User talk:The JPS/archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Popular Misconceptions

Yes, just my little joke, given your position ;)

But I think that calling it popular misconceptions might be a bit non-NPOV, as it's implicitly saying that the criticism is invalid, isn't it? Best username yet 11:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of a better (serious) title? The JPStalk to me 11:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Criticism of Media Studies in the UK Media? Best username yet 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. The JPStalk to me 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orca

Sorry about not replying earlier, I don't think Orca is iconic in any way so I don't really wish to keep the article. A merge is definitely preferrable. Alientraveller 20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Omorashi Tenshi

Hello. This article seems to have been deleted unilaterally even though more than one person voiced opposition to this action. I would like to point out again that the article in question is not about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content. It is notable because it is part of a list of anime and manga featuring omorashi, and is of interest to readers of the omorashi article as an example of the media it describes. JayKeaton also pointed out in the page's discussion that the article describes a work of manga that is in print and "serves a use for WikiProject Anime and manga, the article Omorashi and it also serves to demonstrate Japanese culture for WikiProject Japan (which Omorashi itself is a part of)." These are valid objections, I think. I would like to know why they were not responded to by the party/parties in favor of deletion with discussion. Such discussion is the foundation of Wikipedia etiquette. Fsecret 20:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I deleted it under A1: it contained incredibly little content. If the subject is of interest, then I'd advise actually writing an article. The JPStalk to me 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is this better?

oh and why did you revert my edits to the Celio page? Its not like anybody who wants to look up Celio is going to type Celio (clothing) so i think we should have it there. --TTNJ 15:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reservoir Dogs

Hi, how are ya? Could you spare one minute of your time to check out Reservoir Dogs please? I looked at it, and it's kinda mess. Maybe you could advice or something. Thanks :) HoneyBee 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just edited/updated a huge amount of Reservoir article. I dunno whether this is the correct format. What do you think?HoneyBee 11:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friends

hi JPS, I thought I would try to head off any nastiness at the head. I listed the articles for Season 1 per the notability template and have now posted to the main talk page explaining my rationale. I apologise if my actions seem overly-targeted; I would have expressed the issue first on the talk page, but the 14 day review process seems sufficient to redress the issues raised, Moreover, redirect is not deletion and any article can be recreated should it met the standards listed at WP:Episodes. I think it is very important that we adhere to the policies and guidelines and I look forward to any thoughts you may have. Above all, I hope that my actions not be misconstrued. Eusebeus 12:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Competing Films" deletion

Why did you delete the "Competing Films With Similar Plots" (it went under several name) entry? I found it an interesting and useful list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelamm (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 June 2007)

Hello. I deleted the redirect, as the article itself ("List of films with similar themes and release dates") was deleted by someone else after an AFD. I deleted the redundant redirect and removed some links to the page in a couple of 'See also' sections. The JPStalk to me 12:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Thanks. Do you think you could sap some more production info from the DVD commentary? WindsorFan 13:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page protection

According to Wikipedia:User_page#Use_of_page_protection_for_user_pages, "protected pages in user space should be unprotected as soon as practical", as I'm sure you know. Can I ask why your user page is still protected? It hasn't been vandalised since February. Cheers.

Seraphim Whipp 09:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

*Nudge*?
Seraphim Whipp 10:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Decreased protection level to 'established user only' the other day, actually. Removed altogether after your nudge. Within an hour it was vandalised. There are some psychos out there. I've returned to 'established users only'. I reckon some of my stalkers have accounts, as some seem to have a decent knowledge of policy/code... The JPStalk to me 16:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I just saw the vandalism...! Although someone got there before me. I'm still learning about wikipedia really and wondered, so thanks for replying. :-)
Seraphim Whipp 16:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The June 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Nehrams2020 09:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subspecies

If you are going to prod my pages, please finish them. I don't know what the point of prodding the original film and the second sequel, but leaving the first sequel and the third sequel, and the spin-off film was...but I've prodded them all for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I used the first couple of those Wikipedia pages as tests, rather than doing them all. The JPStalk to me 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
As a test for what? To see if I would be a hyprocite and challenge their deletion, because of their lack of notability? We're you hoping I'd say they were notable because they were films? lol. I created those pages long ago (by Wiki's standards of time), long before I had an understanding of many things, and there are other pages I worked on when I first came here that were horrible edits to articles. I have no problem if they are proded. I don't have the time or resources to fix them, and apparently neither does anyone else. Huge copy vios, in my opinion.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please re-instate all the images you have removed

JPS,

PLEASE RE-INSTATE ALL THE IMAGES YOU HAVE REMOVED!

