User talk:Jac16888

• Hi, This is my talk page, Please leave messages at the bottom.
• If you post a message on this page, I'll usually reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion.
• If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so you're most welcome to reply there rather than here.
• If your message is in CAPITAL LETTERS, I'll ignore it

WP:AN

Is there any particular reason for you restoring over a 100,000 bytes of archived discussions back to the main page?, [1]--Jac16888 (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. What happened? If I did something, it was completely accidental, and I apologize. Googie man (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

fair enough. I'm going to revert back to before your edit, so if you added something, you'll need to re-add it, there's too much added for me to see what wasn't there before--Jac16888 (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. Thanks, Googie man (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indian rap

Thanks for helping me with the references. I couldn't get them to work, and I hoped somebody would tidy them up. Thanks again! DubCrazy (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)DubCrazy

Motto of the day

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

re: Rockport (Need for Speed)

Hey, I was just wandering since the page on Rockport was deleted, is there anyway we can incorporate the last version prior to what occurred on Sept 3 into the main article, or simply incorporate the Rockport article and the Bayview article into a new article. If there is anything that we can do, please let me know. Thanks! Brandon (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The rockport article still exists in the article's history because it was only redirected. Heres the link, [2], click edit to view the code, but don't press save. But remember that your article will need some real-world notability, not just in-game info--Jac16888 (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Tool Kit

Any particular reason why you don't have some extra tools in your toolbox ? Pedro :  Chat  14:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

wow! Thanks for the compliment. I don't think i would pass an rfa to be honest, haven't really got any significant contribs like a GA/FA, and i've been a bit scattered lately with my editing.

You do seem to have some significant edits in the main space as well as lots of project work. Having a GA/FA is not really mandatory for RFA (at the moment - these things come and go with current thinking!) but a nice mix of article / project work is they key - which you do have. Any nasty bits in the closet I should know about? Otherwise (unless you're not interested of course an ddon't feel you have to be, it's not for everyone) I'd be interested in nominating. Pedro :  Chat  15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm both very flattered by this, and very tempted to take you up on your offer, especially considering your record, this is very impressive, suggesting you don't just nominate anyone willy-nilly, at least two or three of those are users i see about regularly on my watchlist, AN, AN/I etc and hold in high regard, much like yourself(i hear flattery gets you a long way). I think i will take you up on your kind offer, if you'll give me two weeks first, if you're willing to wait that long, both to allow me to do a few long-standing tasks on here that i should have done ages ago but never got round to, and to get past some real life things i've got going on, start of term etc (freshers week with all the ickle firsties). If after that time you still think i am worthy of being nominated then i will accept your nom. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to. Certainly take your time and give me a prod when you're ready. It's better that you are able to devote some time to the RFA, particularly in the first couple of days when the questions come in. When you want to go just leave me a note and I'll write up one of my sensational and persuasive nominations :)

Actually, since i've got you here, wonder if you help me out with something, i was gonna take it back to an/i. Anyway, i was having a look through the contribs and block log of User:RickK, (was curious about this famed former vandalfighter) and i've found a number of ip addresses that were (and still are) indef blocked, which to the best of my knowledge, shouldn't be done. I wasn't sure what to do about it, i could take them all to an/i and get them unblocked, except it could result in lots of old vandals coming back and a whole load of drama that we can all do without, for all i know there could have been consensus at the time to block them indef, although a lot seem unrelated, so its unlikely. Any thoughts/ideas?--Jac16888 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

IP addresses are never blocked indef. for vandalism but they are for some reasons - mainly being proxies. Of course there are plenty of long term IP school blocks and things but generally only for a year. Can you give me a couple of examples? You can reply here - I've got your talk page watchlisted. Pedro :  Chat  15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Stupidly, i made a list of the ip addresses that were indef'd on my home computer, then came to my university house for the weekend leaving it all behind, i hope you'll forgive me if i leave it them till i get home sunday, it took me a couple of hours to go through the list(albeit as a side-project to what i was doing), and never finished, heres the first couple though 24.60.128.48 (talk · contribs) and 203.153.243.194 (talk · contribs)--Jac16888 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough I looked at the 24.60.128.48 when you mentioned it. It's not a TOR node and the whois seems to indicate a nomral ISP so this could well be reallocated - in fact quite probably is. I would suspect you might want to drop a note at WP:AN asking for assistance from someone very good with IP addresses (User:Alison or User:Thatcher are both checkusers and could help). AN is less drama filled than ANI so is a better call. Get the list up and ask for some help - I'm okay with IP addresses but not brilliant ;) Pedro :  Chat  06:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bit of trouble

