User talk:The JPS/archive18/archive13

I always welcome polite, constructive criticism and comments. New posts to the bottom, please.

If you're a vandal, do yourself some justice and put some thought into your insults. Replacing the page with "you are gay" isn't exactly ingenious, and I don't consider it an insult anyway: I'd much rather be gay than an illiterate chav. If I've deleted your article, or image, get over it. (Obviously you're welcome to question my decisions, but, seriously, there are some stalkers who really need help.)

Please leave a new message.

Archives
2005 Jan-10 May 2006 10 May-4 June 2006 4 June-27 July 2006 27 July - 31 August 2006 September - 2 November 2006 2 November - 31 December 2006 1 Jan - 3 March 2007 March/April 2007 May/22 June 2007 June/19 Aug 2007 -end of 2007

Heya whataboutadam's been in the Sunday times: here is a video about it and here is a scan of it

and he is a very popular youtuber his youtube

he doesn't have a wiki page when i was looking for one and i found it very annoying, so i made one and it'd be helpful to every youtuber to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthieeness (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely he has a profile on YouTube to satisfy the YouTubers? Seems like a conflict of interest is going on. And why is so much of this article censored? The JPS^{talk to me} 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.

At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars

If you are interested by all means feel free to join

Regards

Police,Mad,Jack —Preceding comment was added at 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very curious as to why the facts that were left on the Robbie Williams page have constantly been removed, despite the fact that many other unsubstantiated entries, as mine was, are never removed. I would ask that whoever wishes to disagree with the comment I leave on the page, would actually watch the film, Nobody Someday, before deciding to remove my additions to the Wiki page. It is a word for word quote from the man himself, and is available to buy from any good video store. As it is illegal to rip copyrighted movies to the Internet, I really don't see how I have any way of proving directly the quote from the film. No one who leaves mentions about lyrics are ever asked to prove their validity, and so therefore I request that the following statement remains on the page as it is a very important part of the section SEXUALITY and is 100% accurate. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.244.134 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facts must be backed up by reliable sources. The reference which I removed today was a forum post, which is NOT a reliable source. It is acceptable to reference a DVD, so long as it is verifiable. You don't need to link to anything online, as the quote will be verifiable in the DVD. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only ask why the entire quote was removed in the first place then, as it has always referenced the DVD, with an accurate timing to find it, and the only reason the forum was used in the first place was because the whole quote had been deleted three times previously, and the forum was the only place to find other people referencing the quote. I accept it's not a good enough link though, and as long as the DVD is a good enough reference then I am happy that it will remain a part of the Wiki page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.244.134 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the quote. I removed the inadequate reference. It would be bets to discuss this on the article's talk page. Stop, though, putting messages in the article itself, because that will piss off people. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest you did remove the quote, I was just making a point about it being removed in the first place by someone else. If the DVD is enough to reference it then I would have thought they knew that too. I'm sorry if you took that the wrong way. I'm happy with the action you took and respect you for replying to my queries on this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.244.134 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not illegal to download movies and vids under copyright in ?Sweden and Canada. Does that help? TONY (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put together a TFD argument in my sandbox for eventual nomination of the template for deletion. I've contacted you since you were the nominator for its first TFD. Do you have any suggestions on the matter, or examples that I could add? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi jps! i notice you talk about "stalkers who really need help" yet i also notice that your signature contains the word "stalk". is this a coincidence or have you attracted these people! :P

lol. I hadn't noticed that, actually! The JPS^{talk to me} 18:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you delete the Wiz (anime character) link like you deleted Astro Boy (manga character)? It's a redudant redirect since, like Astro Boy, the character appears in an anime and manga. The Wiz redirects have been taken care of by me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I added an external link to the JAWS movie pages. The link is an excellent reference source for original production photographs, props and production images.

I don't understand why it has been removed? It is as equally valid and the other external links listed, is not for profit or selling anything..it is pure information related to the film.

