User talk:The JPS/archive8

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. If I've deleted your article, or image, get over it.

Please leave a new message.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] WikiProject The Apprentice UK

Hello, fellow The Apprentice UK fan! WikiProject The Apprentice is up and running, so if you are interested feel free to put your name here and start editing! Dalejenkins 17:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parsons and Naylor's

The recording dates popped up on the Beeb's tickets page just before Christmas. I haven't seen broadcast dates yet, but I'd guess it would be Thursdays as before. —Serein 19:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Englandtillidie

With regard to Englandtillidie: Thanks! It was clear from their contributions as well as their comment on WP:NEW that something was up.

Atlant 18:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for reverting the vandalism on my user page while I was away, very much appreciated.... Budgiekiller 20:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, np... I think you've done the same for me, but I was embarrassingly less courteous and didn't thank you for it. The JPStalk to me 23:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well don't you worry about it for a moment! Budgiekiller 08:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shaw and Crompton

Thank you for your efforts as part of the GA passing of Shaw and Crompton - it has been hard work, but well worth it, it seems! I'll try to make the ammendments you recommended on the talk page to improve the article further. Thanks again, Jhamez84 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coronation Street

Hello The JPS, I'm just asking if you have any feedback on the article Coronation Street? Ben 00:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you've certainly made some good improvements, Ben. I've done a bit of a copy edit tonight. You may or may not have noticed the minor formatting things I've changed, but for future reference:
  • we don't wikilink years unless there is also month, preferable with day, information too. So we would wikilink 9 December 1960, but not "it's first episode was in 1960."
  • we don't italicise quotations.
  • Importantly the images need fair use rationales. There is a link to an official guide on the upload page, but I have a simplified vesion for TV/film at User:The JPS/FUR.
I think that's it. It may have been a little premature nominating it for GA status -- I'd have gone to Wikipedia:Peer review first for such a complicated article. The JPStalk to me 01:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou so much for you comments and general tidying. I considered a peer review but I wasn't really all that sure...I'm still quite new here. I will address the images and their fair use rationales Ben 03:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coronation Street

Hello JPS

CorrieFans here. Can you tell me why some fan websites are allowed on the Coronation Street page yet you've just deleted two that I've put on there (and are more up to date and current than some of the others you have?) Don't Corrie fans deserve to know about the most current and interesting sites?

CorrieFans

[edit] Coronation Street

Ok, many thanks for letting me know. The Coronation Street weekly updates website isn't run for vanity of profit, purely for the entertainment of Corrie fans. If you don't wish to link to it at its own website, could you link to at the yahoogroups so that at least fans may have the opportunity to find out more? I understand if it's not possible but would appreciate having a chance to tell people about the site from Wikipedia (you do a great job by the way). The URL is http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/corrieweeks/

Best wishes.

CorrieFans

[edit] Thanks for Green Wing

I just wanted to say thanks for helping me to get the Green Wing article promoted. Cheers! ISD 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for defending CatDiffuse

Thank you for your defense of CatDiffuse: I had no idea it was up for deletion, and I am amazed at the response it has generated. I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 05:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

