User talk:JFHJr

‏¡‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏‏əƃɐssəɯ uʍop əpı̣sdn uɐ əʌɐɥ ʇou ʎɐɯ ɹo ʎɐɯ no⅄

Barnstar

		The Bhutan Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for all you have done for Bhutan related articles, especially law and politics. They are extremely well-appreciated. You deserve this award ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to JFHJr on January 3, 2011

If you are interested in helping improve Thimphu further to GA level sometime I'd be happy to work with you!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

singular they

Not really related to Wikipedia, but I think I've found a legitimate use for the singular they. Cheers.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh very neat. JFHJr (㊟) 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I love the singular they. It avoids the he/she 'ugly-phone'. Loved the butterfly too. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

IMvHO, they's great (chortle), but goes best with antecedent and verb agreement. I think it's neat when people use "she" to keep it singular. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

An award

I know I've given you this before but you seriously deserve another.

		The Bhutan Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for all you have done for Bhutan related articles. You greatly deserve this award for your magnificent efforts with gewogs/chewogs/villages and historical provinces. Keep up the fantastic work and may Bhutan flourish on wikipedia.
		this WikiAward was given to JFHjr by ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's all in good fun. JFHJr (㊟) 07:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for the encouragement! Racconish Tk 18:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OMG! The place around the corner from my office serves these! Very close to home, and much appreciated! JFHJr (㊟) 21:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Something to go with the beer

Thanks! The pleasure was shared ;-) — Racconish Tk 13:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Silk Purse Award

		Silk Purse Award
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your superb improvements to the Matthew VanDyke article, essentially changing what was seen as a sow's ear into a terrific silk purse. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why thankya! JFHJr (㊟) 01:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A Barnstar for your work at the BLP noticeboard

• - A barnstar for you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This is long overdue - thank you for your work investigating and correcting articles reported at the BLP noticeboard. Your NPOV contributions and time there is really beneficial. Youreallycan 17:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)}Template:Z147

Thank you YRC! Thank you also for your own work. Without positive guidance from editors like yourself, I doubt I would have been able to do much of anything. Thank you again! JFHJr (㊟) 22:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Jay Westerveld merger

I saw your comment at Talk:Jay Westerveld#Notability questions, merger proposal. To get neutral third party comments on a merge, I would suggest an WP:RFC ... from my limited experience, the majority of users on that talk page have strong personal biases either for or against the subject (accusations have been thrown repeatedly from both groups claiming the other as representing one side or another from a prior legal issue), which complicates any attempts to find consensus on anything related to the article.

I have no strong opinion either way. I think he has credible claims to importance; but I agree that the sources are borderline leaning towards lacking for supporting notability, so can clearly see the logic of a merge proposal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Linda Riordan

Hey. I've taken a look at this article as it seems to have been the subject of some controversial removal of content and tried to ensure some balance. Looks like the comments the user - who may be the subject of the article - is objecting to were added on 2012-10-20 as the story was emerging and the full details weren't yet in the public domain. I'd appreciate some more sets of eyes on the article just to check - I've explained the rough thrust of my edits on the talk. Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edits look great to me. I had to step away, and when I returned to review the relationship bit first, I got an edit conflict! >_< I saw the subject said she was now married to the guy; couldn't find a source and am glad to see it gone. Thanks also for the help on tone and neutral wording. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Jussychoulex

Dear friend, I need your help. Two days ago, I nominated the following page for deletion [[1]] but still, not a single person commented on discussion. Did I correctly nominate the page? or something else. Please suggest me Jussychoulex (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you completed the three nomination steps. Eventually, another editor will comment. It might take a week or more. If nobody comments, that page might be soft deleted, which is practically the same result as delete. JFHJr (㊟) 13:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

thank you sir for your help. Please see the page, nominated and write your valuable comments. Regards Jussychoulex (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw it, but I didn't look at the article or its history. I hope you'll allow the discussion to take its own course, and not approach editors to participate in this way. I'm afraid other editors might construe your message here as WP:VOTESTACKING, especially since I often vote to delete. That said, I'll be happy to have a deeper look at the article and its issues. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 14:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear friend, I visited a Page on wikepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ishita_Sharma). Please see that the discussion result is DELETE, then why this page is appearing. Please clear to me. Regards Jussychoulex (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeremiah MacKay

Regarding your edit summary, That was a discussion between Bbb23 and myself, no need for formalities yet. Thank you. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 23:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Jussychoulex

Jussychoulex has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Pema Ram afd argument

Thank you for your contribution there. I've decided to lean towards a weak keep, but I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments on the Delete side. I hope we continue to meet on academic AfDs, since I very much respect and appreciate the way your present a case. (we were editing at the same time, so I didn't get to reply at the moment). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded to your message on the AfD talk page. Btw -- I changed my vote on Pema Ram to weak delete because of your and Ray's arguments. Thanks for pointing me to the AfD! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also for the edit to the 6-4 page. I haven't ever moved that sandbox to article space because there's one prominent editor who strongly objects to putting any but his opinion of the chord on WP, and I decided that I have enough conflict in RL that I don't want to get angry here. But maybe someday I'll feel like wading into it; it's an important music theory topic that we do not have in the encyclopedia yet. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, JFHJr. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing BLP issue you've previously weighted in on

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey, I greatly appreciate your past efforts to clean up improper edits to Bobby Harrell's BLP page that dealt with unreliable sources and "controversy." Because of your previous intervention and statements left on the Bobby Harrell talk page, you seem best equipped to address this.

