User talk:The JPS/archive18/archive15

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 12 13 up until Bush fucked off

When first writing, for example, The Brittas Empire character page, I thought it was written in 'an in-universe style'. However in retrospect this does not seem to be the case entirely, and I will be reviewing the page shortly.

Just a quick point on 'Edio*Magica', although it wasn't you who blocked me directly, it was still rather silly to think I would vandalize the very pages I have been improving (Sooty & co., The Brittas Empire), and to think that I would replace content with insults directed at myself. Due to the blocking I had to create this new account in order to edit pages, but I'm willing to forgive and forget about the misunderstanding. Whirl*editing (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be the first time that someone has disrupted Wikipedia. In the past, we've had people create vandalism on one account, so that they can look good on another by fighting it. I realise, though, that your case is that there are probably some other bored little school kids using the same computer pool as you. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well i'm glad you've seen sense. What makes their actions even more pathetic is the fact they're university students; nevertheless they seem to have stopped now. Whirl*editing (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try and build an article to WP:GA standard, and get a better idea of conventions? Many of the articles you edit really could do with reliable sources. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the image you removed is not perfectly acceptable? It is a screen shot I took of the series so doesn't belong to any organization, and from what I’ve read relevant screen shots adding to an article are acceptable. I think you should have discussed your action before carrying it out. Whirl*editing (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen sitcom articles through FAC, I'm sure. Non-free images can only be used if they convey information that words couldn't express. My action was in accordance with the knowledge I possess through extensive ediing in accordance with Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, rather than ones I make up as I go along. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On January 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jaws (novel), 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.

Dravecky (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Do you know if there is any way I can have the 'Edito*Magica' account unblocked? Thanks Whirl editing, chat (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been rather obviously abusing sockpuppet accounts as "Good Hand/Bad Hand" accounts where one account vandalises an article and another cleans it up. He was blocked when an Autoblock showed that the SAME articles were being vandalised by one account, and then his account was cleaning them up. Being caught by an autoblock in this manner shows that the same IP address was responsible for both vandalising the same articles and cleaning them up. He also sent some emails which implied that you were abusing your admin power in declining his unblock request. See [[1]], which was the account that when blocked activated the Autoblock against Edito*Magica, as well as the suspicious [[2]]. He claims innocence in the matter, and I told him that if he wanted to edit, he should contact ArbCom. Please block his new accounts as a violation of Wikipedia policy. He should contact ArbCom and follow the rules if he wants to edit. I see no evidence of wanting to abide by the rules, and the continued abuse of multiple accounts seems rediculous. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like evertone else got to it before me... Anyhoo, this guy knows he's supposed to email ArbCom to plead his case, but I can't see that going well for him. If he just continues to create new accounts, he will continue to be blocked until he follows the rules. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Well yes Im on it, but there's not much information about, so anyway it will end a stub ¿Should I Continue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by $$$Marlon$$$30 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, now is a bit better, still need some improvement and images ¿It's enough to not be erased? --$$$Marlon$$$30 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine now, thanks. You never know about new pages... some people put minimal content and run away! I usually draft an article in user space (e.g. User:The JPS/sandbox) before creating in mainspace. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Category:Software. It's the top of the software tree, not used for detail articles. Could you please find an appropriate category for this article. Thanks.

There is also a discussion WIkipedia talk:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized#Assertion: An incorectly categorized article is an uncategorized article. 69.106.246.15 (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was on new pages patrol. I put it in the parent cat so someone more knowledgeable about the topic could put it in an appropriate home. I am well aware about subcategories.That's the way I prefer to work when I'm dealing with new pages; spending time working out a category hierarchy takes time from vandal fighting, etc. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the LOL! There is no spoon. :) Spinach Monster (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong tag - it was imagery from a local newspaper/media website I think. So it should be deleted to fit in line with Wikipedia's policy? If needed to be deleted, a tag will need to be put on the file. Thanks. This is Drew (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I removed the image based on the conclusion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, which recommended not to use placeholders. I generally remove them now when I see them, but I wouldn't enter into a disagreement over the use of them and don't go back and check to see if someone undid my removal. Thanks for your support. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I edit somewhat obscure subjects (I might have a look at your CASe tools though). Anyone can edit Aardvark. It is all of us that edit obscure subjects on Wikipedia that make it more useful. We are now paying journalists' wages, do you hear how often it comes up on the wireless?

