User talk:Jayjg/Archive 38

Thanks for visiting my Talk: page. If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page. *Use headlines when starting new talk topics. *Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here. *Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting.

User related problem

User:PANONIAN that you diff told him that his source is unreliable (same thing diff that i said in the section start), , is refusing to truly listen other users on this issue. Even with non-Greek users as Greek users like me, he states are nationalists or anti-albanians [1], [2], [3]. He has already threatened and insulted me in the commons section and that is the reason of their "denial". Socks are being used that not even an attempt is made to hide their originator, in example [4], [5] (whois shows that they are both from the same city, the city he declares to live in at his userpage and the expressions are similar) . Another user has so patiently (not a Greek) explained and analyzed the obvious issue to him, but User:PANONIAN is using an ethnic conflict position diff excuse to retain his position. He ignores all sources presented to him, and up to now all users. No matter how many sources are presented to him and whoever user adresses him, whether an admin or a regular editor does not matter to him. But the most important issue is a complete disregard of Reliable Sources (using fringe theories, random googled sites, 1970's communist sources). He acts based on his own theory and pretty much dogma diff, PANONIAN; I support idea about "autochtonic" or "historical" origin of all Balkanic nations in their current countries and my work in Wikipedia was to a large extent related to the history of these nations in the territory of their own country. Adamant. Megistias (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have edited many articles recently; this may be better dealt with in a user conduct WP:RFC. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess you must be referring to this, Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users. Megistias (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the very thing. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to answer to these ridiculous accusations from user:Megistias: I always listen other users if their claims are constructive and supported by sources. In the case of Albanian origin there are many different sources claiming different things, but problem is that user Megistias want to push info only from certain sources and to remove info from other sources, i.e. he wants to conduct POV censorship and to use only those sources that confirm his POV. Note that I never claimed that any source presented by him is not reliable - I only claim that there are different theories and opinions about the subject and all of them should be presented to Wiki readers. As for "socks" accusation, I never created any sock. I do not edit English Wikipedia very often, and when I do, I do not always logg in, so what is presented there are my IP numbers, not my "socks" (and it is not forbidden to edit Wikipedia while not logged in especially if I did not used IP number to violate 3 revert rule or any other rule). As for accusation that I base my edits on "my own theory or dogma", modern genetics have proved that all Balkanic nations are autochtonic in their countries, so how exactly that could be "my theory". And from my statement is clear that my work in Wikipedia is related to the "history of these nations in the territory of their own country", meaning that I will draw a map or will write about history of (for example) Bulgarians in Bulgaria, but not about Bulgarians in other countries - it certainly does not mean that I will push my own theories or that I will use sources noted for unreliability. Contrary to this, some other users (and user Megistias is very good example of it) are pushing POV about their nation, i.e. their edits are centered around their nation and they want to "prove" that their nation have "rights" to territories in neigbouring countries. In the case of Megistias, his work is clearly related to the POV that Macedonia and southern Albania were "always" Greek. Due to the nature of this problem (and such problem exist in the entire Balkans) one should rather trust to what (for example) Albanian authors would say about history of Albania than what Greek authors would say about it (Greek authors would be certainly influenced by nationalistic territorial pretensions towards Albanian territory and therefore their claims would be questionable). Of course, I do not claim that we should not present opinion from Greek authors - I claim that all opinions should be presented, especially opinions of local historians about their own countries, i.e. we cannot have NPOV presentation of anything if we do not have view of Albanian historians about history of Albania, view of Macedonian historians about history of Macedonia, etc, etc. The whole problem here is that user:Megistias want to push only Greek point of view about Albania and Macedonia and trying to stop me to present other views about subject. Also note that I am not an ethnic Albanian or Macedonian and that I am completelly NPOV and neutral in this. PANONIAN 11:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Awesome tiling window manager:

You seem to have deleted article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awesome_(window_manager). It is a very notable and robust example of tiling window managing approach. Please, can you provide your justification for deleting it? Are you familiar with the state of the art window manager systems? Thanks, looking forward for your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.159.19 (talk) 05:50, 23 Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiling_window_manager#List_of_tiling_window_managers_for_X There are around 10 other tiling window managers on the wikipedia, are they going to be removed as well? Thanks. February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because that was the consensus at this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awesome (window manager). Jayjg ^(talk) 06:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you help me undelete it? It is very wrong. Different information entities recieve very different coverage in the "reliable sources", moreover, reliable sources are different for every area. In this particular case, the situation becomes more difficult as "awesome" unfortunate name and is a very common word, so someone who has no idea of what window manager in general is could be lost in the search results. Things like this "Combat WP:BIAS by transwikifying to en.wikigeekia.org, the site for articles on unix software and lists of occurences of farting in episodes of The Simpsons." are beyond amateurish, as well, but it seem to have played a role. Compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_(window_manager), for example. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.159.19 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to contest the deletion, you have to make your case at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A few notes: (1) the article was now reposted without its edit history, violating our license, and (2) in the mean time I did find one WP:RS covering it, in German (LinuxUser), but I would still !vote weak delete because it's only one source. (3) There's a massive off-wiki canvasing campaign going on at dwm's AfD, in a popular Russian forum, and this repost is likely related to that. Pcap ping 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain the spate of IP vandalism on my User page and on the AfD page. I knew it was because of the deletion of the Amazing article, but I didn't realize it was the result of off-wiki canvassing, or where it was happening. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are independent sources for that one, see Ion (window manager)#Further reading. Pcap ping 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I should admit do use awesome_wm at a big multinational company, and measuring relevance by occurance on large .com sites seems very superficial. Ion wm, for example, is an outdated project ( It is not actively developed by the author) , while awesome is a current example of this class of software, which is not too popular with journalists. See, for example here:http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Comparison_of_Tiling_Window_Managers. To conclude, I am a bit puzzled how removing a properly-linked informative article about current software can add value to the Wikipedia project. Please make sure you are not deleting for the sake of deleting by following rigid rules. I am sorry, I took enough of your time, but could you point me to a rationale behind deleting (properly integrated) stuff which failed to show on news radar? I could not find one myself. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.233 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RfCs, MfDs and more

