User talk:JForget

This user is a member of WikiProject Ottawa
The project is an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Ottawa. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Please do not post silly comments or vandalism. Personnal attacks, vandalism, yelling-type comments and other forms of disruption will be immediately reverted and users trolling or vandalizing may be blocked for more then one offense. Use my own sandbox for test edits. For those asking a question, making a comment or request, alerting me for mistakes, deletion of page discussion or other stuff or any incidents or any other fluff, leave it here and I will try if possible to answer as soon as possible. Thank You!

Archives

AfD Allegations of state terrorism by Russia (3rd nomination)

I think the page presented verifiable publications of the allegations. The article's title may sound shocking but I think it does not endorse the referenced points of view.--ilgiz (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Railstone

you deleted an article for the DJ Paige Railstone. I don't think that had to be done. Paige Railstone is very talented and deserves to be on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusmar (talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you, JForget, for protecting my talk page. I take it that I can't edit it either? 99.149.84.135 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite alright, and much appreciated--it was getting ridiculous, and seems to have been a case of mistaken identity driven by wishful thinking. If I need to communicate I can leave messages on others' pages. Cheers, 99.149.84.135 (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Exploration

JForget - thanks for this work you are doing. What would you suggest we do to make the Critical Exploration entry acceptable? It was originally a part of Eleanor Duckworth's biography - but it seemed like it should stand on its own since this teaching method is based not just on her work, but on that of Piaget and Inhelder as well. Thank you in advance for your suggestions. (S12B3 (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! (S12B3 (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Relisting Policy?

Hi, I noted you relisted a few AFDs I have either started or on my watchlist. I have no specific objection, but am curious if there is any well defined relisting policy, describing the conditions under which stuff is relisted, consequences of relisting (enhanced deadlines etc), and rules on how to deal with relisted items (am I either supposed or forbidden to again comment, eg.) Thanks Wefa (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Kennedy relist

I'm curious as to why you relisted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taylor_Kennedy after only six days rather than letting the full 7-day period for AFDs run. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is absolutely nothing happening - that means 0 votes, I might relist it a little bit earlier then the 7 days required (sometimes like 12-24 hours earlier) just to hopefully have more discussion quickly (although it did not work in this case), but generally when there is one or two votes only I wait for the entire 7 days before relisting. I see that the policy is not mentioning situations with 0 votes but only one or two votes. --JForget 21:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Rose

Hi. I just noticed this afd. I'm quite surprised at the result. I'll admit it was not the most exciting article, but I don't see any evidence from the history that this was vanity (i.e. it was not written by the subject), and the subject certainly is a notable figure in the internet protocol field. Even with the re-listing, I don't think this got enough comments to reasonably consider that a consensus had been reached. Would you consider reversing yourself and re-listing it again? -- RoySmith (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've relisted the discussion. Someone forgot to bold his vote which obviously got overlooked. JForget 23:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugen Campu

You seem to have closed after 5 days, not the current rule of 7. However, as the article was hopeless, I added the comment that it was a snow delete, just so things look right. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that on the policy, it is missing a bit - if the consensus is clear it can be deleted before the actual limit - thus a snowball delete - not a speedy delete (since it might not meet the WP:CSD criterias). I think this bit should be added at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AFD is closed page because several are closing snowball discussions which the entry does not meet WP:CSD. Though I could add WP:SNOW or other comments if necessary to make it more clear though. JForget 15:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: AfD of List of Khatri Gotras

As per the AfD, the article was deleted, but List of Khatri Gotras still exists.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the page was moved twice although it was not even mentionned that the entry for deletion was moved twice. The two other entries have being deleted. Thanks for letting me know about it.JForget 15:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and Welcome. :D Also, I would like to bring your attention to List of Khatri Surnames, which is nearly the same as the deleted one. IT has been tagged for AfD... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Allegations of state terrorism by Russia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Allegations of state terrorism by Russia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ilgiz (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a copy for userfication? The review finished. --ilgiz (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flexene deletion

My page, Flexene, was deleted 10 days ago. I understand what you mean, that there were no sources other than the material's creator, but that is the situation; We are the only people to have documented the existence of Flexene, and we are trying to expand the awareness of the invention. Other sources, like ABC1's The New Inventors website, get all of their information (about flexene) from us anyway, so can I still count them as a reliable source? We are only trying to make an unbiased, informative page to make people aware of our innovation.

