User talk:JForget/Archives 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:JForget. 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. |
Rule 34
I would strongly suggest protecting this redirect, lest anyone overwrite it as an article on the meme. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
cfcuk
Hi
Refering to the decision to endorse the deletion of the cfcuk Cheslea fanzine page, I feel that a merge with the Chelsea FC page would fly in the face of what the cfcuk fanzine is all about. Each edition of the fanzine has the legend "Carefree, Blue tinted and 100% independent" printed on every front cover so, for the Chelsea FC page to have a section featuring the cfcuk fanzine would be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Unfortunately for me, noone at Wikipedia who have endorsed the deletion of the cfcuk page seems to have any knowledge whatsoever about the matchday experience of watching a Cheslea match as the cfcuk fanzine and its sellers are well known amongst both the home and away Cheslea supporters and are considered by many as an essential part of the day. Again, I have to question why several other club's fanzines have been allowed to remain within the Wikipedia pages while the cfcuk Cheslea one hasn't. Hopefully, for a factual tool such as Wikipedia, I sincerely hope it is not a simple case of tribalism...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
WP:WAX or WP:OTHERSTUFF aren't really reasons why cfcuk should have its own page, but if you fell that some of the other similar page aren't meeting inclusion criterias you can nominate it for deletion if you want. Still you can still try on a much improved version of cfcuk if it is possible--JForget 23:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Final warning
You just warned me that if I continue to vandalize, I would be blocked from editing. For How long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.16.193 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be up to the admin's decision if you do it again. Generally, the first block will be under 1 week, but may increase in subsequent blocks and depends also on the seriousness of the actions as well. --JForget 22:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you recently initiated an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series) after some unusual procedural steps by folks who tried to force a consensus on splitting the topic away from an existing article. Please consider returning to that AfD and closing it as "snow keep" due to the progression of the AfD discussion and subsequent events at the associated articles. See also the recent developments at Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series) and the related discussion at Talk:Whose Line Is It Anyway? (sections 25-26). Thanks. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Never mind, someone else who was heavily involved in the debate did a bold snowball closure. You might want to review the whole debate as a good example of how a bizarre procedure somehow resulted in improved WP articles. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks and great job on the improvement of the article - it was quite unacceptable that a show that notable had such little content. Also I was quite surprised that it didn't had it's own article for that long too. It didn't took that long for many other major games shows to have their own article. The AFD was just procedural by myself. --JForget 23:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Larry O'Brien 2010 election
Hey JForget, I noticed that in April 2009 you added to Larry O'Brien's page that he would run in the Ottawa municipal election, 2010. Thinking it was vandalism, I replaced it with more recent info stating that he hasn't made a decision. Even though it wasn't vandalism, I still think that newer refs (a March 2010 CBC article for instance) are more reliable than a mysterious 2009 Kourier article. Please take a look at my recent edits to those two pages and see if everything lines up alright. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update - it definitely needed probably with his trial (and probably a rising frustration among the constituents as well) it had changed a little bit his plans. Not sure if I had seen other papers before his trial saying he would run again. I haven't being paying much attention on improving articles lately so it might have some major updates to do. --JForget 23:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Deletion
Hi, I notice that you've deleted The Heroes of Olympus. I was wondering if you, as some editors do, keep a copy of articles they have deleted and, if so, if I could have a copy of it. Thanks, Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 06:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
your assistance please...
I'd like to request the userification of the full revision history and associated talk page of Abdul Haq (Uighur camp leader) to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Abdul Haq (Uighur camp leader). I will, of course, add the appropriate {{noindex}} directives, and comment out the categories.
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for userifying the article Waterboarding in the 21st century. I noticed you only userified the last revision. Would it be possible to userify all the revisions? And the talk page? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Done - I've re-do the small modifications you've made. Only three edits are gone due to the overwrite because of the restoration of the article history - JForget
Deletion review for Jessica Jarrell
Hi JForget
An editor nominated the above-captioned article's recent deletion (which you closed) for deletion review. FYI.
Bongomatic 07:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Block user
Because ridiculous edits like this need not 3 warnings. Hope you see what I mean. --Tommy2010 01:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds more like just testing, so a uw-test1 would be good for now rather then an immediate block. JForget 01:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)--JForget 01:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of Quassel IRC
Hi,
you deleted "Quassel IRC" because of a lack of coverage. Meanwhile it was chosen the default client for Kubuntu's recent LTS release, which highly increased coverage to an in my opinion sufficient level. Therefore, can you please check if you agree that requirements for Wikipedia are now met? Thanks in advance 87.234.110.87 (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The lone keep argument was in regards with that, although no one else seem to have stated that which led to the demise of this article - so unfortunately it doesn't seem sufficient for an article unless you want to send it to WP:DRV or make a significantly improved article. In addition, the user who said keep also added "we might have to wait until the next batch of Ubuntu books hits the shelves for print coverage". JForget 21:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The keep argument was in regards with the at that time current Kubuntu release "Karmic". Quassel wasn't sure to be included in the next - now current - release Lucid, since it is a Long Term Support release. Kubuntu LTS releases are released on bi-yearly basis, books and paper press mostly cover these releases. Now that Quassel IRC is part of an LTS release, its coverage has increased already and probably will do so further. 85.114.132.70 (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protect Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 ?