Hello. I'm afraid it's yet another fan site and is certainly not a reliable source. As your user name suggests, you clearly have a conflict of interest in linking to it. Reading WP:EL will help you to understand why this link is inappropriate. Good luck with the site. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment for this article and the suggestion to list it for GA review. I've noticed some of your work before, of course, and I'd also noticed your "possible GA" note when you regraded the Fields article. I still have a "to do" list that I'm working on. The main one is the thorny but interesting issue of the credit that Fields received for the success of Jaws at the time of its release. I would guess it's the main example of an editor receiving a great deal of credit. Easchiff 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and self-nominated Verna Fields as a "good article." Thanks for your encouragement. Easchiff 23:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement with this article and its GA-nomination; I appreciate it. I'm happy that a film-editor article has reached GA status. Of possible interest to you: I've found some material about Fields and Jaws 2 that suggests that she played a significant role in its production, even though she wasn't directing. I haven't put this into the Fields article yet. If I can develop that further, I'd like to add it to the section on her "management career" to give some more insight there. Cheers, Easchiff 22:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated List of Filipino television directors, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino television directors and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added an item to the Hitchcock page concerning his favorite "MacGuffin", which you immediately deleted citing "no citation". I DID cite the comment, as a matter-of-fact I added a reference to the Truffaut book... go back and check the history of the page if you need proof. I understand that you take great pride in deleting "unworthy" material, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't delete CITED and REFERENCED contributions!Supertheman (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was it? I'm sorry. nyway, it was quite trivial. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the time it takes to formulate the reference properly, add the citation properly, and then add the sentence properly is not "trivial". All this takes time and effort and I don't consider spending time contributing properly to Wikipedia "trivial"... my time is precious and wasting it by deleting worthy and properly referenced contributions is not "trivial". Perhaps if you contributed more, and deleted less you might be cognizant of this fact. Supertheman (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I indeed appreciate the detail of the reference. I just don't rate the quality of the comment. Meh. As for my own contributions: 2 featured articles, and about 10 good ones. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fun times. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol. He might be able to make endless accounts, but it's much quicker for us to block and revert. All in all, it's only his time he's wasting. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the Stefan Legein article was previously deleted before I started it again, but I also created another ice hockey player called Justin Cross. This article is extremely similar to the Stefan Legein article and I was just wondering why it was deleted again. Cheers, 1bevingtonco (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Legein was deleted by consensus received at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Legein. I'll have to take a look at Cross... The JPS^{talk to me} 10:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference because it was applied to the end of this sentence: "Although written towards the end of the album's production, the track was the only hit single from the album." That sentence is incorrect. I rewrote the sentence to eliminate the claim that is definitely false. There were other hit singles. I presumed that the reference was in support of that false claim, so I removed it. In retrospect, I should have checked that, but...

On further checking, I see that the reference pointed to an IMDB page that also does not lend any support to the claim that the song was written near the end of production. Since it supported neither claim, I see no reason why the reference should be preserved. If I'm wrong about this, please explain why.

Thanks. Rhsatrhs (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference cs-ds refers to the Classic Albums documentary, specifically a contribution by David Sonenberg, not the IMDb. The link to the documentary's entry on the IMDb (Note, this is not a trivia page) exists to facilitate locating the documentary for verification.

So, the claim that remains, and the one you removed, is associated with Sonenberg in the Classic Albums documentary, further details of which can be found on the IMDb. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhsatrhs (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello, an article I maintain has just had a request for citations and references which I have now added. I am not sure how to find out if this is now enough and if so how to remove the box asking for references. I hope you do not mind me asking you here but you made a revision to the page so I thought perhaps you had asked for the citations, although I am not really sure!

the article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDC_%28music%29. I am sorry for any bad english, it is not my first! Also I am trying to learn mnore and contribute for wikipedia, so any help and advice would be very welcomed

