Jump to content

Talk:Jacking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Man I could go for some jacking right now, I could just picture myself jacking to music. I want that album, whichever one has "Jack your body" as the sample. JayKeaton 04:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD discussion

[edit]

A PROD is a method to inform the article's creator that it has notability questions. Please note that a PROD has five days before it is considered for deletion by an admin if needed improvements are not made. Should a PROD be removed without substantial improvement, this could lead to article for deletion debate which the Wikipedian community will debate. A second removal is usually not recommended until improvements are made. Ronbo76 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend just going straight to AfD. Prod makes it too easy to game the system because anyone can just remove the tag, whereas the extra effort needed to start an AfD pays off because it has to be seen through to the end. Kafziel Talk 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. Going to AfD in that manner is not viewed as being conductive to either the creator or the community. The reason this is being discussed here is to politely inform all parties of the process. The AfD can be started at any time. Second removal as per the first paragraph of this discussion is usually the pertinent time. Ronbo76 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true at all. AfD is the most constructive of all the deletion processes. It guarantees that the process will be followed through, that multiple editors will participate in the discussion, and that the results (either way) will be binding. Prod is a relatively new and completely optional step, and once it's clear that the deletion is contested (as it is here) it should be sent to AfD instead. See the very first part of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Conflicts:

"If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." (Not my emphasis.)

The article was not blanked and blatant nonsense was not inserted; in fact, the author attempted to add references. So the prod tag should not be replaced. It should be sent to AfD instead. Kafziel Talk 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In AfD debates, the double negatives in the section you quote almost tripped up the nominator for the reasons I listed in my second reply. In that case, another user voided that argument by invoking Wikipedia:Ignore all rules which I do now in building consensus in a good faith effort to educate all about the deletion process. PROD is viewed as being equitable and in an AfD debate is usually the first objection raised if not employed. Ronbo76 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an article has not been prodded (or, in this case, prodded twice) is in no way a valid objection to an AfD. I'm not sure where you're getting this stuff. You nominated this article for speedy deletion today; if I had deleted it as you wanted, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. So I don't understand why you're suddenly so interested in drawing out the process and "educating" everyone.
I know I initially phrased this as a suggestion, but it isn't really. The prod has been contested, so you need to send it to AfD (or just leave the article alone - that's up to you). Kafziel Talk 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noted your suggestion. I also have been involved in AfD debates on all sides of the issues. I am aware of what I speak about. It will now be nominated. Ronbo76 17:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jacking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture

[edit]

If nobody vetoes, I'd like to simply delete the section on "pop culture" in this article. It has almost nothing to do with dance moves (except for the last paragraph that isn't particularly informative though), but is rather about music, and, as such, not so much about jacking, but about the influence of house music on pop music. So, sometimes, less is more... I hope you all are okay with this measure! If not, please let me know within the next days. Thanks, WilhelmSchneider (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Origins?!

[edit]

Hello, fellow Wikipedians!

I have altered the 'origins' heading to reflect its content - the opinion of an author of a 1999 book on the subject of house and rave called Simon Reynolds. He appears to be the only citation used on this page. Mr Reynolds's opinion that dance before disco was for couples, and part of some courtship ritual, is interesting, but it does rather ignore the 1960s era, which saw youth dance experiencing a veritable earthquake in freestyle expression. One could also look back further, of course. As my learned co-editor feels that Mr Reynolds's opinions are worthy of inclusion, and they actually do not cover any indisputable facts about the origins of jacking, or how the various dance moves associated with it came to be, I've changed the heading to 'theories on the evolution of jacking'.

I am currently searching for reliable citations on the formation of the dance moves which are known as jacking.

(Mr Dog 1982 (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I'd love to let this go, but as you started changing (and corrupting) this article (again), I have to intervene. As I've said on my talk page, feel free to contribute to this article, but always keep in mind that any contribution, at least where it's controversial (like yours), has to be backed up by sources from literature. These sources have to be directly on topic. The weblink you used as a "reference" in your edit on Hippie dance ist not; it does not even contain the word "jacking" or "house", and mostly contains just images. Please read the guidelines on Wikipedia:No original research to understand the problem. They state: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." That means, we don't develop our own theories here, we just represent existing theories (for example by paraphrising or citing from books or articles). Clearly, images are not theories.
By the way, despite of what you (i.e.: your sock puppet account) claim, the book by Simon Reynolds is available online – not that this would matter, anyway.
So, what's it gonna be? Can you please stay within the boundaries of Wikipedia guidelines (and stop your crusade against Simon Reynolds), or do I really have to file a vandalism report for pushing original research, engaging in edit wars and maliciously using sock puppets? WilhelmSchneider (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


(Mr Dog 1982 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacking&oldid=1203043551"