Please can you not remove the football images our team have taken time and effort in editing, naming, coding and adding to Wikipedia. I am the director of Dragon Photo UK football photography agency and I have allowed Wikipedia to use all our images to improve it's content. If you do not re-instate these images within 24 hours I will make a formal complaint against you to the Wiki management. Thanks.

PLEASE RE-INSTATE ALL THE IMAGES YOU HAVE REMOVED!

I can be contacted here or info@dragonphoto.co.uk

[edit] PLEASE RE-INSTATE ALL THE IMAGES YOU HAVE REMOVED!

PLEASE RE-INSTATE ALL THE IMAGES YOU HAVE REMOVED!

Our picture editor has just confirmed that a large number of our images appear to have been systematically removed from Wikipedia, including images we have confirmed as being released into the public domain.

If you had checked your information out properly you would have seen our website content, which appears in the description for each images, and the fact that almost none of the removed images appear on www.dragonphoto.co.uk, so if we are not acting for Dragon Photo UK how on earth did we get the images?

Your "accross-the-board" approach and complete lack of professionalism beggars belief.

Not happy at all with your actions and seriously considering further action.

PLEASE RE-INSTATE ALL THE IMAGES YOU HAVE REMOVED!

DPUK Team, info@dragonphoto.co.uk

(I got you first time, thanks.) In order to determine that you are entitled to reproduce these images on Wikipedia, please follow Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The important part is somewhere on the website (and please point to it) stating that the images are indeed released in the public domain/GFDL. You would be relinquishing rights, allowing them to the reproduced by anyone. Should this be a genuine donation (proven by a statement somewhere on the website), then I'd be happy to restore the images.
The other major problem with the images is that you were systematically placing them on article pages incorrectly. The images were huge, which devalued the page significantly. It is possible to reduce the size, but it's normally professional to check your success before moving on. If we do restore your images, or you add further, please ensure that your contributions adhere to our style guidelines. Thanks. The JPStalk to me 10:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, a notice on the website is not needed, a simple email to info@dragonphoto.co.uk would be the simplest option. I feel this would have been the better option rather than removing the images. Dave101→talk  11:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Possibly a better solution, yes, but we get so many copyright violations that I tend to be quite strict. As you seem to be charitably donating the images (as opposed to Wikipedia requesting them), then it was up to your company to follow the 'Donotating' advice. The JPStalk to me 11:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree Dave101. JPS, If you send us an email - which is on the "Contact Us" page of www.dragonphoto.co.uk we will respond in kind and put your fears at rest. As for the images being too big I do take your point, however statistics show that large photo's accompanying text are far more popular and thus encourage readers to recommend the page to other users. If this is your only issue and a Wikipedia rule, then of course we will comply. So please email us asap. Thanks.

Thank you for re-instating some of the images we uploaded. Now please re-instate the others, of Michael Chopra, Pontypridd Town AFC, etc...

RATHER THAN ENTERING INTO A LONG DISPUTE/VOLLEY OF CORRESPONDENCE, WHY DONT YOU JUST SEND US ONE EMAIL AND WE WILL SEND YOU BACK ONE EMAIL AND THAT WILL BE THE END OF THE ARGUMENT??

THIS IS GETTING RATHER SILLY AND WE BELIEVE YOU ARE ACTING VERY UNPROFESSIONALLY.