[edit] The images

Most of them I have took myself. But the Sunderland empire one came from the BBC, I would like to change the licsensing. Rasillon 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Oh and the Roy Keane one did too. Rasillon 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Coule you please tell me which ones you took from elsewhere? The JPStalk to me 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Unjust block, JPS? The user made honest mistakes with the images. The best thing would have been to discuss before blocking. By the way, I have been in correspondence with this user on MSN, and I have been looking at his images and such. Nishkid64 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, Nishkid64, but I'm now 100% confident that this is a sockpuppet of User:Molag Bal. All the patterns are there. If this was a genuine new user, and a genuine error, then the course of action you suggest would be absolutely appropriate. The JPStalk to me 18:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
We know he's Molag Bal. We gave him another chance, and he has since taken advantage of it and contributed to Wikipedia. We told him if he did anything wrong, we'd block him indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Regardless of this, the block still seems unjust when it's a new user who isn't quite familiar with image tagging. Nishkid64 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
We being Nishkid64 and me (and some others know too). We've given him (yet) another chance, despite death threats etc in the past. Martinp23 18:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
How can you call it an 'honest mistake' when he clearly lied about the images when adding the tags? Perhaps a permanent block is too cruel, but he's simply re-offending, if only in a different way. Craigy (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
If community consensus is to give him another chance, then I'll remove the idefinate blcok. He is not a new user, even if it is a new account. He must stop lying about images. "Unfamilar" with the tagging process might be an excuse for some errors, but not a staright forward lie. For instance, the Sunderland Empire image is neither taken by himself, or the BBC as he subsequently claimed. I insist on at least a short block so that he learns the importance of image uplaods. The JPStalk to me 19:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Re: the message I just saw on my talk: I'm amazed that you found it out (and can understand that you're probably confused now). The reason that we didn't indef Rasillon on sight was partly due to our kind nature and partly to due to the fact that he seems to fly off the handle whenever blocked, so by giving him another chance, and keeping inclose contact with him, we've been able to make sure he doesn't get out of hand. Martinp23 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
For "honest mistake", I'll clarify that I agree with you that his lying was disruptive, and would probably have blocked similarly (with a slightly longer delay). Martinp23 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
(fourth edit conflict) Question - was Molag Bal banned (and where)? If he was, then I'd have blocked long ago... Martinp23 19:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm turns out he was - read the above as "had I known that...". He has since shown himself as a good editor, so I wouldn't be willing to block. Martinp23 21:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to wheel war here, but I find your block reason of "short block for lying about images" truly absurd, especially after he has apologized. This user has shown interest in constructive editing, therefore, I have unblocked him. I hope you realize that blocks are meant to be preventive not punitive. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 19:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not absurd at all. Copyright is serious, and needs to be emphasised to prevent further breaches. User knows better. It's been discussed, and it seems that Nishkid64 and I have compromised ona one-hour block. The JPStalk to me 19:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Not really, JPS. I only let the 1-hour block go because Rasillon just went offline (on MSN). Nishkid64 19:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
II'll keep an eye on his contribs. The JPStalk to me 19:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As will we (Martin and I). Nishkid64 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad he has a couple of experienced users to coach him properly. I hope you can fully make him understand his errors. The JPStalk to me 19:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: images, I've had a quick word with him on MSN just now, and he's said he'll fix it. I'm just about to restart to install Ubuntu (because Vista is boring now :D), but once I've done that (or given up on it), I'll take a proper look and advise him suitably. Thanks - Martinp23 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Just an update - we've blocked indef on Rasillon for using (some abusive) sockpuppets, probably including Martinp24. Sorry for the fuss this has caused - unfortunately it means we need to be on high alert for more socks now :( Martinp23 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye out. Fortunately he's fairly easy to spot... edits to Sunderland for instance. The JPStalk to me 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ill Mitch

Why did you remove the image? You did not even discuss it on the talk page! What does "rmv unfree IMG mean anyway? The image is free, it is from the author and owner, and even if it were copyrighted there is permission anyway. The source was even cited! Therefore, why did you remove it? PLease don't remove it again without a VALID explanation! Jellonuts 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The image was deleted because originally there was no source or license. "Permission" has to be expressed via email, and agreeing to licensing conditions. This can be complicated, so I don't expect that you would have known about this. Had the article remained I would have guided you through the process.
However, I have deleted the entire article because it is reposted content by an article previously deleted by a consensus gained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Mitch. Please do not repost it, unless you can provide independent sources of his notability (newspaper articles/reviews where he is the primary subject). Message boards, YouTube, etc, don't count. They have to be "proper" publications. The JPStalk to me 14:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is your publication, Stuff Magazine, April 2003 page 38, so please repost the page!!! I don't even know how to do it and I worked really hard to update the artice.Jellonuts 16:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.illmitch.com/SpreadStuff.htm

Plus, you can purchase his music on the itunes website, so there is some more notariety.

Plus, his notariety as as an internet phenomenon, his website has nearly 2 million hits and here is the store as well.

http://www.illmitch.com/ http://www.illmitch.com/Store.htm

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ill Mitch. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jellonuts 17:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reinstate, notariety established by April 2003 review page 38 of national periodical Stuff Magazine.