Oh now I have to go edit wireless.

SimonTrew (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BRTW I am just starting to edit. Was just doing subbing now am doing more major edits, but still get it wrong some times. If I could have your help, that would be great.

SimonTrew (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I clicked on a "Talk to me" link which brought me to this page. (More to the point, if this is where I talk to YOU but not where you talk to ME, how do we get round the fact that my IP address changes with each login and therefore I have no permanent talk page?) I'm assuming you removed my Bohemian Rhapsody edit : the song was missing from the BBC Top Twenty best selling singles of the year lists for 1975 and 1976? I could back this up using two sources, but it seems that as the BBC are the principal organisation (only one?) who regularly broadcast (and thereby publish) this annual chart, then it has acquired a spurious authority, that is not supported in all cases by the accuracy of its content.

For one reference, consult the Tony Jasper series "The Top Twenty Book : The Official British Record Charts 1955 - 1987". In addition to publishing the Top Twenty charts for each week / month, he also features the Best Selling Singles of each year. It will be seen from 1975 and 1976 that Bohemian Rhapsody appears in neither chart.

You will see the error perpetuated (i.e. taken from the same erroneous source) on sites such as this : http://www.geocities.com/seventiesslammer/decade75.htm.

Both of these have probably drawn their lists from the BBC chart, as there does not seem to be any other "authoritative" chart of the year.

To provide arguments of WHY this is an error perpetuated since then and never corrected ... at Number 20 for 1975 is Cockney Rebel's Make Me Smile, Come Up And See Me, which spent a total of 6 weeks in the Top Twenty, two of them at Number 1. Contrast this with Bo Rap, which spent 7 weeks in the Twenty, FIVE of them at Number 1. Now it could be argued that Bo Rap's sales were spread over two years and couldn't quite accumulate enough in November and December to guarantee making the 1975 chart. Maybe so, though I would call as a witness for the defence Art Garfunkel's "I Only Have Eyes For You", which immediately preceded Bo Rap as Number 1 (for one week only) and still makes it to 6 in the year's chart! But this same argument should virtually GUARANTEE Queen's inclusion in the 1976 chart, where the record was again in the Twenty for 7 weeks, 4 at Number 1, and had the whole year to accrue enough sales to make it feature in the year's best sellers. But it did not feature.

I did write to the BBC at the time (oh how I wish I still had their reply!) and was told that 1. they had had many letters on this subject, making the same point and 2. they tended to disregard December's sales when it came to compiling the list of the year due to tardy returns and the need for preparing the show in advance. However, they also (I remember) promised to make changes so that this "anomaly" would not occur again. And indeed, they were clearly as good as their word, as bizarre exclusions such as Bo Rap never occurred again. Sadly, my letter to them was in New Year 1976, and I didn't write again a year later when the same thing occurred vis a vis Bo Rap, so I never got to hear their reasons for the song's exclusion from the 1976 best seller lists. 88.105.215.159 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed response. Does Tony Jasper specifically comment that "BR" was overlooked? We must be very careful about wording to avoid original research. If he doesn't, we could have pointed out that despite its chart postilion it didn't make BBC's chart. No adjectives; no editorial comment (e.g. "bizarrely"). We also need a reliable source to verify it wasn't on the BBC's chart; Geocities sites are not usually considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. If you have a look at WP:RSyou will see that those standards are quite strict! I applaud your persistence in writing to the Beeb, though! That's the sort of anal thing I would do. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately,detailed authoritative sources - especially where some embarrassment to the BBC is involved - are near impossible to find. The same issue lies behind the "triple tie" at Number One that occurred at the end of August 1968, which I remember vividly (you don't forget things like that, especially when you are young!) : I actually asked via a local radio station once, if anyone else remembered this "obscure feat" and actually, one person did. The problem comes now, many years later, in trying to prove it. I know it to be true, but my inner knowledge about it is not recognised in Wikipedia (which makes one kind of sense - I could after all have made it up, or have an unreliable memory). However,this opens up another problem : where AN ORIGINAL ERROR HAS PASSED INTO THE SOURCE MATERIAL, it is, by your standards, uncorrectable as the documentary sources - despite being wrong - are your authority. Thus may inaccuracies pass into myth, become truth, and one person's "anecdotal folk memory", however true it may be, will not serve to get a change made. I'm sure this situation only applies to a small minority of items, but it is a shame that these will forever remain unchallenged. What Wikipedia needs is a Council that will take anecdotal evidence to challenge existing assumptions / sources, seek confirmation of this from other people (i.e. the "more than one independent memory" equation), and then put it to a vote, or a consensus.