Are you using IE7? If so, try deleting your temporary internet files; there seems to be some sort of caching bug somewhere on IE7 I don't know how to track down, but that workaround helped for at least two users with the same problem as you. If not, or it doesn't help, let me know which browser you're on and I'll try to look into it when I have time. --ais523 21:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried renaming the files in question, to hopefully avoid whatever caching problem is causing the bug. Could you bypass your cache again and let me know if it's working now? (Your category watchlist's now at User:Jac16888/WatchedCategories2.js.) --ais523 21:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

JD

Can you trim that stuff up a bit? TTN is right that there's too much fancruft around the article, although your point about the character rel'ns is well-taken. So if you could trim it down, we could find a happy middle ground. Tx! Eusebeus (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, well i'll have ago, can probably trim the turk and cox bits down some more(please note that i have already culled a massive amount compared to what there already was) although i found the elliot section difficult, since they have such a complicated history, i want to make it shorter while still having the main points. I hope you and TTN will take note that i've begun dealing with the other scrubs character articles too--Jac16888 (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Specific relationship sections are breeding grounds for original research. All of that should be dealt with in the main section to avoid having people shove in every trivial one-off joke. You can certainly expand the section a bit if you want. There is also the fact that these characters are all very close, so the main article should describe their interactions overall to take some of the burden off of the character articles. TTN (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

fine, i'm already expanding it, within the main section, although you're mistaken, the idea of the character articles is to take some of the burden off the main article--Jac16888 (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good work so far, but beware slipping into excessive detail. As long as you adopt a suitable summary style, that will tend to ward off the accumulation of too much inappropriate material. Also, linking to individual episodes may be an issue since, given our earlier exchange, the plan is to retain individual articles only for the episodes with out-of-universe notability, while moving the story arcs + featured music for the rest to the LOE (this stands at what maybe 60% done?)If you have had some additional thoughts about that, I'd like to hear them. Eusebeus (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion notices

While your tags seem to be fine, please also consider to post a notification. In case you have proposed an article for deletion. You can use {{subst:Template:PRODWarning PRODWarning]|''Article title''}} ~~~~ for this. For your convenience, this line is generated at the end of the "prod" box after you have added it to the article. Similarly for speedies. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Culdares

I'm none to familiar with Clan Menzies, however I have some experience going through the mess of cut and pasts that plague the clan entries at wiki. The following link should clear up the info you have gathered regarding the Menzies, the castle and Caldares: clich here for link the link is the page 125 of public domain ref:

"An Account of the Principal Pleasure Tours in Scotland: With a Copious Itinerary of the Great Lines of the Road ..." Published by Thomson, 1821 Original from the New York Public Library Digitized 16 Oct 2007 link

as you can see the castle is Meggernie Castle. I do hope this helps.

yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur'an

I noticed that you tagged King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur'an for speedy deletion as a copyvio. I cut it down to a non-copyvio stub, so that it no longer needs to be deleted. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, although i would have done so myself except it doesn't actually show any notability, just seems like your run of the mill printing company. The same goes for the Edmonton Social Planning Council article which you de-tagged, when you read it carefully, it's just a lot of weaseling, with no actual evidence, or even suggestion, that its achieved anything or done anything to show any notability--Jac16888 (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All female Bands

I am trying to not take your deletions of a weeks worth of my consulting with mods and looking at other lists to see how best to rewrite the specific guidelines for inclusion on the list but....my response:

Not sure I follow you. Here is what it said before the re-rwrite:

This is a list of all-female bands of any musical genre. All-female bands are musical groups that only contain female members, and who perform all parts of the music including the instrumental components. This is distinct from girl groups, wherein the members are solely vocalists and non-members perform the instrumental components of the music. This is not a list of solo female musicians or singers. Bands on this list should be notable or canonical examples of an all-female band.

