User talk:The JPS/archive18/archive13

I always welcome polite, constructive criticism and comments. New posts to the bottom, please.

If you're a vandal, do yourself some justice and put some thought into your insults. Replacing the page with "you are gay" isn't exactly ingenious, and I don't consider it an insult anyway: I'd much rather be gay than an illiterate chav. If I've deleted your article, or image, get over it. (Obviously you're welcome to question my decisions, but, seriously, there are some stalkers who really need help.)

Archives
2005 Jan-10 May 2006 10 May-4 June 2006 4 June-27 July 2006 27 July - 31 August 2006 September - 2 November 2006 2 November - 31 December 2006 1 Jan - 3 March 2007 March/April 2007 May/22 June 2007 June/19 Aug 2007 -end of 2007

whataboutadam

Heya whataboutadam's been in the Sunday times: here is a video about it and here is a scan of it

and he is a very popular youtuber his youtube

he doesn't have a wiki page when i was looking for one and i found it very annoying, so i made one and it'd be helpful to every youtuber to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthieeness (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely he has a profile on YouTube to satisfy the YouTubers? Seems like a conflict of interest is going on. And why is so much of this article censored? The JPS^{talk to me} 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Robbie Williams

I am very curious as to why the facts that were left on the Robbie Williams page have constantly been removed, despite the fact that many other unsubstantiated entries, as mine was, are never removed. I would ask that whoever wishes to disagree with the comment I leave on the page, would actually watch the film, Nobody Someday, before deciding to remove my additions to the Wiki page. It is a word for word quote from the man himself, and is available to buy from any good video store. As it is illegal to rip copyrighted movies to the Internet, I really don't see how I have any way of proving directly the quote from the film. No one who leaves mentions about lyrics are ever asked to prove their validity, and so therefore I request that the following statement remains on the page as it is a very important part of the section SEXUALITY and is 100% accurate. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.244.134 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Facts must be backed up by reliable sources. The reference which I removed today was a forum post, which is NOT a reliable source. It is acceptable to reference a DVD, so long as it is verifiable. You don't need to link to anything online, as the quote will be verifiable in the DVD. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I can only ask why the entire quote was removed in the first place then, as it has always referenced the DVD, with an accurate timing to find it, and the only reason the forum was used in the first place was because the whole quote had been deleted three times previously, and the forum was the only place to find other people referencing the quote. I accept it's not a good enough link though, and as long as the DVD is a good enough reference then I am happy that it will remain a part of the Wiki page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.244.134 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the quote. I removed the inadequate reference. It would be bets to discuss this on the article's talk page. Stop, though, putting messages in the article itself, because that will piss off people. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest you did remove the quote, I was just making a point about it being removed in the first place by someone else. If the DVD is enough to reference it then I would have thought they knew that too. I'm sorry if you took that the wrong way. I'm happy with the action you took and respect you for replying to my queries on this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.244.134 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox movie certificates

I've put together a TFD argument in my sandbox for eventual nomination of the template for deletion. I've contacted you since you were the nominator for its first TFD. Do you have any suggestions on the matter, or examples that I could add? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"stalkers"

hi jps! i notice you talk about "stalkers who really need help" yet i also notice that your signature contains the word "stalk". is this a coincidence or have you attracted these people! :P

lol. I hadn't noticed that, actually! The JPS^{talk to me} 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

A certain redirect

Could you delete the Wiz (anime character) link like you deleted Astro Boy (manga character)? It's a redudant redirect since, like Astro Boy, the character appears in an anime and manga. The Wiz redirects have been taken care of by me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Unclear about policy?

Hi - I added an external link to the JAWS movie pages. The link is an excellent reference source for original production photographs, props and production images.

I don't understand why it has been removed? It is as equally valid and the other external links listed, is not for profit or selling anything..it is pure information related to the film.

