User talk:The JPS/archive18/archive7
- The below discussions are preserved as an archive of my talk page, because tak page blanking is frowned upon. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page by anyone other than me.
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. Simple obscenities show a simple mind.
| Please leave a . |
 Archives |
|---|
The User USer:A M. Khan is once again Vandalising Pages
editHi,
I just wanted to bring it to your kind notice that the user User:A M. Khan has once again started to vandalize the page of Marwat. Moreover, he also recreated the POV article on Mina Khel and changed its earlier decision tag of “Redirect” to “Keep”, which I have reverted Check this link and compare the history. Furthermore, he removed the Neutrality Tags from the article of Anwar Kamal Khan, and which I have also reverted. I have left him a warning on his talk page but I know that he is going to continue the same. I just want to bring it to your notice that he is back with his sock puppets and an anonymous IP Address and is once again vandalizing articles. As a vigilant administrator, you had blocked this person earlier as well and I would like to request you to please keep an eye on him and so will I. --Marwatt 02:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
User:A M. Khan must be given a warning for removing tags and for recraeting POV. But User:Marwatt be banned for some days as he the father of vandalising.
editThe User:Marwatt is making article Marwat a personal article. He is politically and personally oppoent to the tribe of some people. He dragged the personal enimty on Wikipedia, which is too bad. I am also a political oppoent to the people A M. Khan writes about, but believe me what ever he si writing is based upon truth. As wikipedia is not a property of my father, I have no question in making it fair and clean one. I support User:A M. Khan even being a political opponent. But be known that if User:Marwatt be given a warning for personalising and politicising the Wikipedia and specially the article Marwat and relevant articles to it, whole of the problem will be solved.
Make a justice, please. Go through discussion and history you will know the culpability of User:Marwatt. He is responsible for vandalising the article, as he is keep on deleting the useful and true informations, those are mentioned with proofs
I assure you that the current version of artcile Marwat (Current means, the lates one, updated just now) is the most best one updated so far. User:Marwatt never came to discussion point, even he was asked several times.
Lakki Marwat 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nicholas Webers Article
editI really think that Nick Weber's article should not have been deleted. I worked hard on finding all the information out, including getting time to interview him. He will soon be an important figure. He has a small record deal from Nashville, which I was going on it to add, when I saw it had been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastermanxp3 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2006
- When he is important, and meets the criteria at WP:MUSIC, then he can have his article. Until then, mySpace will be the best place to promote him. The JPStalk to me 16:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Jonatan Briel
editI appreciate your help with the category section on the Jonatan Briel article. I should have spent more time checking the category possibilities. Sorry you had to do my work for me, but I am grateful. Thank you. Scott Rskellner 00:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, not a problem!! The JPStalk to me 10:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
So what exactly is wikipedia policy about restoring deleted warnings to other editors' talk pages? The only thing I found was Help:Talk page#User talk pages, which is pretty vague, otherwise I would have gone ahead and restored the warnings myself instead. Sorry to make more work for you.
- Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile ... However, reverting such removals ... is not proper and may result in a block for edit warring. If someone removes your comments without answering, consider moving on or dispute resolution. This is especially true for vandalism warnings.
Thanks for the clarification. cab 00:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think common sense prevails. I wouldn't get into an edit war over the warnings -- I've only reinstated them once. Since there seems to be issues with this user, I felt it important to make editors aware when they go to his talk page. A colourful 'history' would do the same job. The JPStalk to me 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
MY PICTURE
editÕHOW DARE YOU NOMINATE MY PICTURE FOR DELETION. I TOOK THAT MYSELF, AND HAS ALL THE DETAILS WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, WITHDRAW IT AT ONCE. I' AM NOT PLEASED, PLEASE DO NOT BE A KNOW IT ALL AND LEAVE IT WHERE IT IS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Sunderland (talk • contribs)
You edited the OU page and took out some images, on the grounds of potential POV. I don't entirely understand your rationale (newbie syndrome) and was wondering if you could expand on this edit?