Great, one tiny mention in some lad's mag... Any more? The JPStalk to me 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Stuff magazine is a national publication with high circulation. Also, itunes for another. I don't appreciate the sarcasm either. I am new and I am doing my best to deal with having my hard work deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jellonuts (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 January 2007

Please understand that this is absolutely nothing personal either against you of that rapper. You are not the first and won't be the last who has had articles deleted. The JPStalk to me 19:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


JPS, I have supplied several independant references of notability (see deletion review discussion). Why have you not restored the page and unprotected it? I provided what you asked for and notability is not supposed to be subjective according to the policy. S

Some of the independant sources showing notability are: Stuff Magazine article, April 2003 Page 38 Bacon Magazine article accessed at http://www.frymybacon.com/articles/articles.php?articleID=422 Colorado Daily newspaper article from Thursday, June 12, 2003 edition The artist's web site's high traffic http://www.illmitch.com/ that has 1977735 hits The artist is mentioned by name in a song by independant artist U-Kru which was linked to on the original article

  • If you will not answer me you should at least participate in the DRV since you are the one that deleted the page and protected it without the benefit of prior discussion. Jellonuts 14:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You know what, I've spent too much of my time on this. I tried to contribute, and it is obvious neither I nor my contributions are wanted here. I am tired of being judged and wasting my time on an article that obviously nobody wants on their wikipedia. I'm frustrated and I'm done. I truly hope you treat future new users with fair intentions better than I've been treated. If you make us all feel unwelcome and driven away, wikipedia will not work as it was intended. You lost an educated and well-intentioned contributor today, and for what? Is wikipedia better off now without this article? How? You may think so, but I think not. There was an entry here about a silly rapper guy who has a weird cult fan following, odd but noteable. Granted, not on MTV or Time Magazine, but among many people and among several independant, reliable, highly circulated sources. (I can't believe you don't consider Stuff Magazine a mainstream publication? You better delete Stuff's wiki article too becasue it is not notable, right?) Now, it is deleted and anyone who ever wanted to seek information about it on wikipedia is SOL, and I am discouraged and disappointed. Congratulations, you win, but the wikipedia project loses. Jellonuts 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Bayliss

Per your comment, I either linked the redlinks to WP or outside articles. Some were non-notable subjects, so I delinked them. This article seems marginally notable. I edited to remove the auto bio fluff.

--Kevin Murray 19:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's All Coming Back to Me Now

Hi JPS, I have made a little chage in the It's All Coming Back to Me Now article. Since you've worked so hard on it, could you have a look?

I have reworked Dion's infobox and moved it into her section. I have also added chart table. Since her version was the most successful, I think it deserves it.

Maybe Pandora's box infobox should be in their section too? Anyway, I hope you won't revert my work.

Thanks, Max24 00:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiya. I think the table is fair enough, but the lack of sources worries me. Do you think you can find a way of indicating the source for this information? Is it all from one site? If you don't know how to work the <ref> tags, just put in the [url] or [urls] like that and I'll sort it for you.
Example of why. Next week, some user comes along and changes Dutch Airplay+Sales Chart from 5 to 7, claiming to "correct information." How doe we know which is correct?
When I created the page, I had all of the infoboxes in their correct sections (your thinking). An editor, however, noticed that there wasn't enough text to do this on some resolutions. There is enough content for Dion and Meat Loaf now, but not for Pandora's Box. At some resolutions (actually, you can play with the text size in your browser to see what I mean) the infobox eats into the Dion section, and it looks a bit messy. I've kept the PB infobox at the top (which is reasonably close to the relevant text anyway. The JPStalk to me 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hello

hello, i was blocked by you. Im not saying i didnt deserve it, im just saying hi. and wikipedia should probably find a way to make it so i can't get my neighbors internet ip blocked. Happy New Year.

