User talk:Jerry/Archive 6

This user is an adminstrator

Wednesday

6

November
2024

15:13 UTC

Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

EditNavigation bar

Home Home

About About

Talk Talk

Logs Logs

Index Index

Tests Tests

E-mail E-mail

“ ...delusional...kangaroo... ”

Please read my notice regarding deletion reviews.

Welcome to my talk page

You are also invited to email me at: jerry@lavoie.com. Occasionally I repost emails that I receive to this talk page, however I remove sensitive material and personally-identifying information, such as email address, first.

I frequently collapse sections once I think the conversation is done. The section will appear as a purple bar with a summary and a link that says "show". If you are leaving me a follow-on comment for such a collapsed section, please add the new comments below the collapsed section, NOT in it. If you add comments inside a collapsed section, I may never see them.

Jerry's 10 talk page rules

1. Please no foul language, threats or namecalling.
   See: Be civil.
2. If there is any possibility (at all) that I meant well, assume that is the case, until proven or admitted otherwise. I will do the same.
   See:Assume good faith
3. Please append your wikisignature to all comments.
   See:Signing your posts
4. Please do not add any contentious material about me or any other living person.
   See: WP:BLP. and No libel or slander
5. Stop means stop. If we are in a heated argument, and I ask you to stop sending me messages on this page, then simply stop. If you think my conduct requires a review:
   See: Administrator's noticeboard, or Requests for comment
6. Do not leave messages containing any personally-identifying information about children, including yourself.
   See: protecting childen's privacy and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
7. If you are here because a template showed up on your article or talk page, and you want to know why; 99% of the time, the information you seek is located right on the template itself. Please have the courtesy to read it first, then come here to complain or ask additional questions.
   Also try: The helpdesk
8. If I deleted an article/ image, etc, and you want to know why, please look at the log for the page... I usually leave a detailed explanation including a code like "CSD#G12, COPYVIO, Content was..." If you go to the deletion policy, you will likely find your answer faster than sending me a message.
   See: WP:CSD, WP:PROD, WP:AFD, WP:IFD, WP:SFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, WP:MFD, WP:TFD, WP:UCFD, and WP:DELREV
9. If you do decide to ask me why your article, image, etc. got deleted, please tell me which one you are talking about. I delete many things a day, most days, and it can be very difficult for me to figure out which one you're talking about. This is particularly impossible if you are not logged-in, and your current IP Address is different than what it was when you created the article, uploaded the image, etc.
   See: Why create an account?
10. If you are here to complain about another editor, for whatever reason, please consider using one of the forums to alert all administrators of the problem. This will get you faster service, from among dozens of patrolling admins.
    See: the Administrator's noticeboard, Administrator's intervention against vandalism, or Usernames requiring administrator attention

Notice regarding deletion reviews

This user is an active closing administrator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you are considering initiating a formal review of a recent closing, it is requested that you attempt to have a discussion with me first, as suggested by the instructions at the top of WP:DRV. Please give me at least one day to respond, and keep in mind that we may be in different time zones. If you have a valid reason that my determination of consensus may be flawed, I do appreciate the opportunity to consider it and revert my own closing or explain to you my difference of opinion without the wikidrama that is often created at DRV. If you are here to drop me a template notice of a DRV that you have already initiated, but we have not discussed it yet, please consider closing that delrev and talking with me first. Just add the comment "please close this discussion until I have a chance to discuss this with the closing administrator per WP:DRV" to the discussion, and an administrator will surely close it shortly (as long as other editors have not significantly participated yet). Thank-you for your consideration.

New discussions

From Bubba Chilukuri:

Hello, Jerry. Pleased to finally meet you. Well, on the internet at least. I have a question. I started making an article called Oak Knoll School. I thought it would be interesting to share about my old school. I had only typed a couple sentences when you abruptly deleted it and protected it so that only you could edit it. I had even put Template:hangon on it. Could you please get back to me on that. Thanks. --Bubba Chilukuri (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Bubba. I agree that a few minutes is not adequate to allow for article development. Please note that as deleting admin, I was not the first person to identify the article as needing to be deleted. Another editor tagged it as such, which is how I found it. From the state of the article at the time I reviewed it, it hardly looked like a serious attempt to build an article. It looked like a bunch of foolishness and a joke by a couple of kids just toying around. As such, I did not respect the hangon request. If you are serious about creating an article at this title, I suggest you try making it in your userspace first, and then request a review. Please note that elementary schools must be quite extraordinary to get an article on wikipedia; you should familiarize yourself with the recommendations at WP:School, as well as WP:NOT#Directory, WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:V. A quick look over the current discssions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools might give you an idea about what you are up against. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades

A month or so ago, I tried starting an account and adding an article that got deleted and rejected. I contested, but it failed. I figured I'd just do other stuff instead, even though it's kind of demoralizing when something gets knocked down.

I did some minor edits when I saw problems with active pages, just trying to do my part.

Today, I saw a really good source come up about the company I was writing on before. It's third-party, professionally edited and published, and verifies notoriety. The article is still userfied at User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades. I added some more info that I saw in the new publication about the company, and I cited the paper as well. I was wondering if you could please let me know what I can do to bring this page up again, and possibly confirm that it's wiki-worthy.

You helped me figure everything out last time, and I appreciate it.