- Thanks, Fasach Nua 17:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. There have been many, many graduates. We can use common sense to narrow them down to 'notable' (prime ministers, infamous mass murderes...). But then whose photograph(s) do we select for inclusion? We can't include photographs for all of them, and it seems POV that we have some but not others. The JPStalk to me 17:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Stanley Kubrick edit war (of a sort)
editHi The JPS. I saw your last edit at the Stanley Kubrick page and I thought I would give what info I can to help. Up until Nov 8th the headers for each of the entries about his films were set up as internal links. Then User: Interrobamf removed them properly citing the MoS as the reason. Over the weekend an anonymous user tried to put them back in and I kept taking them back out. I also cited the MoS and added the fact that each of the films were linked in the body of the article. Then another (or the same?) anonymous user started putting in the main article template (which I was okay with although they didn't remove the links in the article so a bit of overlinking was occurring). Then User: NeonXenon started removing those main article templates. Your last revert has left the page with about half of the sections about the films with the template and half without. I also read your message to Neon so I knew you were aware of this situation. Now, in spite of my mistakes on the Lewis TV series page. I am not big on edit wars as they are so counterproductive, but I wanted to give you a more complete picture of what was happening on Stanley's page so that you might be able to give some direction to any or all of us who are trying to make said page better. If I am going over ground that you have already researched my apologies for taking up your time and thanks for that time and cheers! MarnetteD | Talk 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Re. Message to User:H.J. Bellamy
editAccording to this, they aren't the real names... --Majorly (Talk) 17:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, cool. Probably a good idea to put fake details, as a diversion... The JPStalk to me 20:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Deletion of the Penny Harvest Page (11/7/06)
editI recently received a notice of speedy termination of the Penny Harvest Wikipedia page. I have familiarized myself with the rules and regulations governing the use of Wikipedia, and am writing this letter to dispute the deletion of the Penny Harvest page based on the following reasons:
The Wikipedia guideline on criteria for organizations states that the organization must be notable and verifiable, “Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities is national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source. Notability can be asserted for organizations through: 1. inclusion in third party published materials; 2. a significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject.”
The Penny Harvest is a national nonprofit education program. The program exists in about 800 schools across 11 cities, with a member base of just over 500,000, not including its 4 million alumni. The members, grade school children, have raised over $5 million for charity since the programs inception. The students are currently raising over $600,000 a year, which will rapidly increase the overall total.
The success of the Penny Harvest Program can be verified by reliable sources of information, such as Idealist.org, The National Youth Leadership Council, The Ford Foundation, UNICEF and other scholarly colleagues in the field who support this initiative. The Penny Harvest program also received a significant amount of media coverage from CNN and the Oprah Winfrey show and has had major articles in the New York Times(1), Parade Magazine(2), and Child Magazine(3), to name a few.
Many of the causes and charities these children support through the Penny Harvest are included on Wikipedia or have individual Wikipedia pages. These causes include sexual abuse, LGBT rights, issues surrounding homelessness, animal cruelty, and immigration rights; and charities such as American Red Cross, Make A Wish Foundation, American Cancer Society.
The Penny Harvest is a service-learning and character education program with a strong and visible presence in the field of education. The program strives to continue President Bill Clinton’s vision of expanding opportunities for Americans to serve their communities. The case could be made that the Penny Harvest program is the most distinct and successful program bridging the theoretical leap from simple community service to total service-learning. This topic would be of interest to non-partisan editors.
Finally, I am certain the scope and reach of the Penny Harvest program’s cultural/social impact is at the very least equivalent to that of some of the other people/organizations for whom pages currently exist. I am currently making changes to the original document to in compliance with Wikipedia’s rules of NPOV and verifiability.
1 Roberts, Sam. "A Way to Help with a Penny." New York Times 24 Dec. 1990, sec. B. 2 Greer, Colin. "Make Pennies Count." Parade Magazine 11 Aug. 1996: 8-9. 3 Larsen, Elizabeth. "Raising Kids Who Care." Child Magazine Dec.-Jan. 2005: 131-134.
Jaws (film) page
edithello,
While can somewhat understand the deletion of my links as being reletive to non compliance in relation to forum linking, I cannot rightfully agree with the deletion and/or reversion of my data additions on the primary JAWS page. They are verifiable and accurate. Thankfully no one deleted my additions on the Quint (Jaws character) page as they must have been acceptable. I have added links to non-forum pages on the primary JAWS page yet they too have been deleted. Please advise as to further course of action so as I do not further mistake actions as misguided beligerancy. I look forward to further contributions.