[edit] Homerpalooza

You know, there is a reason why it's called a GA REVIEW. All you did was say it hasn't been improved and fail it without any suggestions whatsoever. Why not give me some suggestions on how to improve the article and I'll do it as opposed to just suggesting I look at an article that is from a completely different show and is a completely different style. The reason I renominated it is because the last reviewer refused to reiterate their suggestions, so I just remade it a GAC in hopes of getting better comments, and I didn't get any better comments. Next time, at least leave suggestions, or don't bother at all. -- Scorpion 19:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The place for requesting comments is Wikipedia:Peer review. The place for nominating articles is WP:GAC. The previous reviewer gave you an idea of what to do, and there was little attempt to do them. The JPStalk to me 21:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I asked him several times on his talk page to retierate some things, which he did not. As the reviewer of the episode, you could at least provide some constructive comments and give specifics as to why you failed it, otherwise one may suspect that you didn't even bother to thouroughly read the article. As for the peer review, It doesn't work because I've put several articles up for one, none of which have gotten results. -- Scorpion 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Very well, since you won't comment, I'll renominate the article and hope the next reviewer will leave some comments. -- Scorpion 13:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tenacious D

Sorry dude. I just felt it met the criteria but fair dues to you. I'll continue citing it and hopefully someone else will rate it good.

Tenacious D Fans (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Your GA nomination of Press Gang

The article Press Gang you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Press Gang for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Wikiwoohoo 19:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and advice. PH

[edit] WP:ANI

There is a thread concerning your interaction with another user at ANI, I would appreciate a comment from you on the matter. Thanks. ViridaeTalk 12:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue will escalate. I will continue to monitor the user, but do it in a less vocal way. The JPStalk to me 14:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Torquay

In your recent edit to the Torquay article you changed the format of some of the existing citations, which previously used the Chicago Manual of Style citation format. I'd just like to mention that WP:REF says:

Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor.

..and Wikipedia:Citation templates says

They [citation templates] may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article. [...] Because they are optional, editors should not change articles from one style to the other without consensus.

--Safalra 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind appreciation of some of the formatting and disambiguation corrections I made. The JPStalk to me 18:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Question

Hi, I was a little rude to you earlier, and I apologize, but I have a question.

You're profile syas your against non-notable student bands having pages and I agree. I help maintain the List of bands from Canada and I have finally had enough of no-name groups making theirselves pages and adding them to the list. I would like your opinion of this and whether I should mass nominate many of the list's groups (I estimate that there are at least 100 non-notables) for deletion. I made a small discussion topic/small list of non-notables here. Thanks for the time, Scorpion 02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Episode infoboxes

I have built a list with episode infoboxes that might dupe the parental Infobox Television episode. Since you have TfD'ed several similar cases over the last couple of weeks, I thought you might be interested. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 17:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:122272DD30 66 11-rgb.jpg

I removed the uploader's copyright tag from this article because it was incorrect. The image wasn't an album cover (or anything like it). I see you tagged it as unlicensed. The question I have, is this: did I do the right thing in removing an obviously incorrect copyright tag? If I did take the correct action, should I also add the unlicensed tag (as you did) next time I find one of these? Thanks, Rklawton 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, since all images should have a license tag, we should flag up those without. So, yes, next time I'd advise you do add the unlicensed tag . Keep it on your watch list because sometimes uploaders will revert you, or add another incorrect one, etc. That image has been deleted before (I tagged it as nld about a year ago). Thanks for identifying it. People often misuse album cover or screenshot tags. If you have any problems, give me a shout. The JPStalk to me 18:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Coolio. Will do, and thanks. I'm going through album covers 200/day, so I'll likely catch more. Rklawton 19:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Hi JPS. I've been editing in Wiki since summer 2005, but i've never really bothered with the community / admin / social side of it. I've only ever been interested in writing and editing articles, etc. However, the little mini-project of updating Sunderland to GA status (which I have recently nominated btw) has given me a bit of a taste for it. I was wondering if you could advise me on a couple of things:

1) I have no real interest in being a general Admin at the moment, but I still want to be able to revert vandalism in the Sunderland and SAFC articles. Any way to get the revert tools, or become a page-level admin?

2) Where in the Wikiverse would you recommend someone whose interested in going a bit deeper should start? Bare in mind that the deepest I have gone so far is the GA article submission page, and I get instantly bored looking at pages of policy. It all seems a bit complicated and overwhelming.

Stay well. John the mackem 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Future plot summary

Hi. I need a little guidance about recent developments in the plot summary for Back to the Future. Someone tagged it earlier today as overly long, and tonight an IP undertook to summarize and shorten it. Problem is, the new version is poorly written. Is it better to try to salvage the new version, or to revert and make a fresh start on pruning it back? As you're probably aware, one of the problems with the article is that everyone wants to put in some favorite bit, and we end up back where we started!