Would you suggest creating some contextual information within the Flexene page, such as explaining its recyclable properties in terms of its polystyrene content, and to explain exactly how and why it is a fire-retardant? These things could be explained and referenced from the Flexene page, but most likely redundantly, because the page contained links to pages explaining every component of Flexene, and justifying its claims on the Flexene page. Thus, the only thing not referenced was the assertion that flexene is indeed made of these components, and who else to look to for that information than its creator (us)?

Further, I linked flexene from other relevant construction sites, but this did not remove its orphan status. Was this a glitch?

I don't know what else I can do to keep the Flexene page up on Wikipedia.

--iwearflansuit (Thomas Marshall, Newcastle Australia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwearflansuit (talk • contribs) 01:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page request

Hi jForget,

Why was the page on "Peak Civilization Anachronism" deleted? It was extremely informative. Please let me know why or undelete.

You may reply @ pricecautious@hotmail.com

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.15.161 (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for Re-Insertion/Maryam Behmard

Hello, you have deleted the entry for Maryam Behmard. She has worked for SUN TV, CTV News, CBC Morning, numerous print and online productions and is a Producer for Silent Film Productions - a documentary production firm in Toronto. She now resides in the UK working for Reuters in London. Could you please re-estate her profile. Please and thank you. You can contact me at d_hodgson1000@hotmail.com for further verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.146.80 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you have enough information (more then the previous entry) that would support the need for a new article you can go Wikipedia:Deletion review (since it was deleted per discussion) and indicates that you have more information provided on the subject per point 3 ("Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article"). It would also be good if you have some references to support the new information as well as some external (non-spam) links - it helps. Since it has been nearly a year and a half since the initial deletion, there might have being some significant new information on the subject. However, is the subject notable though. Not a hoax doesn't mean a person deserves a Wikipedia article. If the person is notable enough thus passing WP:N/WP:BIO then it can deserve an article. By the looks of some of the info you mentioned on the subject I would give a weak pass. But in order to do so, you would have to create an account and then build the entry in a userfied page before asking for a deletion review.--JForget 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manel Ribera

Hi JForget. It appears it was your intention to relist this AfD but it isn't appearing in any of the daily AfD lists. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Le Gardeur Railway Bridge

When I browsed for sources stating its date of construction, I found that the actual name is Laurier Bridge. Also, the 1904 construction date seems a bit later than what I expected.

Should the name Laurier be the one used in List of bridges in Montreal? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Laurier Bridge is now a disambiguation page. Peter Horn User talk 14:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was quite occupied this week and didn't even did a contribution before today, but that would make sense to use the Laurier name for the list page. JForget 20:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khatri list recreation

You had deleted a list per this AfD and another similar list was deleted per this AfD. Now a combination of both has been recreated at List of Khatri Gotras, Surnames and Tribes and I've tagged G4. Might you consider salting? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back up today as List of Khatri Gotras and clans after you salted the other title :) -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 08:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also List of Khatri clans. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 08:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry I forgot to reply the previous time. JForget 13:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx and no worries, the chap seems to find multiple titles, so it's difficult to keep up with him. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, another title back up today List of Khatri Clans. It's the same user recreating these despite multiple warnings - KJTRGKL (talk · contribs). I'll tag this one G4 too, but can you do something about it? Maybe a block or something? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has being G4 and salted once again. Next time it should be reported to probably WP:ANI or WP:AIV. Probably not the long-term abuse though just yet. Next time he will get block. JForget 20:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep a look out, every time I add one title to my watch list, he manages to find another! cheers. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gotras of Khatris today. Same user. Reported at ANI - here -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken-Hearted Girl

