Jump to content

User talk:Jreferee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dinosaur puppy (talk | contribs) at 03:52, 26 October 2007 (fix wording). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


Crash(band) deletion

My article about the band Crash from Collegeville, PA was deleted today, but can i get back a copy of the article I wrote? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echoes4258 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Their vs. their

Wrt to your question here, I did a quick google books search and found e.g. The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther by Donald K. McKim who spells it with capital T. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 23:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, many others use the minuscule t. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 23:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of N4G

An editor has asked for a deletion review of N4G. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The NeveR SLeePiNG 23:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks!

Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terichem - wikipedia

Hello, why you delete our Wikipedia website. Please help us, how we have to optimalised our wiki web site about Terichem which will verify your rules. Thanks a lot. Andrej Timkovic - IT - Terichem a.s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timkovic (talk • contribs) 07:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons that Terichem was deleted are listed here. If you disagree with the deletions, please follow the steps to list a new deletion review. Thanks. -- Jreferee T/C 07:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INVOLVE (UK National Advisory group)

Hi - I still find it difficult to understand what is wrong with what I posted - this is a non profit organisation - the description of the organisation had been re-written to try and fix the fact that it was thought to be copyright. I have the organisations permission to add this article - let me know if you need anything in writing from them. If it is the links that are at fault I can remove them. I was in the middle of adding wiki links to the article. As the article is to encourage the public to review, discuss and join in research in health care we thought this would of been an ideal opportunity to list the information with Wikipedia. Please advise exactly were I have gone wrong. Maddcat007 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Zoiper article

Zoiper is the second most popular SIP softphone and Wikipedia contains tons of articles about much less popular applications that actually perform the same job but with less functionalities, like the ones listed in:

Do you have experience with VoIP telephony, particularly VoIP software? Why do administrators delete my article on different grounds every time? If there were no other articles about softphone applications in Wikipedia, I would've considered "No reasonable assertion of importance/significance" as logical. Now I see it as prejudice and harassment towards my article particularly. Please reconsider your speedy deletion. I see no reason why a respected online encyclopedia should not display an article about a respected software in the Internet telephony world. Thank you! -- Miranda George 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoiper does not appear popular enough for any relialbe sources (e.g., newspapers or books) to spend their money publishing information about Zoiper. Wikipedia's original research policy essentially makes any personal experience with VoIP software useless when developing a Wikipedia article on the topic. Wikipedia articles should be based on material in reliable sources that are independent of the subject so that an attributable article may be written on the topic. See General notability guideline. People typically use information from newspaper articles and books for their Wikipedia article. Material published by Zoiper or published under Zoiper's control is not independent of Zoiper. Try building a draft article in your userspace at Zoiper(draft) using information from newspaper articles, books, etc. Once you feel that you have an article that meets Wikipedia's five article standards requirements, follow the steps to list a new deletion review and request that the Zoiper be restored using your draft article as the material for the Zoiper Wikipedia article. Best wishes. -- Jreferee T/C 16:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Preckwinkle

Since it seems you are in favor of relisting, your voice is welcome at WP:DRV.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Toni Preckwinkle is going to head towards endorsed closure with permission to recreate. Is it possible that you could userfy her page at User talk:TonyTheTiger/Toni Preckwinkle to make it easier to recreate. I fully understand that I have to properly create a page that passes WP:RS, WP:ATT, WP:V.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought I would call your attention to the WP:CO going on for Toni Preckwinkle. It is this week's WP:CHICOTW.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! Keep up the good work. -- Jreferee t/c 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User Talk:Jimmi Hugh

You recently Denied a "Request to speedy delete" my User Talk Page. Where was such a request made? -- Jimmi Hugh 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete request showed up at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion, but on looking at your talk page I was unable to find such a request. It might be something screwy with the software. Hopefully, no harm was done. -- Jreferee T/C 17:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything on my Talk Page or even find the listing on the Candidates Page. If i do notice anything, i'll let you know. And, no harm was done, so no worries. -- Jimmi Hugh 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deletion of Steven Cook

I believe you deleted that entry despite my tagging it with "hang on" and starting a discussion on the talk page pointing out the basis of my concerns about the nomination. This has been reversed and we are carrying on the discussion about resolving this issue on the talk page. I thought I'd drop you a note to see if you had any input on this. Cheers. (Emperor 23:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Deletion of Richard Archer

Hi Jreferee, I'd just like to question why you didn't delete the page when it was under the namespace of "Richard John Archer"? Perhaps I should ask why it wasn't deleted. Hope to hear from you soon with regards to this. Qwerty (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Richard Archer and Richard John Archer have been deleted. I don't recall coming across the Richard Archer page when it was under the namespace of "Richard John Archer", which is why I didn't delete the Richard John Archer article. I came across Richard John Archer when it was a redirect to a deleted article, so I deleted the Richard John Archer redirect under CSD R1. -- Jreferee T/C 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Qwerty (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Elementary School - Restored

Thank you for your help! Seedvp 15:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Gabriela[reply]

Metrophage

Hello, why did you delete the "Metrophage" article? There was no copyright infringement; 'voidspace.org' does not own the novel's copyright, and even if it did, that would not keep people from writing encyclopedia articles about the novel. As far as I know, Kadrey made his book available for public use -that means that we are free to do anything that we want to do with the novel, as long as we don't try to make money out of the it.--Alperkaan 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted per WP:CSD#A7 since the article lacked assertion of importance/significance about the book. Even if the article were restored, there is not enough reliable source material that isindependent of Metrophage to develop an attributable article. The deleted article also had original research problems. -- Jreferee T/C 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed

I thank you for your support on Toni Preckwinkle. It looks like people will be supportive of a recreation. I notice in your last post on my talk page that you support well referenced editorial contributions. I need an opinion. I have been debating with another interested editor on the need for references at Gilbert Perreault. He has been removing my references and huffing about WP:OWN when I fight back. I have tried to compromise. We have taken it to talk at WP:HOCKEY and WP:WPBIO. Neither place responded. We are now at WP:PR and thus far have only one response. Since you are concerned about referencing, I was hopeful you would respond at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gilbert Perreault with your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my summary at Talk:Gilbert Perreault will help you to help us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My speedy bender

