being trouted to remind them of what they should know :) Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

aww okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Empress Of

I have my references posted and i'm posting more as I go along. the article is valid as this is for an up and coming musical artist with growing profile and fanbase. give me a break b.

@Temp144: I removed the BLPPROD becuase it looks like Pitchfork is a RS. Please read WP:MUSICBIO carefully to see criteria for notability. Based on what is in the article and what I have found on a quick search the article likely would not pass AfD. Probably the easiest notability criteria to meet is if they have a song which has charted on a national chart. Jbh (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Johny Seth

This Page Has Provided the references of interviews and biodata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.58.250 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Elysium ( Dreampop band)

I didn't create that page-I moved it without a space. Wgolf (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wgolf: Thanks for letting me know. I'm using Twinkle to do the CSD notifications. I guess it sees moves as creates, interesting... I will check the history and notify the creator. Jbh (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

All mirrors...

Hi. I've declined your speedy at the Beluga article (and the Coren bot's notice too) because both sites acknowledge that their text comes from Wikipedia. Your one even gives the full CC and GFDL bit at the bottom of the page. Mirrors and quotes are often a problem, but the WikiSnap does say at top of page that it's stuff from Wikipedia, and a look at the bottom provided the CC licensing. The other one started with ", so I scrolled down to the next " and found '- Wikipedia' at the end. On a side note, I've seen one of the current Belugas on the ground, and oh boy, was it big... I'd never heard of them, but thought it looked whale or porpoise like, and was interested when the person I was talking to at the airfield told me it was a Beluga and what it did. Peridon (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peridon: Thanks for the note. New articles with text from Wikipedia mirrors have caught me a couple of times now - the cognitive dissonance of new here old there but from here throws me :) I will make sure to click through from the links Earwig's tool kicks out.

That must have been an impressive sight. Those two tiny looking engines do not look like they could get that thing off of the ground! Jbh (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it was a copy - of Airbus Beluga. I thought the wording looked familiar. It was the earlier article I'd read, and I was sure I had read it here - after seeing the plane. As to the plane, it's weird with that enormous blank 'forehead' and the little (by comparison) 'eyes' and 'nose' down at the bottom. It doesn't have all the seating, loos and floor storage that the airliner version does - cutting a lot of dead weight out, and most of the cargo has a lot of space inside it, so what it is lifting is volume not bulk. Peridon (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of the content of wikiarticles outside Wikipedia

This is asking for advice I am not prepared to give. If this question refers to a particular person's situation they should discuss it with their doctoral committee . Jbh (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, Jbhunley! I've noticed the context of the discussion from talk:discovery of the neutron about the use of wikiarticles outside wikipedia. What is the legal status of such uses? Does it involves plagiarism sometimes?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC) I am not a lawyer so I would advise reading the license or consulting a professional if this is for anything other than curiosity. The license Wikipedia content is provided under allows reuse and re-publication as long as copyright is acknowledged. Other institutions may have policies which prevents use of Wikipedia content and it is never OK to use it without acknowledging its source. See Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License for details. Jbh (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Thanks for answer. It is mainly curiosity. In this regard, is it possibile/probable that a plagiarized PhD thesis with wikicontent (of that specific article) occur? In what way and to what extent would the inclusion of a wikiarticle in PhD thesis by an editor to that article be plagiarism?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC) That is way too hypothetical and also way outside of something I would feel comfortable answering. In general accusations of and policies relating to plagiarism are handled by the individual institution, professional society or journal where the content was published. For matters relating to a doctoral dissertation I would contact the relevant department/college of the university in question or its Dean of Students. Jbh (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Perhaps some/most universities officials/regulations are unprepared for such possibility of using wikicontent, this is unexpected and challenging for them. The other aspect you've mentioned is not very hypothetical considering cases of plagiarism like those of Victor Ponta, Pal Schmitt, and zu Guttenberg which come to my mind. (It is true however that they haven't used wikicontent, but they could very easily have.) In this circumstances, how should an editor who intends to use wikicontent to which has co-contributed proceed? Should he stop contributing to wikiarticles in order to avoid all possible complications?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Wetpour

Hello Jbhunley. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wetpour, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional, not eligible for A7. Will PROD instead. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much Amina-daily (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Amina-daily: - Thank you! Sheikh Muhammad Nura Khalid looks like quite a remarkable fellow. Glad to help out. I will keep him on my watch list and if you need any assistance please feel free to ask. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Why you remove my Wiki? 小玉 (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@小玉: Thank you for the barnstar! I tagged the article Zion Lee for spedy deletion because it made no credible assertion of importance and was about a person. Please see out general notability guidelines for the criteria for an article on Wikipedia. I tagged Zion Lee again after it was recreated because it was a cross name space redirect to Wikipedia:Zion Lee, The Wikipedia name space is not used for articles. It is for material relating to the Wikipedia project. If you have any other questions of would like some help please let me know here. You might also want to read WP:FIRST it talks about how to create your first article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Bundling

Hello! Although we disagree on what the outcome of these AfDs should be, do you not agree we could get better input by bundling the Dethcentrik AfDs?-BusyWikipedian (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@BusyWikipedian: In this case no. Albums and bands have different notability criteria WP:NALBUMS and WP:BAND. Each of the albums have different sources to be addressed although there is, in my opinion, no way those albums come within a mile of passing WP:NALBUM. One or two reviews, even in RS, does not constitute significant coverage and a couple of the albums do not have even that. Bundling would, as I read it, have them stand or fall as a group. Even if Deathcentrik passes AfD all that means is that the albums are not eligible for db-a7 not that they are notable. Jbh (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying why they cannot be bundled-BusyWikipedian (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	How i want to create Zion Lee's Wikipedia? I hope somebody help me to create his Wikipedia, please! 小玉 (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@小玉: Thanks again for the barnstar but there is no need to leave one to leave me a new message you can just reply under your previous comment or add a new section at the bottom for a different question. How to edit talk pages gives a quick introduction.

The most important thing you need to establish for your article subject is notability. Out general notability guidelines set out those criteria and there are special criteria if they are a musician, scholar, athlete etc. The Wikipedia Teahouse has a group of volunteers who specialize in helping people get their first article done and explaining all of out policies and guidelines. Cheers Jbh (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I did mean to ping you before making the request

I don't really think you care, just mentioning because I meant to drop you a note first, but then forgot to. Duh. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: No problem, it was not an improper request and I left a note on the Workshop talk page so the Arbs would know it was OK both parties. I hope they at least read the post but I can see a lot of back and forth growing from it on the Workshop page. If there are any particular extracts you think would be of use you might be able to use it in an analysis section or one of the proposal comments. I will not object to that since I wrote it in the context of the case.

I am still amazed at all of the drama that came out of that list!Jbh (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

More than just a ping is necessary to thank you both for conferring. It displays the leadership necessary for retaining editors. @FCAYS talk.. . Buster Seven Talk 15:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

JbH. Your efficiency and concern for responsible notification is commendable. . Buster Seven Talk 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Jbhunley. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--MONGO 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: OK. Makes sense to me. Jbh (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's

Hi,

You have recently reviewed a Wikipedia article I published and I was hoping you can give me a bit more details about why you have included it in the "considered for deletion" list.

Since your last moderation, I have added more sources, made a few text changes, and I think the article is much better now. Kindly let me know if there is anything else I should change or edit. Comment by Felician89

@Felician89: hi. I nominated the article Monitor_Backlinks for deletion because I feel it does not meet our notability guidelines for companies or our general notability guidelines. In particular blog coverage and funding announcements do not lend a company notability. See WP:ORGIN and WP:CORPDEPTH for more detail on those points. Once the company has some significant, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources a Wikipedia article would be appropriate. Jbh (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

trying up load my project landlord article.. please help MuzicFan1981 (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

i don't know why my page have got deleted i just found a photo on the internet that i think is not copyrighted so please come check my page out to see before i upload my article again thank you. my page name is muzicfan1981,

@MuzicFan1981: - Not sure what you are asking. The article you mentioned was not deleted. If you want to post a photo you must have a license for it, a fair use rational or it must be in the public domain. All of these things must be documented per the instructions when you upload. Jbh (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

is a public domain the internet of what if i know the guy who did the photo for the chrome (RAPPER) article i created ? if i know his website can i put that in the picture uploader to pass the copyrights requirements Comment by MusicFan1981 Jbh (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand your question properly, no just because an image is on the Internet it is not public domain. See WP:Copyrights for how to go about getting a proper license or release to use media on Wikipedia. If you know the subject of the article you should read out conflict of interest guidelines. Also, please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ doing so will insert your user name and a date/time stamp. This might be some help to you as you get started on Wikipedia - How to edit talk pages. Please let me know if I can be of further help. Jbh (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ruth Guler

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of this article, expanded it with four other sources, and nominated it for Did you know. In general, if you see an article that is cited to a dedicated piece in a usually reliable source (in this case an official obituary in the Daily Telegraph, a British broadsheet newspaper generally considered acceptable for BLPs), you should avoid CSD and go to AfD instead (or, even better, improve the article!) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: OK. Will do. I just saw the one liner simply saying she was 'eccentric hotelier' and I guess my cynicism took over. Nice job on improving the article. Jbh (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, every now and again we all get grumpy, angry mastodon defence takes over and we hit the revert / delete buttons. Still, imagine if you'd done this! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Wow! :) Jbh (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Jbhunley

Thanks for filling the references of my recently created articles. You were very fast and efficient. Its so painful that your first and only article, Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush was deleted per consensus at AfD· I'm really sorry about this and I hate to see your article deleted again in the future. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page, if you need help on article creation. Happy editing. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£}

@Wikicology: Thank you, glad to be able to do something constructive even if only little things. The article deletion is no real concern. It was a table someone else made that I spun out as part of trying to resolve a content dispute. Lots of drama ensued that led to an Arbcom case being opened over the behavior of one of the other participants in that dispute.

Thank you for the offer of help, I may well take you up on it when I get the guts to write in an area I have some knowledge or find something innocuous and engaging from going through new pages. For now gnoming about keeps my busy when I'm otherwise bored and do not want to engage with real life :) Jbh (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com access

Hi Jbhunley,

You should be able to sign in and get full access to Newspapers.com now. HazelAB (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@HazelAB: Works fine. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm 1Potato2Potato3Potato4. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, WWE 2K (Mobile Game ), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@1Potato2Potato3Potato4: Thank you for catching that. I missed the copyvio. Jbh (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Paula Peters unreferenced?

It looks like you flagged the article on Paula Peters as not containing any references; however it also looks like this problem is now fixed. Does the article's author have the authority to remove the flags?Ssenier (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ssenier: Yes. Once a reliable source is used to support a claim any editor can remove the BLPPROD. Clean up tags can be removed by any editor who does not feel they apply or that the problem has been fixed.

The Paula Peters article needs to be edited to conform to Wikipedia standards and seems to be a bit promotional to me but that is only my, rather strict, opinion. Otherwise it is a nice article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much!Ssenier (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

doriscarnival

Thank you for your comments and advice. I will modify my page to suit your requirments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doriscarnival (talk • contribs) 15:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Doriscarnival: Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. I tagged Carnival Group International Holdings Limited with a speedy delete tag because it contains large amounts of text copy/pasted from another source. This is against Wikipedia policy please see WP:COPYRIGHT for more information. Also please do not remove speedy delete tags from articles you have created like you did here and remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Please feel free to contact me here or {{ping}} me from the article talk page in you need assistance. Based on your user name and the title of the article you are editing please read our policies on conflict of interest Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hey, JBH, thanks for helping at the 3O project. Just a couple of words of advice: When you take a request, be sure to remove it from the list (as stated in the last bullet point of "Providing third opinions" on the 3O page), even if you're not going to issue a 3O instantly (but if you're not going to issue one right away do as you did and put a note on the article talk page saying that you're working on it), but in any event remove the listing before you give the 3O. Second, convention has it that we volunteers don't annotate the request list except to indicate if a request has been reinserted after being removed for being stale (with something like "Second request" or somesuch). Both of those are no big deal and just part of the 3O learning curve and, again, we're really glad you've joined the 3O community of volunteers. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Will do. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter AfD

This article is under construction. Did you not read the template? -MacRùsgail (talk)

@MacRusgail: I could not find significant coverage when I did WP:BEFORE. All I saw were blog entries and and marketing. I do not question the author's notability. If you can show the book meets WP:NBOOK I will withdraw my AfD nomination. Jbh (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're such a Smart Alec, why didn't you realise you don't AfD articles while they're under construction. That's the whole point of the template, to stop premature judgement, such as yours.