P.S. This article would make most sense being published to /BetterTrades, with the pascal case, since that's how the company itself spells it. I had it wrong the first time I tried making the page. Westcoastbiker (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker

The article still needs a lot of work to not be tagged as "promotional", and "own research". Do you want me to mercilessly tag and mark it up? I don't want to insult or demoralize you, but if you truly want the article published, it is going to require major rework. I am unsure if the subject meets notability, which is a whole separate concern. You may want to review WP:Corp to see if the article is worth your effort. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is all about collaboration, so I have nothing to lose from a merciless markup. The sources I have are available to you as well, except the books (only one of which I have). You might have noticed that I don't take anything about WP personally; the only thing to lose is my confidence in the Wikipedia system, which wouldn't break my heart or yours.

I read through all of those rules and guidelines, but thanks for continuing to suggest them.

If there's something negative that's published about the company, we can use that too. I'd rather the article not seem promotional or like my own research, because those things would put extra responsibility on me that I don't want.

A big part of this article succeeding is that I can contribute to other articles about the stock market, but most of what I know is taught through proprietary companies. If I can't establish that a company is notable, it probably doesn't help to use them as a source later either. Westcoastbiker (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker

Ok, cool. I'll have a whack at it tonight. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article so quickly. I can see you that strongly embrace a minimalist style, at least on this subject! The thing I appreciate most is that what is left in terms of sources and content seems virtually uncontestable.

1. There is nothing to mistake as promotion. Nothing on the article tries to play as marketing. 2. You have participated, so there's no issue of an exclusive point-of-view. 3. The are published, edited, third-party, reliable, and notable sources. I suppose eliminating references to other things gives more credit to the important sources.

What does someone like me do now? Westcoastbiker (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker

I am usually not a minimalist, but I did offer to trim-out content that would likely attract comments about promotional tone and unsourced own-research. The explicit mention of the name of the founder of the company and his wife is very unusual in an article about a marginally-notable company, when the notability of these persons is clearly not met. The discussion of why people would want to invest in options and why the options market is cool and such, is completely own-research, as far as I could tell. Then the rest of what I removed was either non-encyclopedic and/ or promotional verbiage. The article could be much fuller, and I would encourage it, if sourced material and encyclopedic tone can be adhered-to.

As far as what is your next step toward having the article reinstated; I would suggest requesting a review of the userfied article at WP:DRV. I honestly don't think it would survive in its current state, mostly because it is so small. (Yes, I understand that it is small because I trimmed it; but it stood zero chance before that.) You may consider continuing to build-up the article with encyclopedic content. I always suggest finding the information that a student doing a report for school, or an investor would look for. I can't give you a complete list, and some of what I list here won't be applicable, but interesting details like:

• • Company incorporation status (Type S corp, partnership, Limited Liability Corp, etc.)
  • Number of employees
  • annual sales, profit, other public financial information
  • Market share, stock symbol and exchange
  • any innovations, patents or trademarks owned
  • any lawsuits, Better Business Bureau warnings, or bad press (almost every company has some)
  • see here, here, here, and here.
  • mentions in mainstream (non-press release) press
  • subsidiaries, mergers, acquisitions, partnerships

Also consider renaming the article as Long Term - Short Term Corporation, since the BetterTrades website evidently does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB, but the case you are making for the company may meet WP:CORP. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. I wasn't aware that the size of an article was a major factor in its survival, but if you say so...

You've benefited me because, like you said, better chance for the article later in life with less disputable content anyway.

I'll work on finding out sources on other things. Maybe the part about options trading popularity can show up elsewhere if I find a proper source (obviously I wasn't the first to think of it).

I know it's not your fault and it's still nothing personal, but I'm really starting to see that there's not much room for new people in Wikipedia. I feel like my failure is more about the fact that I'm not a Wikipedia master who knows the Wikipolitics, because there's no way to obey the rules enough to please everyone. If I write about a company, then it scares everyone, but if I write about anything else, it relies on information from companies, which means I have to argue the authority of the company.

Later. Happy wiki-ing! Westcoastbiker (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker

I am truly sorry you've felt uninvited. This does often happen when articles written by new users get deleted. And of course new editors have more articles deleted because they are not aware that we actually have criteria for what can be here and what can't. People say all the time "I thought wikipedia was free, and that people could make an article about anything" when their article about their high school band, grandmother's fudge recipe, themselves, or their company get deleted. Some eventually learn the process and become comfortable in a productive niche. Others get pissed off and leave. I'd much rather exercise patience and help explain the rules in hopes of having more of these editors stay. I have tried to do that in this case.

It truly is not personal. We actually have many articles submitted everyday that are shameless attempts to promote companies. Wikipedia has the top ratings in all of the major search engines, so article mentions of companies with favorable content is highly sought. To protect the image of wikipedia and to maintain true to the mission of the project, we have to scrutinize the quality of our article space content, and ensure it meets the requirements of a world class encyclopedia. Dan's painting and roofing in Duluth, may be a really fine contractor, but for a promotional wikipedia article about it to appear at the top of the search page whenever somebody searches google for "shingles" or "primer" is unacceptable. Your article, a more marginal case, still gets the same scrutiny as all new articles do, and therefore the whole deletion thing.

Thanks for your efforts, and please stay around. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was told at the close of the last review that by adding a new, valid, third-party source, the argument could be re-opened. You have edited, so the content is "clean" so-to-speak. The only change that I have added since your edit was a single sentence, referencing what the CEO said that was recently quoted in a newspaper article that bears current interest, validates notability, and stays outside of the promotion realm.