Hi Jayjg: Your wisdom and experience are needed on RfC and MfD policy matters at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Thanks a lot. Happy Purim. IZAK (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Some help please

Hi I am not sure, if you are the right person to ask, but if you are not, maybe you know who is. I am editing the article List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners For some reason few last references in the reference list are not allow one to click on. Could you please tell me what I've done wrong? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Temple Israel

Hey, take your time with it, there's no rush. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you please not delete things completely. When an article is deleted, the information on that page should be redirted to a page that is noteable. Ie their homepage or the album page to which the tour was supporting. You deleted the article, and deleted all information associated with it. Can you please find me the information that you deleted so I can add it to their album page. Jayy008 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When the AfD consensus is "delete", then one deletes. A "delete" consensus is quite different from a "merge" consensus. To which AfD are you referring? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize I didn't read the top of your page to which you reply here. The JLS tour consensus. I agree now with the reasons why it was deleted, not enough third party coverage. I don't mean merge it all, just some of the information could have been pasted onto the album page. Jayy008 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there were no references in the article, so the material in the article wouldn't be useful to anyone. Please remember, information in Wikipedia articles must be cited to reliable sources. I recommend starting with reliable sources, and using them to add to the information in other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I didn't find sources for it before, I will now but because the article isn't there I can't find sources for stuff that I can't remember. Jayy008 (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

inre: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ant's Life

Would you be so kind as to set An Ant's Life as a redirect to the filmmaker Michael Schelp as was done for Spark Plug Entertainment. No need to have someone perhaps recreate the article if we can get a redirect set in place. No one commented after I brought up that the article was part of a discussion between myself and User:Cunard a few weeks earlier HERE. It was that conversation that led to my creating an article for Schelp so the Spark Plug Entertainment would have a natural redirect. I had already back then included the informations, so it would make sense for Ants Life to redirect as well, sending readers to where the subject has context. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael. The consensus really was to delete, not redirect. I'm extremely leery of creating these kinds of re-directs; in my experience, after a few weeks they inevitably turn back into an article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As I had posted above, there were no comments after I pointed out that there had been a related discussion nor after I made my suggestion for the same redirect consideration as was done for the Spark Plug Entertainment article at its own AFD. Had I been earlier to the Ant's Life AFD, my having pointed out the precedent might not have been overlooked. So... while it might serve for me to now ask the participants if they would consider a simply redirect in the aftermath, I suppose 1f/when the article is recreated, I'll simply recommend a bold redirect to the prodding editors at that time. Thank you, for your response. Much appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've turned it into a re-direct, but please make sure it doesn't become an article again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigam Arora

The only comment I wish to make in this is that it may prove to be a contentious deletion decision despite appearing, at least to me, obvious. The article's main contributor has opened a request for an arbitration case against me as nominator, something that will run its course and which I am absolutely not seeking to involve you in. I am simply leaving you a message here to suggest that you may wish to expand your closing rationale to show that you have taken all aspects into account when closing the discussion. I have a strong feeling that this will run and run whether you do so or not, but it seemed sensible to make this suggestion to you.

I hope you don't feel this message is critical or out of place. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

With six guideline-based "delete" !votes, and one "keep" vote (repeated three times by the same editor), I'm not that worried. But thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Protesting Biographical Scrunity

I am hereby protesting your accusation of defamatory biographical editing of the Laura Prepon article. Under no condition is a person's biography considered to be "controversial". It is ridiculous to insinuate such things. Acknowledging any person of interest's activities, investments is a critical and fundamental issue to the freedom of information act, with no need for free use.

However, I understand Wikipedia's challenge to delete libelious information. As for your statement claiming the reference is "poor" I can offer no other alternative but to find another reference and post the same information as before. Once this is updated, it will thereby void the Wikipedia libelous policy.

If this is sufficient, I will continue with my editing. Otherwise I protest to speak to another administrator. Preferably one who will not threaten to ban me the first time he/she speaks to me.

Thank you.

--Penfish (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)