If you did notice it at all. Rude. -MacRùsgail (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC) p.s. The internet is actually not one of the best places to look for references anyway, since most of the links disappear after a year or two. Hard copy is better, if you can get hold of it. Google is not a research tool, it's a slightly creepy corporation which happens to run a search engine.

I've turned this article into a redirect to the author, and will continue writing it somewhere I can do so without harassment.

In future, note the template.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MacRusgail: I understand your frustration but name calling only reflects poorly on you. If the book passes WP:NBOOK post the Keep argument at AfD, show the sources and I will withdraw the nomination just as I offered before your last comment. I took a closer look at the book because if the first thing an article creator has to say about a book it that it was a $0.99 special at Amazon I want to take a much closer look at its notability. I found a book published by Amazon's self-publishing house, with some blog coverage, some passing mention and sales material. Jbh (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't give a flying whatever about name calling. You nominated an article while an under construction template was on it. The only time that would properly apply if it that was piece of vandalism. You've taken up much of the time I would have actually spent improving the article.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm logging off Wikipedia. I've got more important things to do like writing a letter to a debt agency.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC) p.s. The article is now a redirect...

(edit conflict)@MacRusgail: Sorry, I am going to have to revert that redirect. Please note that the AfD notice says. Do not remove this notice and Do not blank the page. You have removed the AfD notice at least twice and now blanked it. Please follow the proper procedures. (Wow! I just looked you up on Xtools. None of this should be new to you.) PS {{under construction}} on an article in Main space is not a bar to AfD it is an informational notice. I am sorry if this upsets you. Jbh (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Aricooperdavis. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Guimiliau Parish close, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. aricooperdavis (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Aricooperdavis: OK. Would you mind saying what you found to be in error? I understand it is possible I missed something and it would help me to understand what it might be so I do not repeat an error. Thank you for your time. Jbh (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I thought that I'd accidentally reviewed it before I'd finished checking it, so I unreviewed it again - sorry about that! Looking at it, though, it seems to have been poorly translated from French, and doesn't contain enough context. For example the first sentence "The enclos paroissial of Guimiliau" contains two non-english words and doesn't have a full stop, whilst nowhere does the page mention where the "enclos" actually is, or that it's a parish close (apart from the title). It seems like it could do with quite a bit more work, but since that's not a criteria for reviewing AfC submissions, I think I've acted in error. Sorry again! aricooperdavis (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Aricooperdavis: No problem. Mistakes are just part of doing the work - we all make them now and then. When I the note I figured it as likely I had made one as you. Enjoy your weekend. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jbh, you too. aricooperdavis (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ashestoangels

I've removed the PROD on this article and taken it to AFD instead. I think a fuller evaluation of the sources is in order. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: OK. Works for me. Thanks for the note. Jbh (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Debate on Splashed White in gypsies

This is in relation to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splashed_white

I am the IP user who initially brought up the concerns regarding original research, and I've just found the rest of the debate. I just wanted to say thanks for your assistance with helping resolve this. I believe the original research has now been removed, and I am satisfied with how the article is now worded.

Incidentally, I believe you mentioned you were genuinely interested in the topic, so I thought you might be interested in some information I've uncovered. I asked the Gypsy Vanner Society for clarification with regard to 'blagdon' and the general summary of their reply was that it was a phenotype that could include (but not necessarily limited to) patterns which were genetically sabino or draft-type sabino. They explicitly stated the former is present in the breed. Draft-type sabino can't be tested for, so is unknown, however this is present all through the clydesdale breed, which was heavily used as foundation stock for the gypsy breed, so it's plausible that it is also present. Because of the definition of blagdon as just a phenotype, it can't be ruled out that it also includes some very weird looking SW1 horses. Unlikely, especially considering the lack of normal looking SW1 gypsies, but not impossible, so to have the article phrased as it currently is is suitable.

I'm not planning on adding this to any article, since personal communications aren't exactly verifiable resources, but I thought you might find it interesting since you expressed an interest. Thanks again for your help.

14.2.119.6 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and I am glad the article text came out in a way that works for you. Doing the research for that was fascinating. I wonder if breeders will start to take advantage of the cheap fast whole genome sequencing becoming available. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It will be really interesting to watch the results of this field as genetic testing becomes more prevalent. Speaking of which, W20 is looking like the main culprit behind the "four socks and blaze" version of blagdon. Some gypsies have tested positive for it, as have a large group of other horses from a very diverse group of breeds, all of whom appear to share this phenotype. It would appear W20 is very prevalent. Some more info if you're curious:

http://practicalhorsegenetics.com.au/index.php?test=w20

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23659293

Jack Watsan

Hi jbh, please suggest what I should do. should I change the template? About the links, I shall read more and place it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J A Srivathsan (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Hi jbh, please suggest what I should do. should I change the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J A Srivathsan (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@J A Srivathsan: I am not sure what template you mean. As far as the {{db-band}} speedy deletion template goes it was originally placed by Everymorning who I just pinged. Maybe they can explain their thinking on placing it. My thought is you might want to read our general notability guidelines, notability criteria for bands/musicians and our policies on reliable sources to get an idea of what is required to be considered notable for Wikipedia.

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for coming to my talk page to ask questions rather than continuing to remove the speedy tag. Please let me know if I can be of help. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~ that will cause your name and the date to be inserted. Jbh (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Thank you so much. I shall chat with Everymorning about this matter. Thanks once again.J A Srivathsan (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Dinesh Vaghela

Hi,

Please help me in getting rid of the issues with the page Dinesh Vaghela

Also, when searched on Google, the page does not appear on the first page of the search.

PLEASE HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirvaghela (talk • contribs) 07:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kabirvaghela. I see you have put quite a bit of work into the article. I have taken a closer look at it and I see two major problems. The first is that much of the text is taken directly from articles found on the web. This is not allowed here because of WP:COPYRIGHT issues. This can be solved restating the material in your own words and I can try to help some with that.

The second issue is more of a problem. I am unsure whether the subject of the article passed our general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. I will look through the sources in the article but you have put in a lot of things like books he has written or published that are not really appropriate at first glance. Clearing those out will take some time. I will ask another editor who is more experienced in Indian topics than I to take a look and ask for their opinion [5] since I am not familiar with Indian politics and what notable coverage is.

You can help a lot with this by finding articles from independent, third party reliable sources which talk about him. This means sources that are not written or published by him, his party, his campaign or anyone related to him. Please understand that it is almost certain that the article will be much shorter than it is now and if notability can not be established there will be an Articles for Deletion discussion opened to discuss the notability of the subject.

I will do what I can with the article. As to the Google search results that is not something Wikipedia has any control over and is based on Google's search algorithm. Cheers. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and date automatically. Jbh (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Added diff of help request for reference. Jbh (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kabirvaghela: I have re-written the article based on the sources and text available to address the copyright issue and to remove material not supported by sources. While looking into the subject I could not find any really significant coverage. I tried using both 'Vaghela' and alternate spelling 'Waghela'. As it stands it is likely I will need to nominate the article at WP:AFD. If you can find some sources in the next couple of days maybe that can be avoided. Please see notability for politicians and general notability guidelines for our criteria for articles. Also please see reliable sources for the types of sources needed. Please note that the sources must be independent of him and his party. We need things like newspaper articles that talk about him in a significant way. Mere mentions of his name or minor quotes do not contribute to notability. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your guidance. ~~~~

@Kabirvaghela: You are quite welcome. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Also, the 'nowiki' and 'code' tags are just how I got the four ~ to display without the software inserting my signature in their place. When you sign just use the four ~ at the end. Here is a quick primer on talk pages you might find helpful: How to edit talk pages Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:oh! thank you once again. i'm a new user, please bare with me :D--Kabir Vaghela (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Kabir Vaghela, the way to improve the article is not to turn it into a unsourced hagiography. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kabirvaghela: Based on the lack of better sources in the rewrite I have decided to nominate the article for AfD. The subject does not meet our notability criteria for politicians or our general notability criteria.If the article is deleted at AfD then when/if the subject wins a notable election or gets more substantial coverage in reliable sources the article can be recreated based on the new material. Jbh^Talk 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool new signature! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Jbh^Talk 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:How do i stop the article from getting deleted?

should i restore the article to the date that you edited it? --Kabir Vaghela (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What you need to do is find some high quality sources like national newspapers that discuss the subject in depth not simply mention his name in passing or relate a small quote. I have given you links to the notability criteria several times and the relevant criteria are mentioned in my nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Vaghela.

When I did the re-write I simply used the material that was present in the article and removed the copyright violations and presented it per WP:NPOV. I searched for more sources, also using an alternate spelling, and found nothing of note which I could use to improve the article. While the article's wording was more in line with our policies in the version I wrote is still did not pass out notability guidelines. You should present your arguments for keeping the article at the AfD discussion. You can continue to improve the article while the discussion goes on. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete Bonny Norton?

I've added a reference to an encyclopedia article on Bonny Norton (Higgins, 2011), plus a number of external links, but it's still suggested that it be deleted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espensj (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Espensj: Sorry, I misread the cite as something she had written as opposed to something written about. The article is paywalled and I made a bad assumption. I removed the BLPPROD. Jbh^Talk 22:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

AFD

Hi JBH, I did not make any recent changes to Sugar Mountain Farm nor did I remove the AFD tag. I would like to request a week to work on putting together the citations on notability that CorporateM asked for. Pubwvj (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It is OK to continue to improve the article and present sources while the AfD is ongoing. AfD generally lasts at least seven days so you should have time. Please carefully read WP:N, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Please note that AfD is not a vote (That is why comments there are called !votes) rather arguments are based on Wikipedia policies. One good, policy based, !vote should 'win' over a dozen !votes that are not based on policy. It is best when you comment at AfD to cite the particular part of the guidelines the article meets and what you feel makes it meet them.

I nominated the article because the back and forth was getting tiresome and while I initially felt the notability was a bit questionable I really respect CorporateM's opinion on this type of thing, so that tipped me from meh to delete. Jbh^Talk 15:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pubwvj: In case I have not mentioned it I really appreciate and respect the way you have backed off direct editing of the article since I got involved. Jbh^Talk 15:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, JBH. I appreciate your help with understanding the Wiki process and with improving the article. I am not a Wiki expert. I'm a farmer. I know a lot about rotational grazing, growing pasture, growing pigs on pasture, naturally raising animals, USDA regulations, building a USDA/State inspected butcher shop, concrete, boar taint, selective breeding and what we do. I'm barely skimming the surface of learning about Wiki. My understanding of Wiki is low. What I have added to the article in the past was based on what I thought I was being told by previous editors to do. I appreciate the feedback. The terminology and abbreviations are a bit overwhelming. Thank you for the references to read which you listed above. It will take me some time to assimilate them. Pubwvj (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pubwvj: Yes, Wikipedia can be arcane. What all of those links boil down to is several independent, third party, reliable sources that talk about the subject in detail are needed to demonstrate notability. Sources that do not exert strong editorial control, self published sources, those that make only passing mentions or brief quotes and those that do not discuss the subject in depth do not count towards notability although some may be useful for supporting part of the article.