IT IS NOW OUR INTENTION TO HIGHLIGHT THIS MATTER TO OTHER EDITORS IF YOU DO NOT EMAIL US AND RE-INSTATE SAID IMAGES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treadstone7 (talk • contribs)

Typing in capitals is equivalent to shouting and is deemed incivil. Please follow the instructions at Donating Images, as per my advice several days ago. I will not enter into email correspondence. The JPStalk to me 16:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Television episodes

Good afternoon, I'd like to know your opinion on something, do you believe Wikipedia:Television episodes to be "broken"? The TfD closed as delete, as you've noticed, now as it stands I believe the guideline to be broken as the TfD showed to me no support for the "process" (and so I'm proposing a rewrite. What do you think? Matthew 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm struggling to get my head around this. I've wasted so many hours removing Goofs/Quotes etc., that it might personally be best not to have the articles...
The style guidelines are very useful. However, we don't remove articles that are not B/GA/FA standard. We can tag them with unreferenced, etc.

Episodes are notable. Yes, the quality of the article can establish that to a greater extent, but episodes that millions have watched (and many people choose whether or not to watch a specific episode depending upon if they've seen it, who's in it, etc.). For me, as long as there is minimal real world info: airdates, etc, then it's fine. Plot summaries specially written for Wikipedia of a reasonable length are not copyvios. They can be considered fair use: if the scriptwriter is cited on the page.

Problem articles should be dealt with using the existing PROD policy. My problem is with the review system. It gives more power to a particular group of people. They have created the guidelines (OK, based on an interpretation of an existing established guideline), and a process by which they will enforce it. This really seems at odds with one of the pillars of the project. (BTW, I will be away of a couple of days from now...) The JPStalk to me 12:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also spent quite some time fixing these articles (removing junk such as nn trivia/goofs and quotes), I understand that it can frustrating.
My opinion is the process would probably work better like this (in theory): episode article are tagged, discussion is opened at the main article for the show (*not* some little known venue where the select few editors that know about it can further their goal).
I totally agree with you on the notability issue (people don't seem to realise writers, directors, critical reception are real world information). I also agree with you about PROD, and if an editor objects to a proposed deletion then AfD would be the next venue. It's apparent to me that these users want the articles deleted, but have to settle for a redirect (really though, a redirect is just a cheap way of saying the history is preserved, but the article is gone). Matthew 12:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the rewrite, Matt. Angie Y. 00:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't randomly remove tags without a good reason. Just having sources doesn't automatically assert notability (a few that you have reverted don't even have that much). As you are an admin, you really should know that your opinion doesn't trump WP:N (which isn't "just a guideline." It directly correlates with WP:V.). TTN 14:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't add tags en masse. As an admin, I abide by Wikipedia policy. You do not have consensus. The articles are verifiable (policy). The guidelines says that plot summaries may be relevant when the subject is large. The JPStalk to me 14:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
A cleanup/notability tag is a cleanup/notability tag. Extra functions (which have mostly been removed) or how they were added doesn't change that. You seem to be wikilawyering at this point. I suggest that you take it up at WP:N instead of asserting that these abide by WP:V. They don't abide by WP:V because a main point of it is "reliable published sources", which these don't have. TTN 14:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
"Publishing" on TV is legitimate verifiability for relevant matreial. The JPStalk to me 16:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It is fine for sourcing some stuff, but it is not good enough to verify notability outside of the series that it is in, which is required. TTN 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Which brings us to the POV of the whole discussion. Episodes are notable. I know you think they're not, but I do. That is the problem, and we're just going round in circles. WP:FICT also supports my interpretation. It's a shame that this is causing so much unrest as there are so many more important things on Wikipedia to worry about, such as unreferenced articles about living people. The JPStalk to me 20:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
No, there is no POV to be had by myself. The view that episodes are not notable until proven so goes along with WP:N and WP:V. The same goes with any other topic, so episodes are no different. WP:FICT requires out of universe info like the rest, so there is no doubt in my mind that you are just misreading it completely (like many other people). Until you can show otherwise, the only people pushing a POV are people that somehow conclude that we can ignore WP:N. There are more than enough people to cover BLP, while most just ignore the pathetic state of fiction, so I would say it is definitely more important to focus on this at the moment. TTN 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame that you're not appreciating that your POV is just that. The guidelines are very good models for good/featured articles. We do not delete (which is what you are doing considering the end user) just because there are limitations. Your 'assessment' of a wide range of articles as 'pathetic' is a hyperbolic adjective: POV. The JPStalk to me 20:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't matter if the articles will never even reach close to that. See, you actually have to show that these can meet even the lowest of standards for your case to even have a shot. Unless we can talk about a topic as its own thing, not solely as a part of another topic, we cannot cover it. That goes for relatives of famous people, single people that died in great catastrophes, locations, characters, and other parts of a series, and, "surprise, surprise", episodes of a series. Again, your opinion is nothing more than an opinion, while I can cite guidelines and policies in the very least (though I guess it is with a "POV"). TTN 20:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
And so you don't think otherwise, I am not against episode articles; only ones that cannot become anything are bad. As long as it can reach a decent standard, it is fine (take a look at some of the Simpsons GAs and obviously the few episode FAs). The problem with that is the obvious lack of real information for most episodes. A plot summary is useless without real information to back it up. TTN 20:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines you cite in such a way are vague. The JPStalk to me 20:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", "Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources.", "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources.", "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance; such articles are not solely or overwhelmingly a summary of a work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.", and the rest are hardly vague. TTN 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of things articles should do. Many articles don't yet do them. Articles are developed. That's how the project works. The JPStalk to me 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
When challenged, articles still need to assert a possibility of becoming good and standing on their own. We don't just leave them to rot forever because "They'll be worked on soon!" or "They can become good! All we have to do is wait!" After that, the articles aren't even edited for months on end. Plus, most have had well over a year to get past the hurdle. TTN 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, but for consistency, how do you feel about articles tagged as 'cleanup' or 'unreferenced'. (Cleaning those cats actually often flags up a few A7s PRODs or AFDs, to be fair.) Since I became aware of the GA process, I see everything below that as being rather poor anyway. The JPStalk to me 11:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
There are way too many different articles placed in those to actually give an opinion on them. But, basically, it should be all about chances for sources for the unreferenced articles. If all that is needed is a cleanup in format and writing, it's crappy, but it has potential. TTN 11:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: User:Durin/Fair use overuse explanation