ThankyouFred-stine 16:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. I have explained why some your contrubtions are unsuitable. I have today removed unencylopedic information from the Quint page, speciifcally the 'Quotes' section. My advice is to live and learn, and read the policies that experienecd editors point you towards when you make mistakes. The JPStalk to me 17:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Meat Loaf
editHi, The JPS. How pronounce last two letters (AY) in the reality family name "Aday" in singer Meat Loaf. Like second and third letter in word "Day" or like second letter in word "Pit". I'm Прон from Bulgarian Wikipedia
Stanley Kubrick
editHi The JPS, I added main article links prior but saw that people had done this before and had there changes removed citing the MOS, so I thought it best I revert my changes. Cheers, NeonXenon.
CDA page
editHi, yes, checking the CDA item again, I noticed again some errors and irrelevancies, which I corrected. Also as a journal editor of 4 international journals (Discourse Studies, Discourse & Society, and now also -- soon to appear -- Discourse & Communication and the internet journal in Spanish Discurso & Sociedad) I have and must have a very broad and permissive view of discourse studies in general, and CDA in particular. But so as to maintain some of the basic, and generally shared, characteristics of CDA some irrelevant links, and misconceptions must be corrected (one major misconception - also showing in many papers submitted to the journals - is that CDA is a method of discourse analysis, which of course it is not: we use many different methods.
Good luck with your design for a more detailed item. If I had the time I would do that, but I am certainly willing to have a look when you are ready. Send me a message: teun@discourse.org.
Teun
Bat Out Of Hell III
editI dont not feel the section in Bat Out Of Hell III Critical Reception is objectively written. It does not contain an objective appraisal of the success of Bat Out Of Hell series in regards to songwriter/producer Jim Steineman. Take into considering the success of the first two and now the lack of success with III. That factor should be displayed in this section and when I attempted to do so, my additions were deleted. Most Meat Loaf Jim Steinman fans go hand in hand, so this content is very revelant. A proper write up in this deleted section should be modified before being displayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.9.47 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 19 November 2006
- An 'objective' description, for use, should be fully sourced and cited using the format used by the rest of the article. Otherwise, it is down to the opinions/thoughts of individual editors, which is unacceptable. I've seen, and deleted, a lot of fancruft in this article. Indeed, the latest (yours?) contained an inaccurate reference... you positioned the < ref > tag to make it look like your contributions were informed by that article. They were not.
- Perhaps the lack of Steinman's involvement has contributed to the low performance? Or perhaps the gerenal population don't care about who writes/producers, and that the low performance indicates ML's lack of coolness...? Perhaps...? How could you possibly be objective when writing this stuff, whilst avoiding weasel words, like "some people". You cannot.
- Therefore everything that goes in that artcile should be accurately sourced. If we can say that x in y newspaper said z, and here's the URL... that would be fine. The JPStalk to me 11:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Meatloaf Bat 3
editOkay I will leave a new addition using facts. As far as I know, Wikipedia is a public forum, and users have a right to post and edit. You accused me of being a vandal, yet you deleted my posting, so what does that make you? You did not give a reason. Maybe I dont understand the rules as well as you, but I think I have a right to post. I have added a section called "Charting" and have included ONLY the facts regarding the charting and sales history of the CD, and comparisons to Bat II and the link between the hit singles and album success. That fact has been crucial for the success of these CDs. I did not include any opinion in this, but the readers can make up their own mind. The entire write up is based on Billboard information. I also added tour information regarding the Bat III tour. I would appreciate if you would not delete my additions without a valid reason or let me know if I need to add a proper reference for verification (such as Billboard, etc). But as I see it, the write up is within standards of Wikipedia. I will also edit the new section later (based on the result of new singles, charting, and CD sales).
- You have the right to post, but you must do that within the rules and conventions of Wikipedia. Much of what you wish to add is unacceptable. I have explained this above. Some of what you have added tonight could be acceptable: I have rewritten it slightly. Wikipedia is not a forum. It is not a place for opinions. Even the section you've added tonight does not have a source. See the rest of teh articl of how to do this correctly. The JPStalk to me 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I like it! It is more objective now. Your changes were good, gets the same point accross. You misspelled Bat, I corrected it. I am trying to learn the rules, so thanks for bearing with me.