Do you feel that is better/more clear than the rewrite? Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundvisions1 (talk • contribs)

I have already replied to the comment on the article talk page, but i will add to it here slightly, first of all i apologise if that addition took a lot of work, i know it can be annoying to see work deleted like that, but unfortunately thats something you'll have to get used to on wikipedia. Second, there would be nothing wrong with adding that guideline to a template or box and sticking it at the top of the talk page, or better yet, rewrite it to have a broader scope and publish it to the wikipedia namespace as a guideline for all list of band articles, which could be very helpful, i have a fair bit of experience with various "list of x type bands" and they can get messy--Jac16888 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You said: ....something you'll have to get used to.... Trust me I have already experienced it. My biggest issue is that it seems like no two people ever read the guidelines the same so while one says it needs to be more defined another says it shouldn't be defined at all and another says that it should already be defined by the parent article. <rant not aimed at you>The specific guidelines for the list before I changed them had been in place since May 27, 2004. Suddenly I try to clarify them based on conversations I have had both on the lists talk page and off the lists talk page about lists in general and my work is deleted within 30 seconds of posting. If it was wrong in the first place why has it not been removed by someone over the last 4 years? </ rant>

Ok, moving forward - you suggested a box at the top of the talk page. You mean something like this:

Or what do you suggest. I am looking at several lists and don't see that. Examples: List of guitarists has a simple text saying if they aren't a guitarist with a Wikipedia page they will be removed. It also says there is a separate list for bass players. You go to that and there is a not a box of rules/guidelines there either.List of Academy Award-winning films does not have any "box" but does have written guidelines on how to put entries on the list. Most of the lists I look at have the same type of blurb that was on the All Female band list. All I am trying to do is clarify it. If you can point me to some spin off lists that lay out guidelines as you would see being allowed it would be appreciated. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you getting article pages and talk pages mixed up? You can put the entire section i removed in a box at the top of the talk page if you want to, just not on the article itself, same goes for the box you gave above. The line on the guitarists page, while not really legit, is generally acceptable, although the one on the academy award list should probably be removed. If you want an example of a good one, theres this, List of anarchist musicians, note how it clearly states what consitutes an anarchist musician, without actually referring to wikipedia policy as reasoning--Jac16888 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at both the main article and talk pages on lists and I did not see anything as you suggested. So overall what you are saying is that as long as you are direct but do not actually cite, or link to, Wikipedia policy or guidelines you can set forth specific guidelines for a list. In addition, on the lists talk page, you can cite Wikipedia guidelines and more specific definitions of what the list is and isn't.

See part of this is that there is still a dispute between what a "band" is and what a "group" is and I feel putting the actual definition of each word - All, Female, Band - would help to clear that part up. Another topic that came partially from me is that, overall, I do not think notability comes from the simple fact there is a Wikipedia article on a subject and, unlike the Guitarists list, the all female band list did not state a band need one to be included. In discussions outside of the list it was the consensus that above any GNG, SNG or a subject specific list's guidelines the main notability factor for being on any list was if the subject had a Wikipedia page. Even though I highly disagree with that I want to make that clear on the list. Than the issue of male players in an all female band came up. I mean you get the idea.

So would this work for the main article page:

This is am alphabetized list of All Female Bands, of any genre, that is a spin off from the English Wikipedia All-female band article. This list is an overview of just some of the numerous all female bands who have their own English Wikipedia page as well as their key releases, country of origin and a brief note about the band.

An all female band is a group of musicians¹ organized for ensemble² playing that generally do not include any male musicians.³

This article only lists all female bands who perform over 90% original material. All female Tribute acts and Cover bands are not included. Nor are vocal groups, duos or solo artists.

_{1.For this article "group of musicians" is defined as musicians who play instruments}

_{2.For this article "ensemble" is defined as a group of at least 3 musicians who collectively play drums, guitars and bass.}

_{3.For this article a band must have formed as an all female band and, for at least 80% of their active career, performed live as one}

Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats considerably better, although, a if possible i would integrate the footnotes into the definition, making it continous prose. Also, 90% original material? Have you just plucked this out of thin air or is it from a policy or guideline, it would probably be better to simply say mostly orginal material or something similar--Jac16888 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some bands may be noted for their covers however the percentage I gave is a rough idea. So if a band is only notable for doing covers (90% of more) as opposed to only doing a few covers (10% or less) I say what I said - "perform over 90% original material". Some bands, such as Lez Zeppelin, are really only notable for doing Led Zeppelin covers. Their album is 98% covers with only two originals. On the other hand Bangles are noted for doing covers as well however their albums, and live shows, consist of original material with less than 2% covers. If I said, for example, "mostly original material" it would be too vague. Maybe it should be based on years active. For example Wrathchild toured the country doing cover tunes but they would showcase in Los Angeles doing originals and perhaps one cover as an encore. However when they were signed they did what I said - perform over 90% original material. I know - I am over thinking this.

