User talk:JPG-GR/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template merge[edit]

With this edit, JPG-GR, you moved a template that was being considered for deletion to a template that was no longer being considered for deletion. If you check the history, I have made many edits to the template at Template:Charmed Companions in order to improve it so it would not be deleted. Please see the template's discussion page for more detail. Another administrator had already removed the deletion template. And my remarks on the Talk page have not been challenged. Please revert your edit back to my much improved version of the template, and please remove the deletion template also. Thank you very much!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  02:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  • PS. I have taken the liberty to reinstate my improved version of the template. Of course, the Tfd templates are still there; however, I have added the Noinclude tag so the templates would not appear in article namespace.
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  03:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The wrong revision ended up on top by accident. Everything should be good now. JPG-GR (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, JPG-GR!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  04:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No problem. JPG-GR (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Were all of the MLS templates consolidated into one discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion supposed to be done? It looks like you grabbed the one but not the others. Not time critical just wanted to double check.09:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They've all been deleted now... JPG-GR (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Resnick Pocketbook and Handbag Family[edit]

Is there any way you can restore this page? I am not sure how you failed to find any information on our family, but would be glad to help you. For starters, check The Bag Ladies Universe and the New York Times. The Resnicks (as well as their relatives the Carlins and Frieds) were major pocketbook manufacturers for most of the 20th century. There bags are now highly collectable. With factories from New York to Florida, they were quite well known under many monikers. Search for Julius Resnick and/or JR Bags too. I, of course, have a personal interest in sharing their story, but I do not exagerate their impact on the industry and via its innovation and manufacturing processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcrez (talkcontribs) 04:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CONTESTED, please take this to WP:DRV. JPG-GR (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Frazione infobox[edit]

Please will you check your closure of the TfD for {{Frazione}}? I see six deletes (including the nom's; and one phrased as "deprecate", and only 3 keep, of which two are cut&paste comments, with rationales that do not stand up to scrutiny. At the very least, I suggest that this should be relisted of further discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I can count - but, that's irrelevant as XfD is not a vote. Secondly, "rationales that do not stand up to scrutiny" is not only your opinion, but if that is the case - why were they scrutinized at the Tfd? As always, you are welcome to take it to WP:DRV. JPG-GR (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that you couldn't count; nor did I claim taht TfD is a vote; I merely stated my position - so please don't take that kind of tone. They were scrutinised and did not stand up to it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no evidence at the TfD that they were scrutinized. If you chose to scrutinize the edits on your own and not comment on them, so be it. JPG-GR (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
First you ask why they were scrutinised; then you say they were not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Typo the first time around. JPG-GR (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I personally think it was a close call with knee-jerk votes on both sides. I see no serious problem with closing it as no consensus. It can always be relisted once people have had a bit of time to think about it more carefully. Best regards to both of you, and thanks for your hard work. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I noticed that this has been listed at WP:DRV. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your closure of Template:Infobox Regency of Indonesia. To me there appears to be some sort of consensus to delete. Even some of the others who widely opposed the deletion of the others like Langviel voted delete. The strength of the arguments to keep was far outweighed by the delete on this particular template.. Himalayan 10:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That whole TFD was a mess, and I don't fault JPG-GR for closing it as no consensus. The situation wasn't helped by Caniago going through and changing all the regency articles to use the template; blindly reverting all the repairs to formatting errors we made weeks ago. As a result of our work before the TFD, it at least uses {{infobox settlement}} as a backend, which is a major improvement. If you feel strongly about eliminating it, I would suggest waiting a couple months and trying again. The current template is a very minimal frontend, which is nearly a straight pipe through of information to {{infobox settlement}}. In summary, I have no problem with the closure (if for nothing else but to just get it over with so we can move on). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That TfD was closed just three hours after the last comment (which was a blatant lie, showing problem caused by the nominated template, not its proposed replacement), leaving no time fo a response, Like all the other TfDs closed at the same time, it appears to have been treated as a straightforward vote, with no consideration given to the validity, let alone merit, of the "votes". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the last comment was a ill-informed at best, and disingenuous at worst. The link I had provided showed the problem with using the regency template, not with using settlement. To copy the link and suggest that it was a page using settlement was in very bad form. However, I think it's best to move on at this point. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