And no, Tony Jasper, writing in 1987, did not make an assertion about Bohemian Rhapsody in the year's best sellers, though in his introduction to the year, he states : "The last three months saw one of the biggest selling singles for years with Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody' ...", which sits a little uneasily with its non-appearance in the chart - though it is also fair to say that TJ makes no comment about chart placings in his book, only giving a "pop summary" as an introduction to each year. 88.105.215.159 (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've had some classic incidences of the phenomenon to which you refer. Some rogue editor had cheekily inserted the (not incredible) assertion that Ronnie Hazlehurst wrote S Club 7's hit "Reach". When the composer died, at least two national newspapers were caught out using Wikipedia as a source, as their obituaries both contained this incorrect fact. Then, others wanted to retain the credit because they had two supporting reliable sources. I think common sense prevails in the end.
The problem with anecdotal evidence is reliability. How do we ensure independence? Ten "independent" users might show up offering to corroborate a story. What is to stop me contacting a handful of people on my FaceBook list, or a forum, saying "do me a favour, and just copy and paste this backing me up, as if you'd written it." I think it's the same with supposedly democratic radio phone-ins, where public opinion is alleged to be gauged, but that's taking us away from "BR"! At the end of the day, if it's a reliable source, then someone (rather than an anonymous Wikipedia editor) is accountable along with their publishing company. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the "primary editor" of Moffat-related articles, I thought I'd run this by you: Would it be worth removing the Category:Screenplays by Steven Moffat from the bottom of the TV series articles and moving it to the respective List of ... episodes instead? My reason being that entire TV series aren't really single screenplays like the category name implies, and the category currently has a mixture of entire series (Coupling, Chalk, et al) and single episodes (the Doctor Who eps). A single "Television series by Steven Moffat" template could then be created to unify the TV series articles. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, yes. I've never been fond of that category for the very reason you mention. 'Screenplay' is quite a specific term. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the last few weeks anonymus users made several attempts to write new data without source. Plese help (for example: you could partial block this article so only users with account could change this article).

Sunset2007b (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on it. There are a couple of anonymous users with a Steinman agenda. They have the mentality of the lot on the Rockman forum (you'll see them try to delegitimate Bat III', etc.). The JPS^{talk to me} 10:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just beat me to it.