How about this for the footnote removal:

An all female band is a group of at least 3 musicians who collectively play drums, guitar and bass organized for ensemble playing that generally have not included any male musicians for a greater than 80 percent of their active careers.

Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are otherthinking that a little bit, the problem with using 90% is that its based on your own thinking, its a little bit ORish, although it'd probably be ok. As for the footnote, same as before with the 80%, i.e. if you can get rid of it, do, if not never mind. The passage does seem good, but how about this, for a slight tweaking of word arrangement

An all female band is a group of at least 3 female musicians who collectively play intsrutments and or sing, organized for ensemble playing, and have had little or no significant male support.

Feel free to not use this, or change it some more--Jac16888 (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. And here is why - there is an on going discussion that started long before I came onto the scene that has to do with the actual definition of "band" verses "group". As in "All female band" and "all female group" (Or "girl group" or, as someone brought up, the term "boy band" being not really a band so therefor a "girl band" does not have to be a "band" band). So if it were worded to imply that a gathering (group) of at least 3 females who sang were allowed you would see Dream, Spice Girls, TLC and so on being allowed on the list. Likewise the wording of "and have had little or no significant male support" could exclude Bangles because currently they are using a male keyboardist and a male bassist. While use of keyboards in a guitar based rock band could be argued as non significant chances are a bass could not. I have to go back to the main article and I am of the belief that a spin off lists guidelines should follow that of the parent. This lists parent article is pretty clear as to what an all female band is and isn't. However in doing my research on the rewrite I am in the vocal minority on the issue so somehow I have to balance the parent articles intent with the spin off lists own phrasing. Thanks, by the way, for all the suggestions on this. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is up on the page now. Thanks again. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow up - Advice please

I am at a loss right now. I lost my cool a bit but duffbeerforme is trolling and it is very frustrating. I did as you asked and defined "All Female Band". I did it in detail. Only response has been duffbeeforme. I listed it for a 3O as well. I also started listing acts that, if one followed the Wikipedia guidelines and combining them with how the lists criteria for inclusion are currently written, should probably be removed. I do have a personal opinion, but I am am trying VERY hard to keep NPOV and looking at guidelines and the actual list. Looking at prior acts that were removed, comments made by the list starter, overall discussions - you can get a pretty good idea of what is going on. Whereas I am looking at everything, as a whole, and listing them based on that Duff comes in and looks at somehting that has my sig on it and picks a fight. (Thusly me labeling them as a troll) The first edit war he started was when he removed, without discussion, several acts from the list because he had never heard of them and because they did not have their own article. Despite asking duffbeerforme to 'discuss before deleting' so many acts he kept reverting and the "discussion" amounted to him quoting one part of a guideline: Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, therefore it was just my opinion that the bands he had removed were ether notable or all female. Duffbeerforme also quoted another part of a guideline that insulated he could do whatever he wanted because it was not up to him to prove why he deleted anything, but up to me to prove why I would want to restore or add something. I backed off, and asked for other opinions and it seems that many mods also use only the "notable = Wikipedia article, no Wikipedia article = non-notable" criteria. If that is so it is fine, however it needs to be consistent, which is is not. The acts that I restored he saw only one thing - me. According to the full guideline, which reads Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future, the bands duffbeerforme deleted should have stayed. Some of them I had even clearly stated, before he came into the discussion, I would create a page for. I restated that to Duff - but again - in duffbeerforme's world it does not matter. They seem far more concerned with being "right" than doing what would be best for the overall list. To this day duffbeerforme has not given ONE reason other than a "they don't have their own article thusly they are non-notable" rationale. Also while deleting many all-female bands from the list duffbeerforme kept other bands who did not have their own article. Why? I notice that two days ago he edited List of didgeridoo players but instead of saying "non notable" he said "remove red". But take a look at the entire list. Stephen Boakes and Tristin Chanel are still on the list, duffbeerforme did not remove them. If I went in there and removed them using the same "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia" partial guideline another edit war would break out with duffbeerforme citing another guideline that would back up why those entries should stay on the list. Maybe I am way off base here, so please look over my edits. Look over duffbeerforme's edits. Am I way off base with this? How do you define all female band? Would it include 4 or 5 vocalists who use a backup band? Would it include two vocalist who use a male backup band? Right now there is only what is written and it is not written that way. The older posts show us bands such as The Spice Girls have added and been removed several times - yet they are 5 vocalists who use a back up band. To me, using a NPOV, the argument for not including them must be the same argument applied to other acts - such as Celtic Women or Bond. If Aly&AJ can not be on the list as a duo/band than it would follow neither could The Indigo Girls or any other "duo". This is where I have the biggest issue - the list needs to be better defined. Duffbeerforme is not being helpful in any of this. Comments? Suggestions? Tell me if I am way off - if it is I need to know what part of the guidelines I am not getting. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Following the following