If you have any questions about the guidelines or sources you think might demonstrate notability feel free to ask me. I will be happy to give my opinion but please understand that my opinion counts no more or less than any other editor and others quite possibly will disagree. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 16:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sugar Mountain Farm AfD

JB, I am curious why articles like this one Valentine Richmond History Center which has clearly been edited by COI editors associated with the museum and doesn't yet have a single reliable source independent of the topic cited in the article (since its creation in 2006) gets a free pass on COI and GNG yet we are more than willing to do almost anything to suppress content like Sugar Mountain Farm? Just curious! --Mike Cline (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: Because of how Wikipedia is organized often no one will notice a problem at an article until someone either directly calls an editor's attention to the matter, as you have done, or the issue spills over onto one of our internal noticeboards. I took a quick look at the article, since everything was, as you said, cited to their web page I also took a brief look for material on the web. I found two local articles on the Valentine itself The Valentine Richmond History Center, Reopening This Weekend: Richmond History Center Now Just 'The Valentine' and one on a current exhibit there Beard Wars: Civil War Generals and their Bewhiskered Modern-Day Counterparts which can be used to improve the article.

Regarding COI the obvious COI editor, ValentineRHC, has not edited since 2012. If you have concerns about the others you can bring the issue up at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. With respect to 'suppressing content' at Sugar Mountain Farm I would disagree with that characterization. There are a lot of passing mentions but no real in depth coverage that speaks to notability. Possibly more will be found but it is my experience that when a COI editor has been working on an article for a long time, particularly against an opposing editor as in this case, they will have already put in the best sources they can find along with all of the other questionable ones.

I hope I was able to address your concerns, at least to an extent, if you have any other questions or concerns please ask. Jbh^Talk 19:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

JB thanks. I indeed realize things slip through the cracks. But even the local sources you listed may support content, but do they rise to the level of GNG. Using the same logic that CorporateM used to remove most content sources from the Sugar Mountain Farm article (the owner of the farm obviously contributed to those sources therefore they aren't reliable was the logic he used) I strongly suspect that this museum's PR function contributed to the pieces you cited. It's really the double standard we tolerate and perpetuate with our "Blood in the water" COI approach that I am railing against, not you in particular. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: That I do understand. My personal views are kind of deletionist and I would support the equivalent of BLPPROD for everything. I think the reason managed COI articles get 'picked on' is the more editors whose attention are drawn to an article the bigger chance someone will notice it does not meet our standards. While one that is just created and left alone only needs to get through New Page Patrol and no one will ever notice it. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 22:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

HI Jbhunley

stop correcting my stuff, its the correct stuff so stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewpich (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Matthewpich: I tagged Selena Gomez (singer and actress) for speedy deletion because all the article consists of is "Selena Gomez is a singer and actress. She is really awesome. She was born on 7/22/92" this is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please read our guide to writing your first article and check out the Wikipedia Tea House for information on what is needed to write an article which meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please let me know if I can be of help. Cheers. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and date automatically. Jbh^Talk 02:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Mgfrid about Misha Frid] Article

Sorry, it's not autobiography. I write about Misha Frid from his account (we are friends) and we write an article including references and information from other sources (our autobiography is only on his official website) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgfrid (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mgfrid: Welcome to Wikipedia I understand that our policies can be confusing at first. Please see our policies on conflict of interest. Also it is not permitted to use another editors account see our User name policy for details. Please sign up for your own account before you continue editing and note on the article talk page and the new accounts talk page that you have changed accounts and that you previously edited under the Mgfrid account. This allows for proper copyright attribution and prevents you from running afoul our policy about using multiple accounts. If you have any questions or need assistance please feel free to contact me on my talk page or you can ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Jbh^Talk 02:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and date automatically. Jbh^Talk 02:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pings

I don't think you added the 4 tildes when you resigned, or did you? It only works if you do that, if it even works then. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Yes, it was only a couple of seconds between edits so I deleted the old sig and resigned. Thank you for checking though, I have been caught by that mistake before. Jbh^Talk 12:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you. It is extremely unlikely I will participate beyond the comment I made in the RfAr. Jbh^Talk 18:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Submit an article in Wikipedia

Hi Thanks for editing and guiding me with regards to Wikipedia pages , wanted to understand when can i submit a page to Wikipedia or how to publish an article in Wikipedia Avi130988 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Avi130988

@Avi130988: The article you are writing now is live on Wikipedia it is published the instant you create the article in Main space. That is why you see people working on it at the same time as you are. A lot of new editors use Wikipedia Articles for Creation to get input on their article and have it formally reviewed by an experienced editor before it is published to Main space. I hope this answers your question, if I did not or you need something else please let me know. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 19:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

16-line format sample messages

Thank you for including some sample messages in the talk page. I'm a Ham operator, not military, so am just now learning the format.

I moved your samples into a table, and added a voice (ACP-125) version. Can you proof this to make sure I got everything in the right format line? I'm pretty sure I blew a couple of them. Peter K. Sheerin 22:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K. Sheerin: Wow! The article looks great. You have done a lot with it since I first looked at it. I would be glad go over the table. It might take me a day or so. I need to take a look at the standards documents to be sure of line numbering/naming since I either write out messages from memory/templates or have a terminal that spits them out. Although on first glance I see a couple of things. It should be made clearer in the 126/127/127-sup format is the TO and INFO lines are one call sign/RI per line. For instance:

TO: XXX9YYY AAA
XXX9ZZZ AAA
XXX7WWW BBB
INFO: YYY6UUU BBB
PPP6GGG AAA
TTT6HHH CCCC

Rather than:

TO: XXX9YYY AAA, XXX9ZZZ AAA, XXX7WWW BBB
INFO: YYY6UUU BBB, PPP6GGG AAA, TTT6HHH CCCC

That seems to just be a formatting issue with how long my example texts are though. In the examples I gave there is no group count because that is generally only specified in CODRESS messages but the line is there. The from line also generally has a routing indicator, I probably just forgot it in the example. Something I am not sure if is in the standard or not is the classification line is also used to specify SERVICE (Operator to operator) message types as well as classification. In that case it would read CLASSIFICATION SVC rather than CLASSIFICATION. On line 4 the ZRN UUU is a security warning which is an example of an HI/OP SIG. It was put in automatically when I made the example and can be removed if you like.

The standards vary some between agencies and services. For instance the US State Department is a little different from US Military (US State Dept - ACP-127 FORMAT LINES). The samples I gave is what my terminal spits out and is how US Army and Army MARS format things. I am also an amateur radio operator and volunteer with Navy MARS, our format is slightly different, mainly in routing indicator and DTG. Some formats use the Julian Day Number in the header as well.

One comment, off the top, is you might want to reconsider some of the listed documents, they do not really have anything to do with the message format itself. For instance, if I remember correctly, FM 11-490-7 is the document which creates and tasks MARS but it has none of our operating procedures. Many, if mot most of the documents listed seem to be like that.

I think it would be very interesting to go through some of the old documents to see how the standard changed over time and how it varies in implementation. Great job! Please let me know if I can help in any other way. I will get back to you on the table soon. Jbh^Talk 23:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@PetesGuide: Looks like i pinged the wrong account. Also see notes on article talk page. Jbh^Talk 01:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Thanks for the compliments! I wanted to get this format documented before too many more people forget proper message exchange procedures, like the folks who thought ICS-213 was suitable as a radio message form. ;-) I populated the references with every manual I thought might be relevant, and will whittle them out as I keep working on the article. Yeah; formatting plain text in table cells is un-fun. I need to add some HTML line breaks in there. Already know of the State Dept. manual, but am loathe to try to decode its cryptic content.

DE K6WEB
Peter K. Sheerin 21:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Youch! I am fearfully amazed at some ARES/RACES organizations training and capabilities. The ICS does not really consider formal, digital message traffic and Amateur Operators kind of need to make do when dealing with served agencies who are more used to filling out 'While You Were Out' message forms than documenting their message traffic. Of course the hams should be converting everything to RADIOGRAM format before sending but many of the examples I have seen just use the ICS 213 blank in FLMSG. There is no uniformity of training and procedures across jurisdictions. That is one of the main reasons I prefer to work with MARS, there is at least a base line of training and expertise.

I wrote a quick extract of a couple of lines from DOS on the talk page [6]. If something like that would help you please let me know. PS Just FYI your call sign might give out more personal information than you intend ie QSL. If it does you can have WP:OVERSIGHT remove it from public view. Jbh^Talk 00:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Faculty of Chemistry of Lodz University of Technology

I'm sorry for my incorrect revert of this article. I did not see a decision placed on top. On plwiki I'm used to place/found it at the bottom of AfD. I don't understand also the erasing all information with a redirection without first merging. Well, I see the specifics of enwiki. Regards, Chrumps (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Chrumps: No problem. Yes, on enwiki AfD close summaries are placed at the top. The history is still available for later use such as adding some information to the main article or if the topic later becomes notable. In general we do not have articles on University Faculties/Departments/Colleges unless they are notable in and of themselves as institutions. Anyway, enjoy editing on enwiki, I am sure it is going to be different than dewiki but I am sure you will catch on fast. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need any assistance. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 22:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Colors

Hi, I ask some opinion by your part on these discussions: Template talk:Union, Progress and Democracy/meta/color and Template talk:People's Party (Spain)/meta/color, because the user Impru20 doesn't want to change the color, even when I give references that states what is the real color used by these parties. He says that he want to discuss that, but he doesn't realised about the references. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sfs90 and Impru20: As requested I took a look at the discussion on the above two articles. Again, like the prior discussion, I see little difference between the colors. In my opinion any time the color is referenced it should be the same as in the party's published style guide. However, as Impru20 mentioned on Template talk:Union, Progress and Democracy/meta/color there are sometimes technical issues which require another close colour to be used. In that case proper display of the graphic is more important than adhering slavishly to the style guide so long as it looks right.

TL;DR If we are stating the color used by the party we say what their style guide says ie the template should reflect the style guide. If we are creating graphics a consistent look (cf perceptual changes because of nearby colours) is more important. I am unfamiliar with how party colours are handled on Wikipedia in general so this is simply my off the cuff opinion. If there is some customary practice I an unfamiliar with please let me know. Jbh^Talk 15:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the problem, that no one had a "customary practice", it looks that someone created the templates and the colors only by personal feelings. I don't look any similarity between the colors of UPyD and PSOE (as Impru20 said), and Impru20 is complaining only because he created a lot of maps, graphics and things related, that if we change the color of the party, he had to change all of them. In this case, if he's too compromised with all the Wiki project, he would have the time to correct all that. In the same way, I don't look any reference by Impru20 that sustains his possition; he doesn't gave any reference that says the UPyD color is the one that was used in the template since some time ago. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm complaining, among other things, because you are not even caring to discuss the issue before going on to push your edits forwards, which really annoys me. How much does it cost you to TALK? You have had several warnings by several users in the past because of your edit warring behaviour, and far from changing, you still keep maintaing the same behaviour.

Now, on the issue itself: Sfs90, you before put forward some arguments to defend changing to a given color; now you want to change them to other different shades of those colors! So, before, you defended the logo colors; now you want to use the colors set in the manuals of style (something which, by the way, most parties don't even have). Do you realize I'm at the behest of a user who is constantly changing opinion and goes on to change colors using different arguments each time? How many times do you suggest I should change maps, charts and the such? Everytime you feel like to change the colors? Furthermore, the current colors are fine, and most of them are so established so as to keep armony within charts, graphics and maps. What's the necessity of changing the color templates, just because you feel like it, and disestablishing the entire consistency of colors in the charts? I'm really bothered of the little consideration you have for the work of others, that you don't even care to discuss with them.