Amigao has been citing the same unreliable sources that resulted in Carolina cotton being issued a "Final Warning" by you and another editor, Kuru.  While the original user has ceased posting altogether, Amigao has continued and quickly reverts any removal of these unreliable posts despite clearly stated reasons. Amigao has already received a couple warnings (in reference to other pages) about this kind of activity on his talk page.

Additionally, while I do not speculate on any kind of direct connection, I do feel this is worth noting.  The "controversy" section Amigao continually reposts (though, after being corrected several times, he is no longer using the word "controversy") stems from a political complaint that was filed by the same organization that Carolina cotton self admittedly worked for and who operated the self-published blogs (scpolicycouncil.org and thenerve.org) that Carolina cotton would improperly cite as reliable sources. Given the frivolous nature of this "complaint," the political attack undertones of this "controversy" section and the fact that multiple editors have deemed this political group as an unreliable source, at a minimum it seems that this section should be excluded from a BLP page until a resolution has been reached on this issue by a more authoritative source. 

I greatly appreciate any attention that you can give this issue.  Thanks EricJ1995 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Rhetorical question: what source in particular is so unreliable in this diff that you repeatedly remove the whole section? The answer is, of course, that the 5 cites to 4 different mainstream news sources are good support for the content in question. If you disagree (and apparently you do), please do so in a dispute resolution forum such as WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, or WP:EWN after having a nice long read at WP:IRS and/or WP:BLP. And if you suspect another user is actually a WP:SOCK, post at WP:SPI. However, I, like Cullen, am totally unwilling to referee, host, or even keep up with your gripe. Free advice: you are both edit warring, and Amigao should have asked for help dealing with your WP:TE. More free advice: if you decide to escalate further, expect WP:BOOMERANG, and do not make claims that an editor "has been citing the same unreliable sources" when in reality he hasn't done so since March 1, 2013 (you removed the last citations to scpolicycouncil and thenerve 4 days later and they have not reappeared). Claims like that make it extremely difficult to WP:AGF with you. Perhaps you should stop watching the Harrell page. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 15:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steven M. Greer

Hi JFH, you are a good editor and you have made some good edits and contributions to this article. However, I've re-added the info you deleted regarding the Alpha Omega society. This was discussed on the talk page and the consensus [2] was to include it and that the three sources that were cited were sufficient. If you disagree please discuss it on the talk page and gain consensus before removing it again. Thanks for your help with the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving me a note. Sorry I missed the outcome of that discussion. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 15:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I look forward to working together to improve the article :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Allan Savory

Greetings. You removed a citation for the following sentence:

"Though initially met with intense opposition, Savory’s approach to the problem of desertification is gaining acceptance within the scientific mainstream." This is a distillation from “Greener Pastures” by John Thackara. Seed. June 3, 2010. Here is an excerpt:

"Although Savory describes some of his insights as common sense, he has spent 50 years battling to make the scientific case for his approach. For most of this half-century, he has had to contend with intense opposition from mainstream range science researchers “proving” it does not work.

But after decades of rejecting the idea that increased livestock could reverse desertification, a growing number scientists now accept that the results claimed by Savory are supported by rigorous data, and that they therefore deserve to drive land use, agriculture, and development policy.

Savory’s acceptance by the mainstream is part of a profound shift in scientific thinking. He is no longer alone in realizing that transfers of energy and nutrients are innate to the growing understanding of ecosystem ecology, that has emerged from biological studies of plants, animals, terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems."

You removed the source with the comment"http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/Greener_Pastures does not support any of "Savory’s approach to the problem of desertification is gaining acceptance within the scientific mainstream".