Just sort of following up - I am now being cyber stalked it seems. I am going though articles trying to avoid issues with the user in question however take a look at what is going on:

• Aloha!Go Bananas history
• Can't Stop Eating history
• Spazzys history (Talk:Spazzys)
• Looking in the Shadows history (Talk:Looking in the Shadows)
• Tommy Krash history
• Go Betty Go history

In some cases the user has made an attempt to "clean up" the article, but it just seems "weird". Almost like they are trying to "one up" me or "prove me wrong".

And even though a third party is involved the "discussion" is still going strong on the AFB list. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nicole Lai article

Hi, I already changed the style to be "prose". If you find ok, please take out the warning sign. I am a new editor and this is my first artilce. Thanks. NicoleLai (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks great so far, although might i suggest merging together all the little subsections, Professional Qualification, Awards, Vocal Instructor etc together, it's cleaner than having lots of small sections. As for the prose tag, feel free to remove it yourself--Jac16888 (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jac16888 again,

OK. I have reduced the number of sections of biography from 8 to only 4. Yes, it looks neater now. By the way, I also included 2 images - one on microphone and the other on musical notes. I read and I think there is no copyright for both images, which means I can use it freely in my article. Is that correct ? Thanks

NicoleLai (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page--Jac16888 (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fast attention required: All female band - 3rr/reversions/Edit war

Please look at the situation as it will be rapidly progressing. List History Talk page history

Should this be locked? 3RR? Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page--Jac16888 (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nomination

Have a look and answer the Q's and we can go from there! Pedro :  Chat  13:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. do you think i was alright in asking myself a question, i just wanted to clarify a point before someone else got there--Jac16888 (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly fine - though I wouldn't worry too much as you've not said you particularly want to work on images. IIRC I had about two images uploaded when I got the bit, and a year later I think I have about 5! Do you want me to transclude? Pedro :  Chat  15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead--Jac16888 (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Pedro :  Chat  16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

rfa and lists

First of all, thank you for your support on my rfa and your kind comments, i really appreciate it. As for your comments about lists, i can understand what you mean about red links on lists, it can encourage new articles, but where i started off on this, although i've not been doing it so much lately anyway, is on musician/band lists. On articles such as this, allowing the addition of redlinks can be a disaster, as it opens the floodgates for all the myspace bands to add themselves. Take this earlier version of a list i cleared up for example, [3], it was a ridiculous mess and dead and false links made up practically half of it. However i seem to remember that somewhere out there a consensus was reached that music lists shouldn't have red links, no idea where but it certainly seems to be in force on a lot of them. I think that really, it all comes down to the type of list, e.g. List of Renaissance composers can have lots of dead links and every one of those that gets turned blue is a net gain, however, on the other side, List of pop punk bands shouldn't, because A) it can turn the article into a nightmare, and B) because of the nature of the subject, chances are much much higher that any notable band will soon get an article--Jac16888 (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please don't think i'm ranting here, or trying to argue with you, i just thought i'd give you my point of view--Jac16888 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jac. I don't have a problem with your removal of redlinks from those types of pages - I'm not criticising per se, I'm just making sure that you know that redlinks can be a good thing, at least to some people. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you were, i was just pointing how out in some places, red links not so good. You there should probably be a policy or guideline that details when and where red links should be used, WP:REDLINK is not very clear or detailed enough--Jac16888 (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA... -- Tinu Cherian - 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much--Jac16888 (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA Questions