Hi, thanks for your message. Sorry about being a bit overzealous, obviously I was a bit unclear on the distinction between speedy/prod/afd and wasn't sure when each applied. Your message helped clear that up for me a lot. I see you have handled many of my speedys by changing them to prods, I will try to look over whatever you haven't touch and try to revert any big mistakes before I ruffle any feathers. Thanks for your help, I apologize again! Steve CarlsonTalk 20:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK history

Hi - I notice you haven't made much progress on verifying the entries at Wikipedia:Recent additions 146/History. I was going to drop by and ask if you're ready for another one, and mention that at the rate of one a week it would take 3 or 4 years to get through all of these (and, at one a month, dozens of years). I could generate them all and tag it as a backlog. Do you have any thoughts on this? -- Rick Block (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of COMINT metadata and Electronic Order of Battle

hello. following your decision at these articles' del-rev i'd like to know what should be done in order to make these articles legit, in you opinion. since i do believe that they are notable and should exist, i'd like your guidance. please respond to my talk page. many thanks, Comint 07:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Develop draft articles on each topic in your user space only using material from reliable sources that are independent of either topic. Once that is done, return to WP:DRV and request that the articles be restored using your draft articles as the content for those articles. -- Jreferee T/C 07:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron

Greetings, I'm just double checking, you added Category:Articles that have been proposed for deletion but that may concern encyclopedic topics to the Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron and it is now showing up in the "to be rescued" category. Was this intentional? Fosnez 10:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Controversies about functioning labels in the autism spectrum.

I need some time to study it; can you wait a day? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting; I just can't even *think* about another autism-related article right now, but I should be refreshed and renewed by tomorrow. Basically, though, I will probably defer to Eubulides, since he probably has a vision for how to make that walled garden of articles work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... got your message that you wanted more input on this, and spent an hour composing a response, but the article was already deleted by then. In my opinion it was a fairly poor article about a topic which deserves coverage, so, moot point though it is now, I'm unenthused about the outcome. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about autism or the autistic community - the only reason I have so many edits to the AS article is that I have been watching it for two years. I would've voted delete or merge back to autism rights movement for now as what was there was just original research. Graham87 00:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your actions

I notice that you have deleted sub-pages concerning Michelle Bachman when the consensus on the page asking if they should be deleted was that they should be kept. Please explain to me why you did this. If you tally up the votes by individual editors they are in favor of keep, User:Dhartung made several seperate entrys arguing for delete but he still only gets one vote. Please explain your actions. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michele_Bachmann,_EdWatch,_and_MFI Voting tally:

User:cab - Weak keep
User:Pugnacious - Extremely strong keep
User:Wowaconia - Strong Keep
User:BlindEagle - Keep
User:Dhartung - Delete
User:DGG - Delete
User:Carlossuarez46 - Delete
--Wowaconia 19:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rush

Hey Jreferee, as we discussed previously, I nominated the article for deletion, and it can be found here. Unfortunately, I listed it late at night (or early in the morning), and it seems to have slipped through unnoticed. If you could re-list it, or tell me how to (or point me in the right direction to learn the process), I would be much obliged. Cheers, faithless (speak) 03:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful for your comment

As indicated to others involved in the AFD process, I appreciate you taking the time to evaluate the case I made on behalf of the MediaZone article. In no way was I attempting to bypass or ignore Wikipedia standards. If there are suggestions you could provide regarding re-creation, I would be grateful for the insight and advice. I have great appreciation for the site, its editors and administrators. I will accept whatever decision is rendered with respect and professionalism. JohnRobertCrowley 16:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the comments on my User Talk page. Will apply your knowledge and direction to a draft article. JohnRobertCrowley 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of SpiralScouts stub

I'm the article creator. I was discussing with a coworker the existence of non-christian and athiest versions of boyscouts, and saw that there seems to be very little about them in wikipedia, although they pop up in the news every once and a while. SpiralScouts is one of the more interesting ones, and is reasonably popular, so I stuck up a stub and some links in scouting list pages with the hope that people with more knowledge might contribute. Sort of the point of an online reference anybody can edit. How do you propose a stub page establish the significance of its subject? Do you think it seems a little arbitrary for a single admin to decide its significance? I have no interest in SpiralScouts beyond a mocking conversation I once had with a coworker looking for some after-school activities for his son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tafinucane (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the SpiralScouts article that stated why SpiralScouts was important or significant. -- Jreferee T/C 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so you go ahead and add some. The subject easily meets notability guidelines (WP:ORG), although I made no effort to make the case on the stub. I didn't use a stub template because I couldn't find one for organizations, I believe. Why are the deletion criteria so much stricter than the notability guidelines? Seems if every admin were as vigilant as you, no new articles could ever be created. Thanks for your volunteer efforts, btw. Dealing with whiners can't be too pleasant. Tafinucane 21:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search and found SpiralScouts International. It appears to have been around for a while. -- Jreferee T/C 23:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 3, Issue 39 24 September 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willesee

A page I created was deleted - it was about William Francis Willesee and I created it to add to a Willesee family page which I created under the category Political Families of Australia. Is their any point continuing to add information to Wikipedia if it just disappears? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonraja (talk • contribs) 07:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Francis Willesee was deleted since the article did not contain any reasonable assertion of importance/significance per CSD A7. See this. Also, even if the topic met CSD A7, Wikipedia articles are not Genealogical entries and it may be deleted on that ground. See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. -- Jreferee t/c 14:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your link to 'this' is for administrators only. How does it make sense to have a category called "Political Families of Australia" with the message "It has been requested that this category be populated." and then to delete entries which are examples of political families of Australia? It isn't genealogy - the only people mentioned were Australian politicians, not their wives or parents or cousins - the purpose is to create a record of those families that have been influential in Australian politics. If you don't like the topic delete the category page that asks for contributions. -- 220.235.18.93 (talk · contribs · logs) 13:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the 'this' link above. The requested that the category be populated inherently includes a request that it be populated by articles that meet Wikipedia's article standards. I listed for deletion those articles that I thought did not meet Wikipedia's article standards. -- Jreferee t/c 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give up. When I read on a blog that entries were called for Political Families of Australia - and given that I have an awful lot of information on Western Australian politics - I went to Wikipedia to start adding the info. I spent 90 minutes clicking around on Help screens trying to find some logical instructions about adding info. I didn't find it so I just started in. Basically I thought Categories must be something like Subject Headings in a library catalogue (ie they don't in themselves contain the information, but they point to it) and that I didn't need to add any information to all that was already in wikipedia on those people, just link them up to the Category 'Political Families of Australia' so that people looking for exactly that topic would find all the families and then click through to the more detailed individual biography pages. So some of the pages I created had very little biographical info - but as you can see, where there was very little or none eg William Francis Willesee, I added some more. The rules of Wikipedia are clearly beyond my comprehension, so, sorry to have taken up your time, and please just delete the stuff I put on. At least it's given me an idea for my own organisation's intranet - I'll put up the information there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.215.218 (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up: contested prod