Would you have a problem with me restoring the citation? Danny Sprinkle (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I now see the passage that referred to. Thanks. I'll be happy to revert myself. JFHJr (㊟) 23:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind indulgence, but, if I might beg further, and time permitting, kindly give a closer look to what you might imagine my other objections might be. Danny Sprinkle (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussions and Holistic Management

Hi, saw your strike of Redddbaron's vote, I was wondering if the user was also editing the articles and participating at deletion as 68.12.189.106 (talk · contribs), you might like to know that the recently deleted Holistic management has been recreated by the above user, I haven't given it much of a look-in but would say that the sections Holistic_management#The_holistic_management_framework and Holistic_management#The_four_principles definitely need to go as they read like they are straight out of a "Holistic Management" brochure. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Mini-RfC

Thanks for your comments on the Lisa Lavie AfD. I'm asking various editors for constructive comments or explanations on my talk page: User talk:RCraig09#Questions. Thanks, from RCraig09 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

AllMusic bios as a good indicator of notability

Hi again, pursuant to your comment at the AfD for a band called Beheaded, which I believe is ironic (Allmusic being on this side of stellar), I'm a bit confused as to whether it's really an independent, reliable source. At this recent AfD (linked here), see Sparklism's comment at the end, where it appears people believe that an AllMusic bio is the Holy Grail of musical notability. In my comments (and perusal of the site) I came to understand that anyone could send any CD, demo, etc. in, get it logged and "garner" an AllMusic bio. Although there is some slight editorial intevention, it appears that the bios are written based on press releases the site receives. Your thoughts? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts. AllMusic is not WP:RS material. It is barely not bullshit. JFHJr (㊟) 04:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

...And that Clubroot AfD went the wrong way. He's not notable. You're right. JFHJr (㊟) 16:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was almost sure of that, AllMusic seemed to me like "you send us your stuff, we'll publish something about you". And as for the AfD, there seems to be a small club of editors who try and save any music-related article, no matter how crap non-notable the group or artist is, honestly a couple of reviews and a gig listing and you get WP:MUSIC rammed down your throat. Well, I had the same problems nominating a couple of video games (in development) for deletion, people got really shitty/shirty.

Well, at least if we can keep some of the most blatant puffery, self-promotion and other outrageous BLP violations out of WP, then I guess that'll have to do. Thanks for the feedback. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I need your help :)!

Can you please show me how to add reliable sources to my article? I have no idea how to do it! thank you for helping me! Anna Karolina Heinrich (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for responding to the AfD query from BwilsonCVA on my talk page. I'd been away from Wikipedia for a few days and hadn't had a chance to get to it, but you covered the relevant points perfectly. I'm always happy for people to help out like that, it's appreciated. ~ mazca ^talk 11:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. As you participated in the related deletion discussion, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Vanilla DeVille you might be interested in. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Hello. I noticed that you have taken to parsing through various articles I have written and nominating them for deletion, despite their long-standing existence and - in one case - the prior resolution of the issue via the AfD process. I cannot help but wonder why you have chosen to invest so much time and energy into this task. As a mere casual editor, I find this type of behavior to be petty and unwelcoming - I certainly am less likely to try to help the Wikipedia project if people like you are just going to jump all over everything I do and grave-dig articles I wrote many months ago. If I just don't understand the system, then I apologize. But if you are specifically targeting my articles, I surely think there is a better use of your time. Best. Adamc714 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for an editor to create a string of articles about subjects that they have WP:COI with, few or none being notable, so the fact that several of your articles related the same school have been nominated by JFHJ is not a big deal by itself. Toddst1 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The line between a COI and just knowing about something is hazy at best. I want to assume good faith, but when someone goes digging through your whole contribution history and essentially targets you for additional scrutiny that is evidence of bad faith. I understand that people who are really in to Wikipedia want to create a sprawling bureaucracy that they can wield to maintain the status quo of power - and that's totally cool with me - but there's no need to start acting like the IRS. I'm trying to be nice here, but that's hard when I feel like I'm being targeted. I don't have time to master all of nuance of all of the insane rules in place here, so it's frustrating when articles that haven't caused any problems all of sudden get dug up and turned into controversies. I just don't understand the motivation. Adamc714 (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Insights

Hi, I was wondering if you had any insights into the books and publications list at David Gorski. It seems a bit over the top to me, maybe a Selected Papers section would be better?Any thoughts? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Street

Hi JFHJr, we went back and forth on a few other pages that I've edited and am now coming to you as someone who knows Wikipedia and what to do when a page appears to be non-noteworthy (notability) but just stays up. I put the Notability tag on the page, do I leave it at that? Will others be alerted to this? The page is Daniel Street. Cheers, --Ddragovic (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have set up a discussion page for the deletion Daniel Street (2nd nomination and am trying to put it up on the Articles for Deletion but on that page I can only get the 2010 discussion up without having a new discussion initiated. Can you help? --Ddragovic (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

David Marchick

Hey JFHJr, in case you're watching this page, I'd like to ask for your participation in a discussion about the David Marchick article. Since the article survived the AfD back in October of 2012, there have been a large number of edits made to the article by User:Uzma Gamal. In many cases, though, I'm afraid I don't think the additions are appropriate for Wikipedia in terms detail and tone. I've posted a more detailed explanation of my issues over at Talk:David Marchick, and if you have time to take a look and weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of David Pearce (philosopher) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Pearce (philosopher) 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/David Pearce (philosopher) (3rd nomination) 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.