Re:Re:Speedy Deletion Penny Harvest Page
editI understand your position; however, the Penny Harvest is more that just commendable. As I said before it is a part of a major education movement tat is expanding nationally—the program already exists in eight cities. The information on that page would be of interest to educators, parents, philanthropist, and countless others. Surely the value gained from the Penny Harvest page is at least comparable to that of some of the pages with entertainers.
What would you suggest as the best way to reformatted to be more inline with wikipedia expectation? Pennyharvest 18:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Jahkedda Ireah Akbar
Did you know?
edit
|
On 22 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bat out of Hell (song), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
You've broken this template, please could you fix this, cheers. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- As you did not bother to do it, because I am a very nice person, I went ahead and did it for *you* - In the future it is best not to edit templates if you are not 100% sure about what you are doing, remember it effects *every* page it is transcluded to. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Let me guess... it's broken something designed for some American teen or sci-fi series. Do not come that tone with me. I was away from Wikipedia working. I was removing that blue background that you added without consensus. The JPStalk to me 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why would I get a consensus? Consensus is for non-controversial things; It was my belief that the addition of that widely used infobox colour was non-controversial. You may also like to take note you broke the *complete* formatting of the template as you did not remove it correctly. I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that a British infobox would be used within an American show? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've wasted too much time discussing templates and background colours with you over the last few months. The JPStalk to me 18:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why would I get a consensus? Consensus is for non-controversial things; It was my belief that the addition of that widely used infobox colour was non-controversial. You may also like to take note you broke the *complete* formatting of the template as you did not remove it correctly. I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that a British infobox would be used within an American show? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Let me guess... it's broken something designed for some American teen or sci-fi series. Do not come that tone with me. I was away from Wikipedia working. I was removing that blue background that you added without consensus. The JPStalk to me 18:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry no abuse just a question?
editI've been warned for vandalising jonathan king's page. I'm not sure how I did this as I changed the phrase teenagers to children and then minors as king was convicted in a court of law of commiting sexual assaults on children. Teenagers could refer to people over the age of consent.
I also added a link to a youtube video that documented the events that took place at walton hop. All of the info within the video was from court statements and proven to be true. OK I did then change the link to his site to go to the vid which was a bit naughty and I'm sorry for that.
But how are the other changes vandalism?
Thanks in advance Mark
- Yes, I did notice that your other changes were harmless, really. Sorry about that... it was mainly the YouTube edit I was mainly focussing upon. As you can imagine, the article gets a lot of vandalism, but I apologise for being a little heavy. The JPStalk to me 19:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
OK mate no worries. Thanks Mark
I'd Do Anything for Love (but I Won't Do That) peer review
editYes, it seems fine now. I'd support it for GA now as well. Laïka 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Trivia and citations and sourcing, oh my!
editHi there! This is kind of a catch-all for a few things that are on my mind; hence the header title.
I just read with interest your comment on Talk:Back to the Future, and look forward to working with you on this. There is a bit of a learning curve I will need to climb on doing citations properly. Somehow I can't seem to make them work correctly. Also, I'm often a little unsure about which BTTF sources are RS, and which are more along the lines of fan forums. If someone can help nail those two issues down for me, I'm certainly willing to tie specific facts to appropriate citations.
Also, I just wrote a long, polite reply to someone who was angry with me for moving most of his long, disorganized, unsourced trivia section on A Christmas Story to other sections, and deleting the rest as either nn or repeating what is stated elsewhere. I don't know whether you are familiar with the film - one anon trivia adder claimed last week that it has not "crossed the pond" - but I could use some advice and support for the idea that such edits are appropriate, and that a large, indiscriminate trivia section is not. This person has just re-added his or her trivia section and basically undone about six hours of work on my part. Any chance you could take a look? Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 23:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll keep an eye on it. I've reverted back to your last edit and left a note on the talk page. Is there a specific bit you can point me to where you're having trouble? The JPStalk to me 00:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I think I see where you were having trouble. The cite template should go next to the actual text, not entered directly into the 'references' section. The JPStalk to me 00:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! No, that's not the problem. I was trying to do it inline, but with poor results. You fixed one of my cites just now, the Hammond one in A Christmas Story. I've tried copying the template and inserting the info, but it appears unhidden in the text itself unless I add the ref part. [1] Here's another one, [2], and there may be one or two others elsewhere I've messed up. Maybe if I learn to always do the ref footnote thingy it will work out better. Thanks again. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Dave Raven - Radio Presenter entry
editI take the point on board about vanity pages and it was only after a couple of listeners had raised why I didn't have a Wikipedia page that I set one up. One of the listeners who is more adept than me in the arcane world of Wikipedia editing then added more detail.
