User talk:Jeandré du Toit/archive/2009
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Basic income in the Netherlands copyvio link ref.
Re [1]
- I have reverted the change you made to the article. First of all, if there is a copyvio somewhere, it's with De Groenen, who borrowed the document from the Vereniging Basisinkomen. Second, I doubt that de Vereniging would be hating on De Groenen since that party is the only one that endorses a basic income; it seems reasonable to assume that they gave permission for republication, even in light of the opening sentence of the document, that 'modest parts' of the brochure can be copied. In fact, practically the whole thing is copied, but I can only assume that De Groenen do so with permission from the Vereniging. Third, the article didn't cite from either document, so there is no copyvio on Wikipedia. Fourth, even if there were a problem, why remove the correct claim that De Groenen is the only party to endorse a basic income? That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater--and in this case, even the bathwater is fine. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- rv and article talk page post. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-08t11:26z
Tweedledum and Tweedledee Ralph Nader?
In this edit, you almost appear to be saying that this ancient usage did not originate until 2000. That's ridiculous. Did you really never hear it until then? I've fixed the section in a recent edit. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Revert unsourced edit, written in an unencyclopedic tone "When one wishes to say"/"one says", adding "no real difference" which is contradicted by the quotes in the refs, changing the section to be unspecific unlike the other sections. The original text didn't come close to saying that it was originated in 2000. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-11t14:36z
I am going to make changes to the Cowboy hat page see [talk page]. -- -oo0(GoldTrader)0oo- (talk) 09:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Nofootnotes not at the top of pages.
Hi, concerning this edit I would like to note that {{nofootnotes}} must be added into the references section of the article and not on the top. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note - I didn't know that. I still think ELs with no footnotes are as bad a book refs with no page numbers, and deserve warnings at the top of the page tho. ~~
- It's good to help editors to add information in the correct place so the warnings should be in the appropriate place. Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." -- wp:v
- Footnotes aren't put in the references section, they're put in the article sections where the info is. The more obvious the warning for incorrectly cited articles the better, since that could lead to an encyclopedic article. -- Jeandré, 2009-01-28t06:14z
Still they should not put on the top as you did here. Nofootnotes reads in its manual: "To add this template to an article, copy and paste {{No footnotes|{{subst:DATE}}}} into the references section of the article." Moreover, "nofootnotes" is not for "incorrectly cited articles". Try "refimprove" instead. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 2009-04-21t20:29z (UTC)
Re [2]
- I see that you've removed the "Personal life" section from Garvey's article. Her marriage to Chiles is certainly undisputed, 2 children likewise (although details might be inappropriate). Chiles' fondness for West Brom is widely known (although incomprehensible). Their separation was widely publicised at the time and there was a ref, albeit to the Daily Mail (the Daily Mail is printed in tabloid format but it's not widely regarded as a "tabloid", although some find its political reporting unreliable). Here's an alternative source: [3] - I would think this is ok and it confirms their marriage. Her involvement in the Southall crash is confirmed here: [4].
- I found these in 2 mins via Google; perhaps a call for better refs before deletion or, even better, adding them, would have been better. A message to me, who added some of the info, would have prompted me to do the job. Are these suggested references ok, in your opinion? Other aspects of the article remain unsourced - but have been left in place. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll add suitably ref'd info. My initial concern was that there might have been an attempt to censor personal data & if so, whether there was a sound reason. I'm aware of the need for care with bios of the living, but the issues are whether the Daily Mail is a reliable source and the lack of forewarning. Most people listening to the BBC and reading British "quality" newspapers would have been aware of the Garvey/Chiles marriage and separation. It was not tabloid speculation. Although the Daily Mail has faults, there are aspects where it does well and in this case, the report was reliable. As cetainty is so important in this group of articles, why were other unsupported facts not queried in detail and/or removed? Just curious. As far as "burden of proof" is concerned - I agree with you. However, when I delete in this way - and I have - I would usually either have used the cn tag first or, where reasonable, left a note on the other editor's talk page. It's not just courteous, it gives a chance to validate good info which might otherwise be lost. Not everyone rummidges through watchlists & contributions lists to follow up edits. Anyhow, no war intended. Folks at 137 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Stella Vine and Rosy Wilde photos.