General statement on all recent Infobox Settlement-related closures: I don't count votes, and never have. Moreoever, reading everyone's copy/pasted noms and reasoning over and over gets tiring. It's clear there is a group that wants these "extraneous" infoboxes deleted and it's clear there is a group that doesn't think that's appropriate. Both of the arguments are equally convincing, and therefore cancel each other out. By eliminating the cancelled out comments by those who are firmly on each side, each TfD is left, essentially, blank. In other words - continuing to nom these templates, without trying some other way to resolve the underlying issue (or, quite frankly, without ensuring Infobox Settlement can handle all the parameters) is a waste of everyone's time. JPG-GR (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have missed that while the "delete" arguments were grounded in policy (citing such things as "redundancy", which is explicitly listed as a valid reason for deletion), and were backed up with evidence, the "keep" arguments were comprised mainly of two camps - one whose main argument was "I like the local template", and another whose main argument was "I don't like the replacement". Hell, User:Ezhiki's disagreement was that he objected to the name of the template people sought to replace it with. Then there were the arguments of those that were unhappy that someone had nominated their template, and therefore sought to disrupt the other TfDs that were going on. In summary, looking objectively, I struggled to find even one objection that was both valid and relevant in most of those discussions. (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
If I had a dollar for every time someone opted to point out how I "missed" something in an XfD and how all the arguments on one side were invalid in numerous ways, I could buy a very nice steak. Basically, it comes down to this - I closed it as no consensus, DRV upheld it as no consensus. Case closed. JPG-GR (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi JPG-GR... Regarding the Template:Charmed Companions, the decision was to "userfy and delete". Frankly, I'm sorry to see it go, and I don't have enough experience to know exactly what is meant by "userfy". I've turned the template into just a plain table that can be placed in the List of Charmed characters article. Is that what you mean?
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  23:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Userfy means move the template to your userspace, so you can keep a copy of it. This most likely means moving it to User:Paine Ellsworth/Charmed Companions. You should feel free merge whatever is useful back into List of Charmed characters. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thank you very much, I get it now. "Userfy" just means for whoever would like to can place it in their user space in order just to hold on to the info for possible future use. I Wikitable-ized the template a few days ago in anticipation of a delete decision. My plan is to tuck it out of the way just beneath the Charmed template in the List of Charmed characters article. It will look a little like a Navbar template, but it is just a table. So I would like your thoughts on it when you have some time. The prototype's is in my sandbox, here. No big rush and thank you in advance!
 —  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Fairfield Lacrosse.PNG[edit]

Hi, You deleted this file in the past. I now have an email from the owner giving permission to repost the picture. Can you help me figure out how to repost? Thanks, Stagophile (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re-uploading it is the best option. JPG-GR (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Railway companies established in 1824[edit]

Am I OK to create this category ? GrahamHardy (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What would be the purpose of such a category? JPG-GR (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
To stop there being a gap in Category:Railway companies by year of establishment! GrahamHardy (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Quite a few of those categories already seem wholly unnecessary. JPG-GR (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains ! GrahamHardy (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We got a Mess[edit]

If you are still around, there is a bit of a mess that I need help with. A user, who was told to take things to WP:RM, moved some radio station pages on his own, making a complete and utter mess of things. Please see KVTT AM and KJSA FM. The histories are mixed up completely. Is there anything you can do to fix things. I would also recommend a block for the user who did this or at least a VERY strongly worded warning never to do it again. This is one of many messes this user has caused. Thanks. - NeutralHomerTalk • 23:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Dravecky handled it. Take Care...NeutralHomerTalk • 00:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for closing these two TFD's. I saw the notice on your talk page so I wasn't going to bug you for it. :) Garion96 (talk) 13:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No prob. JPG-GR (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sean Gilfillan[edit]

You deleted this as I was editing it. It mentions media coverage so A7 isn't applicable. Can you restore it?Prezbo (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The article, in the condition it was, did not assert notability of the subject and no references were provided. JPG-GR (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If notability is defined by coverage in reliable sources, it's hard for me to see how listing 10 reliable sources that have covered the subject is not asserting notability.Prezbo (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Once again, as I said, no references were provided. JPG-GR (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I heard you. I'm going to ask about this on the CSD talk page.Prezbo (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Davies Theory[edit]