There was one extra though. Bevo74 (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah! Theres been a crashful of edits within an hour. Its sad about her :( Anyway thanks for editing it to mothering sunday :P Goku1st (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so it's a case of conflict of interest that you're censoring AFDs and abusing admin powers to protect, it makes sense now. --Kittins floating in the sky yay (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a dick. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you restore the edits you deleted at Pat Condell back in August 2007. Thank you.--A pinhead (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article I deleted on 20 August 2007 contains nothing of any value, particularly in relation to the developed version that has taken its place, which now establishes notability. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it may be useful.--A pinhead (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you a barnstar of your choice if you get Pat Condell to good article status.--A pinhead (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this news article. Or did you know this already? NawlinWiki (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late, but I noticed your comment here. I think you are referring to the first AfD there, when you say "yesterday", but that AfD was 22 March 2007, not 22 March 2009. That had me confused for a bit until I realised how confusing the dates were. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I spotted that after-the-fact. It was the 22 March bit that confused my little brain (+ an assumption that the day she departed this mortal coil would have attracted someone to nominate it for AfD). No harm done: an AfD doesn't have a chance of succeeding. Despite a few minor clean ups to the references, I consider myself neutral enough to make that call. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:105.4 Century Radio logo.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) 05:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Desmond Child songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:Songs written by Desmong Child (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did he find the picture unflattering? Bradley0110 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied by private email. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Bradley0110 (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you accuse me of vandalism!! You have got some nerve that much i can say. The Waterloo Road article and all of its sub articles have been worked on by various members and then YOU come along and say whats right and whats wrong??? You have some cheek doing so and i tell you this for nothing - you even attempt to change ANYTHING or have anything DELETER OR REVERTED in the future that you don't know anything about - YOU WILL HAVE ONE FUCKING HELL OF A BATTLE ON DO YOU HERE ME !!! Ammera (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with WP:OWN and WP:FICT thank you very much. The only reason your nominating that article for delation is because your not getting your own way with the tagging of it plain and simple. Well trust me, if that article is deleted it wont last for long i can tell you that for nothing. Ammera (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I have expressed my reasons for nominating the article, in accordance with our policy and guidelines. You may be familiar with our guidelines, but your discourse suggests to me that you are choosing to ignore them. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop telling me to "assume good faith" - im furious with you, how can i assume good faith when i dont agree with you??? That article is within the same boundaries as ANY article on a fictional character of a soap or series and can only be worked on as the character progresses in time - thats how it works. And it's not me choosing to ignore the guidelines. As a mod that's your job because in my experiance of Wikipedia, its the mods who break the rules more than the average user, especially if they don't get their own way! And for the record, i will be making my feelings on this clear when i put in an officialy complaint. Ammera (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your close of Balanced ball A7 does not apply to products and never did. It appliest o only a " real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content". The policy at WP:CSD is absolutely clear on this. DGG (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It includes web pages. That game is only available via the website. The article has no independent sources establishing notability. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DID YOU DELETE THE SERBIAN NATIONAL LEAGUE FROM WIKIPEDIA... THE SERBIAN NATIONAL LEAGUE IS A NON FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION .... NOT BUSINESS....

Hi, I am trying to change Edinburgh Fringe to a redirect and Edinburgh Festival Fringe to the actual article. When I try using the move tab I get an error message. Hope you can help, thanks.Serious About Comedy (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Serious About Comedy (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No bother. :) The JPS^{talk to me} 16:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DID YOU DELETE THE SERBIAN NATIONAL LEAGUE FROM WIKIPEDIA... THE SERBIAN NATIONAL LEAGUE IS A NON FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION .... NOT BUSINESS.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscra1 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment here to let you know that, after some extensive work this evening, I've taken the time to edit this album page with a number of needed changes.

Back in August 2007, I see you tagged the article as confusing to some readers. Tonight, I've made the following changes:

• removed the tables (using simple lists)
• moved Producers from the infobox to a separate section (saying in the box to "see below")
• fixed album times (slightly inaccurate)
• created a separate infobox for the re-release three months after the initial one; corrected the label in the original
• added AllMusic link for re-release album
• removed red Wikilinks
• in separate infobox, placed new single that came from the re-release (other two stayed in original box)
• placed all credits for production using two sections (producers followed by the rest)
• placed some prose about the re-release, including details about the song Limelight (also Wikilinked)