Fredrick gamian (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo4313660 has been uploading pics at an alarming rate claiming self-made on most of them. They clearly aren't his and he has already been warned... by you... to cease uploading copyvio images to Wikipedia. To make things worse he has been adding these same sorts of images over at Commons. All of the stolen from various websites relating the the band Iron Maiden. Any way to wipe the slate clean on these pics? They are all over the place and now that they are showing up on Commons with the same false source/license it is just an invitation for other users to go ahead and start adding them into articles without double-checking their true origins. Thanks for your help. 156.34.216.55 (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of them, aren't there, and it could be a problem. Trouble is, I can't find the source for them. There's a possibility that it might be genuine. I doubt it, but they could be. Once we find the original URLs we've got him. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gregory's_Two_Girls_-_DVD_cover.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a detailed "post-GA" review on the talk page (which includes a couple of things I probably shouldn't have let pass for GA... mea culpa!). All the best, EyeSerene^talk 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Your improvements look great. It's an interesting and well-written article, and you have my best wishes for FA. I vaguely remember the series - I caught some of the later episodes of series one, and thought it looked innovative and promising... and then it seemed to vanish. It's strangely satisfying to finally discover what happened ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks, that would be much appreciated - I finally bought the One Foot in the Grave boxset in the Christmas sales, so only about a year or two after it came out. To tell you the truth, I don't really know why I bother with Mr. Bean, I don't even like the programme that much! I originally just tidied it a bit, and have found myself having to sort it out every time someone writes that their friend look a bit like him or something. I was rather hoping by making it into a decent article it might discourage people, but that somewhat backfired... Bob talk 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the reader, Mr Bean is a decent article. Just not for the few aware of GA standards! The JPS^{talk to me} 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Flickr user has uploaded your image of Causey Arch as if it were her own. http://www.flickr.com/photos/london_heiress86/1139516326/ Flickr will only respond to copyright infringement complaints from the copyright holder. This page shows what they need to know http://docs.yahoo.com/info/copyright/copyright.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.168.163 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete the new page I'm working on? It isn't vandalism or advertising. It's a publication. Please reinstate the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrentim (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very short article with no third party independent sources indicating notability. It is a good idea to draft an article offline before submitting it for publication. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there,

I noticed that this entry was deleted for A7 reason. This article is not about the real person, but rather about the discovery of Allen Curve and its impact to architecture and innovation management science. To my knowledge, Allen Curve is very notable in innovation management science and it is cited in virtually all courses on this topic.

I am wondering if you labeled this entry for A7 because Professor Allen was mentioned too many times in this article and made this article seems more about the Professor, instead of the Curve itself. Can you please advise me what I should do to correct this?

Ben.jiang (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the article isn't about the person then there' no point in having an article with that title. The best plan would be to mention it in an existing article on architecture and innovation management science. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused about your rejection regarding the title. "Allen Curve" is quite well accepted for quite many years and its impact is visible in more than one fields and it was taught/cited in many universities(MIT, Harvard, berkeley.edu, uta.edu, marietta.edu, msstate.edu, bsu.edu, wisc.edu, arizona.edu ...). As a matter of fact, it is mentioned in existing wikipedia entries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Sloan_School_of_Management and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Allen . With so many mentioning and citing, I doubt it's proper to treat it as just by mentioning in architecture or innovation management. I believe it is valuable to expand this discovery to a separate entry.

I also don't think your invoking A7 for speedy deletion is a valid one. As I said, this entry is not about the real person, which is A7 about. Besides, there is an entry for the real person already. If your concern is about notability, I can assure you that I am working on the content to fix this and will update the content whenever you have this entry restated.

I strongly urge you to restate this entry. Ben.jiang (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be pretty notorious for deleting material that doesn't jive with your interpretation of Wikipedia rules. Case in point: a Press Gang link I keep adding, and which you keep deleting. You seem fixated on the fact it's in a blog format as the main reason for doing this. Can I just point out, that if we want to play "rules Nazis" here, the rules actually state, "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article..." and as the blog IS the subject of the article, ie: Press Gang, I think it's fine. And, further, I think fans would appreciate the link remaining there, rather than being repeatedly deleted, per your personal world view. Your secondary reason, that an episode guide is also on Wikipedia is specious, as episode guides are also present on fan sites, too. Yet they are, apprantly, OK in your world. Doesn't make sense. The blog in question also contains screengrabs, which Wikipedia does not, so it would be appreciated if you stopped meddling and just let things be, for the sake of people who are actually interested in the flow of information, and not the limiting of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.73.73 (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On your site you admit that some of the episode guide material is taken from Wikipedia. What is then the point of linking to it from the Wikipedia page?