How does one bring up a second deletion review? I'm not trying to be a pest, but I was told that more good sources was key, and I found one, which is, in fact, a really good one. I'm confident that if I can just get the system right, my contribution can be respected instead of brushed aside. I need some help. Westcoastbiker (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker

See: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_October_9#User:Westcoastbiker/Bettertrades

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is that the subject of this article is not notable, and so no matter what effort you put in, it is unlikely that this article will be allowed to mainspace. It is not personal, it is just an example of a subject that is just patently not encyclopedic. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. You've been good, I appreciate your insight. I'll work on something else.

Quality first. Kudos, and hopefully we'll work together in the future. Westcoastbiker (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Westcoastbiker

From my email (wikified, and redacted for posting here)

Dear Sir: I was reading about Nial Djuliarso, and was browsing at the "All-About-Jazz" site. On the site is a link to a Wikipedia Page about Nial Djuliarso. Much to my surprise this Wikipedia Page about "Nial Djuliarso" has been deleted. Why is this so?? And in accordance to what is written there (please correct me if I am wrong), for any review and or request for reinstatement of the Wikipedia Page about "Nial Djuliarso", I have to contact you!

I would appreciate to get some feedback from you, if this reinstatement can be considered, and what actually would be the prerequisites of "getting this done". Many thanks for your valuable inputs. For your utmost consideration, please investigate and read about the incumbent as reported in the following articles in All-About-Jazz. Please check out this link and other stories about "Nial Djuliarso" (google it).

Check out some of the background story and info here: International Center for the Arts (ICA) - Generations Website And if you need more information, please contact <name redacted> (at ICA). Thank you for your consideration and support. Have a Great Day. God Bless! With Kindest Regards, <name redacted>

PS: I am also copying this message to the original contributor of the Wikipedia story

Nial Djuliarso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, This article was originally deleted through a process known as Proposed Deletion, in which no discussion is held. If after 5 days of being tagged for prod, nobody objects, the article is deleted as an uncontested PROD. It was nominated on 4 September 2007 by User:Keb25. The deletion was carried out by User:Coredesat on 10 September 2007, 6 days after the nomination.

In this case, the article's author, Chaerani posted a request at WP:DRV to have the deletion reviewed, stating that she was unable to object to the prod because she was away from her computer for personal reasons during the prod listing. This request was made on 10 January 2008. Our normal response to such a request is to immediately restore the article as if it had been contested during the prod period. User:Stormie did in fact restore the article on the same day the request was made.

6 days after the article was restored, on 16 January 2008, User:trialsanderrors nominated the article for deletion through the more involved process called "AFD", a 5-day discussion. The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nial Djuliarso was deletion of the article, based on the consensus of the discussion that the subject of the article did not meet our notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC). I was the administrator who closed the discussion and carried out the deletion on 23 January 2008.

On Chaerani's request, (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 16) the article was "userfied", which means the deleted article was placed in an offline location, (User:Chaerani/Nial Djuliarso), to allow her to improve it. Unfortunately, since userfication, niether Chaerani nor any other editor has edited the userfied article, in over 7 months (history), so I will be deleting the userfied version shortly, as a result.

Here are the logs for the page:

• 03:26, 10 September 2007 Coredesat (talk · contribs · email) deleted "Nial Djuliarso" ‎ Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable musician.
• 06:22, 10 January 2008 Stormie (talk · contribs · email) restored "Nial Djuliarso" ‎ 28 revisions restored: Contested PROD: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 10
• 02:27, 23 January 2008 Jerry (talk · contribs · email) deleted "Nial Djuliarso" ‎ AFD: Deleted after discussion at Articles for Deletion
• 14:21, 17 February 2008 Jerry (talk · contribs · email) restored "Nial Djuliarso" ‎ 30 revisions restored: undelete for userfication to User:Chaerani/Nial Djuliarso
• 14:41, 17 February 2008 Jerry (talk · contribs · email) deleted "Nial Djuliarso" ‎ G6: Housekeeping and routine non-controversial cleanup: deleting resulting cross-namespace redirect following userfication of deleted article

This deleted article was linked in the following wikipedia articles, so I removed those links:

• List of Indonesian Americans
• List of Javanese
• List of Indonesia-related topics

In addition, Nial Djuliarso was mentioned in the following article, which I determined is completely unacceptable in its current form, so I have nominated it for deletion:

• Jakarta International Java Jazz Festival

This AFD will run for 5 days, at which time another administrator will determine the consensus of the discussion. The article may be improved during this time, to make it more likely that it will be kept. Although I did inform the article creator, it was an unregistered editor, so their IP-address talk page (User talk:202.171.9.146) is where my notification is located, which is not likely to be seen. You may be interested in improving this article and/ or participating in the discussion. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jakarta International Java Jazz Festival).

Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

High school notability

You referred to Wikipedia:Notability (high schools), please note this is an essay only and not a guideline. I've participated in a few discussions where high school articles were merged or on the rare occasion deleted. It must still satisfy WP:ORG. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please note the following:

1. I always refer to this as an essay when I reference it.
2. I am the author of it and know well it is an essay.

Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jerry. Thanks for the comment on the Redbank Plains HS page. To establish where I am coming from, I have no particular problem with articles about schools, my beef with the constant attempts to establish "inherent" notability for high schools and the claims of a consensus about this that does not exist. There have been several attempts to get consensus about the inherent notability of schools, which you may be aware of. As you may also also aware these have all failed to gain consensus. Articles, on schools or otherwise need to meet the General notability guideline. If they do, and perhaps most schools do, then they will be kept. If they don't then they should not. Nothing is "inherently" notable and any argument that because most schools are notable means that all schools are notable doesn't strike me as convincing. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 23:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. But the point of my essay, and my opinion on the subject is that all high schools do in fact meet the general notability guideline, when sufficient effort is made to look for sources. It is just a matter of convenience to pre-assume that high school articles are notable, for the sake of being efficient; this is because they are never deleted for reasons of notability. Some are deleted for lack of content, and some for other reasons such as copyright violations, but NEVER because of notability concerns alone. (I say never... but in actuality, in the history of the project we have deleted ten high school articles for notability. All ten have since been recreated and are unlikely deletion nomination candidates.) Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the closing decision that I offered, you will have noticed that there were two reasons for my NAC -- the second reason, which you ignored, was the fact the AfD nominator complained about a no-sourced article and another editor provided more than enough reliable sources to confirm its notability. Coupled with the fact this was heading in a unanimous Keep (which included statements by other editors that supported the notability of the subject matter), I believe my judgment was correct. I stand by my NAC as being a proper decision. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S., this AfD was closed again by an other admin about one hour after my NAC was improperly reverted. I consider this to be a vindication of my judgment. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad there was this tiny controversy, because it led me to your talk page and the above-referenced essay on notability. I'm more open to the idea of high schools being notable now, but I'm not convinced entirely. Isn't it flawed logic to assume that if many high schools are notable that probably the one unsourced one you're looking at is as well? How much coverage is considered significant? On the other hand, is the process broken if it takes a nomination for deletion for people to properly source these articles? Just to be clear in a way that the internet sometimes is not - this is not an attempt to goad, I'm really interested in your further thoughts on the matter. Thank you.--otherlleft (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree that the use of AFD to expedite sourcing of articles is a good thing. As a volunteer project that openly states as a mission that it never intends to be "done" creating an encyclopedia, we truly have no deadline. To artificiate a deadline on something to force effort by others is not a good idea. Let them work on what they want to, and let the wikignomes who enjoy working on the article maintenance categories source articles at their own pace.

One should be careful to note, that my essay does not include any proposed protection for articles on high schools from deletion for any other reasons except notability. Articles which lack verifiable encyclopedic content should be deleted. Articles that are purely own research and/or are effectively a mere directory listing probably should be deleted, as should articles which are copyright violation, hoaxes, attack articles, and the like.

The only point of the essay is that history has proven so many times that high school articles always can pass our notability criteria, that it is illogical to contend that any high school could be so unnoticed in its community that it would not have sufficient coverage to pass WP:N. Even a 1-room schoolhouse for 5 students that was only open for a part of a single year in an area that is no longer inhabited seems to easily pass WP:N. High schools get that kind of attention, so proposing their deletion as non-notable is just a silly waste of time, as has been proven hundreds and hundreds of times. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have to say your comment of Even a 1-room schoolhouse for 5 students that was only open for a part of a single year in an area that is no longer inhabited seems to easily pass WP:N. I disagree with. in some instances merging the article and making a small statement in a suburb or city article is all that's required. Whilst I can understand your comment I do not agree that the use of AFD to expedite sourcing of articles is a good thing unfortunately it seems to be the case that happens on WP. I don't think articles should be left bare for years. If it was created last month, then of course, editors should use their judgement on its merits for deletion. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's clearer to me now. Your position is that any high school can be proven notable, so it shouldn't be deleted on those grounds. Thanks.--otherlleft (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact an admin closed the AfD with the same rationale used by a non-admin (myself) exposes the poverty of the argument against my action. And the claim that "new arguments" were introduced into the closing statement reconfirms my earlier comment about the closing statement being misread. If you wish to argue with the admin who supported my decision, you have that option. I stand by my action and respect your right to voice your opinion. Thank you and be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though I was the original nominator of that article in question, I agree with Ecoleetage that significant consensus was reached for Keep, and that Ecoleetage was quite entitled to perform a non admin closure. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of lists

Thank you for citing WP:CLN Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_baptist_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States. The more I participate in these debates and familiarize myself with the actual criteria, the more I realize that the value of lists is often overlooked.--otherlleft (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool. And thanks for the feedback. Happy editing! Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Feel Free

I have nominated Feel Free (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I killed it. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Reconsideration of our conversation from 11 April 2008

Hi Jerry, Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Thank you so much for your apology. I must admit that I was a bit stung by that April conversation, but I realize we all have our moments, and I don't hold it against you. Keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Steven Cann

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Steven Cann. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CumbrianRam (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A perfect example of why a discussion with the deleting admin BEFORE starting a DRV is required. This was a non-controversial undeletion which follows the closing comment I made at the AFD. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Stevanna Jackson

This is not about escalation of fame, she is famous. No, she is not Beyonce, Even just by association to The Jacksons. She is recognized by her fans and she has made a mark, Whether you want to accept it or not. What is the real story behind the other movie surfers, who do not have enough notability at all to have a wiki article, yet they do!--Fantasia 15 (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a free clue: This is a "fame inversion error". Become famous first, THEN have a wikipedia article; NOT the other way around. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Robert Eads

Male pronouns for Robert are appropriate. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:IDENTITY#Identity —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyprice (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dream Satellite TV Deleted?