I believe this not only removes the confusion in the article, but also provides improvement in various ways as well. I still have work to do to put references in the tables, and I am also going to redo the singles tables (those are ugly); I've fixed them already on preceding albums. I also plan to clean up the references section once the autorefs are in. Therefore, I've removed the confusion tag for now. Since you were the placer of the tag, I'd like to know if you think the album requires any further clarification, or what else you think can be done to improve it aside from what I've stated here. I also welcome any edits you wish to make that can improve the article, too. Thanks! =) CycloneGU (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edit you made, and it shows me something I missed. I didn't realize singles were in quotes and not italicized. I'll pop through the studio albums when finished and correct any that I've italicized. For now, time to finish my charts on the album and singles. Thanks for that little tidbit. =) CycloneGU (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the article, and for leaving me the above message. I recall what I found confusing was the dual track listings, which need the explanation you've now added. Cheers. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it's not on Wikiproject songs, but it is on other projects. Save you the trouble I have looked at AMG and added the writers. If there are no writers there is no song. Pretty elemental for a song, don't you think? Now it has a an unreferenced tag instead - which I should have put on last time. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have added the question marks a few times, mostly somebody has come along and entered the songwriter names. Job done. As far as I am concerned the songwriter(s) are a key fact and should always be incorporated as such - even if it is the same as the performer and it becomes doubly important when there are other recordings of the same song and we have a bunch of XXX songs, but no history. Don't feel the same about a lot of the other information from the infoboxes. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Or, good luck? :) Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or condolences? :( –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe Thanks. I guess you both mean the vandalism? I'll wait until it's off again and then go over it again with a fine tooth comb. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work on Joking Apart - I'd thought I was the only person in world that liked it.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) It took a lot of blood, sweat and tears. Well, not so much of the blood. Or the sweat and the tears, to be honest, but I did spend hours on it. It's good to see it up on the main page; I'm also surprised since I didn't nominate it for TFA. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody who appears to be interested in song articles you might be interested to know there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions with the purpose of trying to establish a standard rule for merge/separation of different versions of the same song. You are invited to comment. Regards, --Richhoncho (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the deletion of 'Plotter Upper Falls.jpg', I had a problem uploading hence the double image, have to leave some time and check it's there next time so it doesn't happen again. Regards Phil aka Geotek (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

my name is Neferblue, I created a page for a longterm band. I wanted to add a photo of my own, or of the band's own, as i am the manager and i am the owner of my photos (i've taken them with the permission of the band) and i have the permission from the band to use any of their photos. (I'm in contact with them and they are quite hjappy of their Wikipedia page)

How can i do to download a photo and keep it !

(i managed to download one of my own, and get it on the pageand keep it for a day !!! now i need one or several to stay !!)

Could you help me on that ?

Thank you so much, Big supports to you, Neferblue

http://www.myspace.com/neferblue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neferblue (talk • contribs) 13:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Who owns the copyright to this photo? The copyright holder had to release the photo with a license that is compatible with Wikipedia' free use philosophy. You will see the difference by selecting different licenses form the box on the upload page.
Basically, you need to provide as much information as possible. File:Nouvelle image.JPG doesn't say who created it, where it came from, what the license is... The JPS^{talk to me} 14:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I wrote the article on "Tapuz". It's one of the biggest web portals in Israel - in Israel this is similar to "Yahoo". It is a very important portal in Israeli web media.

what do you say we put it back?

--Midrashah (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any independent third party sources to support its notability? The JPS^{talk to me} 15:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have translated it from Hebrew Wikipedia, they noted it was notable

thanX, --Midrashah (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine for their project. This is the English Wikipedia. Notability is indicated through independent, third-party sources. Without them, no article. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here: "Barack Obama’s Hebrew blog?" (On Tapuz) [3] (from Yediot Ahronot news paper during the presidential elections)

--Midrashah (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might get away with it if you used that reference. Please remember to include references to independent sources in your articles to avoid further speedy deletions. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. can I put it back now? --Midrashah (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored it on condition that you add third-party sources. If these are not added within 24 hours I will delete it again. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I will add the Obama link. thanX. --Midrashah (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering going live with User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/National Fibromyalgia Association. I'm feeling pretty good about 10 hours of work. Please take a look and advise of any concerns. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The combining of sections gives the article a much sleeker look. Thank you very much. In the morning... after I take it live... I will look into that AfD. Much appreciated. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

are a complete wanker....i am going to make your life hell trust me on that! Block me....however i CAN and WILL bypass all your blocks and will make you suffer you prick! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.58.113 (talk • contribs)

