Jump to content

User talk:Jayjg/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Jayjg

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dragmas (talk | contribs) at 20:44, 24 October 2010 (→‎RationalPlan deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Jayjg/Archive 38/WelcomeNotice













DYK for Miriam Shapira-Luria

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your automated bot notice. Jayjg (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Or perhaps semi-automated notice. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Asra Nomani

Hey, you may want to keep an eye on this page as I see you protected it previously. I have just undone some vandalism FYI just so you are aware. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've given the IP editor a final warning, and will block it or protect the page again if necessary. Jayjg (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Cool. Hopefully this will work. Thanks. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Alas, the vandalism continues. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for 72 hours; we'll see what happens now. Jayjg (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok appreciate your assistance. I can tell from history and talk, it's been an issue for some time. But hopefully it will cease now. Peaceblissharmony (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

S-Preme

Awhile ago you deleted S-Preme's wiki page for not covering at least one of the criteria on the WP:BAND list. Recently we have gotten a placement on WWE for Ted Dibiase jr for writing his new theme song, which covers a few of the mentioned criteria. Is that sufficient enough to bring the page back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymestyle (talk • contribs) 02:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you mean, but it doesn't sound like it. Could you explain further? Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see you actually re-created it too. No, I'm not seeing that the issues in the AfD were addressed. The fact that one of his songs is apparently now one of the "Entrance themes" for a wrestler doesn't help much. Have you reviewed WP:BAND? Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


I did review the WP:BAND and we cover at least one of the criteria listed. S-Preme was part of a major national tour in April with Lupe Fiasco and B.o.B, which may or may not cover #4. We definitely cover #10 on the list for the theme song that was already aired twice in a two week span. That song is Ted Dibiase Jr's new theme song, not just an entrance, so that song will not only be on a WWE soundtrack, but also featured in videogames, etc.Rhymestyle (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.178.142 (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

If S-Preme actually meets criteria #4, then where is the "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" of it? And which of "a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album" is Ted Dibiase Jr or a videogame? Jayjg (talk) 05:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WWE Raw is the TV show, (which consistently tops the list of highest-rated cable TV shows every week) and a song that is played counts as a performance. The compilation album is the WWE Soundtrack that is released by the corporation every year (which hasn't been released yet, but is on its way). As far as 4, there wasn't much coverage, which is why I was unsure about it, but we definitely meet #10 on the list. (Rhymestyle (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

That doesn't meet the requirements of #10 as far as I can tell - what makes the WWE Soundtrack a "notable compilation album"? Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if you say so, I won't waste your time then, we'll probably speak again in about a year. Thanks. (Rhymestyle (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

Website question

Hi. You deleted some family-tree websites that I added to Miriam Shapira-Luria as not meeting WP:RS. I was just wondering if this website should also be removed (I'm reviewing Robert L. Bobbitt for DYK that relies on it heavily). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't delete any sources you added to that article, but that website you've linked to here certainly would not be considered a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
So what do I about it? Most of the article is based on that source. Should I just erase it from the page? Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I would replace the source with a {{fact}} tag wherever it's used, and ask the author if he has reliable sourcing for the material. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Save Our Souls

Here is a search for the band Save Our Souls. They played together with Iron Maiden. Why it was deleted? Goroth 17:20, 15 October 2010 (CEST)

You know why, you participated in this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save Our Souls. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for input at edit-warring on Ebionites

For some years now, I believe, there has been a section of the above article based on the Catholic Encyclopedia. There is currently a disagreement there about whether material relevant to the Elcesaites is necessarily relevant. There is at present no clear consensus to the material, partially because of the question about whether the Elceasites are Ebionites. I acknowledge that I have not myself reviewed the matter as thoroughly as I would like, the disagreement basically escalating today. I do however intend to check the relevant encyclopediac sources tomorrow. However, there are currently two involved editors, including myself, who question the relevance of the material, and two who support it. I believe that the material is more directly relevant to the Elcesaites article, and have said as much. Michael, who has been sanctioned for edit warring in the past on this article, has restored it. I think input from an independent outsider would be welcome, if you would be so inclined, unfortunately, possibly, considering page protection for edit warring as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the use of ancient primary sources for this claim (e.g. Hippolytus, Philosophumena, IX, 14-17, Epiphanius, Panarion, 19, 1; 53, 1.) is problematic. That said, the dispute hasn't gotten severe enough for protection yet. If you can find reliable, modern, secondary sources and bring them that would be very helpful. Jayjg (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Today, I can't, other than the sources included in the talk page, like Encyclopedia Britannica, which do not mention any sort of direct connection of the Elcesaites to the Ebionites. Like I said on the article talk page, the other sources, like specialist encyclopediae, are where I won't be able to access them until tomorrow. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't look like an emergency yet; I think it can wait until tomorrow. Jayjg (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
As I explained on the talk page. Wetman added this material to the article over 5 years ago, and the source was the Catholic Encyclopedia. I requested a reference check to track this down in an older version of the article. I agree with Nishidani that the primary sources have no standing and should only be there if they were mentioned in the encyclopedia. This is the second time, btw, that John Carter has run to an admin requesting a lock on this article after deleting content he doesn't like, the first time being the deletion of the Tabor references that had page numbers for the UK rather than the US version. Ovadyah (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Oh, for what little it might be worth, and much as I hate to say this, Hippolytus and Epiphanius and the like are, really, the only generally relied-upon sources for the Ebionites. There is, I think, one synagogue somewhere in Jordan (I think?) which might be related to them, according to I think one source, but, except for that, we have no reliable sources on them outside of the Church Fathers, whose primary interest was in criticizing them. This includes the very selective quotes from the Gospel of the Ebionites by Epiphanius, rightly called the "doctor confusus" for his remarkable ability to confuse material and his readers. It sucks, but that's more or less the situation we're in. regarding Ovadyah's unfounded allegations that I was necessarily requesting a lock on the edition I prefer, this seems to be yet another of his jumps to unsubstantiated conclusions about the motivations of others, about which the less said the better. John Carter (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Morocco