Re [5]
- Assumeing we don't hear from Madeofstars in the next few hours I plan to deal with the situation this evening.Geni 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Third opinion request.
I have removed your third opinion request from WP:3O as it falls outside the scope of the project and there are already several editors involved. It seems best to me to let the conversation die and just move on with constructive work on the project. I think your edit was with good intentions (in good faith) and that you did not distort the other editors comments, just removed what was potentially derogatory. It is probably best to avoid doing so in the future unless it is egregiously offensive. Let me know if there is any additional way I can help. Happy wikiediting! (EhJJ)TALK 16:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
How do you like the Mitchell Brothers article so far? George415 (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC) (originally posted at [6]).
- Needs more references. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-08t15:46z
Re [7]
- Someone brought this ticket and your RFPP request to my attention. I don't think it will be indefinitely full-protected, per WP:NO-PREEMPT. While I can't access that queue, I am fortunate enough to live in the same city as the Commission for Taxi Regulation, and if the context of the ticket suggests that it would be helpful for someone to telephone or visit them in person, I am happy to do so — you can leave details on my OTRS wiki talk page or email me. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop reverting the edits to this page. The birth date is well referenced, and it is common knowledge that she is a bassist. Future reversions will be viewed as vandalism and addressed as such. -- Elaich talk 01:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Article creator provided a link with proof the album of this group charted. Please revisit the AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Re [8].
Hi
Apologies for the "spam"; I'm writing to you and other editors because you have edited the Club Mahindra Holidays article recently.
Concern has been expressed that the article is too promotional and is about a non-notable subject. I do not necessarily agree with this, however I am concerned that unless these issues are addressed then the article may be deleted. I am therefore asking for your help in improving the article, and wish to make the following suggestions:
- The article should avoid being a promotional vehicle for Club Mahindra: the article should adhere to Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view.
- The article should avoid being an attack on Club Mahindra: while some criticism is to be expected the article should not be an attack page.
- Positive and negative comments about Club Mahindra should be referenced by reliable sources such as major newspapers and business magazines.
- Controversial claims - either for or against Club Mahindra - should be discussed on the article's talk page.
Once again, apologies for disturbing you with this matter but I hope I can look forward to working with you on improving this article!
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Daniel Finkelstein protection.
Re [9]
- [Re: Your RFPP request] Hi Jeandre. I've fully protected the Finkelstein page for 1 day to allow the SPI case to go forward. Let me know if it needs to be extended. You own the ticket so I haven't replied. Cheers, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- After having a bit more time, I looked at the contribs of the offending accounts. Since the named accounts had no constructive edits, I indefinitely blocked them, and unprotected the page. I did not block the IP. I also have placed the article on my watchlist. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Notability versus comprehensiveness.
Re [10]
- Thankyou for your advice about the Australian and New Zealand Society of Indexers page. It has been a bit of a steep learning curve but I have learnt step by step. -- CalRhiannon (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
wp:ERRORS post not error.
Re [11]
Clarification on Ottava Rima RFA oppose.
Re [12]
- You mentioned that you did not like my response to number seven. Was it my statement that using "hanging" is inappropriate or was it my response that there is little that we can do to end rampant foolishness on Wikipedia during April 1st besides undermine the attention seeking behavior by not praising those who act in such a way? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-01t21:44z
- Ha! If you think that I wouldn't help get such a person desysopped, you haven't paid enough attention to me. It is hard to get them removed for one edit to the mainpage. If it was a series of them, or if they reverted it back in, then yes, there is grounds to do so. I try to pick and choose my battles though. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-01t21:44z
Hello, just dropping you a line to inform you that I requested additional clarification about your oppose. Would you mind reviewing the page at your earliest convenience? Thanks. GlassCobra 19:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-02t20:40z
Daniel Malakov AfD.