Hello. This is a very clear explanation of non-free image overuse. Your recent edit summary made no sense in this respect. The difference between the images that were removed and the ones that remain is the quantity of those that remain! Wikipedia is not some cheap Geocities site with haphazard images dotted about for illiterates who can't go a paragraph without a pretty picture to look at. Non-free images are really enhance an understanding of the subject when words fall short. Most of the images are there merely for illustration, not to enhance understanding. I hope this is clear: I note other editors have attempted to explain this to you. The JPStalk to me 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Apoligies, I understand that you know more about the workings about wikipedia and I thank you for the message. Be good. Jameshdl 22:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edito*Magica

The information on five's image is correct. Edito*Magica 22:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] further commen on five's image...

All information I have incorperated into five's image is from reliable sources. Edito*Magica 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify what these reliable sources are at the appropriate points in the article. The JPStalk to me 22:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hehehe


hohoho
hehehe
each fiddler they had a fiddle
and a very fine fiddle had he

[edit] RE: Have You Seen This Snail

I was wondering whether common sense should be used in this situation. In my opinion, I don't expect every single episode article with secondary sources to reach featured article status, but it seems strange that five minutes after TTN replied to my question, you leave a message to not accept his opinion, especially since you were in involved in the TFD, MFD, and the CFD. I do not which opinion I should accept. Pants(T) 21:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's good that yore acknowledging that these are opinions. The danger is when opinions masquerade as something that we should abide be.

WP:FICT and the odd TV EPISODE spin-off clearly allow for episode articles. Your article contains verifiable, secondary, reliable sources. This meets policy. FICT allows for spin-off articles when the body of work is large. It is clear that this article (the only one I have checked) is acceptable. Just because it is currently missing a couple of sections does not mean that it should not exist. WP:STUB suggests that incomplete articles are better than none as they draw new editors to the project. The JPStalk to me 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to revert the redirect for the article because I want to avoid a dispute. Perhaps you should try talking to TTN on his talk page or at the WP:EPISODE talk page. Pants(T) 21:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's going to get that way: people are just going to conform automatically. The project is imploding. You're right, though: it's not worth it: no one treats the content of the project as seriously as those who waste their life creating and editing it. I certainly aim not to waste as much time as in the past. The JPStalk to me 23:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Are referring to Wikipedia as a whole or just the taskforce? If you mean Wikipedia, why do you think it's collapsing? Pants(T) 23:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I know the identity of your enemy

I will sell it to you for sufficient shekels.