Customary practice, usually, is to use the color shade that best fits for Wikipedia uses, rather than use the same exact shade the party uses (as long as the color is similar to the one used by either the party or the media). That is so because parties frequently don't keep using the same shade of a given color and keep changing it, within the range of different shades of their corporative colors. So, instead keeping constantly changing party colors (unless a given party changes from blue to red, to say an example), the color shade that best fits for Wikipedia purposes are frequently used. Sometimes that color may coincide with the exact shade used by the party, sometimes don't. Just check Christian Democratic Union of Germany, Syriza, Democratic Party of Japan, Labour Party (United Kingdom), Conservative Party (United Kingdom), Social Democratic Party of Austria, Forza Italia (2013), Socialist Party (France), Socialist Party (Portugal), Freedom Party of Austria, etc. Impru20 (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Impru20: You know what's the difference? That the templates or the color that is written in the infobox doesn't have any references about the color. In the case of UPyD and Citizens (not PP, i'll concede you that they could use different shades) I give very reliable sources (the graphics identity manual used by them), and I don't see any about that in the parties you mention as examples. You see? If they have or don't any manual that states their colors, that's not my fault. In the case of UPyD and Citizens, they have one and states clearly the color. The precission is a thing that we should consider here in Wikipedia, and if we have references that support that, we could apply it. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have to support the position of least disruption here. If the colours on the charts are not obviously visually wrong then keep them. The only time I fee we must stick to a party's MOS is when we explicitly state what colour they use ie if we were to say X party uses #ABABAB in an place a reader would see whether or not we are actually using #ACABAB in our graphics. There is no reason to go changing pre-existing and consistent graphics unless they are visually problematic nor do I see a problem with making a clean break, keeping the old graphics as is and moving forward with the MOS colour in the future so long as at this point you select one colour and stick with it moving on. Jbh^Talk 16:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sfs90: In the case of Citizens, you will see that I accepted your change without serious discussion. The only issue arising then was that the source was unclear on the color that they were using, but was solved by using the hex provided by the party (also because differences were minimal and weren't noticeable to the naked eye, either).

You just told it. "if we have references that support that, we could apply it". We "could", but we are not forced to.

Anyway, I may concede on changing colors of small parties that have strict manual of styles and whose colors do not damage consistency, specially because changes are not difficult (there are few charts were UPyD color should be changed in order to accomplish this, for instance). I'll have to make further tests on UPyD, but I could concede on changing it. But, definitely, changing the color of major parties, such as PP, which don't even clings on to the same color shades, would require serious discussion and consensus because it would mean serious and major changes in consistency in charts between the different election articles and the such.

However, next time you are to do something like this, if you see that the edit is disputed go and discuss the issue before trying to push your disputed edit forward. I tell you because you have these issues with many people, not just with me, and someday you may end up reported by someone who hasn't the patience I or others have. Impru20 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Harassment

Whining and blustering by a user who should know better but obviously does not.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Will you kindly blank off and leave me alone? I'm sick of you stalking me round Wikipedia. You wasted a whole evening of mine recently with your gauche nonsense. Your behaviour is a kind of abuse masquerading as some kind of house cleaning. If this continues I shall be placing an official complaint against you. Especially when an article is UNDER CONSTRUCTION. Plenty of other things I'd like to say to you, but I'm sure people say them to you offline if you behave like this.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC) @MacRusgail: I have done nothing to harass you, if you feel I have please open a complaint and present evidence of this. An article that has had no editing since its creation on 23 April is not under construction. Based on your history I see you are an experienced editor who should know our policies on reliable sources and notability. As before please simply show how the article passes WP:NBOOK, any sourcing would be better than the complete lack of sources in the article now. If you have gotten to the point in your Wikipedia career where being asked to comply with the policies and guidelines that we all must has become so stressful as to cause you to make these outbursts rather than fixing the indicated problems I strongly suggest you take a few months Wikibreak, regain some perspective, recharge and come back and continue your valuable contributions to the project. JbhTalk 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC) I am seriously considering a complaint against you. "If you have gotten to the point in your Wikipedia career" - I don't have a "career" on Wikipedia. No one pays me a single penny. You wasted an entire evening of mine earlier this year, and ignored tags I had put on an article. You apparently did not see the original tag, and attempted to backtrack. I had intended to spend a short time on Wikipedia, and then to sort out some offline matters, but was hindered from doing so by your maladroit manner. I come on here to improve Wikipedia, not to be antagonised by a small self-selecting officialdom, which makes up its own rules in obscure corners of the website without any kind of wide-ranging consent. "I strongly suggest you take a few months Wikibreak" - I strongly suggest you leave me alone. I have the right to edit Wikipedia without you or any other people trying to delete every article I create, before they are finished, and without just cause. I suggest you re-evaluate why you are on Wikipedia - you may have even had some kind of ideal once, I doubt. There was a question recently as to why more women do not edit Wikimedia. I think the answer is obvious, even to a man like myself. I've contributed a lot to Wikipedia. Not just rubbish, I resent your method of operation. People like you, and certain others, are destroying this website. If you actually get kicks out of behaving like this, well then you have my pity not my contempt. Again - stop putting my articles up for deletion until they are fully completed.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC) MacRùsgail, I'm not sure why you're still continuing to complain instead of providing what every article needs - proof of notability. --NeilN talk to me 17:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC) @MacRusgail: Let me reply by collecting my response to your accusations and documentation of your actions in one place. As I said earlier, please take these matters to ANI if you feel I have acted improperly. Also, as I have said before, don't bluster and threaten - unless of course it makes you feel better - if so I am sorry that is the case but go right ahead and let off some steam. Maybe it will help you put our respective actions and responses in perspective. One thing I do want to make clear is any time you spend yelling at me via keyboard rather than improving an article is entirely your choice just as it has been all along. Re: Edward Adrift After proposing this article be made into a redirect on the talk page [7] another editor redirected it to the author's page [8]. Two weeks later yout reverted their edit without discussion and added {{under construction}} [9] however you made no furhter edits to the page for a day and, in fact, have made no improvements to the article since the day you created it on 23 April. Twenty-nine hours later I removed the {{under construction}} and nominated the, completely unsourced, article for deletion [10] Instead of providing sources to document notability or politely engaging on the talk page you then improperly moved article at AfD [11] and improperly removed the AfD tag [12] Nthep move propected page and added {{pp-vandalism}} due to your behavior. [13] You of course know all of these things are wrong since during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter you: Improperly removed the AfD tag [14] Improperly removed the AfD tag again [15] Then blanked the page and turned the article into a redirect while the AfD was ongoing [16] My interaction with you you started with you doing a bit of light name calling [17], and moved on to accusing me of harassing you five times. Once on my talk page [18], twice on Talk:Edward Adrift [19] [20] and twice in edit summaries [21] [22]. All without backing it up with diffs or a complaint to ANI - see WP:AOHA for why that is bad. You have, however, threatened to do twice [23] [24] now. If you really think you have a legitimate complaint against me it is time for you to take it to ANI and we can present our diffs. I missed an {{under construction}} tag on an article almost a month ago and nominated a non-notable article too soon. Again, sorry. Your actions since then have been inappropriate and over the top and nothing has been done improperly on the current AfD are even more so. I took your accusation of going through your history [25] as an invitation to look at some of the articles you created recently. I found a book with no sources showing notability - The Steps of the Sun - an un-referenced BLP - Marion Arnott - and five articles sourced only to SF Encyclopedia.com - Joseph Addison (Scottish writer), James Peddie (author), Robert Hendrie Wilson, Mea Allan, Ismar Thiusen. I really like science fiction so in the spirit of cooperation and moving beyond our conflict, maybe we can work together constructively to improve these articles. No question SF Encyclopedia is RS but WP:NAUTHOR requires more and it might be fun to see what there is on those people. Maybe you could point me to some of the sources you use since, based on your comments you do not like search engines. JbhTalk 21:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Which part of LEAVE ME ALONE do you not understand? This is harassment, and you have serious psychological issues of your own. Stop trawling through my edit history for something to latch on to. I don't spend all day going though yours. "The spirit of cooperation" - You evidently know nothing about this judging by your behaviour. Go back and crawl under your rock you pathetic little man, and stop trying to hide behind the rulebook. I don't give a damn about you. Is that plain enough for you? Go and get off on bothering one of the thousands of other editors here, instead of wasting my time.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC) I've warned MacRusgail about making personal attacks. Suggest going to ANI if this continues. --NeilN talk to me 17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC) Has it ever struck you that Jbhunley has been going about this the wrong way? I'm the one here who feels like I'm being stalked and harassed. Every time I go on to Wikipedia, this man (it almost certainly is a male) creates a new problem or issue, and you wonder why I'm not happy about it. This is not the spirit of co-operation, it's someone making an unhelpful nuisance of themselves. There are much better ways he could have conducted himself towards me. You probably need to redefine your notion of what a personal attack is. I'm been under attack by this person for days on any. Unfortunately on Wikipedia, it seems impossible to walk away unlike in real life.-MacRùsgail (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC) @MacRusgail: You could, you know, make sure your articles meet Wikipedia's basic policies. If you don't want to do that, try creating them in Draft space until they're ready. --NeilN talk to me 17:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC) @NeilN: I have addressed some of the other issues elsewhere, and don't wish to do so on this page, which has been tagged as "Whining and blustering by a user who should know better but obviously does not." (Presumably this isn't a "personal attack".) "If you don't want to do that, try creating them in Draft space until they're ready." - Or even tag them. Except that's not even safe either anymore. I've already had one item removed from my personal space. What's the point? "You could, you know, make sure your articles meet Wikipedia's basic policies." - I try to. And you know what else? When I see someone else's article which doesn't, I usually try and improve it, not get rid of it, unless it's something I think is complete trivia or vandalism. There's more I could say, but as I've told Jbhunley above, I don't have masses of time to spend on discussion, which is about all I've been able to do today. In the meantime, it would be better if some people considered what they were doing, instead of blundering in. Or even developing certain communication skills that would help with editing Wikipedia, instead of turning it into a form of sadomasochism.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

(Moving {{hab}} down a bit.) @MacRusgail: If you wish to engage with me please do so on the appropriate talk page or, if you like BOOMERANGS at ANI. Good day sir. Jbh^Talk 18:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh!

...that discipline does not always carry over to Wikipedia since I edit as a hobby and to relax.. You too? WTF is wrong with both of us? LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: LOL! Yes, maybe it is intellectual masochism :) ... I always find interesting people and topics which I might never have looked into when I edit Wikipedia and compared to RL it is almost impossible to get upset or angry for more than a few minutes here. Cheers! Jbh^Talk 21:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Some of your CTU updates appear whitewashed.

The updates from 97.100.252.46 appear suspect. Providing an FYI as you've worked on the page in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Technical_University

Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.11.193 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Conklinj

You appear to have warned Conklinj about the wrong article. I suspect that you meant Oil Content Meter rather than Oily water separator. I would have changed it myself but didn't want to incur the wrath of another editor complaining about re-factoring the comments of others!. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Velella: Thank you for letting me know. I will add a note on their talk page. Cheers! Jbh^Talk 21:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

New Page Patrol

Hi. Thank you for patrolling new pages. When you tag articles as you did at Coordination Office for the Preservation of the Written Cultural Heritage, please consider using the message feature to inform the creator. 'Wikipedia is the encyclopedia can edit' often leaves new users with the impression that we do not have any rules or guidelines for article creation. Helping them by keeping them informed may help grow our contributor base. If you are not sure how to maximise the full potential of the Page Curation tool, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC}

@Kudpung: Will do. I thought the Curation Tool left messages about the issues. Does it only do that if you leave a note? I have some stock messages I edit for other issues so I can write a some for curation issues. Is there something other than WP:FIRST which gives a good one screen tutorial on article standards? (It is often hard to know the experience of an editor without checking them in XTools for every article, which seems excessive, and treating a non-newbie seems to get much worse responses.) If not I can draft one similar to User:Jbhunley/Common policy misunderstandings and User:Jbhunley/How to edit talk pages which I sometimes use for new users or possibly some two-line notes phrased as 'reminders'. Any suggestions? Jbh^Talk 13:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung:I see from looking at that user's talk page that it does not even seem to leave a 'patroled' message. Based on the note you left there would something like:

Hi, my name is XXXX. I have just read your new article YYYY and have notices some ways it needs to be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. I have tagged the article with the specific issues. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. You can also stop by The Teahouse where there are very friendly volunteers who can be a great help. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.

be an appropriate message? Any suggestions on wording? Jbh^Talk 14:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::You need to let the user know in your own words what you have tagged. It only leaves automated messages when the article is tagged for one of the forms of deletion or COPYVIO. If there is only one issue to be addressed I usually leave a short note with a link to the related guideline, such as for example: "Your article has a lot of naked URLs. I have cleaned up the firsrt few for you so that you can see how it's done, perhaps you could take a moment now to do the others. More help & info at WP:CITE" oherwise I often paste my standard message "Thank you for creating XXX. I have tagged the articles as having some problems, please consider returning to the article and addressing those issues." If you want to know exacttly the degree or tone your message should take, you can easily see the user's experience by clicking on the info button.