Hello. I'm afraid it's yet another fan site and is certainly not a reliable source. As your user name suggests, you clearly have a conflict of interest in linking to it. Reading WP:EL will help you to understand why this link is inappropriate. Good luck with the site. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Verna Fields

Thanks for the compliment for this article and the suggestion to list it for GA review. I've noticed some of your work before, of course, and I'd also noticed your "possible GA" note when you regraded the Fields article. I still have a "to do" list that I'm working on. The main one is the thorny but interesting issue of the credit that Fields received for the success of Jaws at the time of its release. I would guess it's the main example of an editor receiving a great deal of credit. Easchiff 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and self-nominated Verna Fields as a "good article." Thanks for your encouragement. Easchiff 23:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement with this article and its GA-nomination; I appreciate it. I'm happy that a film-editor article has reached GA status. Of possible interest to you: I've found some material about Fields and Jaws 2 that suggests that she played a significant role in its production, even though she wasn't directing. I haven't put this into the Fields article yet. If I can develop that further, I'd like to add it to the section on her "management career" to give some more insight there. Cheers, Easchiff 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Filipino television directors

An editor has nominated List of Filipino television directors, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino television directors and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hitchcock deletion...

I added an item to the Hitchcock page concerning his favorite "MacGuffin", which you immediately deleted citing "no citation". I DID cite the comment, as a matter-of-fact I added a reference to the Truffaut book... go back and check the history of the page if you need proof. I understand that you take great pride in deleting "unworthy" material, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't delete CITED and REFERENCED contributions!Supertheman (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Was it? I'm sorry. nyway, it was quite trivial. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the time it takes to formulate the reference properly, add the citation properly, and then add the sentence properly is not "trivial". All this takes time and effort and I don't consider spending time contributing properly to Wikipedia "trivial"... my time is precious and wasting it by deleting worthy and properly referenced contributions is not "trivial". Perhaps if you contributed more, and deleted less you might be cognizant of this fact. Supertheman (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I indeed appreciate the detail of the reference. I just don't rate the quality of the comment. Meh. As for my own contributions: 2 featured articles, and about 10 good ones. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ChinaSchoolExplosion2

Fun times. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

lol. He might be able to make endless accounts, but it's much quicker for us to block and revert. All in all, it's only his time he's wasting. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stefan Legein

I noticed that the Stefan Legein article was previously deleted before I started it again, but I also created another ice hockey player called Justin Cross. This article is extremely similar to the Stefan Legein article and I was just wondering why it was deleted again. Cheers, 1bevingtonco (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Legein was deleted by consensus received at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Legein. I'll have to take a look at Cross... The JPS^{talk to me} 10:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference removed from Bat Out of Hell article

I removed the reference because it was applied to the end of this sentence: "Although written towards the end of the album's production, the track was the only hit single from the album." That sentence is incorrect. I rewrote the sentence to eliminate the claim that is definitely false. There were other hit singles. I presumed that the reference was in support of that false claim, so I removed it. In retrospect, I should have checked that, but...

On further checking, I see that the reference pointed to an IMDB page that also does not lend any support to the claim that the song was written near the end of production. Since it supported neither claim, I see no reason why the reference should be preserved. If I'm wrong about this, please explain why.

Thanks. Rhsatrhs (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The reference cs-ds refers to the Classic Albums documentary, specifically a contribution by David Sonenberg, not the IMDb. The link to the documentary's entry on the IMDb (Note, this is not a trivia page) exists to facilitate locating the documentary for verification.

So, the claim that remains, and the one you removed, is associated with Sonenberg in the Classic Albums documentary, further details of which can be found on the IMDb. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhsatrhs (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

quick question / advice

hello, an article I maintain has just had a request for citations and references which I have now added. I am not sure how to find out if this is now enough and if so how to remove the box asking for references. I hope you do not mind me asking you here but you made a revision to the page so I thought perhaps you had asked for the citations, although I am not really sure!

the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDC_%28music%29. I am sorry for any bad english, it is not my first! Also I am trying to learn mnore and contribute for wikipedia, so any help and advice would be very welcomed

Fredrick gamian (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An editor you've warned previously about stealing images is still at it