Re [13]
- Now that his murderers have been found guilty, the subject of the Daniel Malakov has reached the point that people are interested to understand the facts and are turning to Wikipedia for that knowledge. The new article is different from a previous article that was apparently deleted about a year ago, as is the information which focuses on the legal process and facts that were established in the trial. This is not the usual "tabloid" murder.Distaffperp (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- All the information is from multiple reliable news accounts (verifiability). Does "biography of living persons" applies to convicted criminals?Distaffperp (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- W.r.t. the last sentence, I should rather say, does "BLP" prevent Wikipedia from quoting secondary sources who themselves base their reporting on courtroom proceedings and ancillary interviews relating to which the individuals were found guilty? I believe Wikipedia mentions the name "David Berkowitz" in connection with the "Son of Sam" killings (several of which in fact occurred not far from this one).Distaffperp (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- BLP applies to everyone, even murderers. Comment about problem with sourcing and notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-14t12:35z
Re [14]
- Hi Jeandre, this article has undergone some changes. Please have a look and see if it's enough for you to change your mind on the AfD. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete changed to keep. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-16t09:30z
Orfeh sourcing.
Re your request here, I'm not quite sure why you made it. First of all, I didn't add it so much as reverted my own removal of that in the first place. Second, I've been dealing with this issue and have reviewed the OTRS ticket as well as having been e-mailed to regarding this issue, and the information I re-added was never even in dispute. There is absolutely no objection to including this subject's spouse or birthplace. I re-added this because it makes no sense to remove an infobox (which all biographies should have) which contains uncontroversial information, and it shows good faith of working with both sides on the issue about what to include rather than blindly reverting to the lesser-information version without regard to the good content that may be removed. The things in the infobox are 1. The picture, 2. the caption, 3. the birthplace, and 4. the spouse (along with marriage date). Out of these things I re-added, I can't fathom you objecting to the picture or the caption. It's a free image and there is no dispute that it is of her, and no objection to its inclusion. Even if there were an objection, we don't bow to requests by subjects to remove their picture for no reason. As for the caption, it's impossible to source that, and they are never sourced, so I will assume what you want me to revert is the birthplace and spousal information. I found a source that I believe is reliable that includes the spouse and date of marriage, which was never in dispute in the first place and is widely available information on both Orfeh and her husband's websites, so once again I don't see why you would have objected to this info being added, however I added a source so whatever objection you may have is hopefully alleviated. As for the birthplace, once again this was never in dispute, its inclusion was never in dispute, and there are in fact several sources that say she "grew up" in New York and went through the NYC public school system. However, just to appease your request since I couldn't find anything specifically saying she was "born" in New York, I removed that bit, even though I personally think "growing up" there is sufficiently valid information for "birthplace" in absence of any information to the contrary. I trust you no longer have an objection to what I re-added? VegaDark (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Abdul Hameed Dogar referencing.
I have undone your changes to page Abdul Hameed Dogar. The facts with the references are in the text of the page in question. Same facts were summarized in the infobox. First I dont see much need to double reference and also I have not seen same kind of formatting on any other pages. Please see pages Samuel Alito or Colin Powell or George W. Bush just as example. Thanks
- Could you please explain to me why are you putting references in the infobox ?Rizvisa1 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Reverted, and explained referencing. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-22t14:20z
- All the facts that were summarized in the "INFOBOX" are mentioned in the detail text of the same page and are properly referenced. If a fact is stated more than once, I dont think that we have to again give reference each time. Once is sufficient. Please look at the INFOBOX of Samuel Alito or Colin Powell or George W. Bush or any other. You will not find that the facts summarized in the "INFOBOX" are stated with reference.Rizvisa1 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok I am still lost and need your help in understanding issue that you are finding.
- You said ""The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Are you saying that each time a fact is mentioned in same article, the source should be mentioned. As example, if it is stated Chief Justice Dogar, I have to each time give a reference of his being a "Chief Justice? In the article I said he was born on this date and gave it a reference. At other places, when I again refer to his date of birth, I am not giving reference as it already has been refered. Please clarify this for me. Are you saying a fact when ever mentioned, no matter how many time, each time have to be given a reference
- You said "The term starting date as Supreme Court Justice is only given a month and year in ref 1" But you are looking at wrong reference. I am not giving it ref 1, you gave it that. In reality is is in ref#3 (as you would also find in the text in page in question under section "Judicial career"
- You said "Inline citations mean I can check for birth_place in the annual-report2004 and since I can't find it in there I can remove that citation" But it is there. I quote from reference 'Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar Born on 22nd March 1944. Passed B.Sc. from University of Sindh in 1966; LL.B., from Law College, Lahore, University of Punjab in 1969; enrolled as Advocate in 1970 and practiced law for 25 years; elevated as Judge High Court of Sindh on 10th April, 1995; elevated as Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan on 28th April, 2000.'