The location of the studio has perhaps clouded the issue - it may be made on a boat but it is transmitted on 34 FM transmitters worldwide as well as Skybird radio in the US.
I know I'm not a big cheese in the overall scheme of things, but there does seem to be many more Wikipedia entries that are of people with much lower profiles.
I feel that as the first 7 entries in Google for Dave Raven point to me then the reason for inclusion is as valid as the next entries for musicians and footballers whose entries in Wikipedia seem not to be under scrutiny.
But I accept your final decision
Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven88 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 27 November 2006
- No worries. The decision will be by another admin based upon the discssion. Take it easy. The JPStalk to me 17:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Bat Out Of Hell III
editWhy do you keep making changes to edits done for the Bat Out Of hell III page? I have edited hundreds of entires in Wikipedia for objectiveness and accuracy, and only when I have made changes to Meat Loaf, do you want to delete everything I edit. Even things such as chart position and objective additions? What gives you the right to add your own opinion/comments such as "The original Bat Out Of hell had no hit singles" but I add two or three worda dn you delete them???? What are you some kind of Meat Loaf police that is trying to stick up for Meat Loaf's new CD? Let the facts speak for themselves. Allow the facts and objective comments to be made. STOP deleting my changes without a valid reason. If this is all you have to do with your time, get a life dude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevemor909 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 28 November 2006
- I will continue to remove inappropriate additions, such as "only time will tell." If you add things appropriate to an encyclopedia, that is fine. If you add opinion, or anything in an informal tone, I will revert. Your recent addition is inappropriate, so I have reverted and will continue to do so. Please do not make personal comments about other users, especially ones which could be very easily be deflected back upon you. The fact that you use the phrase "stick up for Meat Loaf's new CD" suggests that you have a POV characteristic of a certain forum. The JPStalk to me 09:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You dont just remove CERTAIN additions. You also remove things that are perfectly justified (such as the update about the chart position in week 3). You had no reason to remove that other then deleting any new modifications that I had added that day. I didnt really have a problem with removing the other comment because of "improper tone" but you went and deleted EVERYTHING I had added including the Billboard update which really made me upset. You act like you want to be an authority and make the decisions over EVERY post and every detail of a page that has importance to you. That's what I dont like. Like I said I have edited hundreds of articles in Wikipedia for accuracy and objectivness and never had anyone nit picking this much until I hit Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell III album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.1.147 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 November 2006
- Mmmm, I'm not quite sure which Billboard reference I deleted. It is unlikley that I have removed verifiable, objective, sourced information. If you can provide a specific difference, then I'd be happy to review it. The JPStalk to me 20:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Penny Harvest
editI am willing to re-write the penny harvest document however you see fit. Below is some more information as to why I think it deserves to stay on. Please write me back on my page. Thanks.
- I've already given you my decision. Please stop putting all that stuff on my talk page. Thanks. The JPStalk to me 17:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
BBC News 24
editMany thanks for your comments regarding the current state of the News 24 article. In light of this, I will withdraw the article as a good article for now. Thanks again. Wikiwoohoo 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:FILMS Newsletter
editThe November 2006 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. Cbrown1023 23:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I realize that Jack Brittingham was a weak article, but the host of a show on The Outdoor Channel is probably notable. I added some references to the article and removed some extraneous text. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- It looks much more convincing now that it's cleaned up. Well done. The JPStalk to me 08:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Weird edits by a new username
editHi again. Could you please take a moment to look at the contribs by new user Mwarner94? [3] I can't figure out whether they're vandalism or just cluelessness. I'm reverting the Charlie Brown one, but I don't really want to get involved in following this person around to articles outside my areas of interest. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 22:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- mmm, a clueless newbie, I think. We can keep an eye on the account... Perhaps the welcome messages someone's left will do some good. The JPStalk to me 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Sunderland...