Or I could just wait for someone else to "be bold". I just hate to see the article looking like this!

Regards.... Karen | Talk | contribs 07:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, I reckon it might be better to correct the errors in the current version? There are some careless mistakes ("The photo is still playing"), but the IP has got rid of the more superfluous material. The JPStalk to me 13:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Press Gang episodes

Hi Ed. You might also want to take a look at List of Press Gang episodes. I had a polite word with the uploader at User_talk:Jay_Firestorm#Images. If you want to remove them, you'll have my support. The JPStalk to me 16:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good spot, it's much less stressful when you find them early. ed g2s • talk 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Unlike Talk:List of Heroes episodes#Images. ed g2s • talk 08:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cover images of The Plantsman

Hello JPS. You seem to have missed this one in your spring cleaning! But just before you sweep all the cover images to oblivion, I would like to ask you to wait a few days. I have given some reasons on the images' talk pages for retaining the small gallery. In addition to the reasons given there, they demonstrate that the title has changed, from The Plantsman, to The New Plantsman, and back again. I will email the editor to ask his permission to use the images. I hope that will meet with your approval. Cheers, SiGarb | Talk 14:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're planning on using it soon, then I'll leave it, sure. The JPStalk to me 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dogme ELT

The record shows that a deletion was made by the user The JPS [[1] The Stub was in full compliance with Wikipedia guidelines yet it was deleted. The stub was replaced as is warranted and the preciptous action taken the first time then became the sole purpose for second deletion. This circular reasoning does not comply with Wikipedia policy.

A Request for Arbitration has been made [[2]].

Please abstain from any further deletions of the Dogme ELT stub. Take your views ot the Dogme ETL Talk page if you wish to be involved in this matter. Malangthon 00:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Films Newsletter

The January 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. Nehrams2020 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox British radio

Template:Infobox British radio seems to be a simpler version of Template:Infobox Radio Show. Is this template really needed? --PhantomS 12:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Grr, probably not. Feel free to merge them and nominate the newer for deletion. The JPStalk to me 12:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City & Guilds of London Institute

Not sure how to but have uploaded a current image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/GUILDS007.JPG - dont edit but its there if can use it. MerlinUKMerlin-UK

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Hope and Glory DVD cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hope and Glory DVD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth Badger image

Check the talk page of the image, please. Dalejenkins 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that my colleague is doing a very good job of explaining our fair use policy to you. The JPStalk to me 17:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dont forget your toothbrush.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dont forget your toothbrush.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 08:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Boon series 1 title.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Boon series 1 title.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Derren Brown - The Heist.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Derren Brown - The Heist.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Challenge Anneka.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Challenge Anneka.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Joking Apart - opening title.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Joking Apart - opening title.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Tyne and Wear

Hi there, I'm currently considering making a wikiproject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Tyne and Wear and I'm just wondering if you would be interested in joining if and when I'ts created as I noticed from a user category you live in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. It would be all about improving and creating wikipedia articles relating to Tyne and Wear. If you have any questions, comments or would like to show interest then please tell me on my talk page and if you know any other users who maybe interested in joining please feel free to tell them as it will need a few members in order to make it run smoothly. I will also be willing to create the project page and templates etc if there are enough active members. Thanks. TellyaddictEditor review! 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Well what do you think as you have not replied to the above request?
It could work, but usually Projects work best for larger subject areas. I've seen lots of time wasted on small topics, like Fawlty Towers, etc., where people spend ages creating a project, templates, tag all the talk pages with tag pages, etc., and very little ends up being done to the articles that normal editing couldn't have done. The JPStalk to me 07:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of unusual deaths

May be coming up for AfD yet again; check the talk page. You commented on the last one, so I thought I'd mention it, in case you're interested. - DavidWBrooks 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STOP REMOVING MY IMAGES

Kogsquinge 03:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Many of your images fair FUC #1. The JPStalk to me 07:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Present to you....