I know this all looks like a lot of work, but it is exactly what patrollers are supposed to be doing. For more information I recommend you also read WP:NPP and Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: OK. Thank you. Extra work is not really an issue. The whole purpose of the exercise is to pass otherwise unproductive time by doing something useful. Jbh^Talk 14:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hamed Zarei for afd

Hi I need Some time please give me some time to I collect reference.

@Pepole made: As I mentioned on your talk page the AfD will run for at least seven days and I have no control over it beyond making the initial nomination. See my reply on your talk page for more information. Also please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 19:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@jbhunley Thank You so much. I will collect some reference. and I will Send it for you. Please Say other adminastraterstrators to dont delete my article to I collect some References.

@Pepole made: All you need to do is improve the article with the references. I am not an administrator here, just an editor like you. Also please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp and read the 'How to edit talk pages' link I sent you. Other editors here respond much better when you communicate better. All anyone sees or knows about you here is how you present yourself when editing. Please take the time to learn how to do so properly. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 20:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I find a good reference please dont delete my article 

Link 1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme hamed zarei on sums.ac.ir @jbhunley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepole made (talk • contribs) 10:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@jbhunley Thank You Very much, I add The references and I Delete The AFD massage, Becuse I talk to one of the Administrators and he said You Can Delete The AFD massage and I Delete it Please Dont Replace The AFD massage.

@Pepole made: No you are not allowed to delete the AfD message from the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:Hi

I have Found Some References to Improve the Hamed Zarei's Article. Link http://researchgate.net/profile/Hamed_Zarei8 The others will be sent as soon as possible.109.203.191.192 (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@109.203.191.192: Thank you for the link. Unfortunately ResearchGate is not what we call a reliable source ie it is not published by an independent third party with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking. Also, please bring your sources to the talk page of the article so discussion can take place in a centralized location and other editors, who do not watch my talk page, will be able to contribute to the discussion. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 13:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Adi Hasak

Hi. thank you for your help in editing the page I started. I believe I fixed the problem and linked to a reliable source so I removed the edit - was there something else you were recommending I fix? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhasak (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jhasak: The citations are likely good enough to get rid of the BLPPROD but they are only bare mentions of the subject. What is needed are articles in independent, third party reliable sources which talk about the subject ie a major portion of the article is dedicated to the subject not just a quote or mention. Without that the article will fail our general notability guidelines as well as our more specific notability guidelines for authors. The article will be nominated for deletion unless notability notability can be verified

I know there are a lot of 'blue links' in the above but those are the policies and guidelines an article needs to meet for inclusion in Wikipedia. A good place to start is with 'Your first article'.

Based on your user name I need to ask if you have a conflict of interest with the article subject. If so you should restrict your editing to proposing edits and sources on the article talk page for other editors to consider. The reason for this is it is often difficult to maintain a neutral point of view when editing an article about yourself or someone you work with or are related to. You are, of course, free to participate in the deletion discussion if the article is nominated for deletion due to lact of notability.

I will keep the article on my watch list and see if enough coverage can be found. If you need anything you can leave a message on my talk page or, preferably, the article's talk page. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. You also might want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 14:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jhasak:PS you might consider moving the article to Draft:Adi Hasak since right now it is live on the site as Adi Hasak. If you do not object I can move it into Draft space for you. Jbh^Talk 14:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Please check the links again. It references Adi Hasak as the creator of Shades of Blue and not simply as a cursory detail. There is no conflict of interest - all the information in there is reliable and objective. Getting more people to edit this as well soon. Thanks for your help .

Jhasak (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Jonathan

@Jhasak: Several things. First, thank you for signing your post however posting a comment on the top of a talk page rather than in its proper position id improper. It only takes a few minutes to learn the proper way to properly edit talk pages. I have asked you to do so several times. At this point I feel your not doing so to be disruptive and frankly disrespectful.

Second, you have stated earlier that Adi Hasak is your father. That is the very definition of a conflict of interest. You are understandably proud of your father and from what you have written he has done some really cool things. However, if the sources you have provided are all there are he simply does not meet our notability criteria. I have previously linked our notability guidelines and the requirements for independent, third party reliable sources that talk specificly about him. Please take the time to read them and understand how they apply to your article and its subject. As a COI editor you have a great advantage in that you can just ask your father where there is coverage about him. Regretfully if some better sources are not found I will nominate the article for deletion. Sometimes, as a result of the deletion discussion, other sources can be found which result in the article being improved and kept if it can be brought up to Wikipedia standards. Otherwise it will be deleted. Jbh^Talk 15:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted page SDEWES Centre

Dear Jbh, I don't believe that the page should have been deleted, especially not so abruptly (during the night at my local time) - since it's not a citation from the page that was mentioned in nomination and also has references for every paragraph. The page also had more recent information in comparison to http://www.sdewes.org/home.php Eplaner (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Eplaner: I nominated the page for deletion because it was a copyright violation. Please see the deletion log entry. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. All articles must be written in your own words, not copied from another web site. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT for more information. The administrator who deleted the page is Jimfbleak who I have pinged. It typically requires agreement of at least two people that an article meets our criteria for speedy deletion for an article to be deleted, the nominator and the administrator who reviews the nomination and does the actual deletion.

If you have not done so you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations which must be met before a subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. You should also be familiar with what is a reliable source. If I can be of further help please let me know. You might want to consider our Articles for Creation process or visit the WP:TEAHOUSE where there are very friendly and capable volunteers who can help. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 09:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Eplaner:, The article was a copyright violation. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. Because copyright is a legal issue, there is nothing to discuss, which is why it was speedied. The text was also was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, but the original had spammy claims of success and importance. I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SDEWES_Centre&diff=667451811&oldid=667398457 these edits, mainly MoS. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:InterContinental Asiana Saigon.

Thanks, I've replied directly and deleted the TP, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

why?

why did you do this - [26]? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Coolabahapple: Ooppss.. That has happened several times today. I didn't see that one. Thanks for catching it. My browser has been taking a while to load WikiEd (sometimes not loading it at all) when I start editing pages so when/if it finally loads my cursor jumps to the top of the page for a second. I do not know why it is happening but it has done so several times in the last day or so. Sorry. Jbh^Talk 02:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

no probs Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

comment on bilateral guideline

you might be interested in my comments here. Wikipedia talk:Notability (bilateral relations). LibStar (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

ping

You pinged me on the talk for bilateral relations... I'm really confused as to where the conversation is going but I'll try to respond. FYI, I think that particular user has issues with competence (he argues "snow keep" for the most obscure articles at AfD) and he completely fails to understand what significant coverage/GNG are. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. Jbh^Talk 23:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		1,696 pages patrolled in the last 12 months! Very good! Keep up the good work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jbh^Talk 14:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a note . . .

. . . in appreciation of no-nonsense clarity, incontrovertible facts, and masterfully diplomatic turns of phrase :-) . Writegeist (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Writegeist: Thank you. I dislike when anyone tries to create their own version of reality, it makes it more difficult to address actual problems. The only way to prevent repetition from becoming reality is to challenge it. Jbh^Talk 21:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

But sometimes, I'm afraid, you might as well try to have an intelligent discussion with this. Writegeist (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Writegeist: :) Yes, sometimes that is true but even then discussion lets me check my cognitive bias and prevents me from just pigeonholing someone. Often in disputes I will see an "opponent's" words and actions through a lens distorted by the conflict and might miss their actual motive/intention/meaning - of course sometimes I don't. Other times it is just nice to chat, even if it is a bit tense. I have found very few people that do not have something worthwhile to say and I usually learn something which is the whole reason I edit here. Jbh^Talk 00:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ross

about this - we have been trying to teach Ross WP's policies and guidelines and explain why we cannot make the changes he wants. we have gotten back WP:IDHT and he keeps pushing anyway. You will see this if you review the article talk page. I tried to help him and gave up. Maybe you will be able to get through to him, but that would be surprising. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thank you for the heads up. I initially thought he was just a BLP subject with an issue (since he was posting to BLP as an IP). I now see he has been at this for a while. I am particularly concerned that he says he does not have an account here yet there is a Rick A. Ross who was active on the page recently and has been on Wikipedia both earlier this year and in 2008.

Oh well... I will try my best to get through to him and see where it goes. Cheers! Jbh^Talk 18:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes he seems to keep "forgetting" or something. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that I don't know all the Wikipedia rules and policies. I am doing my best to comply and post within guidelines at the Talk page of my bio. At this point I remain blocked. I have emailed the appropriate people/committee within Wikipedia, but have received no response.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Primeval

Hi, Thanks for spotting this rather odd edit [27], I simply used the AFD tool to redirect the BLP so I honestly can't understand or even explain how on earth Primeval ended up being redirected on itself ?, Anyway thanks again for spotting that, Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 02:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Software does weird stuff sometimes... No problem... Cheers! Jbh^Talk 12:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Trout vs. truth

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

vs. TRUTH Erlbaeko (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: Not sure of the point you are trying to make but I think it is really cool someone actually used the WP:TROUT button! If you are arguing for the old "Verifiability not truth" that old saw is long depricated and we use editorial judgement when examining sources. Whatever it is we should discuss it over on Talk:Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war. Cheers! Jbh^Talk 19:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: [28]. I would have self-reverted, if you had given me a couple of minutes. Sorry, I did not know.Erlbaeko (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It is kind of a hot button issue for me. Apologies if I jumped too far down your throat. :) Jbh^Talk 16:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes. I felt like that was kind of a hot button. Apologies accepted. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Re:[29] You can post on my talk page, if you like. I just had enough of that "why did you informed me of the sanctions" discussion. Take that to ANI if you believe I did something terribly wrong. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Erlbaeko: OK. Understood and thank you. I had hoped to find a middle ground between you and MVBW and thought the self-notification might help take the sting out of it for them. You can see where I did a similar thing on User talk:Jbhunley/SanctionsNotice when I notified an editor of DS, in fact it is my policy to self notify whenever I notify another editor to avoid just the issue you ran in to.

Personally I could care less, in general, about being notified of sanctions as long as it is done properly and in good faith. I think where people got concerned is the Syria sanctions regime is not like typical DS which are placed with {{Ds/alert}} and kept track of in software. Since the Syria sanctions are logged on their own page, and almost all have been logged by an admin, it can feel more like your name got placed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for doing nothing. This is more an issue with how the sanctions are administered than how you notified people per se. The procedures seem unclear even to experienced editors and I think a non-acusitory AN thread might be good just to clear it up. You might even want to bring it up there as a 'is this the right way to do it' question. I can not imagine anyone sanctioning you for that even if it was not the right way to do things. I would definitely support you and speak to your good faith if you did something like that. Everyone makes mistakes and I really do not know if you did or if those of us who were concerned did. For me it all boils down to intention and willingness to address others concerns. God knows I have had my share of screw ups and even pissed of people when I did not screw up. It all comes down to figuring out ways to deescalate those kinds of situations so we can all get on with building Wikipedia.

Anyway I will stay out of that thread unless addressed. Also you still might want to look into ProMedMail, they get reports of suspected chemical incidents from all over the world and do a good job of analyzing the evidence. They are mainly an infectious disease surveillance system but they watch for any event which causes 'symptoms' and their editors are top quality. They also have archives going back many years so you might find some other incidents as well. I hope to work with you in the future on this and other topic areas. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 17:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to WP:ADMIN regarding paid editing

You recently commented on a brainstorm that discussed banning administrators from paid editing. A concrete proposal to amend the administrator policy to this effect has been made at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposed change - 'No paid editing" for admins. Your comments would be appreciated. MER-C 08:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Panopticon

How wouldn't you require a panoptican of surveillance if your admin model is to track down and punish wayward posters? This IP people are complaining about is doing what it takes to evade Wikipedia tracking him down under current rules. But if you change the rules, he can just do whatever else it takes. Unless you insist on being able to track him down everywhere, with all the oppression that requires. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It's fairly unlikely any change of rules would be needed. As with most ISPs in the developed world, Telstra already has the right to cancel service if [30]:

use your service in a way which we reasonably believe is fraudulent, poses an unacceptable risk to our security or network capability or is illegal or likely to be found illegal; or

Continually making death and rape threats is something that Telstra could resonably construe as being illegal. More complicated but it's likely that Telstra could argue that the behaviour is fraudulent or poses an unacceptable risk to their network capability. And Telstra, as with mosts ISP in the developed world, undoutedly already has logs that are allowed by their customers terms, that last at least a few days and can determine which customer is responsible.