This gives me a lot of confidence that the Waterloo Road articles will transcend the scrapheap that they currently are festering upon. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would harldy consider what i said to have been a personal attack. For one i didn't even know the person "personally". Do you by any chance go looking for trouble? Because it seems to me you do. 92.21.58.113 (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that you gently need to be encouraged to watch the way you talk about other contributors. I agree that on this occasion it was mild; on the other hand, how do you think whoever it was you were referring to might feel about it? Please stop being personal. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my problem to worry how they feel. But im sure they wouldn't have overreacted like you do. So give it a rest. If your going to nit pick at a user at least make it worthy. 92.21.58.113 (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that in a mature environment it is your obligation to care about how your colleagues feel. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Colleagues" - im not at work. Seriously, grow a pair. And lets be frank, its not as if you give a toss about your "collegues". All you do is deleate, deleate, deleate, deleate, deleate and yeah more deleates! Hypocrite 92.23.188.163 (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, but I do sometimes delete. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Sorry to bother you, but I just a had a quick question. On the page List of 8 out of 10 Cats episodes, one user has started to edit the episode listing from a list of guests for each episode (which it has been like since the beginning) to a teams variation like Never Mind the Buzzcocks' episode list. Normally, I would think that is great, however the user has only edited two random series and left the other series in tact. I am not sure of who the actual teams were in the other series and the person who used to upload every episode onto Youtube has closed his account. I was wondering if it would be best to revert the edits or would it be perfectly acceptable to leave it this way. Which do you think is best? Thanks in advance70.31.225.235 (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC) samusek2[reply]

If you think the changes are positive, then just leave it. Wikipedia articles are usually assumed to be incomplete anyway -- it might encourage someone else with the information to complete the others? It's repeated quite often on Challenge TV... The JPS^{talk to me} 08:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That redirect thingy you deleted...I think i messed up when trying to move it assuming it belonged as a user subpage, but I'm not exactly sure how to fix it....help, please? (I (mistakenly?) moved it to User:Sean.p.abell/sandbox) Ks0stm ^(T•C) 12:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any content that needs rescuing? The only edit I seem to have deleted was the redirect? The JPS^{talk to me} 12:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure...I can't tell if it ended up where it was supposed to be or not. Did it end up a subpage of the user page, or was it supposed to end up somewhere else? It's the first time I've moved a page, so I'm not really sure if it was right. Ks0stm ^(T•C) 12:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sean.p.abell/sandbox just seems to be a series of subheadings. Is that what you mean? If you were trying to move that there, then it looks OK. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, I think it looks fine...thanks! Ks0stm ^(T•C) 12:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed down on detail as requested, leaving in what I felt were essential additions (who died in the fire the section of the article describes etc.). However, I am a little disappointed that you requested my help in tweaking the page, but then, just 27 minutes later, simply reverted the edit because I hadn't replied immediately. As much as I like Wikipedia, I have a full-time job to deal with too :0) Smurfmeister (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you were offended by my bold edit. It just so happened that everything in that particular edit seemed superfluous, and it was quicker to do it myself... The JPS^{talk to me} 14:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the result of your latest attempt at trying to remove everything WR has failed again. No consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.188.163 (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to remove everything WR. I just want to remove the silly ones without references, real-world context, written by 9-year olds, etc. If there was any sign of any effort of them being brought up to standard I wouldn't have any complaints. Even the parent article is an embarrassment. Where is the development and production section, for instance? The JPS^{talk to me} 18:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then try helping out with the articles then instead of complaining about them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.66.111 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough to do! The character articles will probably never be adequate -- there is simply not enough said about them in independent sources. Pauline Fowler is an excellent example of an article about a fictional character in a BBC soap. Notice how it's not simply a retelling of the plot -- it has some real-world context attributed to reliable sources. Do you think you can develop the character articles anywhere near that? The JPS^{talk to me} 22:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm yeah because comparing an article like the Pauline Fowler one with any WR aticle is a stupid example to say the least. Of course the PF article is going to be of a much better standard than any WR character article - SHE WAS IN THE SHOW FOR 21 YEARS!!! Compared with the 4 YEARS Waterloo Road has been on air. Seriously how thick can one user be! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.66.111 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your mature response, as per usual. So where are the four years of coverage in reliable sources? Where are the four years worth of coverage? Are you saying that you cannot even begin to bring the WR character articles to standard? Have the heads in WR been discussed my educational unions, academics, etc? Has the representation of the English comprehensive system been discussed? (I'm sure it has -- why isn't it discussed in detail?)
Please see this discourse beyond an argument -- I have made some useful suggestions. I would have more pateince with these articles if people edited them properly. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I create short articles, and state they are stubs and should be improved upon, in the hope that they will be improved upon by fellow wikipedians. mcjakeqcool 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcjakeqcool (talk • contribs)