Winegardner and Hammons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Take it or leave it :) Daniel 09:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypez

How the fuck is any other album more important? Just cuz you ain't heard of the guys doesn't shit. It ain't hurtin' nothin'. --PDTantisocial 10:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScanAndHost

Why did you delete the ScanAndHost page?--Bstevens760 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article because it did not meet CSD A7 - "No assertion of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not state why its subject is important or significant." I just did a search and could not find any newspaper coverage of ScanAndHost. Do you know of any reliable sources independent of ScanAndHost that have written about ScanAndHost? -- Jreferee t/c 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Within one week there will be two different newspaper articles in two different publications.--Bstevens760 18:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Careers Group, University of London

Hello Jreferee. A page I created yesterday has been deleted on the basis on being "blatant advertising". Could you give me a little more detail as to the exact reasons please? I've read all the guidelines about advertising and fail to see how the article is. Perhaps some sections could merely be cut out but the article as a whole in no way amounts to advertising. The Careers Group, University of London is a not-for-profit organisation notable for its long history and unique governance structure which answers to the UoL as a whole in the same way as UoL Research Library and the University of London Union. Both of these organisations have pages on Wikipedia without any problems. Furthermore, I have seen what else (in the world of Careers Guidance) is on here and cannot see any difference between what I've written and what is written, without dispute, about Graduate Prospects. I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. (Norman Cat 09:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Re:Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron efforts

Hi Fosnez. I read the talk page thread about whether the Article Rescue Squadron actually does anything. We really need to keep track of this to encourage others to join and actively participate. . You should start a sub page to keep track of the Article Rescue Squadron's efforts. Basically, I envision a table with headings such as article name, AfD link, date added to Article Rescue Squadron category, diffs showing contributions by the Article Rescue Squadron, date removed from Article Rescue Squadron category. -- Jreferee t/c 04:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, firstly I would like to "officially" welcome you to the Article Rescue Squadon! I definatly agree that we need to have a better examples section, the one at the bottome of the project pages doesn't really "sell" the project that well. I am busy marking assignments at the moment, and probably will be all weekend, but I'll see what I can do when I am at "work" on Monday. Fosnez 12:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Careers Group, University of London- Thanks

Jreferee- Thank you for reconsidering the article. I have already removed the Users section and will be sure to make the other suggested changes as soon as I have a chance. Any other comments in the meantime are most welcome. Thanks! (Norman Cat 15:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

ARS Admin section

Greetings, I just wanted to check, is this section of the members list for Administrators only or for people that do Admin work for the ARS (like me?) Fosnez 02:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators only, but if you want to get rid of that section, that's fine. It was based on what they do at DYK. -- Jreferee t/c 02:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikirage Enhancements

J, I found some time to work on Wikirage wikirage. I added a home page indication and mashed in the WikiCharts data. I've also started capturing flags like 'Unverified', 'Cleanup Needed', and 'Disputed'. I'll try to get some velocity data in soon. If there are other 'flags' that I should be on the look out for, let me know.w3ace 03:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK history anomalies

I've created Wikipedia:Recent additions 147/History, but don't think we want to go whole hog yet. There's an obvious glitch involving Salvem el món. I'll track down what this problem is (likely not until at least tomorrow). -- Rick Block (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK update

The DYK postings are 3 hours overdue. Can you help? --EncycloPetey 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Volume 3, Issue 40 1 October 2007 About the Signpost
WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox" News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST
Automatically delivered by COBot 02:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Many thanks for your explanations, B —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHeine (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ben Heine

BEN HEINE SPEAKING: MAY I ASK WHY YOU PARTICIPATED IN MY WIKIPEDIA's ENTRY DELETION WITH KARL MEIER AND OFFICE GIRL? THIS IS NOT FAIR! THE ENTRY HAD BEEN WRITTEN AGAIN AND RE DOWNLOADED BY OTHER PEOPLE AND YOU STILL KEEP DELETING IT. WHO ARE YOU? CONTACT ME HERE : heinebenjamin@hotmail.com -- Ben Heine —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenHeine (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

I hit stop (on my browser) right after I hit delete, I hadn't even realized I had clicked on the link to that page. Then I checked it a minute later, and everything seemed fine. Oh well. I'm working on restoring it now. Thanks. CitiCat ♫ 01:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretend Genius

This article was {{prod}}-ed by you, the 5 days expired and I deleted it. A user has requested restoration, which as a prod I did but sent it to AFD because I agree with why you prod-ed it. Because of the deletion it may no longer be on your radar screen (watch list) so I am informing you of the matter. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 01:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Ronald_A._Carson

Hi Jreferee. Thanks for the heads up on the above DRV. Not counting mutliple socks there appears to be slim support for reinstatement. I'm not contributing to the discussion, not out of discourtesy, but because reading the arguments of other editors I'd have nothing further to add. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  07:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid Prime

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Metroid Prime (creature). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Will (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:THsignedpic.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:THsignedpic.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 18:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCCC accomplishments

Could I ask you to place a copy of the deleted article NCCC accomplishments in my following user page User:Dbiel/ScratchPad/NCCC accomplishments so I can attempt to salvage limited parts from it? Thank you for your assistance Dbiel (Talk) 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second request Dbiel (Talk) 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your assistance and for the alternate link. Dbiel (Talk) 18:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK history tool

Hi - I did see your latest round of comments (from a few days ago), but haven't had a chance to work on the tool yet. I think I'll be able to get to it this weekend. Just thought I'd let you know I got your message. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to address the concerns listed in Cracked.com's article

We do not base our content descisions on the jottings of random humorists.Geni 05:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

open primary

It appears there are different definitions of "open primary." You don't have to declare your party in New Hampshire to vote in a party primary - you can be registered as undeclared and vote in either primary. You do not have to be a registered Republican to vote in the Republcian primary, etc. That's the definition of "open primary" in this state. However, our article open primary says "Also a member of one party can vote in the primary of another party", which is not the case here - so by that definition we're not open. - DavidWBrooks 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification

In the past I've had people get my page deleted and then send me a notice. Thoughtman 20:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5

The Biography WikiProject Newsletter
Volume IV, no. 4 - September 2007
Project News
  • The three-month long Summer Assessment Drive, organized by Psychless, was a huge success! It ran from June 1 – September 1, and reduced the backlog of unassessed articles from 113,385 to 56,237. In all, over 100,000 articles were assessed. Over 60 people contributed in some way.
  • A barnstar has been created for exceptional work on Wikipedia biographies and for assisting the project. The Biography Barnstar is listed with the other WikiProject awards and can be awarded easily with a template. See the template page for more details.
Member News

Congratulations to the editors who worked on the newest featured biographies: Augustus; William Shakespeare; Adriaen van der Donck; Alfred Russel Wallace; Alison Krauss; Anne Frank; Anne of Denmark; Asser; Bart King; Bill O'Reilly; Bobby Robson; Bradley Joseph; CM Punk; Ceawlin of Wessex; Colley Cibber; Cædwalla of Wessex; Dominik Hašek; Elizabeth Needham; Frank Macfarlane Burnet; Georg Cantor; Gregory of Nazianzus; Gunnhild Mother of Kings; Gwen Stefani; Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery; Harriet Arbuthnot; Harry S. Truman; Henry, Bishop of Uppsala; Héctor Lavoe; Ine of Wessex; Ion Heliade Rădulescu; Jack Sheppard; Jackie Chan; Jay Chou; John Martin Scripps; John Mayer; Joseph Francis Shea; Joshua A. Norton; Kate Bush; Kazi Nazrul Islam; Kevin Pietersen; Martin Brodeur; Mary Martha Sherwood; Mary of Teck; Maximus the Confessor; Miranda Otto; Muhammad Ali Jinnah; P. K. van der Byl; Penda of Mercia; Pham Ngoc Thao; Rabindranath Tagore; Ramón Emeterio Betances; Red Barn Murder; Richard Hakluyt; Richard Hawes; Robert Garran; Roman Vishniac; Ronald Niel Stuart; Ronald Reagan; Roy Welensky; Rudolph Cartier; Samuel Adams; Samuel Beckett; Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough; Sarah Trimmer; Sargon of Akkad; Shen Kuo; Sophie Blanchard; Stereolab; Sydney Newman; Sylvanus Morley; Tim Duncan; Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft; Uncle Tupelo; Waisale Serevi; Wallis, Duchess of Windsor; Walter Model; William Bruce; William Goebel; Yagan; Zhou Tong; Æthelbald of Mercia; Æthelbald of Mercia

New Members

Congratulations to our 225 new members

From the Editors

The newsletter is back! Many things have gone on during the past few months, but many things have not. While the assessment drive helped revitalize the assessment department of the project, many other departments have received no attention. Most notably: peer review and our "workgroups". A day long IRC meeting has been planned for October 13th, with the major focus being which areas of the project are "dead", what should our goals be as a project, and how to "revive" the dead areas of our project. Contribute to the discussion on the the new channel (see below)

We decided to deliver this newsletter to all project members this month but only those with their names down here will get it delivered in the future.

This is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue. Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned or post news on the next issue's talk page

New irc channel

Lastly, a new WikiProject Biography channel has been set up on the freenode network:

#wikipedia-en-bio

Our thanks to Phoenix 15 for setting it up.

Contributors to this Issue

We couldn't do it without you!

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .[reply]


HELP

Jreferee - I've followed some of your administrative decisions and you seem like a fair administrator who can get things done so I need ask for your help in restoring a page that I strongly feel should not have been deleted: Heller Ehrman. It was written in an objective tone, was encyclopedic and was in-line with the style/type/tone used by the other 160 pages dedicated to law firms listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_firms_of_the_United_States Until this morning, the page was a part of this category and a few different users had contributed to it in some form or fasion.

Moreover, the page contained a considerably informative history of the firm which chronicled its relation to the other institutions that were intergral to California's history from the time of the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 until present day. This took quite a few days and a lot of effort to compile and after having reviewed the list of what wikipedia is and what it is not, I believe the page was deleted in error.

Is it within your ability as an admin to restore pages that have been recently deleted? If not, may I and others recreate the page for your/other admin review?


Please respond to my talk page. Thank you for your time.

Burning Sands Burning Sands 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: When you wish upon a Wienstein

Out of curiosity, why did you call upon me to fix this? -- John Reaves 19:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks

I'm still figuring out how the whole thing works here. I was able to locate the admin who took down the page in the first place and he/she told me what the specific problems were and that I could rewrite it with those things in mind so the long and short of it is that the problem solved.

I was looking for any admin when I should have been looking for the admin who deleted the page. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks anyway.


Burning Sands 20:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Chris Benoit

I doubt that if he does, his account is Crippler4 (talk · contribs), if it is him, I'd suspect it to be Multiplebraininjuries (talk · contribs), judging by the edit summaries used in the history of the Chris Benoit article. Bmg916Speak 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Generals Revolt

"it was a very short article with little or no context for the statements made." Then why didn't you add more too it? BTW wasn't a vote on David Ashe? Thoughtman 19:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are you systematically checking every edit I've ever made? Thoughtman 19:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message misplaced?

*:::It may be considered disruptive to the deletion discussion and you may be blocked to permit that discussion to continue without disruption. -- Jreferee t/c 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[1][reply]

User:Edgarde just Cut & Pasted this message on my Talk page. He claimed that you sent it to him when it was intended for me. True? --Ludvikus

Thanks!

Thanks for userfying my deleted page for me. I'm terribly new here, and floundering a bit. I hated the thought that I may have totally lost what I'd done so far and appreciate having access to it so that I can make it Wikipedia-worthy. Still on the learning curve! Kathycha 03:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Barnes

I hope to have a response regarding oversight tonight. Once the mess has disappeared I think we can test the waters with semi-protection and see what happens. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring Feast of Fools (podcast)!