On a personal note the answers to the questions you have given on your RfA are the best I have ever seen (not that I have been in RfA long) well done, You seem very smart. All the best--intraining ^{Jack In} 02:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. A million times, i really really appreciate it. --Jac16888 (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much

for fixing Daniel Rodriguez page so quickly!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.55.138 (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for reporting it. By the way, there was nothing at all stopping you from fixing it, read WP:UNDO if you don't know how to--Jac16888 (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

However I've been blocked due a year or so ago and even afraid to come to correct or report issues now. :) I did once before and got a message telling me that my efforts were not wanted basically. So I just try and keep a watch and hope my alerts will be even be allowed on talk pages. Also as not having worked on this site in such a logn time I've really forgotten how to correctly do things. Can't even remember hot how to correctly sign things. It takes so much reading and my time sadly is extremely limited now. Only a few minutes before or after work to do this. The Daniel R site was my project in the beginning, and will continue to keep a watch out and ask for help if vandels attack again. So I appreciate your help very much! B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.55.138 (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

fair enough, no problem, although i think that as long as you're not vandalising or edit warring, you're not gonna get blocked. I've got the dan rodriguez page watched now so hopefully i should spot any vandalism, but if i miss something, or you something somewhere else and don't feel comfortable reporting it, feel free to ask me here, i won't mind--Jac16888 (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just leaving but wanted to add that at one time they were looking for additional history or background as this article was listed as a Good Article and wanted to expand it. If I might suggest there is a terrific new source that Google site that is shown at bottom of his page, that has some good information. Especially the Classical Singer Magazine article. and a lot more, that might be a good source if anyone is still interested in building that page. So with that thought, It's off to work.. thanks again so much. Good day for now. B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.55.138 (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're a sysop!

Hi, Jac16888, Congratulations on Becoming a Sysop!

Hey there. I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator! You've volunteered to do housekeeping duties that normal users sadly cannot participate in. Sysops can't do a lot of stuff: They can't delete pages just like that (except patent nonsense like "aojt9085yu8;3ou"), and they can't protect pages in an edit war they are involved in. But they can delete random junk, block anonymous vandals, delete pages listed on articles for deletion for more than 5 days (provided there's a consensus), protect pages when asked to, and keep the few protected pages that exist on Wikipedia up to date.

Almost anything you can do can be undone, but please take a look at The Administrators' how-to guide and the Administrators' reading list before you get started (although you should have read that during your candidacy ;). Take a look before experimenting with your powers. Also, please add Administrators' noticeboard to your watchlist, as there are always discussions/requests for admins there. If you have any questions drop me a message at My talk page. Have fun! =Nichalp «Talk»=

=Nichalp «Talk»= 13:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats :) --Ged UK (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats from your nominator - and closed early I noted! Pedro :  Chat  14:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and Best wishes -- Tinu Cherian - 16:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. <some clever joke about age> –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you scared me --Banime (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems, congratulations! Caulde 17:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Unanimous eh? Congrats to you, best of luck in your new position! Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I'm sure you'll be just great, absence of beard not withstanding :) Nancy ^talk 17:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Carioca (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoorah! II MusLiM HyBRiD II 21:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, All the best.--intraining ^{Jack In} 01:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Rfa Spam

Thank you for your support on my RFA, which recently passed unanimously. Unfortunately, you have been indefinitely blocked for because of your jokes about my age. Only joking, thank you for your support, i promise i will try not to let you all down, come find me on my talk page if you ever need my help with anything --Jac16888 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

??!!?!?!!?!? I was actually genuinely scared when I saw that. Alright it was clever and funny, but that was pretty scary. AAAAAA! SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 18:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

heh heh heh, gotcha--Jac16888 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi, thanks for unprotecting my user page! Could you also unprotect my subpages? Thanks :-) John Sloan 18:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, is it just this one, User:John Sloan/userboxes?--Jac16888 (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for the help! John Sloan 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiffany Yanke