In what way was this an 'Attack Page'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi there! Could you, please, explain your rationale behind this closing? How could the outcome be "delete" when the only person who cared to comment (well, me) opposed the deletion? Shouldn't this have been at least re-listed first? Yours truly confused,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Your argument was not supported by policy. Opposing a deletion, essentially, "just because" is not enough reason to not proceed as nominated. JPG-GR (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Was it not supported by common sense? I mean, come on, if the template stays, we get a few (I admit, very minor) benefits and no negative effects; if it goes, we get a few negative effects and no benefits. How's that "just because"? If you are looking for a policy to support common sense, here's one for you. Oh wait, there weren't any rules in the way to be broken... it's just common sense and nothing else. What gives?
At any rate, you still haven't answered my question about why you chose not to re-list this nomination. One paltry vote, no matter how "common-sense" or "just-because", hardly allows for an informed decision, wouldn't you agree? Sorry if this seems to be nitpicking and/or sarcasm; I just don't understand your logic and rush. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:33, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see these "negative effects" you are talking about, and therefore fail to follow your "common sense" argument. Additionally, arguing that an admin should have evoked WP:IAR is usually a good clue that the admin hasn't done anything wrong. As for relisting - relisting is a good idea when two sides are still in discussion and new ideas are being brought to the table. As the only person who weighed in voiced a reason that isn't supported by policy, I saw no reason to relist. JPG-GR (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(in response to removed comments) There is no precedent, and there will likely never be a precedent, of keeping templates to preserve diffs in the edit history. As this did appear to be your only reason to oppose deletion (i.e. your argument for keep), it was not enough to prevent the deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Since you responded) ...but ...but... what about common sense again? Not everything is ruled by precedents (even on Wikipedia); sometimes one would be wiser off by weighing pros and cons and acting on that. You mean, you don't feel it to be wrong to do something that is of no benefit whatsoever and actually is a little harmful? Not one bit of hesitation? What exactly did we gain by deleting this template? Surely not disk space (deleted revisions are stored just the same; they are simply inaccessible to non-admins). I've already shown you what we lost... What is the rationale behind deleting a perfectly ignorable template that nevertheless serves some minuscule purpose? I'm still lost... but then I always get wound up when facing illogic.
If you can't answer this question, feel free to remove this whole thread again; I won't harbor any bad feelings.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:11, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
I have never seen anyone argue against deletion to preserve the appearance of previous edits in the history. As templates like this are deleted every day at TfD, I still fail to see your reasoning - or, more accurately, why you find the keeping of said templates so important. We will just have to agree to disagree. JPG-GR (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Putting aside the fact that you still haven't answered my question (that you haven't seen anyone doing it before is not an excuse to not use your brain and think the possibility over when it is eventually brought up to your attention), seeing broken templates in old revisions is very annoying. I don't know about you, but I every now and then stumble upon just such templates, and while extracting the information from them is still possible by looking at the source, it is quite counterproductive. Big deal? Hell no. Annoying? You betcha. Hence, why not keep the damn things in perpetuity? I understand that sometimes they stand in a way of newer developments or get broken to the point of being non-functional, in which case deletion is perfectly logical. In this case, not so much. If having never seen an argument like mine is your only response, I feel truly sad for you (or perhaps you just slacked on this one?).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:36, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
I answered your question hours ago. Just because you don't like it is not my problem. If you don't want templates like this deleted, start a proposal to get rid of WP:TfD, because that's what you're encouraging. JPG-GR (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No, you have not answered my question; please don't try to weasel out like that. You beat around the bush a lot, that much is true. If you don't want to respond, just say so (or remove this thread altogether; I was perfectly willing to let this go until you re-opened it).
Proposal-wise, you are, of course, correct, but still—are you implying that without a proposal you can't be bothered to take a closer look at one instance of something that makes perfect sense? We can't put every commonsense decision in writing and make a policy out of it—there's enough policy creep out there as is!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:27, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you need to clarify something then, as I have answered all the questions I can see. Pose your question again and I will answer it (possibly again). As for "something that makes perfect sense," I'm yet to see any of it in this situation. JPG-GR (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, first off, I just want to make sure that I am in no way, shape, or form abusing your time and patience here. The only reason why I keep on with this is because you graciously agreed to continue by restoring the thread I had graciously agreed to let go. Having cleared that up, let's get back to square one. "The question" turned out to be in multiple parts, so that all contingencies are covered, as well as to clarify where we both stand on different aspects of this situation:
While keeping deprecated templates is not substantiated by any policy/guideline out there, neither is their deletion (true or false?). In absence of an applicable policy/guideline, a decision to keep or delete a template should be considered on the template's own merits (true or false?). With this particular template, there is absolutely nothing to gain by deleting it (true or false? If false, what is there to gain?). There are a few benefits to keeping it, however minor or seemingly insignificant (true or false?). With no policy to support either a keep or delete decision, and with benefits of keeping outweighing the drawbacks of deletion, a logical conclusion would be to leave the template alone (true of false?). Why was the template nevertheless deleted (open-ended question)?
For the record, I do wholeheartedly agree that having a technical solution (one that would allow the display of long-gone templates in old revisions) would be ideal. I also agree that the second-best thing would be to have a recommendation in place to not delete such templates unless they turn out to be detrimental to new developments. All this, however, is quite besides the point. Having similar stuff deleted in the past is hardly a good grounds for generalization and concluding that all such stuff should go away automatically in the future. We should be thinking with our heads, not fall into the safety net of past "precedents" which, as you yourself admit, have not been properly discussed; hence there is no real consensus to refer to.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


