User talk:Jbhunley

User page Talk page Dashboard Scratchpad Templates Sandbox

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

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

Click HERE to start a new section below.

Speedy deletion of Gigantic (video game)

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

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

Draft:Lilia Poustovit

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

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

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

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

Written more neutrally would be:

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

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

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

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

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

Admin Help Request

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Samira Koppikar

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

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

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

Ius Laboris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tjuan Benafactor

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For possible titles how about -

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

or inverted -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ubikwit: If you are OK with:

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

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

OK, done.

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

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

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

Dead horses...

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

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

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

I am sorry that you misinterpreted a joke.

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

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

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

Arbcom notice

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

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

Deletion of Discovery of the neutron

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

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

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

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

stub tags

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

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

Arbitration Case Opened

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

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

Comment by Verminator04

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

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

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

Delete article

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

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

@Jbhunley: Thanks.

Trouted

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

You have been trouted for: What is this

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

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

Deletion of Empress Of

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

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

Johny Seth

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

Elysium ( Dreampop band)

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

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

All mirrors...

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

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

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

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

Use of the content of wikiarticles outside Wikipedia

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

Speedy deletion declined: Wetpour

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Bundling

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

I did mean to ping you before making the request

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

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

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

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

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

Mail

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruth Guler

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

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

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

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

Thanks

Hello Jbhunley

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

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

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

Newspapers.com access

Hi Jbhunley,

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

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

I have unreviewed a page you curated

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

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

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

Paula Peters unreferenced?

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

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

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

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

doriscarnival

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

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

Third Opinion

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

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

The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have unreviewed a page you curated

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

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

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

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

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

Ashestoangels

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

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

Debate on Splashed White in gypsies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Watsan

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

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

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

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

Dinesh Vaghela

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Bonny Norton?

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

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

AFD

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

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

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

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

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