You deleted this page just before I could delete the {{db}} tag. Ms. Yanke is the current Miss Teen Nevada International title holder. I don't know if this counts as notability, but I suspect it deserves an AfD discussion rather than a speedy delete. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As it was, the article suggested zero notability, and i'm hesitant to recreate it as it was, if you like i can userfy it for you, although she were to have an article, little of this would be usable--Jac16888 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

never mind, article has been recreated, although it still seems deletable--Jac16888 (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you! CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And good luck with your adminship You're already doing it well ;-) CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're thanking me for, but you're welcome. And Thank you too--Jac16888 (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can administrators view a complete list of a User's edit history, including deleted contribs? If so, did i have any edits before this one. I beleive it is my first edit, but maybe i had a deleted contribution before that. can you check for me? - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 22:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes we can, yet another toy to play with, heh heh. I was going to copy and paste the list of yours for you to see, only you have a lot of deleted contribs, nearly 1500, so perhaps its not a good idea. Your first deleted contrib is two minutes before the contrib above, uploading this Image:HypnotizeValueAdded.jpg--Jac16888 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

re Brandon Becker (not a complaint)

Hi, about this article, i was looking at the deleted history, and basically a couple of weeks ago the old content was replaced with the attack page you deleted. However, the previous version was itself an unsourced bio with little notability asserted. Is is worth restoring it or not?--Jac16888 (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope; looks like nn bio and unsourced. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, good call. Thanks for your help--Jac16888 (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pier Gerlofs Donia

Please review and pass the following article for GA class. Last king of Frisia (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Er sorry but why? I'm not a GA reviewer, never have been--Jac16888 (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, did not know that. Never mind. Last king of Frisia (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot proposal - comments needed

I'm messaging you since you participated in a Village Pump discussion a while back on the subject. I've since put in a proposal for a bot to revert the addition of redlinks to a subset of list articles and/or list sections. The selection of such articles and the policy of operation of the bot is under discussion there. Your input would be welcome. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I just wanted to say "hi". Reliableforever (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Article you just deleted

You just deleted Nanyang Co., Inc., and the user reposted it within minutes in what I am guessing is chinese. I tagged as A7, but I wasn't sure what to tag it.--Terrillja (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Has already been deleted under A7--Jac16888 (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And it's back! User just isn't getting it. Please also salt, since this is 3 recreations in less than an hour.--Terrillja (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i never replied, fell asleep (was 6am here and i'd been up all night). Looks like its no longer a problem, user has been indefed for having a promotional username. If you see them come back, let me know--Jac16888 (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move

I notice you are online. Please could you move Leicester Lions (speedway) over Leicester Lions redirect. It was moved unneccessarily in March and left many links to the speedway page pointing at DAB. DAB link to the other article is on speedway page. Thanks Waterden (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Think I did that right, not something i've done before--Jac16888 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You did. SPot on. Thanks mate your a star. Waterden (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help--Jac16888 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For being a helpful admin. Waterden (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

www.truebluecontractors.com

Hi Jac. I am new to this so please help me understand. If www.ebay.com is allowed with no signifigance to any other encylopedia "thing" other than itself and www.truebluecontractors.com being a significant tool of National Contractors Rating Bureau, I can come to no other conclusion than Wikipedia's policies are discriminitory. If you are to aurgue that e-bay is big and thus significant when true blue contractors is not, you would make my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eegeland (talk • contribs) 21:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ebay is a multi-national company known all over the world and worth $8 Billion. Can you the same about truebluecontractors? Wikipedia does not discriminate, it has notability policies, i.e. something has to be notable to be included, you cannot argue that ebay is not notable. To prove notability, an article about a subject has to have been featured in 3rd party reliable sources, news articles, notable review sites etc. Has TrueBlue? Wikipedia cannot allow every single website, business and individual, big or small, in the world to have an article, it would not be possible to maintain any form of order. We also have issues with people having conflicts of interest as you more than likely do. If you're website deserves an article, then wait, if the subject is notable, it will get an article sooner or later. --Jac16888 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Jac - thanks. I get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eegeland (talk • contribs) 22:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for deleting those pages. Another congrats on your adminship / you gotta hand it to Pedro for arranging it though. —Ceran^(Sing) 22:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks. You're right of course, having Pedro as my nom gave me an massive advantage, he is amazing with his nominations--Jac16888 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

heh, yes he is. As Keeper himself said, everyone wants Pedro to apply for cratship. but he's a modest bird, he'll keep to himself wisely, of course. —Ceran^(Sing) 23:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind looking over UAA? I can't find any UAA regulars on so would you mind dealing witht hose username violators? ;) —Ceran^(Sing) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll have ago although its not something i'm familiar with--Jac16888 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, thanks anyway though. I think that whenever I'm an admin [very far away], UAA is the way to go. Its easy to do and not all that controversial. —Ceran^(Sing) 23:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"OPERATION: Saving Earth"