I was about to comment on [Template:NA]] before you closed the discussion. Can we have it reopened to get some more feedback? I fail to see why it should be kept. It is in a very poor state and will need a lot of work to get it usable. I was going to say: "The page seems to want to be a cross between a VERY watered down Manual of Style and an article creation tool. Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0 does a really good job of getting new articles created. If that is not used a new article may end up at the Article Incubator if it goes up for deletion." -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I find it doubtful that after a 7-day TfD runs for 10-days, you were "about to comment" on it. Regardless, you were the only user arguing for deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


Is Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_5#Template:Printable really consensus to delete? I see two deletes and one keep, and the original proposer seems not to be arguing anymore about the justification.--Pharos (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't determine consensus via voting. Your argument for keeping was to provide "a big obvious link" which is redundant. JPG-GR (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Um, if you read what I wrote this template is only meant to be used on a extremely limited set of project pages that are highly-trafficked by non-Wikipedians (basically, just photo scavenger hunt cheatsheets that need to be printed out). There was no contradiction of the applicability of the template being put to this very specific purpose at all in the deletion discussion.--Pharos (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


{{CSRT-Yes}} has been the subject of a lot of debate, since it was agreed upon by groups like Wikiproject:Terrorism and Wikiproject:Templates as the only "manageable" way to handle Guantanamo BLPs - since otherwise there was a need to have hundreds of biographies each incorporating identical text...but one of them would say "Bush's unfair tribunal system", the other one would say "the terrorist was placed before a tribunal", etc. The unorthodox use of the template allowed orthodoxy and NPOV to be ensured across hundreds of BLPs. The template was proposed for deletion in June 2009, but Kept as a necessary tool. (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_2#Template:CSRT-Yes) The following month, a sister template was proposed for deletion and all parties agreed it should be deleted/merged into CSRT-Yes (including myself), and you closed it as such. (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_27#Template:ReadingCSRTNotice ). However, eight weeks later the CSRT-Yes template was again nominated for deletion, apparently on the basis of the editor finding it "messy" and disliking the images in the template. The images were removed per consensus, but User:Plastikspork nevertheless closed the debate as a Substitute and Delete. (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_4#Template:CSRT-Yes). Now AFDs are typically difficult because a "Keep" will just be met by a steady stream of attempts until finally one succeeds (see, for example, the great fun had with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination)), whereas a successful closure as "Delete" is rarely able to appeal and have the article restored.

Anyways, more than two months after User:Plastikspork closed the CSRT-Yes's second nomination as "Substitute and Delete", there has been zero attempt by editors to work on deciding the best wording for a substitution, and any attempts to fix BLP articles with POV templates (such as Akhtiar Mohamad, tagged as POV bias since December 2007, a serious breach to allow a BLP to sit with that for two years) are being undone and the POV concerns edited back INTO the article "because CSRT-Yes should be deleted", rather than used to fix the BLP concerns across so many Guantanamo BLPs. (And those POV concerns were raised ages before I strayed onto the battlescene, so no, nothing to do with me on either side) Rather than improving the project, the issue is stagnating attempts to fix BLP articles.