In the interest of promoting good cheer and bonhomie, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

[edit] Outside Opinion Requested: Children of Men

Hi! I was hoping to enlist your assistance in resolving a difference in edits for the article for the movie, Children_of_Men. The differences in edits is relatively minor but contentious, with low-level edit-warring back and forth replacing one version, then the other. It has even resulted in one of the parties being reported for 3RR violations. And of course, it has strained civility to the breaking point. A third voice (preferably someone who has seen the movie, but not vital) is needed. A request for editor review was requested before from two other editors, without response. I would suggest taking a look at the key points as they have been debated on the discussion page, but the debate has gone on for...quite a bit. If you will permit me, the two edits take place in the synopsis, viewed by their diff here.

  • One side of the debate (indicated by the linked edit on the left) argues that statements and sounds heard at the end of the film (the sounds of children laughing and playing and the words Shantih, Shantih, Shantih appearing on the screen at the very end) were not specifically part of the synopsis as it was no more a part of the "storyworld" than the credits or specifcally thematic components. This pov statees that the components are solely thematic, and should be only be mentioned in the Themes header of the article.
  • The other side of the debate (indicated by the linked edit on the right) argues that these same statements, by the very fact that they were observable portions of the film should be a part of the synopsis, in keeping with the definition of the word, further reasoning that casual visitors want an accurate depiction of what was on the screen for the film's duration, allowing for any thematic discussion of the synopsis to take place in the Themes section, either in brief or in depth.

I thank you for taking the time to read this request, and I hope you can assist us in finding a compromise.Arcayne 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Internet phenomena

I saw that you delinked the heds for individual entries. While I dislike linked heds too, how are we then to link to individual articles on these (which I always thought was the point of lists)? (I personally thought whoever did that originally was a little bit too well-meaning). Should we go back to having, say, a bulleted list? Daniel Case 13:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I was disambiguating using AWB at the time (Scrubs, I think), and the program automatically delinked the headings. AWB does general clean-ups like that automatically to conform to the manual of style. Looking at the article, perhaps a bullet list would be more concise. The JPStalk to me 13:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] color in episode infoboxes

Hi JPS, you contributed actively to a discussion of the use of colors in Infoboxes for television episodes. In a drive towards limiting the amount of spin-offs of Template:Infobox Television episode, this issue has again come up, and I was wondering if you would care to comment on my ideas to come to a "best effort solution". Thank you for your time. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 04:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death lists

Hello. Per your vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deaths in Scream, could I please draw your attention to this multiple AFD. Cheers. The JPStalk to me 15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Done! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the nomination and the tip

I just contributed to the other violence porn AfD you set up (with my usual reserve and diffidence). Thanks. I expect the fans of these will come out and support them and win, but it's a good effort.Noroton 17:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hideous? Well, I'd reserve that word for the detailed glorifying of the gore. Poor taste. At some point a sentence mentioning all the deaths would be useful for a parent wondering whether a horror video isn't too bad for a 'tween, I guess. I want to look into what kind of Wikipedia rule actually prevents porn or obviously disgusting things from being put on the site. I suspect it's just the idea that it's "unencyclopedic". One thing that really shocked me was that some of these nominated articles have category links to "deaths" categories that also include real deaths. I don't understand what's going through the minds of these editors. For instance, why detail the gore in the first place? Why link film or TV deaths in a category with real deaths? Kind of scary. Noroton 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Benfer

Why did you speedily delete my Robert Benfer topic? Robert Benfer and Jason Steele are of considerable notability. Anyone can be a filmmaker, but not everyone can be a good one. Brooke Brodack in on here, and she is one of those morons with a camera and access to YouTube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMFilmsInc (talk • contribs) 14:56, 18 February 2007

Robert Benfer clearly fails WP:BIO. Brooke Brodack doesn't. Plus, Benfer hads already been deleted by consensus gained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Benfer. The JPStalk to me 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Runehq deleted

Hello, there I was wondering my Runehq was deleted. There was nothing said to me on how to improve it or anything. A do think that it was a good article that I was going to work on expanding. Please let me know. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepeh (talk • contribs) 16:42, 18 February 2007

Hello. It was deleted because it fails our notability guides. Deleting the article was the only way to improve it, in this case, until the site gets a lot of independent attention (notable awards, articles about it in real magazines, etc -- forum posts don't count). The JPStalk to me 17:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weatherfield

Thankyou for your tidying up of the references. I just don't seem to be able to stack them up no matter how hard I try! Ben 22:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Sykes correction name

Hi-


Please, correct Brad Sykes's page. His name is Brad Sykes, on the page, including the page title is misspelled a few times as Brad Skyes. That is a mistake, it can check as on his www.imdb.com page.