Why did you delete Dr_gizel?

Copyright violation. The JPS^{talk to me} 11:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Elad189 (2)

Please return Sheskin(disambiguation). I just finished writing the article now. Don't you have any patience? And what is this deletion without discussion of notifing first? Is it your site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elad189 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was very little for me to restore. If you have completed the article feel free to post it, and I will assess its appropriateness. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi The JPSm I would like to thank you for making prof. Jacob Sheskin page look much better. I appreciate it a lot. Elad189 (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see it in much better shape than it was! Hope you're enjoying Wikipedia, now you know the ropes. 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't know how you manage to do it but you seem to be patrolling the pages 24/7? You cant have a proper job surely? I hope they are paying you well for it? because I can envisage a time when all these databases (that the public have contributed to over the years), will be gathered up in a metaphoric suitcase by some rich magnet who will shut the lid down, say thanks very much that saved me paying anyone for anything and walk off into the sunset with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punger (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about Wikipedia. I often think of the day when it will be no more. Still, I'm having fun while it lasts. Thank you for your interest in my life, sleeping patterns and employment. Forgive me if I decline to divulge specific information to a random anonymous vandal, other than to say I'm doing alright, thank you very much. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather petulant don't you think? I think your main problem is that, if you cant find it on the web then its not true to you, when in fact there is a whole world outside your computer, and if you take this seriously then maybe you should do some real research getting on buses and opening heavy tomes in museums etc? A recent example is Mr Buckley's page , you have edited out "pardon my cock" (nothing to do with me)just because it sounded inane and you were too lazy to ask fans on his radio station thread who would have indeed confirmed he said it when his phone with a cockerel sound went off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punger (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumptions personal attacks against me are rather inappropriate. But, let's get to Wikipedia policy. Articles about living people must be supported by reliable sources. Period. Forums are not reliable sources (would you expect the Encyclopedia Brittanica to be informed by a bunch of anonymous people in a forum who can write anything?). Someone's blog isn't a reliable source. Can you show me an Independent or Guardian article, or a published book (encyclopedia, etc.) with that information? If you can't, then inclusion is against Wikipedia policy. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never attacked your personally that is unfair, all I offered was observations,I also appreceiate what you are trying to do.We are now entering a new dark age and hopefully when it all goes full circle again in a thousand years somebody might stumble upon your writings and realise what a wonderfull civilization there was ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punger (talk • contribs) 23:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. A culture when we can communicate freely with each other and write without censorship. Wonderful indeed. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for speedy protection on Jonathan King. And I'm not quite sure what a rich magnet is, but 24/7 patrolling is most certainly a proper job.... Little grape (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up on Nicole Levin. This had been tagged as a G11 speedy, which you deleted a couple of days ago. The article's creator has asked for a review of the deletion, and I'm just not seeing the unambiguous promotion here, so I've restored the article. No intention of wheel warring, just not seeing what you are seeing. I've advised the creator that notability needs to be dealt with or it may get deleted again, and I dropped a line to the speedy tagger letting him/her know what I did, and recommending AfD if it still needs to go. If you think I'm out of line here, let me know and we'll talk. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I'll trust your judgement. Have fun. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide the reasons for your deleting of these pages. The first feature In My Image was a very important film in the indi/Super 8 movement of the early 2000's (did you read the detail in the references?), the second Sleeping On Her Couch is a unique re-interpretation of a centuries old poem, and the third Hold Me Tight involved significant white/indigenous involvement and is currently being sold to Australian schools. They all have valid reasons to be there. Please justify your opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotness (talk • contribs) 11:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide me with independent reliable sources backing up your assertions I will restate them immediately. As it stands, it appears that you are writing about your own work, and re WP:COI, your claims cannot be assumed to have validity. The home-made DVD covers didn't help. Do you have reliable sources? The JPS^{talk to me} 11:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Also why have you deleted the information I added on to the Australian Films of 2003 page? In My Image was placed there by someone else and I filled in the other fields next to it - if it is suitable enough to be there - isn't it suitable enough to have the corresponding fields filled in and it's own web page?