Let's be honest here. You want to publicise your site and increase its hit rates. Do you genuinely, and I mean genuinely, think your site has any additional information (other than the pretty pictures) that both of Wikipedia's Press Gang articles have: both of which are featured status.

Wikipedia:Copyrights discusses the problems of linking to sites which violate copyright. As your site contains a high number of screenshots, this is applicable to you.

Finally, let's look at the WP:EL criteria. Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. The articles reached featured status without the need for this site, as it is not a unique resource. We both know you're "promoting a website". "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." There are sufficient reliable sources: we don't need to resort to a personal fan site.

Nonetheless, good luck with the site. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I would be interested to know why my artical was noted down as nonsence when it was clearly stating who I am and what I do like pretty much any other artical about a person on here (isn't that what wikipedia is about?).

It's beyond me why my artical was removed yet there are literally thousands of others which contain so much false information in which stay where they are.

Please, point out the reasons behind this speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichPyke (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JPS, I would like to thank you for your open minded debate on the deletion tag. I thought you brought up excellent points that deserved to be debated/addressed and I was extremely pleased that you were able to keep an open mind and reevaluated the article fairly after the recent edits. I think that is not always the case among administrators and I just thought that you should commended for it.cp101p (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uhhh.. u deleted my page.. wat the mum? i would like a reason. i was half way through editing it slightly, went back to the article and it wasnt there. i mean jeeeeeeeeezus what the hey? why? come on u barely even had time to read it. its a very useful article. put it back. now. thankee

yours sincerely mottowesm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mottowesm (talk • contribs) 11:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it wasn't very good. And, no. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya bud, Sorry, don;t know how to message on this thing, so feel free to delete this when you read it. Was just creating a page for the Bushwackers Band, which you speedily deleted. Just edited it to put in the criteria for notability and you deleted again (possibly w/o reading?). If you don;t think it satisfies the criteria, that's cool, but the band has at least two major releases with a reputable recording label + satisfies other criterion that I haven;t researched but I'm fairly sure of. Cheers Alec.N (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You are right that it does fulfill the criteria with that assertion, but you will need to support it with third party reliable sources, not just the band's site. Any reviews by notable publications? The JPS^{talk to me} 11:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, touche. Found third party site with info on another album released through a major label; edited article. Hopefully others with more time than I can further reference the article. Peace. Alec.N (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your 'sure it wasnt very good'? not you think it wasnt very good? so u didnt read it you deserve to be locked up. in a cage full of hungry beavers i will be complaining to the correct authority for this miscarriage of justice (the page being deleted not you failing to be put in a cage full of hungry beavers) i dont know why u think it was such a great idea to delete it. maybe cos iv only just created my account. maybe cos this ip adress has so many bad edits (btw its a school so dont blame me 4 it) im just a person who thought id add an article about a game that had been developed by the students of my school. and u deleted it. without any kind of vague reason, let alone a good one. i ask you now to put it back, or at least give me a reason why not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mottowesm (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK... where do I start? It wasn't encyclopedic. It was original research. Wikipedia i snot for things made up by bored school kids. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well scew you, you masogenistic bastard go fuck yourself its in an idea. a game. ffs its pretty damn good game. maybe u should try it some day, mite help u to pull ur head out of ur own arse yours sincerely mottowesm

xxx

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

1. Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 00:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dance of the vampires.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. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to give me that information.--B.B.vid (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter - April 2008

