User talk:JayJay/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

New CfD

Since you participated in earlier CfDs about related categories, I want to make sure you know about Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 12#Category:Church buildings in the United States by state. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1017 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you (at least) autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver. We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, AndrewN talk 23:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

River Hills Mall

There's a pretty good precedent that malls in general are notable unless they're really small. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries

Hi JayJay -- the anon is trying to add assertions that the man is a criminal, in addition to a batch of original research. Because it's a BLP I'm taking a harder line. I'll unblock him the moment he acknowledges he's read the policy and won't do it again. (Note -- it may even be true what he says -- but it wasn't sourced.) Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize I did not realize you were a administrator. Cheers, JayJay^{Talk to me} 00:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- (being an admin, even for seven years, doesn't make me special -- I'm not always right so I do appreciate you having an unbiased look though!) To my eye it was over the line; an assertion of criminality without source. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Twitter issue

As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

282 MEP

In February, 2012 you nominated the subject page for deletion, per:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

— JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC), User_talk:Enquire#Proposed_deletion_of_282_MEP

In response to your nomination for deletion, I was able to establish that this drug was (then at least) currently being manufactured by Pendopharm. I also found the links on the company website describing this drug, although a week later those pages disappeared. However, I did find-out two DIN numbers for the drug, per:

• old DIN: 00108316 (Frosst > Merck Canada)
• new DIN: 02238646 (Pendopharm)

The license to manufacture this drug was transferred to Pendopharm, Montreal, Quebec 2006-10-20 or 1998-08-14 (discontinued by Merck). While the 282 MEP links on the Pendopharm website have apparently been deleted, this prescription drug is still available, apparently still from Pendopharm.

If it is possible to recover my original contribution, that would be helpful. I can try to find current references, if this is not possible, it would be discouraging to have to repeat an earlier effort. Enquire (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, I have nominated so many pages for deletion I don't remember putting this one up for deletion, nevertheless I would suggest Wikipedia:Undeletion and tell them your story. Cheers! JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 00:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Episcopal School of Dallas

JayJay

The Controversy section at the end of the Episcopal School of Dallas is highly biased and misinforms readers about the true nature of the lawsuit. Clearly the original author of that story desires to tarnish the name of the Episcopal School of Dallas. Their writing contracts the sources they themselves used. Ideally, a deletion of that section would be best, to settle this once and for all, or the following corrections must be made in order to improve the accuracy of the section:

1. ESD officials only proposed expelling the student if she failed to withdraw voluntarily, which she did. She was not expelled from ESD. Furthermore, this was AFTER ESD administrators initially decided to allow her to stay at the school, not immediately after hearing about the sexual-relations with the teacher.

2. What changed was that the girl began talking about the incident to other ESD students. Those students reported this to ESD administrators and it was after this that the infamous "haunting the halls" e-mail was written. It is also because of her continuing to discuss the matter that ESD decided it was best for her to leave the school.

3. The teacher did immediately resign after ESD administrators were made aware of the situation and now faces criminal charges.

4. The rape charge is statutory. The girl was "in love" with the teacher and they planned to have a relationship together. He said he "wanted her to raise his children."

All of the above can be verified in the sources already cited in the article.

I am not familiar with Wikipedia procedures for editing controversial content but believe I seek to edit the page to increase the objectivity and accuracy of the entry.

I will be happy to discuss this further.

68.12.228.22 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey 68.12.228.22, you are consistently blanking the section instead of revising it constructively. If you want to clarify what happened, then please discuss so on the article's talk page. I'm not sure why you decided to contact JayJay about this issue. Thanks, Treeees (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)\

He contacted me because I was reverting his actions, plus he hasn't made an edit in about a month so I don't know why you are bringing this up now? JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I just saw this today when I was checking their contribs. Sorry to bother you Treeees (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

1272

Oh come on, have a heart. It's only 1 bloody page that no one ever visits. Anyone can clearly tell it's a joke and not actual information. There are fans which think it's an awesome easter egg. Don't be mean. Leave it up. Out of every Wikipedia page, it can't hurt to have 1 little line just for the lols. --The Official Jason garwood (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't care, rules are rules and we have to follow them, now I suggest you stop or you will see yourself getting blocked in the future. JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Are all users on Wikipedia such pretentious, up-them-selves pricks? Must be. You lot are the bane of Wikipedia. Rot in hell. I'm done, do what you like, Someone else will come and change it back anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonGarwood (talk • contribs) 02:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)