- You have indicated "citations needed" under section Posts held in other fields. But the citation is listed. example 1996 to April 2000[citation needed]: Member, Syndicate, Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur[3] - Rizvisa1 (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- A. I understand the point about facts listed in the article be verifiable. What I dont understand is when ever same fact is listed, it why it needs to be cited each and every time. If I say Earth is a planet, and I give a reference for it, next time I call earth a planet, it surely does not need to be cited again. That is the standard practice every where. I might be wrong, but it seems that you are saying that each time I call earth a planet, prove it. Please clarify this point.
- I have put almost every thing back and almost each sentence (in some case even part of sentence) have references. The page look awful as you insisted having same facts when ever cited, be given a reference and I have done that. If you still have concern with any sentence, please raise it. From my understanding, things that should be removed is things that are "libel". I dont understand how you see that for example, a date of birth of a person is a "contentious" item or a "libel" item and is fit to be removed immediately —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizvisa1 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Making it easier to check references.
Re [15]
- Hi, mate. You have recently made a change on 9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, a page that I created. The change seems incidental to me, however, I do not understand why you have done it. Basically you have changed the format without providing a reason as there was nothing really wrong with it. It is the same format that I have used for many Australian infantry battalion articles and it has not been criticised in the past. I specifically decided to use that format due to problems I see with the format you have changed it to. I have included a separate Notes and References section because if I want to include a note (i.e. not a citation but an aside point) I don't want it appearing in the references section. Can you please explain why you feel that my format is incorrect? AustralianRupert (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, but it doesn't really explain to me why there was a need to change it. The reason why I made a separate Notes and References section was so that aside points may be added and not clutter up the bibliographic information. The original style did provide a link and all relevant bibliographic details, just in a References section that was separate to the Notes section. Changing it didn't make checking the sources any easier because it was just as easy under the older version — simply scroll and click. I still don't see how the original style ws wrong, or why it needed to be changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I've replied to your questions at commons:File talk:South Africa national election 2009 winner by municipality.svg. - htonl (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
GRUB4DOS deletion.
Re [16]
Re [17]
- Dear Jeandre du Toit,
- I am an integral member of the Cape Party and as such have a wealth of information surrounding the Party, the History of the Cape and the movement for independence. I will admit that I am a novice to the workings of wikipedia and am not familiar with the conventional processes one is to follow. I have had a quick read through general procedures and have decided that my contacting you is the easiest and most suitable manner in which to publish a respectable article.
- I would like as much information as possible to be available for those wanting to access information on the Cape Party. Considering your objections, what do you feel would be the most suitable way to proceed?
- I could supply you with Cape Party information and sources, and you could compile the information in the required format.
- Alternatively, I could publish the information and you could inform me as to the correct manner of publication.
- For ease of communication would you be contactable by email?
- Regards Freedom1910 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.139.28 (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Email username.
Re [18]
- [Hi!] Please be advised that I cannot change my username as that was part of my unban agreement with the Arbitration Board. It has been grandfathered in. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Nancy Jacobson clean up.
Re [19]
- Hi Jeandré, it's not clear whether your recent edits to Nancy Jacobson, which reduced the article to a stub, were done in your capacity as the editor who unsuccessfully nominated the article for deletion or as a volunteer for OTRS. Would you clarify the reason for your edit? Thanks, --Shunpiker (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Re [20]
- This could be easily fixed by moving the telemovie article to Hell Has Harbour Views, which is where I believe it was originally before the "film" article was created. The clueless cleanup when that article was deleted left nothing at the main title, and no indication that the telemovie article ever existed. Rebecca (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
22 Midsouth Emmy Awards deletion.
Re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/22ndMidsouth Emmy Awards
- I do not know why you continue to nominate this section off of a main article for deletion? This is a sub page that connects to the greater subject page. I am unsure as to why you are after this subpage as a topic for deletion? It is not meant to be an article which would cause a problem with wikipedia guidelines for notability. However, it is a smaller part of a larger article. I moved it to a sub page because of its size. I have again removed the tag and would appreciate you looking at the whole picture before sticking needless deletion tags on the article. I have been an editor long enough to know when something meets guidelines. I thank you for your attention and concerns to keep wikipedia in great condition. Thank you.. Canyouhearmenow 17:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir or Madam:
As you are aware the above article already unanimously passed a WP:AFD vote see AFD here, in which you did not participate, which was initiated by myself, the article's creator, following your ill-advised WP:PROD. I believe your continued tagging of this page comes close to WP:STALKING. I do not claim the page is perfect but I would appreciate your finding an uninvolved, disinterested party (editor, admin.) to review the page in question. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
OTRS Ticket:2009022510078421.