I am not sure User:Plastikspork can retroactively change his decision on the TfD, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on how things might be set in motion to focus on helping with hundreds of BLP concerns that have existed for years - where attempts to fix the concerns are met with rigid and stoic "This is not how WP does things" rules, in sad mockery of official policy WP:IAR which seems to be a textbook case in these Guantanamo BLPs. (Cross-posted to those three administrators involved, no bias towards any of them, I assume good faith decisions have just led us to this unfortunate dead end) Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Chantilly Forest[edit]

Hello, JPG-GR. Sorry for the trouble. I had written a stub article in on a sub-page of my User page, and had incorrectly moved it into User space. I had requested a a move using the Move template. You deleted the page I had tried to move. What should I do to continue? or should I just forget about the stub, and let someone else do it? Thanks. --Rpyle731talk 02:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Where's your page now and where do you want it to be? JPG-GR (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you've moved the page to where it should be. The talk page was deleted in the attempts to clean my spaghetti. It was only one line, the WPFrance template, I could just retype it if that's easier. How should I properly replace the deleted talk page, so the history is correctly followed?
Also, if I RTF correctly, there is a template I can add to the section in my talk page so I can keep everything in one place. Is that correct, and what is the template?

Please suggest replacement template[edit]

Hi. You recently participated in a template deletion discussion [1] which resulted in the deletion of a template, Template:OtherusesSubtopicAlias, used at the top of the article Positive airway pressure. The deletion discussion did not mention which template should be used as a replacement. I can't even see what the text was that was formerly at the top of the article as created by the template. Could you please suggest an alternate template to use at the top of this article? (I'm also posting this request to the talk pages of others involved in the deletion discussion.) Robert K S (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, according to the Google cache, it used to read, "This article includes a subtopic, Continuous pressure devices, which is often known as CPAP. For other uses of this term, see CPAP." Robert K S (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ira W. Jayne[edit]

This page was deleted (moved to my user page) back in January. At that time I was offended and forgot about it. Recently I decided it should be in wikipedia because of his contributions to society. I think it was deleted because of lack of references. I have added them.

I have more material to add, but I will wait so that my effort is not in vain.

I don't know how to be alerted to changes on pages on my watch list. Couldn't find it in the help. I guess I just have to visit the pages every day to see if there are any changes. Not that wikipedia is confusing - the learning just takes time.

Please let me know how I can keep the page from being deleted. There are many topics on wikipedia with far less significance.

Thanks, Tony Toneron2 (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
For rapidly clearing three days of backlog (mostly created by me) at templates for discussion. Thank you! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to see such a backlog of easy closes. Normally, there's a bunch of big drawn out junk. JPG-GR (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I closed all the ones that I could. The rest were my nominations, which I try my best to make uncontroversial. Thanks again. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I nominated RL0919, so with a little luck we may have another admin over at TFD. It's too soon to say right now. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Eel City reqphoto[edit]

Hi, I noticed you removed the reqphoto template I put on Eel City with the note that it was malplaced. I couldn't find a CC picture to use, but I believe the article would be greatly improved with one. I don't understand why you removed the request. Could you please explain? Thanks. -kslays (talkcontribs) 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to the talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I'll put them on the talk pages from now on. Thanks for the reply! -kslays (talkcontribs) 22:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on Biblesource Template[edit]

Hi, I wanted to ask for your thoughts on this... I seem to have independently created a template, Template:Biblesource, somewhat similar to one that you deleted earlier in response to consensus called Template:Sourcebible. I did not know this had been made before, and the only reason I found out was because of the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Bible#Template:Biblesource_for_citing_available_Wikisource_translations. I have posted there asking for comments and feedback, and to emphasize I wasn't trying to recreate the old one since I didn't know about it, and to show that mine is different and (hopefully) better suited for general use.

From what I have been able to gather from the deletion log, it seems the issues with Sourcebible were that it was only good for one translation and that it was a fork of an already-existing template, Template:Sourcetext. Without being aware of all this, I approached the Biblesource template from a rather different motivation...all I wanted to do was make it easy to link to Bible verses in theological articles with dozens of unlinked references that require the user to manually look up each one. Mine doesn't limit what translation you can use; any Bible that's available on Wikisource will work. Also, I didn't fork it from an existing template, since I didn't know about the Sourcetext or Bibleverse templates (maybe I should have! Would have saved some work...). I believe this template stands on its own merit as a means to easing the process of citing Wikisource Bibles that is not currently met by any of the other templates currently available (Sourcetext requires more parameters, Bibleverse doesn't use Wikisource at all). I believe that mine would not run afoul of any criteria for deletion, but since a previous Sourcewiki template for Bible verses had been deleted, I wanted to:

  • make you aware of it in case you have any concerns
  • invite you to give some feedback if anything's wrong with it.


discussion post asking for feedback

Thank you, Joren (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Do your thing[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, JPG-GR. You have new messages at Black Falcon's talk page.
Message added 08:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.