Leo4313660 has been uploading pics at an alarming rate claiming self-made on most of them. They clearly aren't his and he has already been warned... by you... to cease uploading copyvio images to Wikipedia. To make things worse he has been adding these same sorts of images over at Commons. All of the stolen from various websites relating the the band Iron Maiden. Any way to wipe the slate clean on these pics? They are all over the place and now that they are showing up on Commons with the same false source/license it is just an invitation for other users to go ahead and start adding them into articles without double-checking their true origins. Thanks for your help. 156.34.216.55 (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of them, aren't there, and it could be a problem. Trouble is, I can't find the source for them. There's a possibility that it might be genuine. I doubt it, but they could be. Once we find the original URLs we've got him. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gregory's_Two_Girls_-_DVD_cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gregory's_Two_Girls_-_DVD_cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Joking Apart

I've left a detailed "post-GA" review on the talk page (which includes a couple of things I probably shouldn't have let pass for GA... mea culpa!). All the best, EyeSerene^talk 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Your improvements look great. It's an interesting and well-written article, and you have my best wishes for FA. I vaguely remember the series - I caught some of the later episodes of series one, and thought it looked innovative and promising... and then it seemed to vanish. It's strangely satisfying to finally discover what happened ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

re-One Foot in the Grave

Hi, thanks, that would be much appreciated - I finally bought the One Foot in the Grave boxset in the Christmas sales, so only about a year or two after it came out. To tell you the truth, I don't really know why I bother with Mr. Bean, I don't even like the programme that much! I originally just tidied it a bit, and have found myself having to sort it out every time someone writes that their friend look a bit like him or something. I was rather hoping by making it into a decent article it might discourage people, but that somewhat backfired... Bob talk 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the reader, Mr Bean is a decent article. Just not for the few aware of GA standards! The JPS^{talk to me} 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Causey Arch.jpg

A Flickr user has uploaded your image of Causey Arch as if it were her own. http://www.flickr.com/photos/london_heiress86/1139516326/ Flickr will only respond to copyright infringement complaints from the copyright holder. This page shows what they need to know http://docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Econauts

Why did you delete the new page I'm working on? It isn't vandalism or advertising. It's a publication. Please reinstate the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrentim (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a very short article with no third party independent sources indicating notability. It is a good idea to draft an article offline before submitting it for publication. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Allen Curve Entry Deletion

Hi, there,

I noticed that this entry was deleted for A7 reason. This article is not about the real person, but rather about the discovery of Allen Curve and its impact to architecture and innovation management science. To my knowledge, Allen Curve is very notable in innovation management science and it is cited in virtually all courses on this topic.

I am wondering if you labeled this entry for A7 because Professor Allen was mentioned too many times in this article and made this article seems more about the Professor, instead of the Curve itself. Can you please advise me what I should do to correct this?

Ben.jiang (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the article isn't about the person then there' no point in having an article with that title. The best plan would be to mention it in an existing article on architecture and innovation management science. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am confused about your rejection regarding the title. "Allen Curve" is quite well accepted for quite many years and its impact is visible in more than one fields and it was taught/cited in many universities(MIT, Harvard, berkeley.edu, uta.edu, marietta.edu, msstate.edu, bsu.edu, wisc.edu, arizona.edu ...). As a matter of fact, it is mentioned in existing wikipedia entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Sloan_School_of_Management and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Allen . With so many mentioning and citing, I doubt it's proper to treat it as just by mentioning in architecture or innovation management. I believe it is valuable to expand this discovery to a separate entry.

I also don't think your invoking A7 for speedy deletion is a valid one. As I said, this entry is not about the real person, which is A7 about. Besides, there is an entry for the real person already. If your concern is about notability, I can assure you that I am working on the content to fix this and will update the content whenever you have this entry restated.