Hello why you deleted the Dream Satellite TV Article? In Fact it is the only Direct to Home satellite channel in the Philippines. It is the closest rival of SkyCable, Global Destiny Cable and Cablelink in the Philippines. In fact it is written display the actual channel as well as the history of that said company was real. Please retrieve the article immediatelly.

This article was merely an advertisement and guide for the subject of the article. The deletion was done almost one year ago, based on the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Satellite TV. It was not decided that the subject of the article was not notable enough for an article, but rather that the entire content of the article itself was unacceptable per WP:IINFO, WP:NOTADIRECTORY, WP:NOT#GUIDE, as well as WP:SPAM. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminship for me?

Hi Jerry, thanks for the shout out.

You are not the first person to suggest that I apply for adminship. I have thought about it more seriously of late, as I am currently between jobs (thanks to the crappy economic situation). While I would not mind helping out with policy-related matters, or the occasional Wikipedia:Deletion discussions, I'm not so sure I would want to deal with tons of administrative backlog, blocking vandals and trolls, etc. That and the fact that there are quite a few people on here that have something against me.

If you still want to nominate me for adminship, go ahead and do so, but don't be shocked if I get voted down. --Eastlaw (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I will nominate you. I think December is a somewhat easier time for RFA, with the distraction of Arbcom elections, and lots of our more boisterous people going on college vacations. Typically the total number of votes in a December RFA is about 1/2 to 1/3 of "peak season" RFA's; and my personal experience being that this means more of the participants are the wikignomic regulars, so there seems to be less drahmaz. I myself was a December Admin :) Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about your vote on me

You write "drahmaz, recall, anonymity issues." What "drahmaz" do you mean? Cool Hand Luke 00:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

My vote comment was too short, and left too much to guesswork and misinterpretation, for this I apologize. I should have taken the time to write a more transparent explanation, as this election is very important, and yourself and others have put in a lot of time, which I do appreciate. I did not mean to slight you or cast an insult your way; I personally dislike the Wikipedia Review, and believe it has been, and will continue to be a source of drama. This in my mind presents a conflict of interest for arbcom. I realize that NYB is on ARB, and I would not suggest he has had a COI, but I think with such a large spate of candidates available, that my support votes were better cast for some of the others. I also am reluctant to support anyone who is voluntarily subject to recall, and I believe that your position on BLP/anonynimity issues is contrary to that which should be protected by Wikipedia. Again sorry for the flippant short form of my initial vote comment. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've been a focus of drama myself in either place, while other users have been in both, but I understand your position. If you think BLP should have a less important role, then I do understand why you would vote against me. Thank you for your explanation. Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and for asking me to explain my vote. I respect you as a wikipedian, and I realize the stress that this vote election creates. I really am glad that you stepped up, and I hope to see you around. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted redirect

Can you please closed the RfD entry for 3rr now that it's deleted? -- IRP ☎ 02:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Assburger RFDs

You missed one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why did you delete some of the others yet decline that one? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Huh, nevermind. I could've sworn you deleted one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I deleted one, then after discussing it with some other people in a top secret place, I decided it was a bad idea. But in the meantime, while I was undoing my goof, somebody else went and deleted the whole lot. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sonnal Than Kathala

HiJerry. there is a movie actually called Sonnal Than Kathala by T. Rajendar. It was a flop movie but nevertheless, it is there. The problem is it was vandalised by moving to a page called Sonnal Than Karadiya. Karadi means Bear, just like how T. Rajendar looks like. So please undo the delete and review the page history and revert the article to the original version. Vandals have made it look like nonsense but it is not nonsense. Google "Sonnal Than Kathala" and you will get what I say. Thank u--118.100.5.238 (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Flop movies don't usually get articles, unless they have some special circumstances whereby they meet a notability criteria. Please consider WP:DRV if you still think this movie article should be restored. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do feel it should be restored, because there are many other Tamil and even Hindi and English flop movies that have a page, so why not this one? As long as the movie is genuine, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't exist. You are an American so I don't blame you, but trust me, everyone in Tamil Nadu (and possibly Tamils all over India and Sri Lanka) know T. Rajendar and all his movies but just don't watch it because always same silly rhyming dialogue. This was the exact issue when Veerasamy was nominated for deletion but there we were allowed to vote and cleary although it was a flop majority voted KEEP. Just go to this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veerasamy and an example is given of a flopped English movie. Vandalism doesn't warrant deletion of an article. I hope this article can be restored. Thanx --118.100.5.238 (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please consider WP:DRV if you still think this movie article should be restored. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Micah Johnson

Hi. Re your close: The consensus was clear to keep so practically it makes no difference, but meeting the wp:n notability standard was not a simple as you made it out to be. The typical decent college athlete has an ESPN profile and a bunch of news ghits from the local area in which he plays. Additionally, in most of the ghits this "decent college player" is only mentioned in passing of the RS's coverage of the game in which he played in. Most of this dude's ghits are the same Kentucky paper. So although you can reasonably argue that these ghits meet the wp:n standard, you surely admit that a decent argument can be made to the contrary, that local coverage does not meet the "significant coverage" standard. And this guy is just a "decent college players", who are generally not accepted as notable for WP purposes. Also, I removed the afd template from the article but I'm too lazy to add the old afd template to the talk page. If you did that already or you plan on doing it, disregard this last comment. best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you are saying above. My closing comment is instructive, however, for the growing mass of editors who believe that no matter how much coverage an athlete gets, if they have not played at the top level in their field they can not have an article, based on the flawed logic that WP:Athlete or WP:Footy "trump" WP:N. And as for the missing steps in my closing; I have taken a brief partial wikibreak from AFd, and it's amazing how fast one forgets how to do these things. I will finish the job. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have long wished that all these "subguidelines" be gotten rid of. But unfortunately, they're just growing and spreading all over the place. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

hi

can I see new troll please? thx. Headlikeawhole (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The entire article consisted of:

---

A new troll is a concept presented on openpolitics.ca. There, there is an implied dynamic between a a new user at a major webservice and "the systemic bias of the sysop power structure" that rules those web services.