Oli M.

[edit] Light Water Valley

Hi

You contributed a page about the death of my sister, Gemma Savage at the Light Water Valley theme park.

I was wondering who you were and what your connection to this was.

Robert Savage

I contributed to the LightWater Valley page, yes. I have no connection to the park or any similar establishment whatsoever. The JPStalk to me 09:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oli M

do not trust Oli M, he has spent too long in exile in the south pacific, and has a weight problem (and long curly hair) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.248.23.103 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 July 2007

I'm sure I'll get over it. The JPStalk to me 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for reverting vandalism

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk page. NHRHS2010 Talk 01:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heart-rending

Yeah, I was conscious of that. There were two places where there were quotation marks, but I couldn't find sources. If there are sources where you can verify that to be what was said, then fine, leave it be (with a [sic] notation at the end). I wager that the proper "heart-rending" was what was actually said, and that it was transcribed wrongly by someone who doesn't know that they were incorrect. If it is found that the original source WAS mistaken, then "heart-wrenching [sic]" is what needs to be written there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmortal03 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 July 2007

OK. There are many grammatical errors made in speech, and I'm not convinced that this is such a big enough issue to point out with [sic]. The place would be littered with [sic] if we included it after everyone's Trussian pet peeve. We should really restrict sic for factual errors. (I've seen sic used for gender political reasons too.) The JPStalk to me 10:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tape dates vs. air dates.

Hello,

I hope you are doing well. I had a simple question for you. Do you when talking about weekly british panel shows, is adding tape date info along with airdates notable or pointless.

I contribute to the panel show page for 8 out of 10 Cats which like, The Friday Night Project is always taped on Thursday Nights for broadcast on Friday. Last week, while the current series of each show was airing I had found out that the hosts of both shows, Jimmy Carr and Alan Carr were heading to Montreal to perform at the Just For Laughs Festival. Thus, both their shows that week were taped in advance, which was the first time either had done so. 8 out of 10 cats was taped on Saturday two days after the previous episode and a certain part of the episode was altered. So I decided to add a note to that episode with a source noting the irregular tape date. (Another person had added info on the specific changes in that episode)

A day later a user named Bencey, who seems to be the major contributor lately, got rid of the notes, saying adding notes like that was pointless. I talked to him about it, and he told me that the usual tape date was not mentioned at the beginning of the article. I suggested we add it in which he did, but when i asked to put my note back in, he replied to put it on the discussion board on see what other people said. A few other people thought it was something worth noting and they altered the beginning to make it more clear adding the note about last week's episode, however Bencey keeps on taking specifics off saying tape dates are not useful as an article. I just find it notable to say that this particular episode was taped earlier than any of the others for this reason. I didn't dare add another note to the Friday Night Project page.

In one of my arguments, I noted that shows like Would I lie to you? also included in tape dates. (I heard it was to show that the episodes were taped in a different order than they were broadcast). A day later, I saw that Bencey went on to that page and got rid of the tape dates, claiming they were pointless. .

I know that he is a yeoman, and he is a good editor, but Wikipedia seems like a communal encyclopedia, where anyone can edit with a valid source, but people like Bencey don't appreciate other people's edits. Everyone I've talked to thinks that this note about the early tape date ais notable as well as noting the change in the first game of the episode, (the page has descriptions of each game played on the show),but Bencey is the only person who believes he is the supreme editor and every edit has to go by him. This is not the Eastenders wikiproject. He has the right to edit as much as anyone else, but he shouldn't be the British Panel show king" and have the last word.

I thought I would write you to see how we can resolve this calmly and rationnally. I don't feel like arguing with someone that is half my age, but I strongly believe that my arguments have some merit to them and would like to hear the opinions of an outside party.