Referring to your reinstating the copied material in History of the Jews in Morocco -- how do you know there's no copyright?--84.108.213.97 (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the website considered Derivative work?--84.108.213.97 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia was published in the United States from 1901 to 1906, long before 1923. Therefore it is in the public domain. If that weren't enough, the website's own home page says The Jewish Encyclopedia, which recently became part of the public domain, contains over 15,000 articles and illustrations. Simply copying a public domain source to the internet does not turn it into a copyrighted work, much less a derivative work. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RationalPlan deletion

Hi! I noticed that you have deleted the article that I have written about RationalPlan. Before writing it I asked Nihiltres (talk) if I can write it and how to proceed. I understood that as long as I give notable references I can do it. I do not know what was written previously and I created the page from scratch. So why did you deleted by invoking G4? Dragmas (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RationalPlan, you would notice that many of the sources you used were the exact same ones that were dismissed in the AfD. The fact that several of them were blogs should have been the first clue. Which sources do you think actually met the requirements of WP:RS? Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
As much as I understand those requirement and taking into account that RationalPlan is a project management product these ones are for sure:
There are other sources too but I do not know if I am the right person to decide if they are notable. Now which of the above sources do you think overcomes the original deletion problems? Dragmas (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you review the previous AfD? Did you notice that, for example, www.constructionsoftwarereview.com was dismissed in it? Also, why are you still bringing blogs and various other WP:SPS as sources? Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I read the AfD but for me reviews done based on actual users interviews like the ones from www.constructionsoftwarereview.com are very important. Also blog posts do not make the source less significant if it is coming from a credible person.
Some time ago I needed a PM tool and searched Wikipedia. The solution that I chose was not the best fit for my needs. Later on I found out about RationalPlan and if I would have found it before in Wikipedia it would have been great. This is the reason why I would like to create this page. If I am not doing it right then please help me! I do not have to much experience with Wikipedia and its rules. Dragmas (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey John Lang

The article is substantially more complete than the one deleted in the AfD./ Please restore it, and, if you care to, do a second AfD. (perhaps you did not notice that I previously declined a speedy on it.) DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice that, but I also didn't see anything in the new article that addressed the issues in the original AfD. Please take it to WP:DRV if you feel it should be undeleted. Jayjg (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
And just to be clear, the sources used in the article were:
Now which of these sources do you think overcomes the original deletion concerns that the article fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG? Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Berber people

What a silly person you are. Why are you being so stubborn? EVERY page dedicated to an ethnic group has drawings, statues, or whatever up there. Look up the page for Persians, or Jews, or Arabs. They all have drawings up there. There is no reason for you to be so childish. One person up there is an Arab, Dris Jettou. And few people know who Massinissa Guermah or Ferhat Mehenni is. Stop being so **** annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarevogel (talk • contribs) 13:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any pictures of coins or statues in the Jews infobox. I also don't see any in, for example, the African American infobox. Also, Jettou is in the "Berber people" category on the Commons; please explain why you think he isn't Berber? As for the others, they all have English Wikipedia articles, so they're famous enough. Regardless, please use the article Talk: page to defend your edits, rather than the blindly edit-warring. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PROD

Except that WP:PROD says "not been and is not being discussed at AfD." It doesn't matter if the AFD was keep, delete, merge or nothing - if it was discussed there at all (which it was, there is an AFD page with discussion on it) it is not eligible for deletion through prod. Please remove the tag. Dana boomer (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

PROD is a good guideline; it applies in most cases, but not in an extremely unusual case like this, where the AfD was forgotten and never concluded. Wikipedia isn't only about the rules, it's also about common sense. Do you think the PROD should be removed for any reason other than a dubious technical one? If you can honestly say that your would have removed the PROD regardless of the AfD, then feel free to remove it. If you can't honestly say that, then please leave it. Thanks! Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Except that it doesn't matter if the AFD was not concluded; even if it had been closed as keep this would not have been allowed to be deleted through a prod. Just the fact that it was discussed there in any form makes it not eligible for prod. I'm not understanding why this article is special regarding this rule (any discussion at AFD rules out prod), perhaps you could explain more? Per my reading, prods cannot be applied to previously afd'd articles, regardless of outcome. Dana boomer (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The AfD discussion started six years ago, never concluded, and was promptly forgotten. For all intents and purposes, it never occurred. What makes this article so special? Show me an example of another article that had an AfD discussion 6 years ago that was never closed. I think that makes it pretty "special". Now, if you think the article shouldn't be deleted for content-based reasons, feel free to remove the PROD. But if your only is concern is that some process wasn't followed in the specific way you feel appropriate, then I think need to re-read WP:IAR. Jayjg (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_38&oldid=392658857"