Re [21]
OTRS photosubmission queue.
Hi, would you mind being a little more careful when you move tickets? For example [22] was easily handled by the "Uploading and adding images" reply and did not belong in photosubmission. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 18:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense in AfD.
Re [23]
- Just cause you don't understand it doesn't mean it's nonsense. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- as you appear to have been paying attention to my (seemingly nonsensical) comments I'd like to ask you. What you saw as nonsense (misunderstanding was my fault) was questioning whether or not there was sock puppetry happening. (Comments on socks I thought were blatant were clearly not, I need to rethink how I do some things). Do you think sockpuppetry may have made a difference in the result of that afd, was there sockpuppetry happening there, am I paranoid (more than I know I am), should I not ask you these questions, should I have done this earlier? Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
!Nancy Jacobson sourcing.
Re [24]
- [Removing Sourced Material] Please don't blank a page[25] despite an AfD decision with which you do not agree[26]. Your new objection about sourcing has now been addressed as well.[27]
Re: Careful with undo.
Re [28]
- Oops! Sorry, my mistake, I was trying to make sense of different edits. Something tells me vandalism will be high on today's featured article. a little insignificant 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
AfD of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!
Re [29]
- Hey, I'm the one who started the Wait Wait episode pages, so I thought I would post my response to your Proposition of Deletion here to make sure you get them. I respect your point of view. I have posted some comments here for your digestion:
- I disagree. I believe that this page should be kept because there are ones like it, but I do not think this falls under Wikipedia:OSE. First of all, the top of OSE says: This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion.
- This is just a guideline to people, not an instruction. And it's a guideline to those making an argument, not those evaluating one. It says to people, you should avoid making this argument because it's usually not very meaningful. You should listen to the argument with an open mind and not only in terms of this "essay".
- To argue that a piece of vandalism should stay is preposterous. If you try to delete vandalism, no one will argue with you. This is true for any piece of vandalism. In this case however, the other examples are high profile, like List of The Colbert Report episodes (2005). Go and try and delete that. It meets all the criteria you have laid out for deleting the Wait Wait article, but if you tried to delete it, you would be shut down immediately. This is because articles of this sort are accepted by the community even if they are not expressly endorsed by the rules.
- The only difference between this page and others of its kind are that this is the first one for a radio show (that I know of). It is a very popular radio show, so it is notable. They have had guests on like Barack Obama, Lewis Black, this is not a tiny regional show. If you can get the The Daily Show and The Colbert Report ones deleted, then this one deserves it, but I don't think that's ever going to happen, so this one should stay..
- I also left comments onthe AfD page, maybe read those too? They're different.
- Cheers,
- The Talking Sock talk contribs 02:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- [Wait Wait Episode lists] I don't appreciate you not telling me that you placed the Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! episode lists up for deletion again. I wrote all of them and took part in the last discussion. You are giving me the impression that you want to do this behind my back so I can't oppose it. -The Talking Sock talk contribs 02:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Insufficient warnings catch-22.
Re [30]
- User:StephenBuxton's reply on 2009-05-31t15:37:53z
Re [31]
- Consensus was that the article is suitable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, as an admin I can't simply overrule consensus. And, chances are, consensus is correct. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, feel free to file a request at WP:DRV then. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 6. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-06t15:05z
List of books exempt from wp:v?
Re [32]
- [Book lists] Items on such lists are not considered to be content to which WP:V is applicable in the first place, but rather as references, citations (see first paragraph of Wikipedia:Citing sources ) or further reading themselves. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) has guidance on what information can be included. Inclusion on a third party list is not deemed necessary there or done in the examples given there. Additional reliable citations are necessary only if we are saying something like the list is complete, or if it includes works published under different pen names. Linked ISBNs for books which have them usually provide instant verification only a few clicks away, anyways. A book on such a list is its own reference, for the fact that the author wrote the book. Insisting on including this fact in the body of the article with an inline cite to the book list, or having an inline cite in the book list pointing to itself would be pointless - it's a case where an alternative convention is universally considered preferable. Regards, John Z (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Citations in lead of Firefly (TV series).