editHi - I agree that it seems very similar (though I think the start of the issue was before my time as admin, so I'm not sure of the history - just everything since Sunderland (and the bot account)). To be honest, I'm jsut going to keep an eye on both accounts now - my only concern is that we'll end up with about a dozen socks to block in a couple of weeks - hopefully not! Thanks Martinp23 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah... it was only after that I had left the message on your talk page that I noticed his earlier message admitting to being the same person... If he's turned genuine, great... if not, the small amount of vandalism can be corrected pretty quickly. It takes much less effort for us to revert than it does for him to create dozens of accounts so an article can be vandalised for a couple of minutes. The JPStalk to me 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Your Credentials?
editWhat are your credentials that you can edit the Media studies entry? It is important that the entry illustrate and highlight the differences in departments that incorporate Media studies in their work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jstalker (talk • contribs) 00:07, 8 December 2006
- My credentials are that I am a Wikipedian, just as you, and such that I "can edit" any article I wish. In terms of meatspace: two degrees (1st class BA, and an MA) in it and several years teaching in higher education. I used to have more speciifc information on my talk page but I was beginning to attract some scary stalkers. It also left me opn to criticism about not having a 'proper' degree.
I'd love to do a research study on issues of 'performance', 'face' and 'uses and gratifications' in mailing list discussions about Wikipedia. It would be at least funny to see the irony. The JPStalk to me 20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~- I disagree that "is important that the entry illustrate and highlight the differences in departments that incorporate Media studies in their work." It will begin to turn into a list of departments with some trying to gain some headway over the other. We discussed this last year when there were several external links to specific centres. The JPStalk to me 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder if it might be useful to incorporate a sort of "who's who" list of important and/or useful media scholars (Herman, McChesney, Denis McQuail and so on). How would you like to see such a thing done? Jstalker 08:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's a possibility. There is a List of critical theorists. The word 'important' is subjective, but subjectivity is less important in 'list' articles than the 'subject' articles'. We could make a list of authors and key publications?
- I wonder if it might be useful to incorporate a sort of "who's who" list of important and/or useful media scholars (Herman, McChesney, Denis McQuail and so on). How would you like to see such a thing done? Jstalker 08:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree that "is important that the entry illustrate and highlight the differences in departments that incorporate Media studies in their work." It will begin to turn into a list of departments with some trying to gain some headway over the other. We discussed this last year when there were several external links to specific centres. The JPStalk to me 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
| Person | Key publications |
|---|---|
| Person, A | Watching Wikipedia (2000) explored the ways in which... and influenced a range of further studies... |
Like that? The JPStalk to me 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article so as to hopefully establish notability. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 09:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please look into this Netscott
edit- Netscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly reverted good faith edits, here Do something about it or this message will not go away.Ad hominem2 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Greetings The JPS, ordinarily I wouldn't be reverting the User:Air of reality and User:Ad hominem2's edits but this user has been defiantly editing despite having been permanently blocked (independently mind you) on a number of accounts. I've decided to become a bit more proactive to discourage this user's involvement. (→Netscott) 23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Return of a BTTF vandal under another name
editHi! Remember the vandal edit by Bluechevylover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about time travel by head trauma? You left him a Test4 on the 11th. Tonight the same nonsense was added to Back to the Future by Lord Tortiville II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who also has created the spurious articles Fisherman's Choice and Bailey's Creek Fisherman's Challenge. I don't quite know what to do other than put a test4 on the new name. Speedy? Suspected Sock? I haven't done either of those templates to date, so I thought I'd bring it to you. Will you please look into it when you get a chance? Thank you! -- Karen | Talk | contribs 06:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Die Hard talk/discussion page
editI deleted some info from the Die Hard section for parodies and trying to be a good wiki contributor decided to put my reasons on the talk page as it was too lengthy for the edit summary (where I put a notice to see the talk page). That went through fine, changes made. Yet, when I tried to enter my discussion of it on the page, I got an automatic response directing me here and my talk contribution was not added. The message from you was something about not adding trivia, yet I was DELETING trivia. I just retried to enter my talk and it went through fine. Just wondering what gives? Was this just some glitch or did I break some unknown wiki tenent? RoyBatty42 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:FILMS Newsletter
editThe December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
YOU HAVE DELETED MY IMAGES! YOU ARE UNDER ARREST OF THE V OF DOOM LAW!