Thanks a lor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josephina sykes (talk • contribs) 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Deletion of "Xyllomer"

I'm a bit confused by the deletion of the Xyllomer page. Although you did so on the grounds of it having no claim to notability (A7), comparing it to many of the other MU* game articles suggests to me that this is a somewhat problematic justification. Few of the articles that I looked at there seemed to have a stronger claim to notability than Xyllomer itself, but have been around for years.

Is there something I'm missing here as to the reason it was deleted?

The Mink Ermine Fox 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As the user who tagged that page, and without meaning to barge in, let me say that indeed, there is a big problem of unverified and tenuous notability among the Roleplaying, MMORPG, MUD and Webcomic topics. Wikipedia has a heavy and everpresent slew of non-notable startups and fan groups who claim equal notability with all other members of the same topic. These pages present a problem for the topics and hobbies they're included in, because they dilute awareness and make the truly notable items fade out into the background, giving the appearance that ALL MUDs, MMORPGs, Webcomics, etc, are smallish and non important, when there are in fact several extremely recognized and influential members in each of the four topics.
The way to help solve this problem is not to demand inclusion for yet MORE pages with no notability on the grounds that others were included, but rather to tag and identify those that already exist, so that Wikipedia can increase its quality day by day. If you know of any articles with no notability please tag them. Wallywall 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I went through the notability articles and found the "Inclusion Is Not..." page. I freely admit that I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I therefore retract my former comparison. I had taken the existence of these other pages to be essentially a de facto declaration of validity. That said, I do feel that Xyllomer is a notable MUD despite not being a "major" MUD - it is consistently rated in the top 20 on Top MUD Sites; it originated as a sociological experiment at the University of Paderborn that decidedly grew beyond its simple experimental confines; and under the name PaderMUD was in fact the first production MUD to use Dworkin's Generic Driver. None of this was included in the page, of course, which was probably a mistake. I find that noteworthy, but as I mentioned I'm new to the Wikipedia game and therefore can't really trust my feeling on the matter. So I will certainly accept if JPS disagrees, and not bother him further. Hopefully (as one friend cautioned me) there's no insult taken here. The Mink Ermine Fox 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic (1997 film) references

Again, what is the purpose of the citing the same information again and again? all the things you cited from BBC can also be found on imdb. what is the difference? unless you know any new info then you can cite them seperately. It makes the whole reference list unecesarrily long and the whole section cluttered with numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.41.32 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 23 February 2007

I have already explained. References are our friend. They should be in every section; ideally in every paragraph. The IMDb is not always considered in high regard by editors. If we are striving for FA status then IMDb wil cause it to fail. Please do not remove them again. Removing references could be construed as vandalism. The JPStalk to me 08:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, The INFORMATION that I took from IMDB is THE SAME information you are presenting on your citation. It is NOT about wheter IMDB are realiable or not, It is about why we need to cite THE SAME information AGAIN and AGAIN? Is that how you cite things? isn't enough for one citation? As we are only citing RAW facts??? Why is this so hard to understand? What is the difference when a reader look up at your BBC reference and imdb reference? They see THE SAME EXACT thing. UNLESS you are bringing up new information then cite it. And do not bring up Imdb credebilty as 99.9% of all the articles about films here uses that website. Again, this another problem with editors here as I am dealing with their egos rather thier rationals. Common among "account holders" vs. "anonymous users". Can not you see I am trying to help but since you are "user" you think you know better. I am not going to change this thing again, this so small that it is not worth my time.