Yesterday you restored a {{source needed}} tag to the first paragraph in the lead of Firefly (TV series), commenting "Undid revision 299796658 by Rehevkor (talk) wp:bop)", and subsequently added the appropriate reference to the quote in the lead. The edit you undid was commented "is sourced in body so does not need to be sourced in lead". Rehevkor was referring to WP:LEADCITE, which states:
Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads.
As you discovered, the complete "oddball genre mix" quote is sourced and is easily found in the body under Firefly (TV series)#Critical review, just where it would be exptexted. I reread wp:bop, and while I see how it informs WP:LEADCITE, I don't understand how it overrides it, and hoped you would explain your reasoning. Cheers. -- Thinking of England (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Pauley Perrette sourcing.
Why are you removing all these sourced statements as "unsourced" or "unrealiable". Some were posted by Perrette herself. We have to have a small bit of AGF that the statements were truly written by her and not someone else. But the removal of the sourced statements and posts has me puzzled. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand that the subject has had issues that oversight has had to deal with, but there are some points I would appreciate your clarifying. The things you removed here are career facts that can (and will) be sourced, or general personal history details Perrette revealed on a television talk appearance (which I personally saw and can cite to the episode). My concerns are with the material you removed here based on them being sourced to non WP:RS. These two items are sourced to Perrette's own pages, one archived and one still extant but no longer used. Regarding those, WP:RS#Statements of opinion says "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source says "Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs." The alternate name "Pauley P." is actually a name she used that was screen credited on appearances on two television shows and a film in 1996-1997. Basically, I'm puzzled by how any of this would fall under the need for oversight or BLP concerns. I'd really appreciate your rationale for why this is being removed given those circumstances. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Atheist (disambiguation).
I have nominated Atheist (disambiguation), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 01:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jeandre, I received your email and I deleted the text from the Neil Shapiro page I had set up and opened a Talk Page as you suggested in your email to me. I don't know mcuh about Wikipedia and again I apologize for errors. I am just glad I saw the autobiography information while the page had only been up for a day. I think the information I have now on my talk page should supply any editor(s) who might wish to do an article with enough material and online sources and links to make it pretty simple. I want to emphasize that this is not an ego trip for me. I just feel that the early days of telecommunications that I was privileged to be involved in are not being very well documented. For example the people I list who were associated with the MacBinary II standard -- they made a real contribution that should be documented. Anyway, if you do a page, great! If not, no problem-o. If you need to reach me my regular email is [...]. Thank you for your help. -- Thoth008 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Re [33]
- [Removal of PROD] Hello Jeandré du Toit, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Today (Gary Allan song) has been removed. It was removed by Ryanbstevens with the following edit summary '(Song is still climbing. Deletion not necessary.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Ryanbstevens before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
- Just letting you know, charting singles on a major chart are usually notable enough for inclusion, and Hot Country Songs is a major chart. I have found other third-party reviews for this single, which should make for a reasonably detailed article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Other sources have been added; The 9513 and Roughstock, at least, are considered reliable sources. Also, it's a charting single, which is an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Re [34]
h2g2 a reliable source?
Hello, you had posted a comment about h2g2 on Talk: Invisible Pink Unicorn which doesnt quite jibe with comments made by another editor. Can you come help clarify this confusion? (Its in the RfC) Thank you.-- The Red Pen of Doom 00:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not an RS. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-08t09:16z
Wikimedia foundation board of trustees elections.
- [Thanks] for your support. Cheers, Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 05:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
André Aciman referencing.
Re [36]
- I don't understand what the fuss is about regarding this well-known author. Has someone complained? Could it be that the author himself does not want a Wikipedia article about him? A Google search brings up more than 50,000 hits. One can easily add dozens of links at the bottom of the page verifying every little statement in this (rather short) article. Is that what we need to do? Pasquale (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Answer, u_t notification. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-20t07:11z
- No inline citations. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-20t16:11z
- Thank you for the clarification. I don't believe the article as it stands contains any material challenged or likely to be challenged, so I am not going to bother adding any inline citations right now (but maybe someone else will). If you have reason to believe otherwise, do what you have to do. If the author insists on being removed from the Wikipedia, I guess it's his privilege, even though the Wikipedia will be poorer for it. Pasquale (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
[37]: User:Nil_Einne + V + BLP = useful (reffed) wiki page. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-08-20t20:04z
Karaite conversion copyvio.