WikiProject Big Brother Newsletter Volume I, No. 1 - April 2008 About The WikiProject Big Brother newsletter is a monthly newsletter regarding the project. Started by Alucard 16, if you are interested in helping with the newsletter, please see the WikiProject's talkpage. Big Brother On Air There are currently six editions of Big Brother on air.: Big Brother (Albania) (First edition) Big Brother 8 (Germany) Big Brother 8 (Brazil) Grande Fratello 8 (Italy) Big Brother 9 (United States) Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition Plus Future Big Brother editions There are three confirmed editions of Big Brother to air during the summer of 2008: Big Brother 2008 (Australia) Big Brother 2008 (United Kingdom) Big Brother 10 (United States) Project objectives Country-specific articles - See the next column. Nomination/Voting History Tables - Many articles do not follow the guidelines of Nominations table and Voting history table section. All nomination/voting history tables should follow the basic guideline on the main project page (Colors, terms, etc.) but should be adjusted for each country/region. Country-specific Please help us improve the country-specific articles by providing references, reception details, and production details. Please don't add trivia, quotes, or original research to these articles. Aside from Big Brother (U.S.), Big Brother (UK), Big Brother Australia, and Pinoy Big Brother most Big Brother articles do not follow the standard outline set out by the project. Most articles list statistic information from worldofbigbrother.com and trivia. Assessment Scale You will see Assessment scale information on each of the Big Brother article talk pages. The article will be rated according to the Assessment scale. Please consider looking at the status of the article to improve it. If the article has changed and the rating is outdated, you can change it or bring it up on the WikiProject talkpage. We are trying to improve these articles, hopefully bring some to good or featured status. We would like your help reaching this goal. We hope to bring main articles, Big Brother (TV series), Big Brother (UK), Big Brother (US), etc. to featured status. Please help us improve these article, based on the peer reviews and your knowledge of Wikipedia featured articles. WP:Task Force Heard of Wikipedia: Task Force? A task force is a non-independent subgroup of a larger WikiProject that covers some defined part of the WikiProject's scope. Task forces for WikiProject Big Brother can be used to focus on a specific country/region's Big Brother. A task force for example that would focus on Big Brother (U.S.) related articles could rely on WikiProject Big Brother for article structure information while providing more focus and customized guidelines for Big Brother (U.S.). Similar task forces can be created for Big Brother (UK), Big Brother Australia, etc. Contributers ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪

The above newsletter was delivered by an automatic bot because you are registered on the WikiProject Big Brother spamlist. Please feel free to remove yourself if you do not wish to receive these messages anymore.

→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 14:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i recently had to review Westlife again after you failed it, can anything be done to stop people pointlessly renominating an article. Realist2 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left some sort of pre-review comments a few days ago because I didn't have time to do a full review. My comments appeared within the 'failed' section, but it was Dihydrogen Monoxide who failed it. Anyway, I guess you could quick fail them if there's been no effort to correct what's been pointed out to them several times. Even if you weren't strictly within the quick fail criteria, you'd probably get support at review under the circumstances. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i failed them, my comments mirrored yours as well as a few of my own concerns.Realist2 (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The westlife article has been put up again, it has improved in terms of structure since last time (literally an editor kept asking me for more advise every 10 minutes). Still not good enough for GA though, little kiddies edit it, the language just isnt right. Ill leave it to you. Realist2 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why cant my band be on wikipedia that is gay other bands can be on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greek101 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a second pair of eyes on this, you have made some good points, which are in process of being addressed. On the point of IMDb, however, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films clearly approves of using this as a reliable source otherwise it would not list Template:Imdb name etc. My own view is that if it's the only source available, it's better than nothing, but fortunately we also have Rotten Tomatoes and Allmovie references for AHDN. The rewrite should be finished this time tomorrow. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The reliability of the IMDb as a reference is controversial, and is only going to become stricter. The consensus tends to be we can use it as an external link but not as a reference. It's because, like Wikipedia, anyone can add content so it is not considered reliable. Film articles do indeed link to IMDb, but you won't find many examples of GA or FA articles which use it as a reference. With the mass of books/articles that have been written about The Beatles, which I guess members of that project will own, there shouldn't be such a shortage of RS that you'd need to resort to the IMDb. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I really do appreciate you undoing the silly vandalism to my talk page, but I rolled it back because I have this obsessive need to keep all the comments visible on the talk page itself. I know it makes no sense, and literally 99.9% of Wikipedians would not do as I have done, so I figured I would explain myself. Again, many thanks for the consideration. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I guess as the vandalism is not particularly insulting... The JPS^{talk to me} 10:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting what appears to be your first successful WP:FL during the last month. You may want to get involved in our List of the Day and List of the Month experiment. Feel free to help us select next months lists at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/voting/200805 or nominate your list for consideration to be a LOTD in June at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200806.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have twice removed the post-series text from Steven Moffat. I would like to explain why it actually belongs there. Firstly, the text does come from Moffat. Despite your insistence that "forums are unreliable", I am 100% certain that this was posted by Moffat himself. It was in response to me that he posted it. Mr. Moffat is a verified member of the Doctor Who community. Several of the Doctor Who writers have verified their identities with the site admin, and their identities are protected by passwords. Nobody can post as Steven Moffat except for Steven Moffat. The text is legit. I suggest you ask the site admin of The Doctor Who Forums (formerly Outpost Gallifrey) how Moffat was verified.