Thank you, Jreferee, for restoring the content of this page to my account. I am working on it quite feverishly and I think it's coming along nicely. This is the first major writing project I've done on Wikipedia, so any guidance and/or input would be most greatly appreciated! I hope to have everything ready by the end of the week. Thanks again! RcktManChgo 09:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Explorer

Why was the article that I created and had deleted reinstated. I only wrote that to advertise for the company. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 00:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prods

I noticed you regularly included the following comment in your prods

Removal of this PROD notice without making the requested improvements may make it more likely that this article will bedeleted at Articles for deletion

I think you should reconsider adding those comments. They're a bit misleading (an article that is prodded just may survive an AFD as is) and they don't really help much. It sort of implies that your judgement is spot-on perfect and that when you decide an article should be deleted, it will be. That certainly isn't your intention, but that's the impression it gives. That's just my two cents. --UsaSatsui 03:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Social

Hi there,

I have removed the proposed deletion tag from Social. The article certainly may have some problems, but it's a topic that we should have something on, and I'm not comfortable with the deletion of an article with four years of history from numerous editors without it going through a proper AfD debate. --Stormie 04:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Quantum consciousness and ion channels (copied from here)

Could you explain the reason for deleting Quantum Consciousness and Ion Channels. Persephone19 16:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was clear in that the article was original research. Pete.Hurd's discussion about how the cited references did not support the text was persuasive. You even agreed that expansion of Quantum mind may be the best answer. I would be happy to post a copy of the article into your user space. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience and/or User:Christopher Thomas may be interested in the topic. If you enter "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience" at Wikipedia stats, you can get a list of others who may be interested in the topic. I would suggest contacting some of them directly on their talk page in addition to posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience. In addition, you may follow the Steps to list a new deletion review to challenge my delete close of the article. -- Jreferee t/c 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would reiterate that the claim of original research is false. Wikipedia guidance refers to unpublished facts etc. I have given a list of references and in particular the references for the main proponents of the theory. There was a mistake in typing a long list of references relative to one of the less important papers, but this was still a published paper, and it is impossible to see how this would allow one to say that the list as a whole did not support the text. You speak of consensus but the guidance says that this is not a vote but based on arguments. Apart from Peter Hurd's comments about the references, there were no arguments merely misapplication of isolated terms taken from guidance or outright falsities such as 'its a hoax.' The assumption that this is pseudoscience is also wrong as this refers to theories that cannot be falsified, whereas the prediction of coherence in the ion channels is quite capable of being falsified. Persephone19 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you don't reply, I take it you accept the falsity of your claim of original research. Persephone19 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Feast of Fools (podcast)

Thanks for your note today. I am going to make some last-minute tweaks tonight; hopefully it should be ready for loading by Friday morning. I'll keep you posted. THANK YOU for all your help and guidance! RcktManChgo 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Student suicides

Hi Jreferee, and thanks for your note to me. As one of many AfDs that I closed over a year ago, I have to admit that my memory is quite spotty. However, looking at this particular AfD, I do vaguely remember it and that I took quite some time reading all the arguments very carefully before coming to a decision. I, of course, stand by my decision regarding that AfD and would delete it again given the same information. However, the user subpage follows slightly different rules from pages in the main articlespace. Also, my decision has nothing to do with the subject matter, but with the opinions expressed in the AfD, so my familiarity with the subject matter probably has no bearing on what we do with this article, other than to note that the two articles are different and therefore isn't a re-creation of previously-deleted content.

This could be a work in progress. User pages are given some latitude and flexibility because they don't reside in the main articlespace and therefore are not readily available to the "viewing public". As long as the user is still working on this article and is trying to get it to a decent enough quality before putting it into the main articlespace, this article may deserve to be kept. However, I do note, as you probably do, that this article hasn't been worked on since June.

There are a couple of things you could do:

  • Send a talk message to Wl219 asking if the article is still being worked on.
  • Open an MfD to get the article deleted.

Given that the article has been inactive for almost six months, I'd go with the latter, but at the very least, a courtesy talk message to the author is warranted. Hope this helps, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that there's a time limit on inactivity in user subpage works in progress, as this is. I have several such articles in progress as you can see on my main user page and I unfortunately do not have time to work on all of them at the same time. As for the merits of the article, I solicited (but have so far received none) comments here intending it as a fork of List of suicides (which I notice is being kept for now as the AfD was "no consensus"). My list is fundamentally different from the deleted Ivy League list since the intersection of suicide and college campuses is a well-documented phenomenon (as evident by the sources I cite for each name without its own WP article). Further, since it is a subpage work in progress, it falls under WP:UP#SUB and isn't subject to the usual rigors of WP:N and whatnot. Anyway, I invite you to assist me in continuing to compile sourceable information on the subject. Wl219 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

You try to make me go to Rehab, but I say no, no, no... I like having that little tag on my page. It allows me the freedom to say things I wouldn't be able to say if I were jonesing for an adminship (which means that, if you nommed me, my dirty little incivilities would sink my candidacy). Thanks for the offer, but I'll keep making the requests. Besides, I have a job now (first day today), so it will likely cut into my time here. I've only been writing 5 or 10 per day because I had nothing else to do. Chubbles 02:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some day. Not now; if I ever feel the need for sweet pointy hats and wizard wands I'll let you know. If anything, I'm trying to reduce the time I spend around here. Thanks again, though. Chubbles 02:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - that wasn't what I was expecting, at all. My The Mops will be about a '60s Japanese psych-rock band. Chubbles 05:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Tariq Imran

Why was this article deleted. It is obviously an article that concerns an executive of a US company therefore it should not have been deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueblood786 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons that Ahmad Tariq Imran was deleted are listed here. Ahmad Tariq Imran was deleted per CSD A7 - No reasonable assertion of importance/significance. Being an executive of a US company is an ordinary resume item. If you disagree with the deletions, please follow the steps to list a new deletion review. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feast of Fools (podcast)

I believe we are ready to go. If you see anything glaring that needs to be fixed let me know. Also, I have a few final questions:

  • I joined that podcasting group you recommended. Should I add the group's logo to the bottom of my page?
  • Is there any way at all to change the name of the page from Feast of Fools (podcast) to Feast of Fools Podcast? If it's too much trouble, we'll leave it as it is.
  • Also, if a user types "Feast of Fools" in the Search box, it brings them to the Feast of Fools medieval festival page by default, then they would have to click on the redirect link at the top to bring them to the Podcast page. How does it work to bring up a disambiguation page first?