editDO NOT DELETE MY IMAGES ANYMORE, YOU CRIME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.248.44 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 23 December 2006
Coronation Street Changes
editThankyou very much for your positive comments. I am very sure that I created [Image:The streetA.jpg]. It was drawn by hand about 2 years ago, scanned to my computer and street names added on PhotoImpact. Ben 21:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I did do that originally, however some of the sources are by the same author and simply referencing <ref>Little, Daran. p24.</ref> for example left the location of the reference unclear. What do I do to refer to multiple books by the same author? Ben 22:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- You could use the year in which they were published: Little (1990) p. 34. That's practically the Harvard System anyway. The JPStalk to me 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
hello!
editI need some help. I'm trying to do a AFD of Retro metal for going against WP:NEO. As you can see from the history of the AFD, i tried and failed. I dunno how you guys do it, but i could really use some help. Thanks. dposse 17:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Jonathan King
editHi, hope you can help me. Im trying to get an agreement to add the 2 words "convicted paedophile" to The jonathan king glowing opening paragraph. Im happy to go with what the majority say, but at the moment all negative references to what this man did seem to be being played down more and more. People stating that in thier POV he has suffered enough! Im not stating a POV but a fact. How do protect the added words if most people agree? Ive started a discussion onthe page, but how long do i wait. Also ive been called a vandal for adding the phrase, but it is a fact so why am i a vandal. Surely they are vandalising by removing them, thats thier POv. hope you can help, thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daveegan06 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
- The fact that you are using the words "suffered enough" suggests to me that you have a POV, and a desire to create suffering. Wikipedia is not The Sun or the News of the World. We don't have a fetish about pedophilia, or an obsession about writing about them. You already have a majority view, and the reasons have been clearly stated. Please do not add those words. The JPStalk to me 13:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, but i was asking for some advice on how to add a fact to an article, how to get a conscensus. All youve done is give me your POV. It seems the whole of wini is controlled by a few people who decide which POV is correct(thiers!!) and whoseis wrong. Ihave always been polite and tried to prove my facts, and i get called a vandal! Thanks a lot, all the best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.72 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2 January 2007
- Policy, I'm afraid, Dave. Specifically WP:BIO. The JPStalk to me 18:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Aardvark Records deletion
editHi
I'm curious why the aardvark records entry was deleted? Even with the 'hold on tag' just put on?
The article was neutral, factual and, if anything, downplayed.
I took the time to read other record label profiles before writing it, just to absolutely ensure that there would be nothing wrong with it. So why was this entry singled out?
An expalanation is deserved, I think.
Brian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian Sheffey (talk • contribs) 16:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
- Thanks for your article. However, Aardvark Records does not seem to be notable and was thus deleted in accordance with our policy. The JPStalk to me 16:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
re: Aardvark Records
editAardvark isn't notable by who's estimation? Yours? Nice to know we live in a democracy.
Shame you didn't Google the label before you so hastily deleted the page (it was onlin for less than an hour!). Considering the label has 1) Two Gold selling artists in its roster; 2) A Platinum selling artist; 3) Artists on radio charts with videos playing everywhere... and I could go on and on and on.
Wikipedia editors really ought to do their homework.
No worries though. I won't waste my time by writing articles for Wikipedia ever again. I'll also gladly blog about my experience with Wikipedia so others will know not to waste their time either.
Brian Sheffey 11:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Brian
- Bye, then. The JPStalk to me 11:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, as for democracy... another editor tagged it as not notable. I agreed. 2vs1 = democracy rules. The JPStalk to me 18:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
but an article on the, closed for thr last 8 years, granada studio tour is relevant?!!!!!
Jubilee Theatre
editHi,
I'm the webmaster for the website which the content was copied from, and have full permission to use the text which was on wikipedia, but as it seems to have been deleted, I will re-create the entire page now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkpeacock (talk • contribs) 00:12, 1 January 2007