==See==

• open politics
• openpolitics.ca - new troll

---

Inarticulate comment from anon

fucker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.11.242 (talk • contribs)

Deletion review for Milić Jovanović

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Milić Jovanović. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stifle (talk • contribs)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!!

Wishing Jerry/Archive 6 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Willking1979 (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RfD

how is Bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk reasonable. just wondering. - Wilkos (Talk) (UTC)

Look at the deletion history. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Also have a look at: google Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A confused editor?

Jerry Someone has added and external link to an article I wrote that is an advertisement for a CD Rom. The article is Rehoboth Carpenter family and the external link is William 1 Carpenter Sketch (2008) Sincerely. BC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanafish (talk • contribs)

Hello, you seem confused. I think you may have a browser hijack problem.... try running hijackthis. The link is not an advertisement for a cd-rom; it is a valid legitimate link for referencing information in the article. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict

Sorry about the Tiny Thompson edit confict. I didn't realize you were still editing. I'll leave you to it, and I'll work on it tomorrow. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am all done with it now. I know there is no way to tell about another editor editing.... would be a nice feature. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Marc Weidenbaum

Your closing summary of Marc Weidenbaum is inappropriate and incorrect. I fully understand WP:N, thanks, and he didn't meet it. Nor was there a clear consensus for keeping the article, it was evenly split in the comments to keep and to delete, with good arguments on both sides. At best, it should be a no consensus, or relisted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, you are wrong. If you want to discuss it, let me know, in a manner that starts out diffeently than an accusation of wrongdoing. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

How am I wrong. Four editors weighed in, two arguing for deletion citing notability, two arguing for keep claiming notability (without any actual sources). Again, this is not a clear keep at all per the AfD guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Article subjects which meet the requirements of WP:N need not be scrutinized against any further notability guidelines. Some subjects are not covered in the press, etc, but have been repeatedly shown to be notable through careful examination by the wikipedia editor community. As a matter of convenience, to prevent the need to re-examine subjects which are very similar to ones that have already been discussed, a supplemental guideline is written. In the case of a subject that does not meet WP:N, but falls within the purview of a supplemental guideline, then it gets a second chance by scrutinizing it against that guideline. It may or may not receive further scrutiny under other guidelines if it fails the requirements of the first such supplemental guideline. In this way, the supplemental guidelines act as a second catchment, via which an article can be kept. Under no circumstances is an article that has already been determined to pass WP:N, then scrutinized against a supplemental guideline and then deleted. Take for example, some kid somewhere who managed to garner a lot of in-depth media coverage for something. We have an article about that kid. The kid happens to be a fairly good soccer player, and is almost at the professional level... it would be QUITE WRONG to scrutinize him against WP:footy and delete his article by reasoning of not having played a game at the fully professional level, despite all the media coverage. Take another example... an opera singer who lived 400 years ago on a small island. The singer did not receive media coverage in his day. but it is discovered that he was on tour with a professional opera company and played the lead role in several operas that were shown mutinationally. We first determine he does not meet WP:N, but we then find WP:Music allows his article to be kept. See? WP:AFD is not a votecount. Opinions that are contrary to policy are ignored. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy, but unnecessary explanation. I understand WP:N and I understand WP:GNG. It seems after all that, that you basically closed the AfD because you discounted the deletes despite their speaking specifically to his not meeting WP:N. I have taken the AfD to DRV. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good for you. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lying Bastard

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Your deletion of this article was not as I wished but your close was a model of encouraging good sense which did well in avoiding rancour and resentment. Please keep up the good work. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Request

Could you pipe the King Cold redirect to target List of Dragon Ball characters#King Cold? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 12:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eoghan Quigg

8 hours to close a discussion? That must be some reasoning =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC).

Yes, In fact, I decided that I had to sleep on it. LOL Thanks for the reminder. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OLD

Some people (Fram is the only one I remember, but there were others) were getting quite wound up about manually adding deletion day logs to WP:OLD, on the grounds that it was causing AFDs to be closed early (before five days). Apparently Mathbot adds it automatically at 16:00 each day. I'm not asking you to stop, but the practice might cause some unnecessary drama and/or DRVs. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I have been doing it for quite some time now, and it so far has not created any known drama. In the evening (my time zone) we have several admins available to close them, and since I started doing that we have not had a backlog at AFD, so I think it is helping. I will remain sensitive to the possibility that it may irritate somebody. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Eoghan Quigg - Non Deletion

As Eoghan Quiggs Article was not deleted does this leave room for redirected articles such as Diana Vickers and JLS (FINSIHING IN A BETTER PLACE THAN EOGHAN!!!)?

I do not see any relationship between the articles in question. Wikipedia is not consistent for the sake of consistency. You may consider creating a userspace draft, and once the article is good enough for prime time request a review for A potential move to mainspace. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I add a redirect?