Thanks again for all your help! RcktManChgo 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Drama queen cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Drama queen cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

Hans Gruber

I was wondering if you could restore the pages and then simply redirect them to Die Hard, because the terms are likely to be searched, and all other enemies and allies redirect to their respecitve movie origin. hbdragon88 22:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the redirect to Hans Gruber. Even though the article was deleted, you can create other redirects as needed. -- Jreferee t/c 22:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well what I really wanted was the history because I like reading the articles as they were written before they were redirected. hbdragon88 23:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Horror AFDs

I guess I'm a little confused. I had thought that in order for there to be an article on a topic on Wikipedia that there had to be independent reliable sources that are substantively about the subject. In your eagerness to scold me for making a group nomination, something which is completely within the bounds of reasonable actions, you have apparently failed to notice that there are no sources that support the independent notability of a single one of these songs. Doesn't the simple fact that there are no sources kind of outweigh the completely unsupported assertions of notability? Shouldn't the people asserting notability have some sort of burden to back that up with sources? As far as what the discussion supports, no one spoke specifically in support of Over at the Frankenstein Place, Hot Patootie or Rose Tint my World. Even granting extreme benefit of every possible doubt, these three should be deleted. Otto4711 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do not need to include sources to be kept at AfD. There need only exist sufficient reliable source material to create a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. "When in doubt, don't delete" gives the burden on those desiring to delete the article at articles for deletion. The listed song are so widely known and have been treated differently over the many years since their creation that a a single discussion cannot reasonably say they stand or fall together. The best way to address each article is to list them separately. Because of the reason given in the AfD close, I would not object if you want to relist them at AfD again in their own, separate listing. -- Jreferee t/c 03:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rocky Horror songs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I'm sorry, but I think your reading of the debate was incorrect. Otto4711 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Erskine

I have already asked a few people about this, but if none of them have changed/fixed it before you see it, can you fix whatever I've done wrong in the 2nd AfD for Chris Erskine. I keep getting the old page. Cheers, JJJ999 06:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thorough

editors like you are to be admired. I like how you voted to delete Mark R. Graczynski but also added the one source you found to the article. I agree on both counts. Passing by, maybe I'll try to add to T Preckwinkle. Ciao, HG | Talk 14:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malmö Devilants

I believe you should reconsider your closing of this AfD. The only Delete was by also the only person that said it was non-notable. The consensus of Keep was given by 6 other people and there were 2 merge/redirects from 2 other people. Reliable source was given, that being the team's own governing body. At the very least, it should have been merged as suggested but surely not deleted. 9 people "voted" and only 1 was to delete. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The team's own governing body is not independent, as required by the general notability guidelines. I created a redirect for the article. -- Jreferee t/c 15:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
U had 3-party source, article from QX. Second, IGRAB are the source for that Devilants are a member of IGRAB. If u dont belive IGRAB exist u should delete IGRAB also. And Devilants are a registred club in sweden, just ask the swedish goverment.--81.236.190.174 20:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Militant Elvis Party

I don't follow your thinking. The "persuasive" argument was "Needs sourcing but I see mentions in the Financial Times, Independent, BBC News, Associated Press. This easily establishes notability". The guideline you quote is quite clear (to my mind) that mere listing is not eveidence of notability: "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined." My thinking (and perhaps the thinking of others) was that merely asserting that something matches our notability guidelines because it is listed in a newspaper was not an argument that needed addressing. One of the reasons we drew up the guidelines was to make sure that because something is mentioned in passing in a newspaper that wasn't used as a notability argument. Could I ask you to look again at the guidelines and the actual sources given. Thanks SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The delete arguments largely were personal beliefs of Wikipedians that the topic lacked importance/significance to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. That was not enough reason to delete the article. -- Jreferee t/c 15:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My delete argument was that there is no guideline on Wiki that says that by default a political party with no elected members is notable. The article fails because it hasn't achieved the general notability criteria. Mere listings in directories or newspapers has never been a criteria for inclusion. Take a look at the BBC "source": [2]: The report is about the MP3 party, which has joined "the massed ranks of groups on the fringes of UK politics." And then it gives a list of silly parties: "There is already the All-Party Alliance Against Brussels, the Church of the Militant Elvis Party and the New Millennium Bean Party." Another source: "The noble Lord will know that I could not possibly resist pointing out that in his amendment he suggests that we should consult all political parties. We dug out the list of political parties that we have; there are 317 on the GB register, and I might hold a short quiz later to see how many noble Lords recognise them. I have no idea what these political parties are, but I love them. There is the British Unicorn Party, the Church of the Militant Elvis Party, the Grumpy Old Men Political Party, the Idle Toad Party, the Fancy Dress Party, and the Make Politicians History Party." These are clearly not actually speaking to notability when examined - quite the reverse, they are pointing out the very lack of notability! I feel you may have been misled by the statement that there were significant sources from the BBC. A passing, dismissive mention in a list is more indicative of non-notability than notability. Please, take a look yourself for the sources that Wikidemo mentions. Wikidemo hasn't proved notability, merely stated it. That is not an argument. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malmö Devilants

6 vote keep, 2 redirect and 1 delete and u say it was consensus? --81.236.190.174 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote. It looks like one, but it isn't a vote. I considered the weight of the arguments and the delete arguments were stronger than the keep arguments. If you disagree, please feel free to follow the steps to list a new deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are u to do that? And consensus is a lie. Please tell me how 6 keep, one Delete and 2 redirect are consensus for redirect.--81.236.190.174 19:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Malmö Devilants. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 81.236.190.174 19:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on those 2 media articles presented in the deletion review, I have to concur that deletion was wrong and not in consensus. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked before you self-overturned, they were mentioned/described in the first keep opinion, and were present in the article's external links section. GRBerry 16:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion changed as I read and reread the AfD in view of your post. I would have been better off taking more time to read the AfD in view of your DRV comments before first posting at DRV. I finally matched up the AfD comments to the two references, and that's when I pieced things together. -- Jreferee t/c 22:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of JVF Radio

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on JVF Radio, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because JVF Radio is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting JVF Radio, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 08:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 42 15 October 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Austin_Lonestars AfD withdraw

How do I go about withdrawing an AfD nomination? I want to withdraw the Austin Lonestars and related pages pending the outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_15#Malm.C3.B6_Devilants. I can't find any reading on withdrawing. Is it as simple as removing the tags and me saying because of my own withdrawal? Thanks. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since others have participated in the AfD to the point where your withdrawing the AfD would be inconsistent with their position, you cannot withdraw the AfD. If you change your opinion from that posted in the nomination, you can note that in the AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 21:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost never give out barnstars, but...