I am respectfully requesting a copy of the article "OPERATION: Saving Earth" that has just been deleted moments ago.. So can you please supply me with this. Thank you in advance.

Respectfully Yours,

Earthlover0 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Userfied and moved to User:Earthlover0/OPERATION: Saving Earth. However please be aware that you cannot leave it there indefinitely, if the subject never meets our notability guidelines, it will be deleted before long--Jac16888 (talk) 23:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

excuse me, I was wondering if I could talk to you about this. Thank you!

72.28.35.76 (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean on here? go ahead--Jac16888 (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You Deleted my Page?

Hello

I was wondering why you deleted my page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvhiphop96 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason why i deleted Flawless (Artist), is that the artist does not meet the notability standards we have for musicians, Wikipedia:Notability (music), i.e he has yet to release a successful song or album, and has not been on tour, nor is he signed to a notable record company. --Jac16888 (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You deleted mine also

I won't complain. I didn't know the rules. A few colleagues and I were trying to work on a movie script and have one central copy. It would be nice if you could email me what you deleted. I did not include an email on my account, but you can send it to bilney.sexton@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewLDion (talk • contribs) 04:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your article was deleted because Wikipedia is not a webhost, a place for you to store any little side projects you may have, if you want somewhere to host a central copy of a script, buy some storage space. I have copied the content of the deleted article to here, User:MatthewLDion/Chronicles java movie script, but be aware that it cannot stay for ever, i will delete it again in a few weeks.--Jac16888 (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Help please!

You just deleted Junk Trunk, which I had flagged for deletion, and I wondered if you could also delete Trailer stability program ? I have flagged this three times for deletion, but the editor just takes the notice off each time. The same article has already been deleted once today as well! Cheers. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 16:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That article has been rescued and given some semblance of being enyclopedic, if you want it deleted still, i suggest you try WP:AFD--Jac16888 (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If it has been rescued, that's great. I only contacted you when the editor repeatedly removed the delete tags when the article read like an advert/spam in the beginning.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 06:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Any of these look like CSD's?

CSD A1?

Reflectivity range
Guarded logic
Desert Digital Camouflage
Tactical Assault Camouflage

Maybe the last two should be merged or redirected to Military camouflage?

Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

None of those look speedyable to me, you could probably Prod the first one as a dictionary def with no references, the second one looks alright and yes you could probably merge the last one to somewhere else--Jac16888 (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Did a merge tag for the Desert Digital Camouflage but as I was adding the merge tag for Tactical Assault Camouflage I notice it is "exclusively used by the National Anti-Terrorism Technology Development and Training Center" and that the "pattern was designed as an experiment". I am not sure how to read into this now. Sounds as though it is for training only, and then as an experiment. The only cited reference is to the developers website and it says "TACAM uniforms will only be offered to trainees, instructors and graduates..." In other words this is for internal use only. Is there a notability guidlines for clothing? I can't find one but I would suspect that this still would have to follow the core Notability guidlines. I am posting a clothing question over on the Notability talk page as well. Suggestions? Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not this one

You deleted Category:Female stock characters stating "C1: Empty category". However, C1 is for "Category that has been empty for at least four days." That category had been emptied only hours beforehand, see here. Please comment. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind - another admin has restored it. See "what links here" on the category if you are interested. Cheers, Fayenatic (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've never used that criteria before, and i did actually wonder if there was anyway to see how long the cat had been empty for, but since there doesn't appear to be a way, i AGF'd, from jc37 and deleted it--Jac16888 (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me, this user Wynchard Bloom (talk) vandalizes my userpage and the article Sarah Geronimo, he keeps on putting back the version which has references to a version which has no references, I already gave a warning but he still continues to do his act. --Geniusdream (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)