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.

thanks

for that excellent find for the article on the Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis). I've added it to the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Mensch's Barnstar

		The Mensch's Barnstar
		Dear Jayjg: You are the very personification of this notion of Mensch in all of your years as a hard-working and fair editor and admin on Wikipedia. Your caring and fairness towards all people and subjects is your trademark. It is an honor for Wikipedia to have an editor of your caliber and knowledge. Wishing you the greatest success in all your important endeavours. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APPA (programming language)

You neglected to close the co-nominated article EDPL (programming language). --Cybercobra (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ophélie Bretnacher

Hello, you deleted the Ophélie Bretnacher page

But Ophélie Bretnachers's case is very important in Europe Best regards Raymondnivet (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition I would like to come back on the sentence: “One day your article might get there, that time is not now” and make additional comments: Without wiki, the only information which are provided today are via journalists without double-checking who can often report bias or wrong information : WIKI is the only universal place where the information can be challenged, crossed-checked, summarized, stabilised and updated on a reliable manner. In Hungary the main source of information on the case are tabloids like Blikk and Bors. They are totally unreliable, only interested in selling paper rather than to report facts and truth, keeping Hungarian people totally away from the truth (Hungarian newspapers launched crazy accusations on Italian students pretending to be in close relation with the Hungarian police. These crazy accusations were translated by google and spread also in France). And this is just an example of the fact that once such a bi-national case is only reported by journalists, some stabilisation (certification) has to be done somewhere reachable from everybody : WIKIPEDIA is this only place, and the current exchange between us is the proof of that. And this “authentic information safeguarding” has to be done now, not in five years. This is not a Franco-French case, but a French-Hungarian case and de facto an European case. Given the constraint of Hungarian language, the article in English language (the only single vector of communication within Europe, where French is maybe better than Hungarian but totally surpassed by English) is essential to keep quality of information at the same level in Hungary and France and reachable to the community of ERASMUS, for whom it is a notable case. It was asked to the members of European parliament to make a minute of silence when the death of Ophélie was announced. European promoters are uncomfortable with this case because it is a symbol of collateral damages of European construction : ERASMUS has been implemented to facilitate the student mobility within Europe but when a problem appears (such as Ophélie case), the former way of doing “business” in Europe is going on : no justice cooperation between countries, administrative nightmare for the victims, predominance of diplomatic agenda over the human rights and for the European new entrants of the EU, going on with communist way of doing justice and human rights. That is why this case is notable at European level, because it is collateral damage of European construction. My last point will be regarding the free encyclopaedia principle of WIKI. As seen in “1984” of Georges Ornwel or in the movie “Brazil”, you know how information control is important for countries in deficit of democracy. You know that even our own countries (USA and France) are able to use information as a tool to do borderline things in term of democracy. You know that former communist countries are still in a process of learning democracy, even those which are already part of the EU. Former communist countries are marketing themselves as safe and modern places to get the money from rich Western countries through tourism, investment and any other business. The case Ophélie is part of that, it is also notable for that reason. It is not one of the numerous disappearance case, but it is a similar case to the one in Croatia with the Australian girl Britt Lapthorne whose story was very similar and close to a diplomatic incident between Australia and Croatia (For Ophélie it was also close to the diplomatic incident and the family had to visit the Hungarian embassy in Paris on January 11, 2009 at the end of its March for Ophélie” in order to show that the actions were was not against Hungary but simply for Ophélie). Here Wikipedia is providing what democracy has been waiting for decades, a way to guaranty that information is not manipulated but simply made reachable and reliable for anybody. Regarding the figures when you compare to other cases in Anglo-Saxon countries, don’t forget that France and Hungary lag behind these countries in term of internet usage, and the case Ophélie was forecast in prime time on all the national TV in Hungary and in France during the winter 08-09. You are probably right, maybe the article need to be re-worked to emphasised better the reason why it is notable. And anyway, the exchange we had are the proof that the quality of the information will be permanently challenged on Wikipedia

Best regards

Raymondnivet (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Page Laurance W. Marvin??????

Excuse me but why did you delete the Page Laurance W. Marvin.... There is no reason plausible reason for you to have done so. So who is paying you to do this. All information on the page was factually accurate. I demand an answer Now.... --Yoko-Litner (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because that was the consensus here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurance W. Marvin. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You really are a coward. You gave no factual reason in your deletion. And I have all the factual data to back up the article on Mr. Marvin on my desk. You are an abusive user and as such I demand that you remove the deletion. Your entire claim of justification is based on a lie and personal bias. there is not one single shred of proof for any of you bias or honest validity of supposed inaccuracy. Not to mention I still have not seen a professional status where by you qualify as judge an jury for anything.

So the first thing you need to do to even try and have an honest have an honest complaint is deliver hard proof of any inaccuracy. You still have never answered my question related to your professional standing in relation to this industry. And you can not. You are busy trying to hide behind an ambiguous identity. I guess what we have to do is have a higher authority put an block on all future interactions by you in the Wikipedia world. Since ignorance and bias are your only major skills. --Yoko-Litner (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)