If whoever is behind the IP decides to start war driving or using a bot net or whatever in the future, or if they are already doing it now, then our options may be limited, but it isn't unresonable to ask an ISP to enforce their T&C and stop their customer or someone authorised by the customer from using their service in a way which causes significant problems for us. It's something that already happens a lot with spammers etc, it's just that some ISPs are more slack, particularly for something which is out of the norm of what they normally deal with. There no reason to assume that every problem editor is going to go to the extremes of bad behaviour, if we did that we might as well not block any editor because they'll eventually be back and using a botnet.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC) BTW, there is perhaps some resonable debate about whether or not we should expect ISPs to act against more run of the mill persistent disruptive editors, like those who engage persistent wide ranging vandalism using (intentionally or not) many different IPs. I know from some ISPs POV, it's our fault for allowing editing without accounts. However we shouldn't conflate that issue, with a more serious case like this where only a really unresonable ISP would consider the editor's behaviour an acceptable use of their service which isn't and shouldn't be forbidden by their customer terms. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Wnt: I do see how you have concerns about using IT infrastructure track people but that train left the station years ago and there is no practical way to call it back nor would failing to addresss the current issue contribute to rolling those capabilities back other than in an exceedingly minor and completely symbolic manner.

My main argument was prevent people who are posting death/threats from being able to do so as a first step to managing the situation. From there the only 'admin model' is to get the Foundation to engage with the service provider and law enforcement and it is a matter of national politics that determines what tools those authorities have. My point is we should never use the safety of a victim to debate national and international ideals that we have no effective control or immediate influence over. Doing so causes harm to an innocent person for no marginal gain. That is the personal equivalent of 'destroying the village to save it'.

Personally I fear the idea of a surveillance society but that is a 'big picture' thing. The little picture thing is that there is a person here who is being traumatized by rape/death threats. Maybe the stalker is far away, maybe they do not know who the person is, maybe they are just talking and will never actually do it. No matter what the threat can ruin the quality of life of the threatened person - living in fear is hell. That is the best outcome of the 'do nothing' your idealized reaction leads to. However there are some red flags that say this is a more serious situation: The threats are repeated and have been going on for a long time and posi-likely come from more than one person. Based on the mild, historical, ones I have seen, they are ethno-politically motivated and have to do with ARBPIA issues. That is a real threat and as I said, without identifying the stalker there is no way to do a real threat assessment so we must assume it is a legitimate threat. The resources, methods and procedures for identifying the stalker is a law enforcement matter - if you want to talk civil liberties they are the ones to discuss it with.

Changing the world is a great goal. There are a lot of things that 'should not be' yet 'are' and even more things that 'should never be' and I admire the people with the drive to make the world a better place. My view on making the world a better place is to do whatever is possible to prevent people from being terrorized, raped, killed or any of the other horrible things people do to one another when their views of 'how the world must be' collide. No matter how strongly you feel about an issue I guarantee there is someone in the world who feels more so in the opposite direction and is willing to use violence or the threat of violence to see there ideal is the one that wins out. Always remember that when pursuing high principles and ideals there are real people whose minds, bodies and/or lives are shattered, not only in the conflict but in the collateral damage caused by the blind application of those ideals.

To get back to your question on Jimbo's page, no I do not want to see a panopticon or surveillance state, not even a little bit but I will never let an innocent get run over by my ideals. There are enough screaming nightmares in the world and we should not contribute to them especially when it is an academic point of principle vs a real person's immediate terror. Jbh^Talk 16:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The train may have left the station, but there are still a lot of semi rigs and at-grade crossings between it and the final stop. I don't want to put pressure on the relatively few methods by which people might get on the Internet with more genuine anonymity; so long as any remain there is still a shadow of hope.

The safety of the victim is important, but what actually makes someone safer -- to let a troll rave on as we bury him under an ever more sophisticated non-legal community response, or to get him thrown in jail with hardened criminals for a little while? If the victim is in terror now, just wait until his release date! Now just getting him thrown off his ISP might be a more measured response, except... either he has an easy competitive option, in which case this has no impact on his crusade, or he doesn't, in which case he's screwing around with wardialing and such just to use the Internet at all and we have more trouble, OR the ISP, finally convinced that a violation of law demands they terminate his service, follows that up by making the legal report itself, which then leads to an investigation and divulgence of personal details of the victim and the rest of the situation and we're with the jail scenario. However you do it, starting a war is not a safe act. And when we start tracking people down and trying to make it personal, war is exactly what we're doing.

Now I won't say I totally oppose inaction, because there are few phrases more liberating in the English language than "there's nothing we can do about it". Indeed, that seems like the only really socially acceptable way to uphold any right, however basic. More to the point though, when you close off every single possible dumb idea for handling a problem, occasionally people will grudgingly resort to something smarter. If we would simply line up a group of editors to deal with this person, make it clear to all what his agenda is and where to look out for him, preferably design some tools and abuse filter notifications to help track him down, then we could say the person he's picking on is free to stand down from the conflict a while while the rest of us stand up to work on pissing him off ourselves. So what I'm thinking here is to combine safety in numbers with a refusal to escalate, and that way we manage the risk. Of course, it's never totally impossible to rule out any risk at all - ultimately editors have to have some tiny iota of courage, I mean, less than you need to bite into a McDonald's cheeseburger really, but some determination not to be cowed by threats. Wnt (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt: I do see what you are talking about, community based technical solutions are a part of the response to any form of abuse but they are neither the best nor most appropriate response. What I fear you could be missing is that this is not a Wikipedia problem the situation with Telestra is a real life threat of which Wikipedia is a part. That is a pretty major distinction. If it were simply a Wikipedia problem then the community can figure it out however, these are death threats made via Wikipedia. Just like threats made by phone, mail or broadcast by short wave radio. If we were to take only the actions you propose then Wikipedia and the individuals who said 'we can handle this' would be responsible for the outcome.

All of the if's and or's you propose are possibilities but you are using them as an excuse to take no action when you have no idea whether action is needed. The victim is the one put primarily at risk by your if's and but's so it is their decision (hopefully counseled by a professional whether they want action taken. They spent two friggen weeks trying to get the WMF off of its ass. I can not express how shameful that is. Existing policy is to block those who make threats of harm and to range block IP hopping abusers. I can see how no one really wanted to range block Australia but the WMF should have made a definitive decision in a maximum of a couple of days. That this was still an open issue with no definitive plan of action or guidance from the WMF main office is shameful and Jimbo saying, to a person who wants to keep their identity hidden, take it to the press shows shocking ... well shocking something I mean take it to the frigging press! what is that man thinking!!! Jbh^Talk 18:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I can say or do takes away the right anyone affected has to go to their local law enforcement and file a complaint. It may well be effective. But what we don't need is to create this notion that we as third parties have to get involved in that process. We shouldn't go the route of universities that start setting up their own phony tribunals and then people wonder why they give a slap on the wrist for rape or whatever. I don't suggest we should pretend to replace an editor's right to go to cops, but we don't have to encourage it either, let alone try to make the decision for them. Wnt (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree we should not go the university tribunal route. Those are nothing but travesties but I do not think anyone has proposed to do such a thing here. We can agree to disagree about whether the provider of a pubic place is responsible for maintaining a safe environment and supporting law enforcement in the area.

On a different note. I see you are interested in studying ways to avoid surveillance on the net. If you are not aware of it there is a community involved with The Program on Liberation Technology "Liberationtech" at Stanford University with an active mailing list [31]. They discuss what is going on the ground in various countries and work to support journalists, political activists, NGO's etc. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 12:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Caught in a range block please unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jbhunley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am caught up in the range block for 69.80.96.0/20 placed by Callanecc [32]. I guess my router just changes addresses via DHCP. I am not editing through a proxy and my VPN is off. Can you please fix it so I do not need to VPN in to edit. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 12:07 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Done for now. No reason to suspect editor is up to no good. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: I see you are editing now. Would you please take a look at this for me. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 16:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please try now. I will inform Callanecc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: All good. Thank you. It is passing strange. That block of IP addresses geolocates a couple hundred miles from me. Jbh^Talk 16:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like my VPN was set to auto-reconnect. Still strange because that IP is not where the VPN server should be. Oh well. Thank you for the help. Sorry for the trouble. Jbh^Talk 17:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So were you connected to your VPN when you were autoblocked or not? I ask because if you were, I will put the rangeblock back. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Yes. I was connected when I thought I was not. Go ahead and put the rangeblock back. Next time something odd like that happens I can assume I've done something dumb rather than my ISP moving to Pennsylvania all of a sudden. (Still odd since Pa, is not where the VPN server is supposed to be. Oh well... that is their problem...). Thank you for the quick response getting everything sorted out for me. Sorry for the trouble. Jbh^Talk 22:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Carnegie Corporation of New York logo

Back in February I attempted to upload a new logo of our foundation. I didn't have any success and I still wish to replace the old logo with the new one on the Corporation's website. URL: https://www.carnegie.org/

De-clutter for readability.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnegie_Corporation_of_New_York&diff=648163254&oldid=646709393 Non-free rationale for File:Carnegie Corporation of New York logo.jpg[edit] Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Carnegie Corporation of New York logo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale. If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. JBH (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image File:Carnegie Corporation of New York logo.jpg[edit] ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Carnegie Corporation of New York logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ronald Sexton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald Sexton (talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ronald Sexton: I have uploaded a copy of the new logo, generated a non-free use rational per our WP:NFCC policy and changed the logo in the article. Is that the change you wanted? Jbh^Talk 20:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant) bio

I am Rick Alan Ross with a bio on Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Alan_Ross I cannot post at the talk page of my biol due to the claim that I am not Rick Alan Ross and/or have been posting against policy from an IP address rather than an established Wikipeida account. I did once have an account, but lost the password and have changed my email since then. I have opened a Wikipedia account RickAlanRoss1952 I have also emailed the appropriate contacts within Wikipedia as suggested, but have received no reply. I would like to be able to post again at the Talk page of my bio. Please helpRickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@RickAlanRoss1952: Please see my earlier comment on your talk page [33] for your options. You can also post a request at Arbitration requests for clarification and amendment by clicking here. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. But no response, no action and no change regarding Talk page.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Once an issue is taken over by ArbCom there is nothing anyone else can or will do until their requirements are met. They are the final arbiters of matters they address. Your best bet if you are not getting any response through email is open a request at WP:ARCA. Several Arbs read that page daily and it is the proper place to address matters relating to their "rulings". Forgot to ping. Pinging @RickAlanRoss1952: and re-signing. Jbh^Talk 17:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Followed all your suggestions, but nothing is happening. What can be done?RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@RickAlanRoss1952: As I have said above open a case at WP:ARCA by either going to the page or by clicking on this link. If you have tried my other suggestions and not gotten a response that is really the only option left to you. Jbh^Talk 20:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I followed instructions and filled out a form at the link you provided. I have followed all your suggestions.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@RickAlanRoss1952: It looks like Liz, an ArbCom clerk, has taken note of the request and decided that AARCA is not the place for it. She noted in the edit summary she would contact you on your talk page. She should be able to handle it from here. Jbh^Talk 20:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the request was not correctly formatted so that was one reason why it was removed. Also, I looked at the original restriction which advised RickAlanRoss1952 to contact the committee. I've alerted the committee on one of their email lists that they should be on the lookout for RAR's messages. They can take their time discussing requests like this so it might be a while before an inquirer hears back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Jbh^Talk 20:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have sent emails to the committee twice. Once today.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not verified at Wikipedia through my new user account and unblocked at the Talk page of my bio. I have again raised the issue of involuntary deprogramming there continuing our past conversation.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to remind you that I need your help on the lead. I know you are busy, but would appreciate your time to correct an error in fact and cut the lead to only the first paragraph as you previously suggested.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rick Alan Ross: I have told you at least three times that I was incorrect in my idea to cut the lead, why the information needs to stay, and that I would not be cutting the lead. Please drop it.