Can you unprotect the page......it has been officially released as a single on August 28, 2009 in Australia.....and it charted it on the official Australian ARIA Singles Chart at number 37......and it has a music video...and it is meets the criteria of having its own article per Wikipedia:Notability (music).......Teammelarky (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly meets WP:MUSIC but someone already un-protected the article before me. --JForget 13:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting AFDs

Just a note to say that the relisting policy was recently updated. When you relist an AFD for a second time, like you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorkshire Bleeps and Bass, you need to add a rationale for relisting it as opposed to closing as no consensus. Please do this next time. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for letting me know about the update. Last two weeks before this weekend were quite busy for me, so I had little time to check the recent updates. Although the relist template might be already some sort of explanation. I'm letting notes anyways now. JForget 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about relists, these 2, (1, 2), were still transcluded on the log for the 7th and I was about to punch "no consensus" on the latter before I noticed the date. This commonly happens to me when using the zman script. I fixed them. However, some advice, if you do your relists during the first few hours after 0:00GMT, they might get better participation due to being transcluded onto a fresh log. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had never used the zman script for relisting just for closing - I would consider adding that option eventually - this weekend - maybe it's just myself who've omitted adding the code. That will definitely help speed up the process rather then taking an hour and a half or so. As for the latter point, I haven't noticed much of a difference - or depends more on the topic, during weekdays I sleep before 0:00 GMT (even though I'm in EDT area) while weekends I do it at around 6 PM-7 PM either before playing video games or watching NASCAR.JForget 20:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The relist template itself isn't considered enough of an explanation because it should be very exceptional for a discussion to be relisted twice. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Severe weather RfC

Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 19:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs early closes

AFDs are suppose to remain open for 7 days, why are you closing so many before that period? They are suppose to be open for 7 days in the event editors find new evidence to suggest notability, or be left open so editors can finish the discussion to address the reason it was nominated for deletion. Editors don't check articles they have created on a daily basis, by closing them early you are not giving them much time to take part in the discussion. If you don't like having so many AFDs open all at the same time, expand the criteria for speedy deletion.--Otterathome (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, I delete when the seven-day period is passed (oh okay probably just a couple of hours before the official GMT start of 7th day (or should I say the new log) but only when there is a consensus). It's only when there is a snowball case discussion or if it was relisted before that I close a day or two earlier. They should add that if the consensus is clearly known or it is a snowball then it should deleted before the seven day (+12/-12 hour) period without mentionning Speedy Delete especially the articles that are completely a lost cause. I've left a note on the AFD talk page. JForget 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that, and I've seen you have closed quite a few AFDs several days before it reaches the 7 day list date. By closing AFDs early you could easily be making the wrong decision for reasons stated above. By not letting it run the full day, you give good editors more of a reason to relist the afd it and/or make a request at WP:DRV.--Otterathome (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear overload

Please Respond to the following: I recently created a page (Nuclear overload) and you deleted it. I understand why, I just need to know how to make the page acceptable. i.e. How to make sources, headings, etc. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.219.182 (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1948 AFD

Hi, Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1953 and Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956 are still up there. Regards YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for letting me know about those additions that I have not noticed further down the AFD page. --JForget 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're busy but..

Could you check out AIV? Quite backlogged at the moment. Cheers, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 01:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. JForget 01:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Lynn

You closed the AFD of Logan Lynn saying that non spas had made a keep consensus. However, the other people who "voted" keep, one was heavily involved in the creation of the article and does not want to see the work deleted, and another is talking about a girl when Logan is a man. The third just stated "per above". I am however contacting the third person. The "community" has not voted keep nor delete, people who have created the article, a person reading a different article, and one who is supporting the above people who are users connected closely to the article. The article never really received "community" consensus. warrior 4321 23:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think actually a couple more of those such as Banjoboi and Astanhope (not sure about the #REDIRECT Target page name - whether it was accidental)which provided additional arguments on top of the couple of others you've mentionned in favor which basically had lean me on saying keep on that one. JForget 00:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew)

Since you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew), you might be interested in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

epirus (region)

why did you protect the article so i cant edit it but megistias who edit warred too can...? did you check both versions and since youre knowledgeable on the subject found his to be better?? he has reverted the information again thanks a lot for your expert help85.73.230.150 (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]