Thanks in advance17:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean about arguing with kiddies. It's the school holidays so you're going to get loads of arguments over pop culture articles. Think of them with the contempt they deserve and let them get stressed, not you. Personally I'm not putting as much time into the project now, and some articles are lacking some major development as a result. The JPStalk to me 09:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bleeding Gums Murphy

Please look at the merge discussion linked in one of my summaries. You may find the article acceptable, but the Simpsons project is merging minor characters like that. TTN 19:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you ignoring the actual discussion that decided which Simpsons characters need articles at this point? The fact that you've decided that it is good means very little. Regarding the episode, can you please explain why you have removed the tag? The episode doesn't cite any secondary sources and it doesn't even assert anything that could potentially be sourced. It's the same as removing in-universe tags without actually solving the problem. Is it acceptable for someone to do that because "in-universe is good"? I think not. Therefor, you have no reason to remove the tag beyond a personal bias that should be reflected in actual discussion instead of stalking one single user around every once and a while.
As I have mentioned before, you really should be holding the views of Wikipedia (signified by WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS in this case) far above your own. In the very least, you should try to change the guidelines instead of messing around with a few articles here and there. TTN 23:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of BAT: THE FINAL SONGS from Jim Steinman page

I saw you deleted the short section about BAT: THE FINAL SONGS from the Jim Steinman page. Since the project has only been mentioned once, I can't really disagree with the deletion. The thing is, there is stronger evidence of activity for that album than there is for Bikers of the Round Table or the Stuart Beattie movie. So, I think the only reasonable options are to restore the deleted section, or to delete the two projects that have no evidence of progress as well. The thing is, if we delete those two projects, then we'll be deleting two projects that are still listed at two official Jim Steinman web sources. I'm not crazy about that idea.

I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I think that of the three projects BAT, Bikers and the Stuart Beattie movie. Of those three, either all three should remain or all three should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.252.24 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 31 July 2007

Well, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a news site. I'd support removing the entire section, or condensing it into one short paragraph. The JPStalk to me 09:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 8 out of 10 cats.

Hey,

I just wanted to let you know that I undid your last change in that page about Episode 6, due to the fact that I had already made an adjustment on the bottom of the episode guide for the current series with a source.


I wrote to Bencey who kept on arguing with me. I spoke to you and he said if it was sourced and everything than it would be cool. I undid my original revision and sent Bencey a message telling him what I had done and what you had said, and he left me alone . (I don't know if you had talked to him)

I also wanted to do a note for The Friday Night Project as Alan Carr was also in Montreal for the festival, and that week's show was taped two days earlier than usual but I didn't want to anger Bencey even further.

If you want to merge our two notes or move it to the top of the page, please feel free to make it more legible. I just wanted to explain my edit to you.

Thanks for the help. I really appreciate it. 69.28.232.15 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)samusek

Ah, I didn't spot that. Thanks for clearing it up. The JPStalk to me 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The July 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Apprentice (UK) FAC

Thank you for your comments. We have made changes based upon them. Please can you visit the page to confirm if you support or oppose? Thanks, Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 17:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

Just want to bump up this comment, just incase you didn't see it in the first place. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 12:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's me again

Hey, I've come back again, after a brief break and before that an even briefer return. As I told you before, the reason I left Wikipedia was because the article Lord of the Rings (1978 film) was promoted to FA status. Even though I still had some unresolved objections to it, Raul654 seemed to ignore my comments completely, even when I asked him about it at his talk page. I've been thinking of taking the article to FAR (partly for my peace of mind), but I have a feeling that my strong negative bias towards the article is clouding my judgment, and I want to get a second opinion before I take any action. I really value your opinion, so as a favor, I'd ask you to look over the article and see if you share my opinion of it as well, on whether it is of featured quality. I understand that you are probably busy with other things, so please don't do it if you don't feel like it or don't have time, but if you do look over the article I would very appreciate it.

You've been doing a great job of working on and taking care of Jaws, and I was impressed by your work on the sequels' pages. Thanks for reading this and all the great work you've done.--Dark Kubrick 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not ignoring you -- just been busy and away. I'll take a look at it. Don't get too obsessed with badges: they're just little badges, after all that no-one outside of the 'community' cares about. If you think that the FA you've worked on is better than the LotR, then take comfort in that. A FAR review might be an unfruitful exercise: our existence on this earth might be better spent elsewhere than the amateur politics of Wikipedia, especially for something as fighting over a badge. The JPStalk to me 10:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Actually, I've already nominated it for FAR; guess I just couldn't wait. I appreciate your advice; my view of Wikipedia has definitely changed from before.--Dark Kubrick 23:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Edit summary