I had requested Harbec plastics be deleted. Is it possible to redirect it to HARBEC (Harbec) Plastics? Kateetak (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Which of the following are you asking for?

1. Move HARBEC Plastics to HARBEC (Harbec) Plastics
2. Move HARBEC Plastics to Harbec Plastics
3. Something else

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Westwood High School (Michigan)

Thanks for expanding this article. I'm not really sure why it was nominated at AfD. But it's nice that people you and user: TerriersFan stepped up to fix it up a bit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for Wasp

thanks Mfield (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection of JLS

You recently fully protected JLS (Jack the Lad Swing) and redirected it to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5). However, after the AfD discussion for Eoghan Quigg consensus was reached here to allow JLS to have their own page. Please unprotect the article and revert the changes to the last version by me. Pyrrhus16 (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You incorrectly state that consensus has been reached in the linked drv discussion. The discussion is currently in progress, and several of the participants did not understand the details of the situation (ie: recent AFD mandated redirection, and the article is protected). I have made a clarifying comment there to address that. When that DRV is closed (likely on 26 DEC 2008), the closer will take appropriate action, based on their determination of the consensus; there is no need to ask another admin to get take any action at this point, as that will only make said admins 'involved' and ineligible to close the discussion, which may cause delay, as the holiday week means we have fewer active admins than usual, temporarily. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 12:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jerry, but I have to disagree with your view that people do not understand the situation. Eoghan Quigg's AfD was correctly closed as a keep by you (it wasnt the result I wanted, but consensus is consensus!). The JLS AfD, however, was held much earlier and had far fewer participants and as a result was closed as a redirect. I feel that things have changed now (since JLS are just as notable as Eoghan and also pass WP:MUSIC). IMHO, the JLS AfD should now be considered null/void and the redirect be allowed to be overturned. If anyone is truely upset by this, they could simply nominate it for a fresh AfD discussion. Anyway, my point is that I and others are not incorrect in using the argument that if Eoghan has an article, JLS should have one as well. JS (chat) 13:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood what I said, perhaps because I was not clear enough. My assesment of the DRV is that several of the participants did not understand that the redirect was created due to an AFD outcome, and the same people did not know that the page was protected. These people are the ones calling for "speedy close", and stating that you should not have opened the DRV. I am sure that if they read my comment they will say "ooops, you're right" and then possibly provide a valid opinion of the deletion discussion process and whether the redirect should or should not stand.

As for your reasoning that because another article was kept this one should also be; that logic is specifically addressed in WP:WAX, and is not valid. Nonetheless, I am the wrong admin to be asking about this, you need to talk with the admin who closed the AFD as redirect. I only enforced the consensus by reverting the article back to a redirect and protected it, which is per policy. I would have done that even if I disagreed with the outcome of the AFD. We have a process for appealing an AFD, and you should follow it. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 16:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC).

Oh right. I see what you meant now! As for WP:WAX, maybe we should just forget about Eoghan Quigg for now and just focus on the fact that JLS do pass WP:MUSIC and the fact that the AfD was closed without consensus by a non-admin. See User:Stifle comments at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_December_22 for more info about that situation. Thanks JS (chat) 17:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Had I known it was an improper early close by a non-admin, the whole problem could have been easily fixed much sooner. Sorry! It is fixed now. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I should have mentioned it sooner. Thanks for all your help and patience. Merry christmas :-) JS (chat) 19:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill Ewing

Your comments HERE were greatly appreciated. I'm still miffed over the empty accusation of violating policy, but your words did much to molify. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Britain Quay

Whoops sorry about that, I must have had a cached version. StarM 01:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Beramba

What was there I put on the SS Omrah talk page. I have a crazy theory that an old Aussie guy saying "the Omrah" somehow got transcribed as: Beramba. Check it out. Happy Holidays sailor. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I like your "adding BS" edit summary, intentional or not. I've been doing a lot of that myself... ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL... its BarnStar.... but I think I know where you were going :) Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holiday season

Ecoleetage (talk) wishes you peace!

Spread peace and goodwill by adding {{subst:WikiPeace}} to other's talk pages with a friendly message.

P.S. We didn't quite hit it off properly a few weeks back and I am genuinely sorry if I created any stress. Hopefully, we can enjoy a more serene editorial relationship in 2009. Be well and enjoy this season. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure right now which page we tangled together over, but we do have alot of pages in common in our contributions:

• 9 articles
• 1 article talk page
• 1 user page
• 71 User talk pages
• 6 Admin boards
• 10 ACE2008 Election pages
• 26 AFD debates
• 16 AFD Logpages (listing/relisting)
• 2 DRV's
• 2 other project-space pages
• 1 project talk page
• 3 RFa's
• 1 DELSORT page

So Happy Holidays to you, as well, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are a class act, Jerry. And here's a little something to hang from your Christmas tree:

		The Special Barnstar
		Thank you very much for your successful efforts in improving the content and character of Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Marion Sandler