The Editor's Barnstar
For work on Dammit, Janet!. I haven't seen such an impressive article rescue in a very long time. W.marsh 21:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You totally deserve this, great job!--Buridan 05:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Austin Lonestars AfD

Sorry about that. I have reopened the AfD.-Andrew c [talk] 22:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. : ) -- Jreferee t/c 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

origin of religion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Origin of religion. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Buffy CCG AfD

I just wanted to let you know that I really disagree with your closure of this AfD and plan on taking it to DRV. I see absolutely no consensus to delete in that discussion. -Chunky Rice 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_Collectible_Card_Game -Chunky Rice 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game

I'm not sure of the general guidelines on this, but closing an afd after 6 days seems a little short, especially when it's essentially an WP:N issue, no previous attempts to find sources had been made and the paper sources that may exist take time to dig up. Artw 18:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review Church of the Militant Elvis Party

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Church of the Militant Elvis Party. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A review of WP:N

I've had a look at some of your AfD closures. I understand some of your views; however, I would suggest you pause and reacquaint yourself with the requirements for notability sources before closing any more AfDs. You appear to have a number of questionable closures which are then overturned, and this appears to be because of a misunderstanding on your part of what constitutes a reliable source. A mere mention is not enough. That something can be proved to exist is not evidence that something is notable. Also, when going against consensus it would be useful to consider that some of the editors !voting are not going into detail because they may feel the case is quite clear, or they are making a support of the nominator's argument. Bearing that assumption in mind, you have to look hard and close at why so many editors !voted in a certain direction, and don't be so easily taken in by assertions of notability or non-notability by one or two individuals. Yes, AfDs are not votes, but support for a statement is not to be ignored either, even without a long explanation. Your recent AfD record may appear a little embarrassing at the moment, but we learn from such incidents, and you are clearly a keen and hardworking editor with much to offer the project. It's all about looking at the total picture and getting the balance right. Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Criminal

I'm at a loss as to why this article was deleted. The sources were out there, valid and I even added a source (or two) myself to show the subject had passed two criteria for WP:MUSIC. 2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Both of these can be and were verified through All-Music Guide and Billboard. AMG: showing top 100 charting in R&B/Hip-Hop albums. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=MR.%7CCRIMINAL&sql=11:fbfpxql0ldae~T5 AMG: artist discography (showing 5 albums released on Thump, a notable label). http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=MR.%7CCRIMINAL&sql=11:fbfpxql0ldae~T2 There are other Billboard listings. I didn't include them because, frankly, I felt what I had was sufficient: Latin Rhythm Airplay Singles Chart (for this week): http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=403&cfgn=Singles&cfn=Latin+Rhythm+Airplay&ci=3087110&cdi=9435935&cid=10%2F20%2F2007 Top Heatseekers (Pacific): http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=300&cfgn=Albums&cfn=Top+Heatseekers+%28Pacific%29&ci=3085601&cdi=9347987&cid=08%2F18%2F2007 Top Heatseekers (Mountain): http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/chart_display.jsp?cfi=298&cfgn=Albums&cfn=Top+Heatseekers+%28Mountain%29&ci=3085599&cdi=9347971&cid=08%2F18%2F2007 I humbly ask you reconsider the deletion of this article.--Sethacus 17:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provide would only justify one article sentence per link, which is not enough for a stand alone Wikipedia article. billboard.com even lacks a biography. A biography article at its most basic should have a birthdate and a location where the person is born. There are no independent reliable source material that even has that basic information. The consensus was that the topic lacked enough reliable source material. Before I close a deletion debate, I do my own search to make sure I'm not helping to improperly delete an article. I could not find enough independent reliable source information on Mr. Criminal to justify an article on him, which confirmed the consensus in that discussion. It may be beacause "Mr. Criminal" is too close to the word "criminal". If you know Mr. Criminal, you might ask him to provide you with a list of all the sources for which he has been mentioned in print. If you can provide me those, I would be happy to work with you to create a Mr. Criminal article (I like his name). Until then, I do not see a basis to restore the article. -- Jreferee t/c 18:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, Janet!

It seems that the article was deleted a little while ago - and Kww (talk · contribs) blanked and redirected the article. As the article seems to be a total rewrite, asserting the notability now very well, I restored the content - however, you may want to clarify things for others on the talk page of the article, perhaps?

Also, a big kudos for rewriting this article!

-- Sander Säde 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 20 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article San Angeles, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done! --Espresso Addict 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TonyTheTiger 2

Hi Jreferee, sorry for the confusion of what canvassing is. Now I know that it's OK to put the notice on your own user page if you have an RfA or RfB, but it's frowned upon to tell other users on their talk pages, per WP:CANVASS.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 05:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Blaze

Why did you delete the page Eternal Blaze? ~Ynaz~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynaz (talk • contribs) 08:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFS soundtracks

I was done on yesterday thanks for the reminder --Cs california 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On October 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Darren Heitner, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Where do you get all these amazingly obsucre and offbeat stuff from?Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About User JJJ999

I have been working on the world and regional debate related articles since 2006. I also gathered few debater Wikipedians to improve those articles under a wiki project named WikiProject Debating which is still in developing phase. Anyway, as a part of this project we prepared an article on World Universities Debating Championship ranking which is compiled by Colm Flynn, former Chair, World Universities Debating Council. User JJJ999 and some of his friends (I think) tagged that article for deletion. After having a lively debate it was decided at AfD to merge the World Universities Debating Ranking article with the parent one, i.e. World Universities Debating Championship article. During this debate and also after the merger, User JJJ999 is behaving in an impolite way. Today he removed merged list from main article[3] and again reverted it with some notes directly on the main body of the article[4]. He also commented on the article talk page showing his anger[5] though he didn't sign there and later on SignBot added his signature. It seems that he has a personal problem with Colm Flynn. But, it became impossible to make him understand that Wikipedia is not a ballet field for revenge. It would be really nice if you take initiative to make him understand the fact. Kind regards, -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JJJ999 reverted his mistake after 4 minutes[6]. The addition of his commentary to the article[7] was information that could be in the article were it sourced. It was unsourced, so you were correct to remove it. However, it was not necessarily talk page material posted in article space. As for the merger, the merged information should only include sourced information. The merged information deleted by JJJ999 athere, was not properly sourced, does not appear to be from a Wikipedia reliable source, and was a personal opinion of Colm Flynn that might be appropriate in the Colm Flynn article, but does not include enough explanation to make it appropriate for the World Universities Debating Championship article. JJJ999 omission of a signature probably was a mistake. -- Jreferee t/c 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Actually I tried to make other people understand that this article should not be merged with the WUDC main article but finally decision went against me. Anyway, currently Colm Flynn site is down and those text became unsourced. Hopefully it will be back soon. It would be really nice if you monitor JJJ999's post; because he is too emotional and tries to do whatever he wants without caring about others' contribution! Anyway, thanks again. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 18:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Darren Heitner. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. EyeSereneTALK 17:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of response

