User talk:JulesH/Archive Aug 2007

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roma Victor (2nd nomination)

I have closed this debate as a keep, and noticed that you had some useful suggestions about sources to establish the game's notability. Do you think you could work these into the article, to forestall a third AfD debate there? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Thanks for the refs on G.ho.st--but it would be even better if you added them to the article as well as mentioned them in AfD--that way those coming after you to the AfD will already see that the article is referenced. DGG (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V opinion request

Hi there, do you have an opinion on which of these formulations of a paragraph in this policy is preferable? Tim Vickers 16:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ALGOR AfD

You had me at 'trade journals.' Ha ha. Thanks for providing the links to the resources. It's a keeper. the_undertow ^talk 20:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Reggie Bennett AfD

There have been several additions to the article and AfD discussion since you last commented. Would you be willing to review it again to see if you feel the article is up to standards?Horrorshowj 05:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Lustfaust

Thanks for the link - it is rather disheartening that it lasted a full year after someone had posted the newspaper reports on its talk page. Of course, this one is still by far the best I've ever seen, even if it only lasted a fortnight. Iain99 17:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Teresa Nielsen Hayden & LDS Church name

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) for details about the proper naming conventions to use when mentioning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -- 159.182.1.4 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Football fixtures

Thanks for that - I guessed it would probably be something along those lines, but figured it'd probably be best to get rid of the article as soon as we could, given that it was obviously unencyclopedic anyway. Cheers, ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 13:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lists should be converted into categories

I thought I would ask you if there is a policy or guideline that states lists should be deleted in favor of categorizing their contents? Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, a guideline, seems to state that lists, categories and series boxes are to be used in synergy with eachother. It says nothing about deleting one in favor of the other. Since you advanced this argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rhythm guitarists, and since policy at WP:Deletion#Deletion_discussion states "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants should explain their opinion and refer to policy", I'm requesting information about the policy or guideline you derived this understanding from. Thank you very much. (Mind meal 03:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

You are right, there is no guideline or policy that backs up your rationale for deletion. You state "but in cases where the list adds no real value over and above a category, a category is more useful (because it is easier to work with), so the category should be preferred. Common sense therefore suggests to me that changing these lists (which provide no real benefit over categories that I can see) to categories would be the best way to procede." Your opinion on the value of a list could only be valid if you sucessfully discredited the the list's topic, ie. musicians that perform rhythm guitar. In this case, the category does not even exist. Additionally, you need to start using policy and guidelines to back up your opinions, otherwise you are guilty of WP:POINT. I am tired of letting such behavior go unchecked when users understand that policies and guidelines allow for series boxes, lists and categories to co-exist even when devoted to the same topic. Since you argue this list is okay as a category, then it stands that it can also be a list...per policy. To change a policy, there are specific steps such as building consensus. Please be advised you have now been informed about what the policies and guidelines actually do say on this topic, and future votes could be seen as WP:POINT#Refusal to 'get the point'. This is seen as a disruptive practice. When voting to delete an item, one should adhere as strictly as possible to current policy. Ignorance is fine, but once pointed out you are in error you should recognize it and cease such voting in the future. Listcruft is not policy, not guideline. No policy or guideline state that incomplete lists should be deleted, either. Also, nothing is said anywhere about deleting a list that might be unmaintanable. I realize you did not advance those arguments, but i wanted you to know this as well. I suspect you edit here in good faith, so i am hoping you will begin voting according to policy and not personal opinion. (Mind meal 11:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Fudgie Frottage article

Fudgie Frottage article has been improved to address your AfD concerns. Benjiboi 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

It was not original research on Hitz Radio. I simply stated the figures I didn't suggest anything with them. 172.141.57.233 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a clear implication: the listener figures are wrong. Yes, I agree this is almost certainly true (I can't see any reason why the alexa ranks would be so far out of line if the figures quoted were true), but we need a reliable source that has made the comparison, if we are to suggest a comparison. JulesH 17:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

in p.c.

I don't want to see these articles go. I've already mentioned it on WikiEn-L, and I will again. The remaining articles need to be quickly fixed & retitled more appropriately, and ways found to rewrite the best parts of the old ones into good articles that will stand--obviously reinserting in the main articles will be challenged there too. Unfortunately I cannot really take the time to personally do this. DGG (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biological issues in Jurassic Park

You mentioned hoping for someone to come up with a better idea. I hope that I have, though it's plainly not written as coherently as it should be. I argue for first calling for the attention the article has obviously not received. --Kizor 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input

Thank you for your input at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Seeking_input regarding the Bruce Lee article. I would appreciate it if you would also provide your remark at Talk:Bruce_Lee#Bruce_Lee_Physical_Feats for the sake of helping develop consensus. Regards. Shawnc 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

An essay I've written

Hello. Though we are often on the opposite side of deletion debates, I thought you might want to read an essay I've written, found at User:Eyrian/IPC. I'd be interested to hear any feedback on its talk page. --Eyrian 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)