As for reliable sources the discussion links on the In My Image page are one - and this newspaper article from Australia on the film is another http://www.mango-a-gogo.com/scot/press/imicm.jpg as well as this extensive article from Finland http://www.mango-a-gogo.com/scot/press/imifin.htm

This article from the Qld Govt in Australia about Hold Me Tight is another http://www.pftc.com.au/pftc/news/content.asp?pageid=551&top=&menuparent=550

Scotness (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I may be writing about films that I have made but I refute your claim of a conflict of interest as the amount of criticism of In My Image that I have included on that page is testament to. And the pages I created contained no links to anywhere that the films may be purchased.

Scotness (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing these links. I will reinstate your articles, although that will not protect it against someone else nominating them for deletion. WP:COI does not refer solely to financial motivations. However, you wouldn't be able to link to those images within the articles without permission from the copyright holders (although you can cite the articles). The JPS^{talk to me} 12:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the articles. The images failed to follow our policies by not providing adequate licensing information. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for re-instating them - I'll go through and correct the licensing information for the images - I am the copyright holder so can distribute them, but I have failed to provide that information in the upload process I see.

Scotness (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you upload the images you have a choice. You can either release them as non-free images (where you retain copyright), but then the image use must be justified (not for decoration). Or, you can allow the images to be use freely by anyone. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got that - I missed the drop down box

Scotness (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...this time with the doctors characters...you really are a pathetic pussy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.152.58 (talk • contribs)

Enjoy your block. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JPS, Can you tell me why you have deleted the wikipedia page of Letherbridge. I created that and I feel let down by you. I would like you now to put all that information back onto the page and I hope we can forget about it and be good friends.

Yours Sincerley,

Redped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.236.179 (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC) #[reply]

Sorry, but there is no assertion of notability, seeing as it is not a real place. Please read WP:FICT. I have had to review many of your articles and see that you are failing to include referenecs. It is advisable to spend more time creating well-researched and referenced articles rather than little poor stubs. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JPS, I see that you have put a warning about 3RR on HM211980's talk page. I may be wrong, but I am assuming that it may have something to do with their argument with me about certain actors being mentioned in the intro of the article. Now Crotchety Old Man has thrown an oar in. I haven't come across this user before and while I wouldn't want to accuse anyone of sockpuppetry, I would be surprised if these two users had been seen in the same room together. Also, some of Old Man's edit summaries could be described as "sarcastic". I've had to leave the article for today as I myself would violate the 3RR but I have tried to have a discussion on the talk page, to little or no avail. I would be grateful if you could keep a small eye on this to make sure it doesn't escalate. Thanks. (Quentin X (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. Yes, you're right, but it was Titanic (1997 film) rather than the discussion with you. I'll keep an eye on it all. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I always love the baseless sock-puppetry accusation. Nice and subtle. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]