Second, he posted it to a publicly accessible site, in response to me. I'm not the one who placed it in the article to begin with, but it gave me a sense of unearned pride that I provoked an actual ending to Coupling from the creator of the series himself. I was glad it got put it there, and I'm pretty upset that you have removed it... twice. Moffat has never complained about it, and as it was a public statement, it's not a copyright violation anymore than any public statement is.

It belongs there. It really does. This ending doesn't deserve to be relagated to a fate of being forgotten. It's as close to a real ending the show will ever get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.29.59 (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please also see my question on the article talk page. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the objection to citing the forum as a reliable source is valid. From WP:SPS, "forum postings ... are largely not acceptable." Naturally (:P), there is a grey area in the policy: from the same page, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This, I suspect, was written more with vanity publishing and self-published papers than web postings in mind, but it's arguable. However, the footnote to this policy states that "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." While DeadlyAssassin is convinced the source of the post was indeed the writer of the series, and I have no reason to doubt him, that argument (with no disrespect to DeadlyAssassin) is essentially asking Wikipedia to accept an argument from authority, which we cannot do. Outpost Gallifrey is not accepted as as reliable source - unless we are using it to source what it claims: "Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." (from WP:SOURCE)

The objection to requiring registration is also valid, though less so than the first. It can be argued that requiring registration impedes a reader's ability to verify the assertions made by following a cite, but this is not really very different to, say, having to go to a library. Web links should not go to sites that need registration though.

Hope this helps! EyeSerene^talk 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helps? No, that would not be a word I'd use. It's anything but helpful. It's a level of dogmatic bureaucracy that I can scarcely wrap my head around. Well, enjoy getting this article to "GA Status" and passed a "peer review." Just do so with the knowledge that the article will never actually complete or accurate as long as Moffat's closure post is absent from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.29.59 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Londons burning.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you deleted my page, please tell me why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtm824 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability, and highly suspect there's some hoaxing going on... The JPS^{talk to me} 16:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tanz der Vampire.gif. 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. NotifyBot (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I do come across that way, but I decided a long time ago that I would try to influence as many FACs as possible rather than spending time with pleases and thank yous and tipping my hat at nominators. For the same reason, and because copy-editing is too much like my RL paid work, I don't normally copy-edit on WP. I try to coax others to develop collaborations with copy-editors in their field.

I suppose I'm perplexed that some nominators put up such tripe, expecting that people will think it's of the required professional standard. That doesn't give me reason to soften my approach, which is a formula for exemplifying faults and problems at random in a small section, representative of the whole text. It's a lot of work.

Which FAC was yours? TONY (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just uploaded a title screenshot of Blackadder Goes Forth, which in theory should be found here: Image:Blackadder Goes Forth.jpg, but I seem to have managed to mess it up somehow - it seems to be appearing as a blank file for some reason. Anyway, would it be possible for you to delete it and I can start over again, please? Thanks. Bob talk 11:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, that's weird - my computer does that occassionally with image galleries on here as well, so I guess that's the problem. I'll have to take your word it's there! Thanks for having a look. Bob talk 14:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. It didn't seem to solve the problem, but I've tried it on another computer and the image appeared, so at least I know it's worked. Bob talk 22:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:105.4 Century Radio logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]