I strongly urge you to restate this entry. Ben.jiang (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Press Gang

You seem to be pretty notorious for deleting material that doesn't jive with your interpretation of Wikipedia rules. Case in point: a Press Gang link I keep adding, and which you keep deleting. You seem fixated on the fact it's in a blog format as the main reason for doing this. Can I just point out, that if we want to play "rules Nazis" here, the rules actually state, "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article..." and as the blog IS the subject of the article, ie: Press Gang, I think it's fine. And, further, I think fans would appreciate the link remaining there, rather than being repeatedly deleted, per your personal world view. Your secondary reason, that an episode guide is also on Wikipedia is specious, as episode guides are also present on fan sites, too. Yet they are, apprantly, OK in your world. Doesn't make sense. The blog in question also contains screengrabs, which Wikipedia does not, so it would be appreciated if you stopped meddling and just let things be, for the sake of people who are actually interested in the flow of information, and not the limiting of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.73.73 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

On your site you admit that some of the episode guide material is taken from Wikipedia. What is then the point of linking to it from the Wikipedia page?

Let's be honest here. You want to publicise your site and increase its hit rates. Do you genuinely, and I mean genuinely, think your site has any additional information (other than the pretty pictures) that both of Wikipedia's Press Gang articles have: both of which are featured status.

Wikipedia:Copyrights discusses the problems of linking to sites which violate copyright. As your site contains a high number of screenshots, this is applicable to you.

Finally, let's look at the WP:EL criteria. Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. The articles reached featured status without the need for this site, as it is not a unique resource. We both know you're "promoting a website". "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." There are sufficient reliable sources: we don't need to resort to a personal fan site.

Nonetheless, good luck with the site. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I would be interested to know why my artical was noted down as nonsence when it was clearly stating who I am and what I do like pretty much any other artical about a person on here (isn't that what wikipedia is about?).

It's beyond me why my artical was removed yet there are literally thousands of others which contain so much false information in which stay where they are.

Please, point out the reasons behind this speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichPyke (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Pitt GSPH

JPS, I would like to thank you for your open minded debate on the deletion tag. I thought you brought up excellent points that deserved to be debated/addressed and I was extremely pleased that you were able to keep an open mind and reevaluated the article fairly after the recent edits. I think that is not always the case among administrators and I just thought that you should commended for it.cp101p (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's speedy stuff

uhhh.. u deleted my page.. wat the mum? i would like a reason. i was half way through editing it slightly, went back to the article and it wasnt there. i mean jeeeeeeeeezus what the hey? why? come on u barely even had time to read it. its a very useful article. put it back. now. thankee

yours sincerely mottowesm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mottowesm (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't very good. And, no. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Heya bud, Sorry, don;t know how to message on this thing, so feel free to delete this when you read it. Was just creating a page for the Bushwackers Band, which you speedily deleted. Just edited it to put in the criteria for notability and you deleted again (possibly w/o reading?). If you don;t think it satisfies the criteria, that's cool, but the band has at least two major releases with a reputable recording label + satisfies other criterion that I haven;t researched but I'm fairly sure of. Cheers Alec.N (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. You are right that it does fulfill the criteria with that assertion, but you will need to support it with third party reliable sources, not just the band's site. Any reviews by notable publications? The JPS^{talk to me} 11:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, touche. Found third party site with info on another album released through a major label; edited article. Hopefully others with more time than I can further reference the article. Peace. Alec.N (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

your 'sure it wasnt very good'? not you think it wasnt very good? so u didnt read it you deserve to be locked up. in a cage full of hungry beavers i will be complaining to the correct authority for this miscarriage of justice (the page being deleted not you failing to be put in a cage full of hungry beavers) i dont know why u think it was such a great idea to delete it. maybe cos iv only just created my account. maybe cos this ip adress has so many bad edits (btw its a school so dont blame me 4 it) im just a person who thought id add an article about a game that had been developed by the students of my school. and u deleted it. without any kind of vague reason, let alone a good one. i ask you now to put it back, or at least give me a reason why not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mottowesm (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... where do I start? It wasn't encyclopedic. It was original research. Wikipedia i snot for things made up by bored school kids. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

well scew you, you masogenistic bastard go fuck yourself its in an idea. a game. ffs its pretty damn good game. maybe u should try it some day, mite help u to pull ur head out of ur own arse yours sincerely mottowesm

xxx