Hi, can you confirm that the article Marion Sandler recently deleted by you was "entirely negative in tone and unsourced" as required by G10, including previous versions in the page history. As I can no longer see the article I can no longer review the latest version, however Herb Sandler is still around and looking over it most of the sources there do mention Marion Sandler. Arguably Marion Sandler has the same level of notability as Herb Sandler. Hobartimus (talk) 04:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You may also see in my deletion summary: WP:Coatrack. This means that the article appeared to be constructed largely as an attempt to support having a place for the negative BLP content. The article could not decide if it was about this person, her husband, their comapny, or what. Just some loosly related details, followed by a large section of inappropriate content. If you feel that a proper article can be constructed which is acceptable under requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, then feel free to do so. Such a new article should not be deletable under G8, and if this occurs, point the admin to this discussion. I am unable to usefy, due to the sensitive information contained. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'm sure the article was weak when you looked at it, it's not a great loss by any standard, I think the person was notable though even if the article was of low quality. Hobartimus (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

re Arizona Sky

Thankyou for your fair and unbiased actions with regard to this article. I am sorry that I reentered it when as Predego said, "It should never be done," but I was never notified that it was a candidate for speedy deletion and it was deleted with the speediness that would make one's head spin. I appreciate that there are many objective administrators on this website.--JRiverton (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

User:JerryBot

Hello, Jerry! I was hoping you could point me to where this bot operation was approved — I'm not sure I agree with this at all. Also, are you just testing your bot account or are these real bot edits? I didn't think that was how bot accounts were supposed to be operated, but I could easily be wrong on that. Please advise. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The software program for my BOT is still being coded, and has not been put under any live testing with this or any other account that I control.
2. The edits you may have seen by this account are not in any way similar to the intended purpose of the bot that may be running in the future under this account.
3. You may review the purpose and intent of the bot that may be running in the future under this account at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#JerryBot.
4. Every wikipedia account must be "autoidentifed", in order to be allowed to create new pages and to edit semi-protected pages. Since my BOT will likely require this ability, I have been making normal edits with it to force that process to occur. It takes 10 non-deleted and non-rollbacked edits to mainspace per day for 4 days, I think.
5. The 'rules' require some indication in the edit summary that the edit is automated. My bot will say "BOT:....." in all edit summaries.
6. Bots are permitted to make automated edits prior to having a bot flag, if the request for the flag has been submitted, and permission has been given for low speed live testing. Before the edit rate is allowed to go above 6/minute, a bot flag is mandatory.

JerryBot (contribs – talk to Jerry about me) 16:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryBot (talk • contribs)

Ah, thanks for clarification; #4 was the one that pretty much explains it for me. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Some questions

• I would like to reuse some en.wiki free content. Could you tell me, please, which is the license of this image?
• This photo is showing copyrighted content: don't you think that it should be under fair use? And this photo? It should be like this or this. Thank you in advance--Trixt (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Only the text on Wikipedia is licensed for free use under the GFDL. Images all contain a license information section on their corresponding image description page, and in the case of the image you listed, it is a copyrighted image in some countries. Wikipedia's use of the image has been determined to be via public domain status of the photographer, as US copyright law allows 2-dimensional images of 3-dimensional works on pubic display (panorama law). Other countries, including Italy do not have such a provision, so any image of this building can be considered to infringe on the rights of the architect who designed the building. In most countries this is not automatic, however; a determination would need to be made in civil court as to whether the particular image contained sufficient detail to allow a person with reasonable skills to duplicate the object, and it would have to be argued that the image did so more efficiently or more effectively than information the same person could gain with his own eyes were he standing at the vantage point of the camera.

So, as you can see, all very tricky stuff. I would avoid republishing images from Wikipedia that are potentially copyrighted. But if it was essential to me that I use such an image, I would obtain it from the original source, as opposed to getting it from Wikipedia, to remove one party (a large one) from any lawsuit(s) that may occur. Large companies probably have no financial interest in suing individual people for using an image of their building on their personal webpage.

For a repository of images that can be freely used, see Wikimedia Commons.

JerryBot (contribs – talk to Jerry about me) 17:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryBot (talk • contribs)

Jack the Lad Swing

Hi Jerry, the AfD has now closed as keep. I've moved the article to Jack the Lad Swing as you suggested. Could you now unprotect JLS (Jack the Lad Swing) please? The redirect there needs to be fixed. Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 14:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)  Done

Copy of "Evil Iguana Production"

You recently deleted this page under CSD A7. Before I go to deletion review, I'd like to see a copy of the article to make sure it wasn't the one I was watching that had established notability. Tealwisp (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Tealwisp/Evil Iguana Production Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Could I ask what disqualifies the blast-magazine reference regarding notability? Just for the record, I hold no personal attachment to this article, I'm just a third-party looking to preserve something. Tealwisp (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The article does not assert that the subject has been covered by "multiple" reliable sources. Just the one. I did not research whether that one was good or not.... since it was not multiple, it does not seem to matter. Cheers, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought only one source was needed. Regardless, I don't think the source would pass muster in a pro-deletion examination; it doesn't exude professionalism, but it may be reliable. I'll see if the author of the article wants it in his/her userspace, as I'm not a contributor. I think there are other sources, though. Tealwisp (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ok. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please consider changing your signature

Ok, i'll try to come up with a new design, for now i've changed to the default signature untill I have come up with a new design, i'm sorry about the confusion this has caused. Jerry teps (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Closing script errors?

Yes, I use Mr.Z-Man's script. It seemed to be working fine last night, nothing out of the ordinary. I'll have to look into this further. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jerry @ ro.wiki

You can request usurpation of username "Jerry" on the Romanian Wikipedia here: ro:Wikipedia:Schimbarea numelui de utilizator. You're in luck, the current user hasn't made any meaningful edits, so you can apply for usurpation. The process involves a seven-day grace period for the current user to assert his intention of using that username, so the sooner you start the process, the better.

This is in response to this edit; please ignore this message if you didn't initiate that conversation. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)