If there is an error of fact please let me know, on the article talk page, what it is along with a reliable source which documents the error and I will be happy to correct it. Jbh^Talk 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for clearing up the logo issue. Will the exclamation box still remain there? Ronald Sexton (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Ronald Sexton: Thank you! What 'exclamation box' are you referring to? If you are talking about the old notice on your talk page you can just delete it. It was only to notify you there was a licensing issue with the old image. I do not see any alert boxes associated with Carnegie Corporation of New York or the new logo file. If you are seeing one please post a link to it here so I can take a look. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Jbh^Talk 19:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help through the ANI process. I was grouchy during the ANI and I appreciate your help, as do the people from our past who will now be remembered by future generations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I can certainly understand how you would be grouchy through such a process. You have done great work with all of those biographies. I hope we can get the ones that are ready enough cleared and moved into main space where readers will have access to them and so you can get back to writing more of these biographies. I picked up a NYT subscription so I would have access to the archives through this process. Do you have any articles you want moved over first or any you want left in your user space? I really look forward to reading about people who I would never otherwise have heard of - it is fascinating. Jbh^Talk 01:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are doing some very good work with Rick Ross, striking a good balance between respectful engagement and protecting our core values. Thank you for this. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Jbh^Talk 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Curious.

That's twice now you've suggested I should be topic banned along with EllenCT at AE. The other couple of editors who suggested that have their own biases and an old personal stake/grudge involved here. I don't recall if we've ever had an interaction, but you didn't give any specific reasons why I should be topic banned (you did cite something specific EllenCT did at AE, and point out that mediation would miss the point here, which I appreciate). Are there specific, concrete reasons you think I should be topic banned as well, or was that just an understandable "pox on both their houses" first glance reaction that's common when someone approaches a blown up debate for the first time? VictorD7 (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@VictorD7: I am basing my recommendation on the way you have handled the AE request. I really do understand your frustration there but it seems very hard for you to disengage from the conflict. I admit there is a bit of 'pox on both their houses' in my thinking - that situation is toxic and a determent to the project. I considered using this last post to also say you should not be banned but I could not in good conscience do so. (That post was intended more as a 'don't force mediation' than a reiteration of 'ban them both' and I apologize if it came off that way) What it really came down to was the way you handled AE including the walls and walls of text you posted there, it was a mirror of EllenCT's behavior - whose behavior certainly requires a topic ban. Maybe she brings out the worst in you but what it showed to me was that you are over engaged in the dispute. Posting more stuff after the "evidence" was hatted really pushed that home for me.

In addition the mud slung by some of the other editors stuck enough that I can not see you as a 'victim fighting the good fight against EllenCT's POV war'. I do recognize that some of that mud was flung by editors you might have long standing conflicts with. (That "recusal" was one of the pettiest actions I have seen by an "un-involved" admin.) Nonetheless it gave a pretty firm impression that this is not your first rodeo.

It comes down to how you handled the conflict, the disruption it caused and my not being convinced that because of the ... maybe tenacity it the right word... you have demonstrated that the conflict and disruption will not spin up again if you do not take a break from the topic for a bit. I would support you if you committed to a 60 day voluntary, logged, topic ban that shows you can let go and allows things to settle out. You should also stay far away from EllenCT on economic topics even if not related to American Politics. Personally I think the whole trickle-down thing is going to blow up in the near future considering how it is being pushed. I think you are overall a good and knowledgeable editor who is involved in toxic situation and needs a rest from it before it spins further out of control.

In short I feel that there is enough blame to go around and untangling the precise rights and wrongs is a) far beyond AE and b) would cover neither of you in glory and would lead to the same result. I hope that answered your question. If you think my reasoning is flawed or you think this might help you, you are welcome to link this post at AE. Jbh^Talk 22:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughtful response. For the record that final evidence was posted before I knew the section had been hatted, though I did request later that it be reinstated since I was replying to false, last minute accusations (even that last post didn't address all of them, since I didn't get to see all the new accusations thrown at me until after the hatting). I was reluctant to post the "walls of text" but thought it necessary to thoroughly refute the completely false sourcing/content claims EllenCT was making after they seemed to be gaining traction in the admin response. Another uninvolved editor later admitted to having been "lulled" (his word) into buying much of EllenCT's narrative at first glance, before striking his earlier comments and saying that a more careful reading of the situation shows my sources are sound and she's the one engaging in POV editing. A responding admin similarly struck his earlier comments to agree with this editor, thanking him for his patient reading. These revisions came after I posted my lengthy rebuttal, and presumably would not have occurred if I hadn't. So the "walls of text" were a mixed bag, making a positive difference with some respondents but maybe being tldr for others. I figure it's better to err on the side of correcting the record. My posting there only mirrored EllenCT's in length, not substance or accuracy.

I responded similarly to very dated, off topic, personal cheap shots taken by one of those aforementioned editors whose POV pushing clashed with me and other editors last year (EllenCT isn't the only tendentious editor on Wikipedia). In retrospect maybe I should have ignored those or been more concise, as they may have partly been attempts to bait me, but at the time I thought it best to contrast his vague assertions with specific examples highlighting the nature of our past involvement. Regardless, I don't think verbosity in an AE in reaction to baseless accusations is a real conduct violation, much less one warranting as draconian a sanction as a topic ban (on an unrelated topic to boot).

On the current issues, I haven't been the source of the toxicity you describe, and my involvement has introduced information and clarity over time. I don't think disagreeing with EllenCT should warrant a topic ban either. Without my long term involvement the odds are that either EllenCT's POV pushing would have run roughshod over Wikipedia, resulting in less overt discord but a lower quality encyclopedia that makes a mockery of its own stated core policies, or there would have been less informed push back at some point and an even more toxic environment. Now enough editors have become involved and educated that strong consensuses have formed against what EllenCT is trying to do. It's not so much a toxic topic as it is a toxic editor. Since she stopped editing the article or posting on the talk page things have been largely civil and quiet. At this point I see no need for action against anyone. I mostly endorse the status quo, so I'm not planning on doing much if any more editing in the topic areas (especially tax progressivity), if that puts your mind at ease, and if EllenCT resumes her misbehavior (e.g. edit warring) I'll be happy to let someone else report it so people aren't tricked into seeing this as a two editor quarrel. VictorD7 (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Arbcom has repeatedly adopted the principle that undocumented aspersions and personal attacks on other editors will not be tolerated on WP, VictorD7 brief history on this page is sufficient evidence to support a TBAN or site ban. SPECIFICO talk 00:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Except between the two of us I'm the one who's documented my descriptions. I also didn't mention your name here. VictorD7 (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @VictorD7: I have clairified my comment at AE to better reflect what I explained here. I do not know that it will make a difference one way or the other. As I explained I can not bring myself to advocate against a topic ban for you but I feel less strongly about it than I do EllenCT's. Jbh^Talk 00:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your clarification. VictorD7 (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• If you all are going to argue please take it elsewhere. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 00:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Colasanto

"Euromaiden" aside, can you help me expand the intro to the above topic? I.e. summarize that article concisely? I just need one paragraph intro; that's all. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Be glad to. I took a swipe at it here. Jbh^Talk 00:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Allow fifth paragraph of lede?

I invite you to the latest discussion about ledes in general. --George Ho (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

redirection of The News from Nowhere Fellowship Symphony

Wow, that was quick - I've only just started writing the page!! A previous reviewer left some very helpful advice re. what needed to be added to make it comply whereas you've just deleted the initial content within the first few hours - is that really how this is supposed to work? I am confident that when the page is complete with all reference it will certainly comply with all Wiki guidelines - so not sure what to do next. I'm guessing I now work on the page without saving and, then when all is complete, finally hit save - seems really risky. You can tell I'm new to this, but I can't see another way of starting a page and saving as you go along without it becoming subject to patrolling before it's properly finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icmus (talk • contribs) 18:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Icmus: Yes, most articles are reviewed within a couple of hours if there are people activly reviewing. There are a couple of things you can do to make sure it is reviewed only after it is finished. One is to go through Articles for creation the other is to use the draft name space. I have moved the article into draft space for you. See Draft:The News from Nowhere Fellowship Symphony.

Please be aware that all articles must pass our notability criteria ie WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM, WP:NSONG. I could not find anything in my brief searches to show that the subject would pass those criteria and on closer inspection I see the name I redirected to was not the composer.

If I can be of any help please feel free to ask. Cheers. PS Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 19:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

jammes jamba castro - proposed deletion

hey Jb,

thanks for the heads up. I have added some references to the article you mentioned. I hadn't realized that there were no references.

Jessica — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakishlyauthentic (talk • contribs) 20:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Freakishlyauthentic: Hi, I looked through some of the citations you recently put in the article and a large number of them are not what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. Likely one of them will be good enough to remove the {{blpprod}} but I am concerned that the article subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Specifically we require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You should read the general notability criteria and the criteria for music biographies to see what the requirements are.

Also, please try to use an encyclopedic tone when writing the article rather than a promotional or conversational tone, see Beatles. I will keep the article on my watch list and, as I have time, look at the references if someone else does not get to it. Thank you for your contribution and welcome to Wikipedia! Jbh^Talk 21:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC) PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp.

@Jbhunley: hey there Jb. You are right. im new at this and english is not my first language. in regards to reliable sources, i am confused as to what they should be. Did i code them in incorrectly? I love Wikipedia and contributing to it has been a lifelong dream. Would you help me write it better? Any suggestions on how i can make the text more like the Beatles entry? I have to say that the Beatles entry is probably one of the best i have ever seen. Meanwhile i will keep adding more citations and hopefully one day i can make my level go up more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakishlyauthentic (talk • contribs)

@Freakishlyauthentic: I started going through the article. There are really no reliable sources discussing the subject. Just citing things to credits, blogs and press releases is not acceptable. I will do some searched later today to see of I can find something on this person but even if a single reliable source can be found to stop the BLPPROD I think it will likely be nominated for WP:AFD because it does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Considering the lack of material cited on this subject I must ask where you are getting your information from? Jbh^Talk 14:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC) PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp.

@Jbhunley: Well, i am familiar with this producer's work and i own quite a bit of the records he has produced besides finding them online. I also speak portuguese and there are quite a bit of online articles about him in that language as well. have you done a search for his name? - you will find plenty of articles. Also i forgot to mention that i translated this producers page from portuguese. Did i do it right? He already exists in portuguese - under "jamba (produtor)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakishlyauthentic (talk • contribs)

@Freakishlyauthentic: Different Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria. Without WP:RS there can be no article on en.Wikipedia. We do not require that the sources be in English however they must meet the criteria set out in WP:RS. Also, now for the third time sign your talk page posts. Not doing so is considered disruptive and failing to do so after being asked is also rather rude. You also need to indent your comments. Please take a quick look at this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Thank you. PS - There is no need to ping me on my own talk page, editors are automatically notified of posts on their talk page. Also {{ping}} will not send a notification unless you sign your post. Jbh^Talk 14:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:Sorry! LOL! I am still learning - is this good? do you mean not write "ping" - what do i write? i never talk to nobody before. how do i sign - i think i created a signature. can you show me how?Jsousa is this how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakishlyauthentic (talk • contribs)

@Freakishlyauthentic: You can just type on the page. {{ping}} is used to send a notification to an editor rather than depending on them checking the page on their watch list but the owner of a User Talk page gets pinged automatically when a message is left on their page. To sign type four ~ (~~~~) at then end of your post just like I said above. Jbh^Talk 19:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Fereydoun Ala

Comments regarding best practice; thank you for these, however I am a bit puzzled as there are citations and links to other wikipedia articles... KKedit (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@KKedit: The problem is the article has a huge amount of detail about this person but, of the three references I can access, the only thing that relates to him is a statement in Enclclopedia Itanica that says "The project was initiated and founded by Dr. Fereydoun Ala and established by a parliamentary act". The link to the trust does not mention him and the other link is a nice biography of his father.