Yeah, you're telling me. Honestly, I've found only one reasonable use of the spoiler tag. The rest are wasted on things like this. Axem Titanium 00:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ITV Canada

Hi JPS. I was wondering if you could help me. I don't know what to do about a WikiMember, Ukthingy. He has created an ITV Canada article, with no sources to prove that the channel even exists. Any help at all would be appreciated.
GMctalk 15:40, 06 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes Minister

I've renominated Yes Minister for FA. When I read the archive, I was unconvinced it was clearly shouted down the last time. And anyway, a year's passed since that last review. I can't see anything seriously wrong with it now. Maybe fresh eyes will give a more conclusive discussion this time around. CzechOut 00:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Well what is going to get opposition is that there are quite a few unreferenced sections. There are only about 20 refs, which seems few for a FA? And that's before the grammarphiliacs get to it!. The JPStalk to me 07:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question, about free license

I have a question that's probably answered elsewhere, probably a stupid question. I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done to grant a free license for a photo. I've selected a recent photo of Jim Steinman for his page. The fan who owns it said, in an e-mail, he has no problem with it being used. Is there some sort of form that needs to filled out or something? Here's the photo:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/cdb_07/wikistein.jpg

Cool. The instructions are at: Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries. The photographer should agree to the implications of the free license, hence that statement, and the email should be forward to the address in the next section: 'When permission is confirmed'. Cheers. The JPStalk to me 07:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't done one of these before, and I'm confused about what exactly the photo owner must say. Would it work if he e-mailed this to me:

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j265/cdb_07/wikistein.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license GFDL. I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. August 13, 2007, [photo owner's real name]


Yup, that's fine. Then forward his email to the Wikimedia email address. The JPStalk to me 11:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Edit War

Hi JPS,

I am not questionning your decision of protecting the article. However, I would think it willbe fair, if you look at the history of the article. The article is composed of other users work from article ancient Arabs that was also merged by Elias, The ancient Arabia article should be different from PreIslamic Arabia, because they discuss two different periods.

And Elias main objection is including the Akkadians among the ancient tribes that lived in Arabia, all the its a fact he knows, but he insists it should not be included for political reasons! Although this article and alll my edits is purely historical and myself I despise the modern Arabization. however, I never edit in those type of articles because I dont know enough about the subject.

Background on the Akkadians:

  • The Akkadians lived in Arabia before they entered Mesopotamia. (even Elias himself knows that and admited to it)

below are links to neutral non Arab websites. The Akkadians Arabian origin, The Akkadians migration from ArabiaFirst result search for Akkadians

  • The article is related to the ancient Arabs, not modern Arabs.
  • The article mentions the (Akkadians only) as an ancient Arab tribe before entering Mesopotamia, the rest of the Mesopotamian tribes were not considered Arab. That still didnt work well for Elias!
  • Elias simply made it clear that the Akkadians should not be mentioned in Ancient Arabia history just because they were not modern Arabs! although the Eastern branch of Semitic is extinct in the North and the only related languages are still spoken in Arabia Eastern South Semitic
  • I also added a section that clearly states that modern Christian Assyrians, Arameans are not Arabs.
  • Elias is currently Vandalizing another article I created Ancient Arabia (because he protected Ancient Arabs after merging it to PreIslamic Arabia). Although PreIslamic Arabia (refers to 'asr Aljahiliya) and Ancient Arabia starts from the earliest known civilizations in Arabia. And he deleted the Saudi Wiki project template(?)

Quoting Elias: they lived on Arabia that makes them an ancient tribe of Arabia! — It wasn't called Arabia at that time, and they did not live with any Arab people, because they were the first Semitic people. Arabs didn't exist at the same time as the Akkadians. Why should I not mention them! they are a very important group that lived in Arabia! — At some point in time, the people that are now Germans and Japanese, probably also had ancestors who lived in Arabia. It doesn't make them Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:02 14 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

So because Arabia wasnt called ARabia back then, we cant have a istory article on Ancient Arabia! Using his rule, we will ave to Delete every anciet article in Wikipedia including Egypt because it wasnt callled Egypt back then!