I'm afraid that my comment got lost in the fury. Can you show me just one of your references that directly and in detail discusses the song "Dammit Janet"? (Obviously, not counting a simple rendition of the lyrics from a lyric site, or any site that is dedicated to RHPS?)Kww 01:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. -- Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia and Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation.[8]
It is irrelevant to Wikipedia's purposes whether any reference could be deemed to have directly and in detail discussed the song "Dammit Janet". Also, how would Wikipedians determine whether a reference directly discusses Dammit Janet!? Also, how much discussion does a reference need about Dammit Janet! for it to be considered a detailed discussion? How many such references are needed for a topic to be deemed "important"? What information in the reliable source about the topic count towards its Wikipedia "importants" and what information in the reliable source does not count towards its Wikipedia importance? Is a five-sentence article in the New Your Times about a topic sufficient to give the topic "notability importance" since 100% of the New Your Times article is about the topic? What about a 200 sentence alternative newspaper article that includes only five sentences about the topic? How would a Wikipedian go about determining the value of a particular fact about a topic to others around the world? Should those be excluded from counting towards a topic's importance to Wikipedia at AfD but be allowed in the article if it survives AfD? Why should Wikipedia require reliable sources to print their material in a particular way? Why should Wikipedia pre-determine how reliable sources should cover a song in those situations where the importance of a song is not necessarily related to a direct and detailed discussion about the song. Wikipedia should not have pre-conceived notions of what makes a song important and then dismiss reliable source coverage of a song merely because the reliable source did not present its information according to what Wikipedia wants. Wikipedia articles are nothing more than a neutral and unbiased compilation of previously written, verifiable facts. Reliable source do not publish information so that it makes its way into Wikipedia. Over the past seven years, others have proposed that Wikipedia judge reliable sources in that way but it always is found to bring up too many unanswered questions, dismissed because it relies on subjective opinions of Wikipedians, and is too restrictive to meet Wikipedia's goal of free access to the sum of all human knowledge. -- Jreferee t/c 18:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you don't think the standards discussed in WP:N (which require "significant coverage" in "reliable sources", further defining "significant coverage" as "means that sources address the subject directly in detail") are relevant?Kww 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, enough sources address the Dammit, Janet! subject directly in detail to meet WP:N. Otherwise, I could not have found so much material for the article. -- Jreferee t/c 22:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a single one of your sources addresses the song directly in detail. If I'm wrong, give me a quote of the direct, detailed discussion. I'm especially eager to hear the details from your Entertainment Weekly article about the 50 best films, or the guide to Scottish gardens, or the myriad articles about Janet Jackson.Kww 22:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make up the details in the Wikipedia article. I got them directly from the reliable sources. If it says it, I put it in; if it don't, I don't. Wikipedia should not be turned into rocket science. -- Jreferee t/c 23:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Hample DRV

Unfortunately, the "endorse closure" arguments that have appeared mean the DRV can't be speedily closed, and the AFD result can't be overturned to "delete" even if that's what the closing admin intended (besides, all the endorse closures would become overturns as soon as the article is deleted). --Coredesat 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shoemoney DRV

Is there a chance we can see the proposed recreation in userspace first - not that that's required but it may prevent unnecessary drama. Carlossuarez46 18:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-Rock DRV

Please reconsider your opinion about lack of sources as I have provided a few that back up his notability claim. Also I have proposed that the version without the trademark be restored, the trademark was L-Burna's idea. link T Rex | talk 00:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, I already saved a copy of the article before it got deleted in my sandbox. Sources are hard to come by, the only one that actually contains most of his claims of notability are in his Myspace which probably won't be considered a reliable source. T Rex | talk 03:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Believe it or not, I JUST noticed a message you left on my talk page about 20 days about this article. I guess nobody must read the column, because nobody has vandalised my page, nor had the issue in question been brought up again. It's kind of funny too, because I was just reverting him per consensus. Either way, I know exactly who he is, so if you want to ban him, I'd be more than happy to name names. Thanks for pointing it out, Scorpion0422 02:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The users name is Multiplebraininjuries (talk · contribs). He made 5 edits to Chris Benoit and then was reverted by a different user. He immediately reverted that, saying "Thanks, but no thanks. Mine is clearly more precise and more informative, tidy, etc. Don't bother changing it back again or this could go on for weeks. Kthxbye". [9] I noticed his edits after that and I noticed he was adding incorrect info and stuff that went against consensus, so I reverted him and he immediately reverted that, saying "Which is a suburb of Atlanta. DUH. Besides, change JUST that part of it if it's such a burden for you to accept, instead of eroding everything. Git." [10] After that he assumed I was the one who added the info, and he kept targeting me, leaving a message on my talk page [11] as well as the page of another user [12]. Even when someone else reverted his edits, he attacked me, saying "Un. Believable. I've had enough, I'm reporting you to whoever's in charge. You are a hack and I'm taking it out of either of our hands. Fool." [13] After that, he "reported" me here and disappeared. -- Scorpion0422 02:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the dead give away is that he wanted to add "It is generally accepted that Benoit killed his wife and son, and subsequently hanged himself" to the page. In the article, it says "go onto the Chris Benoit page and edit the top paragraph, where it says "Benoit killed his wife and son" so that it says "It is generally accepted that Benoit killed his wife and son"." It was also published the day after the incident. -- Scorpion0422 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jreferee&oldid=167144990"