Re [38]
- Thanks for removing that piece of contemporary religious propaganda from Karaite Judaism. It did not belong in a serious encyclopedia article about a historic religious movement to begin with. The copyright reason is a good one, IMO. Regards, --warshytalk 15:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
10k emails source.
[39] -- 2009-09-06
AfD of Wait Wait 2.
See #AfD of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-09t11:28z
List of QI episodes: morefootnotes.
Re [41]
X2vnc prod.
Per User_talk:Pmc#Proposed_deletion_of_X2vnc, are you under the impression that acquiring additional material to satisfy WP's notability requirements for this article is an impossible task? ◉ ghoti 15:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Moved discussion to Talk:X2vnc. Thanks for contributing! ◉ ghoti 21:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Andre Aciman proposed deletion.
Re [42]
Re [43]
- Why has the discussion under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Abbey been hidden? I'm not seeing anything sensitive there.--RadioFan (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
SVG NZ electorate map?
Félix Rodríguez/Che photo.
I was concerned , as you seem to have been, that a fringe view on the fotos of Félix and Che were forged. I wondered if you would take a look at the article and tell me if you think it is undue weight to a fringe view to include this? Cordially,--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Die4Dixie's removal seems fine. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-30t22:18z
dePRODing of articles.
Hello Jeandré du Toit, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:
- PROD removed from Maybe I'm Dreaming, by User:Michig, with summary '(deprod - album by notable artist that placed on a national chart)'
- PROD removed from Tot Ons Genoegen Rotterdam, by User:Phil Bridger, with summary '(contest prod - we automatically accept teams playing at the tenth level in England, so we shouldn't be deleting an article on a team playing at the third level in the Netherlands without discussion)'
Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Military ship article names.
Please be aware that your moves of the articles Italian battleship Leonardo da Vinci to Leonardo da Vinci (battleship) and Italian submarine Leonardo da Vinci to Leonardo da Vinci (submarine) are actually against the established naming conventions for ships put forth at WP:NC-SHIPS. As such I have reverted these moves. If you wish to further discuss these, please raise this matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. -MBK004 03:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Re [48]
- Hi Jeandré du Toit
- I noticed your edits to the above-captioned journal article. If you look at articles that link to Informa or Informa plc you will see dozens of similar articles. I spent some time today doing similar prunes to many (but not all) of them, but really don't know if that's the right approach. Would be interested in your views.
- Regards, Bongomatic 15:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.
- My edits weren't in response to yours, I found the article via the new unpatrolled articles list. I think your edit was fine. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-16t18:04z
Articles for deletion nomination of The Lurking
I have nominated The Lurking, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lurking. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Paul Eggers
I do not understand why you would propose deletion of the Paul Eggers page simply because he did not win. Are you serious? Wiki has a great many bios of candidates that did not win elections. The Eggers paged is notable because he ran in two competitive gubernatorial elections in Texas and came closer to winning as a Republican than any one else since the 1870s - a stretch of almost 100 years. TexianPolitico (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Re [49]
One Media Player per Teacher.
Just a friendly heads up on One Media Player per Teacher. The creator of the article has requested that the article be restored, and since prods may be restored on request, I've done so. However, I've advised him to fix the reference issues quickly and tagged the article as a COI. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Current_requests#One_Media_Player_per_Teacher). Feel free to take this to AfD if you like.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Removal of PROD from Balsi
Hello Jeandré du Toit, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Balsi has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary 'contest prod - verified villages are perfectly encyclopedic subjects'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Rangeblock of ref-falsification vandal.
Re [50]
- Hey there, good eye. This is a tough one to deal with because of the wide range of IPs they have been editing from. I just rangeblocked 71.218.0.0/16 for 48 hours; I'm afraid that's about all that can be done for the moment until we have new evidence of a different, recent IP range. Keep me posted if you need any further action regarding this. Tan | 39 16:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)