The ancient Akkadians lived in Arabia, spoke Eastern Semitic. Modern Assyrians speak West Semitic, Eastern Semitic only exists in South Arabia small groups Yemen and Oman today.

  • At worse case scenario, Even if the Akkadians spoke an IndoEuropean language, does that exlude them from the history of ancient Arabia!

I will appeciate your help to protect the Ancient Arabia and [[Ancient Arabs articles both are being force-merged by Elias to the smaller Pre-Islamic Arabia article.

A look at Elias history and his sock puppet User:Dbachmann and you will se the organized extremist Assyrianist edits. He will not acept any evidence even if Sargon himself came to beg him to keep the article about his original homeland in Arabia, he will call Sargon an Arabist! And for the record I am against Arabizing! I believe in the originality of history and respecting other cultures, look at my edits. I never delete any work. I disagree with imposing Arabizing non Arabs. And ancient Arabia doesnt have anything to do with modern political Arabism!--Skatewalk 13:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode Guide and Episode Number.

Sorry to bother you again. On the page for School's Out the BBC game show, The episode listings were written out under the heading "Episode Guide" and the episode numbers were under "Episode Number" as they are for other shows of the Genre such as the "Friday Night Project" and "8 out of 10 cats" pages. A few days ago, a user named UPDOWN changed it to "Episodes" and used a # sign instead of episode number. I tried to e-mail him about what the other British game and variety show pages were doing and he chewed me out, saying the page was not a fansite (I don't know how "Episode Guide" can be construed as a fan site heading) and that the # site saves space. I wanted to calm to a calm resolution with him, but before I tried discussing it with him, I thought I'D ask you first. What do you think is the best way to solve this? 69.90.207.142 17:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)samusek

I must admit, I prefer simply 'Episodes'. The 'Guide' is probably redundant anyway. The JPStalk to me 19:10, 14 August 2007(UTC)

That's fair. Thanks for your input. I was just curious as on other pages for shows of this type,it's always "Episode Guide" and "Episode Number" even though I still think a number sign on it's own is a bit odd.

[edit] Good day admin.

Greeting sir, you have recently protected the page Ancient Arabia. but you havent relised the major vandalism by User:EliasAlucard. Can you please revert that edit ? Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 15:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to protect Ancient Arabia from further Vandalism

Hi JPS, The article was vandalized and merged to the wrong section, we couldn't restore it because it was protected. Can you please make sure the article is protected from further vandalism by User:EliasAlucard or his very close editing partner friend User:Dbachmann. --Skatewalk 18:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not vandalism

These Arabs, are citing ridiculous sources, trying to classify non-Arabic peoples, as Arabs. No serious scholar will say that Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians, were Arabs. This is just ridiculous, and an Arabist way of trying to ascribe an Arab identity on all Semitic peoples. It's just another way of trying to steal credit for non-Arabic cultures, and make them Arabs, and another way of trying to feel better about yourself. I am removing these edits, because they are not WP:ENC, and they do not cite academic scholars. Citing home made websites, and classifying these peoples as Arabs, is a joke. You might as well call them Ancient Jews. The Akkadians, Assyrians, and Babylonians, had a lot more in common with Jews, than Arabs. Knock this joke off. Oh and by the way, Skatewalk has been reported for sockpuppet behaviour, he will be banned indefinitely very soon. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:45 15 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

  • First of all your being racist! "these Arabs"
  • We are talking about the about the ancient populations of Arabia! (only the Akkadians!, dont try to add lies and claim the Babylonians and Assyrians)
  • It says in the article that modern Mesopotamians and Jews are clearly Not Arabs!
  • The article has 21 references and sources supporting it. Al you offered is an impressive reverting effort!--Skatewalk 21:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You have not cited one single scholar in that article. Home made websites, are not "sources". No serious academic will classify Babylonians, Akkadians, and Assyrians, as Arabs. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:03 16 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
This page should be protected by the way untill we all finish the discussions. Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 22:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Apprentice UK

Image:Fired!.png Hello, The JPS/archive11 and thank you for your contributions on articles related to The Apprentice UK. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject The Apprentice UK, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of The Apprentice UK and related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please come over and visit us here for more information. Thanks! Dalejenkins