You are removing reliable references whilst keeping unreliable ones there. It is good news that you are not going to change it again. Another editor, according to the edit history, was confused over your removal. The JPStalk to me 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to be disrespectful or anything, I know you are a good person but, Is it me? or its really you who can not get the point? It is NOT about IMBD. Its about you presenting REDUNDANT references which are already ESTABLISHED. We are presenting very SIMPLE facts, which can be EASILY acess. I really do not think it is necesassry to cite it again and again and again.... AND we are just talking about the INFORMATION : "awards and nomination facts" nothing more not the Imdb not BBC BUT the SIMPLE facts of Titanic's awards and nomination which IS beautifully SUMMERIZED in ONE reference. If Imdb is so UNREALIABLE why its information we are citing is the SAME THING that is found in your BBC????? Why??? Because they are just preseting simple raw facts. Thats it. No wonder Wikipedia is look down upon as unrealiable by professors at my school. because of people like you. I really think the reason why you keep insisting your argument is because nothing more but your ego. have a good day.

No, the reason it's looked down upon is that it is often poorly referenced and can be (temporarily) inaccurate. My own undergraduate students are marked down if they use Wikipedia. The JPStalk to me 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you are using a wikipedia and yet you do not want your students to use it? Isn't that a philosophical contradiction? and can make your head explode? And what are you doing here and editing an article about Titanic? Youre not a College proffesor, are you? that is so odd. If you are, please forgive my english since English is not my first language, obviously. Youre not an English professor are you? I know many English Professors do proof readings for fun.

My reasons for editing Wikipedia are personal and are not related to my work. I teach in an institution of higher education. The JPStalk to me 22:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe it. Mostly, based on our conversation and especially you having a time to fight about wheter what reference should be use on Titanic's article. if you really are then that is really sad.

Ah, I thought you'd get back to a simple personal attack at some point. And you complain about why you've been given less credance than established users. The JPStalk to me 00:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

thats not an attack, I feel sorrow for you (if you really are a teacher, which I think you are lying). "established users" that can be easily instigated should not be allowed here at all. then again this is wikipedia.

I think it's past your bedtime. The JPStalk to me 12:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You just proved my point.:)

Ah, did I now. Great argument. The JPStalk to me 12:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You proven it again.:)

Interesting. Your wit impresses greatly. The JPStalk to me 12:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

[edit] Jonathen Cornelius

Why was Jonathen Cornelius deleted? I see many people editing it, so I have doubts that A7 applies. And now the guy is requesting the same deletion at other wikis, so I'd like to check the background. -- Drini 15:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused... trying to get my head around what happened... The JPStalk to me 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've undeleted it. I can see why I deleted under A7, though (if was mentioned in his associate's AFD). There's no real assertion of notability. The JPStalk to me 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats on the Final Destination 3 delete

Well, that surprised me. A 7-6 vote and the result is "delete" — I like it! If any similar votes come up, feel free to tell me about them. Thanks for your work on this. Noroton 17:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for your support. The closing admin looks at the quality of arguments rather than just the numbers: votes like the KEEP KEEP KEEP, or reasons like "don't delete cause we've had it a while" wasn't helping their case. We'll just have to make sure that those sodding 'deaths' section are kept out. It's usually anons who add them. The JPStalk to me 17:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help with images.

Hey JPS, can you give me some help with some images, or point me to someone who can. I had permission from a photographer on flickr to use some of his photos on wiki. I uploaded them under a free license, but the user would prefer if they were licensed for use just on that page and mentioned a creative commons tag. I'm not sure if this is possible under Wikipedia's rules, or which tag to use. Do you have any idea? Gungadin 18:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, you're right -- I don't think that's possible because it's restriction. It's a shame because many unfree images are being used without any permission at all. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#I3. It's a good photo tho'. The JPStalk to me 19:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
If I licensed them under a creative commons tag, would that restrict their use at all? From what I've read they would still be able to be copied by anyone, so long as the author is credited. Have I got that right?
The author said I can keep the images on the page anyway, although he would prefer them to be restricted.Gungadin 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
If an image is tagged as for use on Wikipedia only, it can still be copied by anyone, which would cause a large number of copyright violations all over the internet. That's why images tagged for use on Wikipedia only are deleted. So either they'll have to allow anyone to use the image, or they can't allow it for use on Wikipedia at all. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images

As you're the expert on fair use images, I thought I'd direct you towards American Idol (season 5) - a page containing 42 fair use images. I know that's way too many, so I thought I'd seek your advice! Your help is appreciated — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)