Where did you get all of the information you put in the article? It had to come from somewhere. You need to put those references in and cite where you got each bit of information. Otherwise, since this is a biography of a living person it is likely to be stubbed until references can be found. Jbh^Talk 11:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Max F. Perutz Laboratories

Dear JBhunley,

thank you for your edits to the Max F. Perutz Laboratories Wikipedia page. The User:MFPL Comms is the communications department of MFPL. So we have added the disclosure message to our user account as you asked. Best MFPL Comms — Preceding unsigned comment added by MFPL Comms (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@MFPL Comms: Thank you for adding the disclosure. You should read all of our policies on conflict of interest, particularly the part about limiting your edits to the article talk page. Please note that multiple user accounts and accounts named for business entities are prohibited on Wikipedia per the Wikipedia:Username policy. You should request a change of user name at Wikipedia:Changing username or the account will be blocked from editing. Each individual who edits needs to have their own account and each of those accounts must disclose their affiliation per our terms of use. Thank you for your understanding. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page. PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages Cheers. Jbh^Talk 14:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Smith's pharmacy winter haven, fl

Hi, you have been too hasty nominating Smith's pharmacy winter haven, fl for speedy deletion. 1 minute after creation is not enough time. Give this sort of thing at least an hour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Sorry. I thought I was working from the back of the queue - I did not check the time. Jbh^Talk 12:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: There has been no further editing by the editor who created this article and it is the only edit by the user. I have re-tagged it since it is still a CSD-A7. Jbh^Talk 13:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thunderation (band)

What exactly does an artist, band, or musical act need to achieve to be 'significant' according to the standards of wikipedia in general and this admin in particular? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel5981 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel5981: please see Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and the notability criteria for bands. In general a subject needs multiple, non-trivial, articles/coverage in independent, third party reliable sources, not Facebook, not blogs - nothing with user contributed content - and not press releases or PR material but sources with independent editorial control and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Also, I am not an admin I nominated the article for deletion, the admin who deleted the article was Bbb23. You might consider going through the Articles for Creation process and reading this page on creating your first article. PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Jbh^Talk 13:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RE: Paid/COI Notice

Hi, I got your message saying that you suspect I have financial ties to Yellowstone Capital. I am not an employee of the company, nor do I have any financial interest in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APetteys (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@APetteys: That does not fully answer the Paid/COI inquiry. Do you receive any direct or indirect compensation for your edits to those or any other article. For example are you being paid as a freelancer or as an PR person or do you work for an agency to make edits? PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 13:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not. APetteys (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@APetteys: then please read Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view and the general notability guidelines as well as the specific notability guidelines for companies and organizations because your articles are indistinguishable from advertisements and public relations material for the subjects. Continued creation of such articles may result in a suspension of Wikipedia editing privileges for using Wikipedia for promotion and not being here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh^Talk 13:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What Strange Stars

hi. New to Wikipedia here and I guess I am kind of confused. I typed up the article for what strange stars that I think you deleted. im confused on how it's not notable enough for it's own article when other pieces of Avram Davidson's work apparently are. his collection or all the seas with oysters, the link right above strange stars on his page, does have it's own. im confused how one is notable and the other not. I have quite the old sci fi library and have found multiple authors who have mostly complete links but one or too stubs and I thought I would help complete there pages. Avram Davidson, CL Moore, John Brunner etc. I guess I don't understand perfectly, should I not expand the stubs? also I would not at all be surprised if I messed up citation, but im also confused how the book the article summarizes does not count as a primary source for a summary. Id love to help expand on these author's pages, so id really appreciate some direction or feedback on what I should do, Thanks Dillon Kreiser 14:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKreiser (talk • contribs)

@DKreiser: What I did, as I noted, was WP:REDIRECT the book's article to the author's page. For a book to meet our notability criteria it needs to have been have a minimum of two independent and significant reviews in reliable sources. Helping expand stubs is a great thing to do and the most important thing is to find sources. Just because an article exists on another topic does not mean it should exist. Every article must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I linked the most relevant ones on your talk page.

If you can find some sources for the article go ahead and undo the redirect and add them. If you do not know how to let me know and I will do it for you. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}} from any talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia! Jbh^Talk 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC) PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages.

Hello again,

The problem with articles discuss the book lies with the guidelines. Like most of the Great Sci Fi writers of his time, his stories were published in Pulp Magazines. After a story was published, other authors would write in to discuss them. But the guidelines say you cant use a source that was used to publish the material. Even if I can get a hold of backlogs of the magazine of Science fiction and fantasy, they wouldn't count. But any one who would want to discuss his work would have done so there. But I believe he should qualify for the "5.The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study" exception. few men are as lauded n the genre. He even became the editor for magazine of Science fiction and fantasy. I can try to get more sources, but since the article is chiefly a summary, and I could not find anywhere else on the internet that even listed the stories in the collection, Shouldn't it stand on it's own for the prosperity of the authors work?

Thank you for helping, I'm afraid I don't no how to reverse a redirect or even where I can edit the article now that it is moved, so if you could help me find it I will try to find more sources for it. in the mean time I asked DEsiegal to weigh in on if Avram Davidson is worthy of the 5th notoriety standard, he is on the Sci Fi project, has 10 years of editing history, and works at the teahouse to help nubes like myself. I figured he could give me a definitive answer. because if Davidson and a few others are "Historically Notable" I have a lot of work to do to help give their work a place here.

Thanks Again, I'm Learning :)Dillon Kreiser 16:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DKreiser (talk • contribs)

@DKreiser: I have moved the article into draft space. You can edit it at Draft:What Strange Stars and Skies. Again Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Also, you do not need to start a separate section each time you comment on my talk page, just indent as shown it the guide I linked for you previously. Remember, everything on Wikipedia comes down to having reliable sources - they do not need to be online so long as they are properly cited so they can be located in a library. Jbh^Talk 16:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Msafiri Zawose

The article references to BBC news and an article from The Citizen ( a Tanzanian ) newspaper, apart from music festivals in Tanzania and World of Music, Arts and Dance which is an international arts festival. I am unsure as to why these sources are considered unreliable. Could you please clarify as to what is considered a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irin.simon (talk • contribs) 18:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Irin.simon: The BBC article simply states he played at a festival. The article in The Citizen looks OK at first glance but it requires more than one article to pass the notability criteria. This discussion should be taking place either at Talk:Msafiri Zawose or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Msafiri Zawose to get input from other editors. I have both on my watch list and you can also {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}} from those pages.

Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Also, please not that {{ping}} will not send a notification without a proper signature. Jbh^Talk 18:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Lack of References on Page

Hi, my page Sommer Nectarhoff was recently marked for deletion for lack of references. I have added more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerlier (talk • contribs) 18:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Writerlier: Thanks for working to improve the article. In order for a WP:BLPPROD to be removed there must be a citation to a reliable source. Links to blogs, social media or sources published bu the subject or their publisher are not sufficient. A biography of a living person may not exist on Wikipedia without such reliable sources. Also, please note that even if one or two sources are provided it is still possible the article will be nominated for deletion at WP:AFD if it can not be shown to pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines or the specific notability criteria for authors.

If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}} from any talk page. Also, Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 18:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Abraham Vosgueritchian

This is a geniune unbiase page worthy of being posted ! With direct links and articles as refrences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.232.101.55 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please consider the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.232.101.55 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The page will be reviewed by an administrator to see if they concur with the speedy deletion recommendation. If they agree it will be deleted. If they disagree they will remove the tag. However, unless there is some evidence the topic meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines it will likely be nominated for a more extensive deletion discussion at WP:AFD. PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 20:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I cannot highlight the importance of this article and the topic in the Lebanese community, I followed all necessary steps I beg you take it into consideration and help me fix it up rather than tagging it to be deleted! please verify the content through the references , If the mere fact that its an autobiography bums you out I can have someone else write it.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abra1995 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Abra1995: I have answered you here, at the article talk page and on your talk page. That answer will not change no matter how many times you post on my talk page. I have nominated the article, now an admin will decide if it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If it does not it will likely be nominated for deletion at AfD. The only way to avoid this is to provide reliable sources to show how the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. If you follow the blue links I have provided in my other answers you can see the text of the policies. If you wish to discuss this further please do so at the article talk page as I requested earlier.

Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Also, please note that editing as multiple IP addresses as it seems you have been doing, as well as with your account is considered abuse of multiple accounts. Please edit using only your account. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 22:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Audiosplitter deletion

Thanks for the note. I've contested the deletion on the talk page, but won't comment further and will abide by whatever decision is made. Xeno of Citium (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Kethrus. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, PBtisk, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. --  Kethrus |talk to me  14:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Unintentional. Sorted. --  Kethrus |talk to me  14:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kethrus: not a problem. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 14:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Blood & Glory (Film) - tagged for deletion

Hi JB, thank you for your correspondence.

I'd like your assistance if you do don't mind, I would like my article 'Blood & Glory (Film)' to remain on wikipedia for referencing, and I am the marketing manager of the film.

You mention that it reads a bit too much like a publicity article, however I re-wrote the article myself from a neutral standpoint as much as I can tell - im not promoting the film or telling anyone to go watch it - it is merely factual and synopsis.

Can you please give me further guidelines as to how it is contravening the rules so that I can amend it according to how it needs to be?

Thank you and kindest regards.

Mike Savage

Mikesavage86 (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mikesavage86: Please note that Wikipedia is not for promotional use. I do not see adequate coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject meets the general notability guidelines or the notability criteria for films - without significant coverage an article simply is not permitted. Also please note that our terms of use require that you declare your paid-editor status on your user page, the article talk page and on each edit you make. You should use {{paid}} for your user page and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} for the article talk page. Please see WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY for more information. You should limit your contributions to the article talk page - supplying sources or making edit requests per WP:COI.

I will keep the article on my watch list or you can contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}} from any talk page. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Please click through and read the blue links, they explain matters in more detail. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 18:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Programmatic media ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -JG (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Josescheuren

Hi, could you please explain what we did wrong? We do not want our page to be eliminated. User talk:Josescheuren From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut/paste from editors talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Contents [hide] 1 October 2015 2 Recent edit to WITS Academy 3 Josescheuren, you are invited to the Teahouse! 4 Speedy deletion nomination of Cinemat Inc October 2015[edit source] Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to WITS Academy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG. ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again. For help, take a look at the introduction. The following is the log entry regarding this message: WITS Academy was changed by Josescheuren (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.876745 on 2015-10-20T11:38:58+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Recent edit to WITS Academy[edit source] Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, WITS Academy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Josescheuren, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit source] Teahouse logo Hi Josescheuren! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Samwalton9 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Speedy deletion nomination of Cinemat Inc[edit source] Hello Josescheuren, I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Cinemat Inc for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. JbhTalk 18:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josescheuren (talk • contribs)

@Josescheuren: from what I can see in my logs the article Cinemat Inc was deleted because the article violated Wikipedia's policies on promotion and advertising and made no claim of notability. All articles must pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and companies must pass the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Please read those guidelines before attempting to recreate the article. Also, please read our policy on conflict of interest and WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} {{ping|Jbhunley}} from any talk page. You also may want to read this brief tutorial on editing talk pages. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 18:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category

Please see my proposal to speedily rename:

• Category:1st century Physicians to Category:1st-century physicians Hugo999 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hugo999: I have no objection. I did not even think of '-' vs ' ' when I created it. Jbh^Talk 00:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Image

See Francis Collins (October 29, 2013). "Basic Science Finds New Clue to Bipolar Disorder". National Institutes of Health. The image is commonly used for the topic. QuackGuru (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: Thank you. I replied at Talk:Bipolar disorder. It looks like the image has become iconic so I have no further objection to its use. Jbh^Talk 13:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I included a reference with the image but you deleted the image along with the reference.[34] I can include more references to help resolve the dispute. I'd appreciate if you try to find another image before deleting the useful image. Images are beneficial to our readers. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)