Hi, you reverted vandalism edits to the above article, I've also reverted there recently. In the last 14 days (30 April to 13 May), almost half of the edits of edits (11/26) to the article have been vandalism from anon IPs and there seems to be very little anon IP editing which is useful (I'm not counting the reverts as part of the 26 edit total). I noticed you are an admin, and given the criteria outlined in WP:ROUGH, it might be worth considering a one month semi-protect (WP:SILVERLOCK) to the page. Regards --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oops forgot to reply but it was semi-protected for about a week. JForget 01:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Your AFD closes
This is for forgetting to subst the afdbottom template on all some of your closes on the log for the 8th. :)
- I fixed a few of them.
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks I was wondering, because I was using the subst, but I guess I forgot a couple at the start. Hopefully the script which avoided the manuel typing will be back after all the site layout changes.JForget 01:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Or you can switch back to monobook when you close. Have you tried copying your monobook.js to vector.js to see if the closing script still works? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yep it worked, thanks! JForget 01:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
List of Centro shopping centres in United States of America
You forgot to delete List_of_Centro_Shopping_Centres_in_Australia, which was part of the same AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
UEA Pirates
Hi,
I'm head coach of the UEA Pirates, Rob Kerr. I noticed that you've deleted our Wiki page: can we have it back please, I'd like very much to edit in time for our new season.
Thanks,
Rob Kerr (rob dot kerr01 at g mail dot com) 94.2.5.215 (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- The article was deleted based on a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEA Pirates due to lack of notability I guess, so it would have to go on a deletion review or have an article that clearly demonstrates notability although looking at the discussion on the deletion debate, it seems to be a long shot before getting an article - actually more and more similar articles are getting canned as well. So basically the only place that could be warrented an entry is at a userspace page. JForget 13:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi,, Yulia of 3+2 has been put up for Afd. If you are interested as previously to give your say in the debate please do.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
June Outbreak
Good article, this page has some pictures but im not sure about their copyright status. Link to page -Marcusmax(speak) 14:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Doesn't look to be taken from NWS staff and I don't see any indications that use is permitted , so I will omit using them for now. Though there will likely be tornado damage pictures eventually with the storm surveys. Damage on those pictures look indicative of EF2 at least.JForget 14:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- What I was thinking as well, it seems there will probably be more coming out by this afternoon. Do you know if Environment Canada is going to give an update on the Canadian tornado damage? --Marcusmax(speak) 14:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- You would probably have to check on CTV or CBC the major TV network or the The Windsor Star. They will have a lot more information on the damage then Environment Canada. Environment Canada does issue bulletins in the Special Weather Statement section (just click the Warnings section on their home page ) but only stays for 24 hours at the most even when there is a tornado survey bulletin. However, looking at the Windsor Star, it seems there is a lot of criticism about the warning system and many had to rely on the Detroit television networks or US websites. To show how lackluster our weather warning system is compared in the US. Me too have to rely on US sites to track storms. JForget 14:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thats no good, I hope they at least conduct a damage survey. -Marcusmax(speak) 14:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- You would probably have to check on CTV or CBC the major TV network or the The Windsor Star. They will have a lot more information on the damage then Environment Canada. Environment Canada does issue bulletins in the Special Weather Statement section (just click the Warnings section on their home page ) but only stays for 24 hours at the most even when there is a tornado survey bulletin. However, looking at the Windsor Star, it seems there is a lot of criticism about the warning system and many had to rely on the Detroit television networks or US websites. To show how lackluster our weather warning system is compared in the US. Me too have to rely on US sites to track storms. JForget 14:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- What I was thinking as well, it seems there will probably be more coming out by this afternoon. Do you know if Environment Canada is going to give an update on the Canadian tornado damage? --Marcusmax(speak) 14:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, since you participated in the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan MacDonald I wanted to inform you that the page is back at AfD. J04n(talk page) 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You're invited!
Hello, JForget,
You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.
The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ☎ call me!
(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec)
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Helping a new user
Hello! I created my first wiki article a while back that we eventually decided to delete. I have since re-edited it and found additional reliable sources and I was wondering if you would be able to review it and let me know if there are any changes I could make or if you have any additional tips or comments. The link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexanderSchaefer/Amy_Walker
Thank you! AlexanderSchaefer (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello JForget
FYI this article in whose deletion discussion you were involved has been re-created. I have put a speedy deletion template on it as wp:CSD#G4. I am unsure about this as this is my first personal experience in this area. Please advise If I am wrong, or if there is anything I have failed to do regarding posting notices etc. Regards, --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 18:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just letting you know that Admin HJ Mitchell has already handled this. Thanks.--220.101 (talk) \Contribs 18:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi! You recently deleted this article following discussion on the 2nd nomination for deletion. However, the points made in this discussion were covered in the article's 1st deletion discussion, of which the result was to keep the article by admin Shimeru, found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bentley_Jones
I feel the article should be kept with an intent to improve its format and sources. DolphinBlueUK (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well contrary to the first discussion (which ended with a no censensus) there was a clear consensus to delete the article this time so I guess the community concluded that there were no improvements made since the 1st discussion. You can request a copy of the article if you want if you really want to improve it and if you are convinced the subject is article worthy. JForget 21:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- That clear consensus was made on the grounds of an overall lack of awareness, however. Had the participants possessed any knowledge of the subject matter, namely the points that DolphinBlueUK made, the consenses most likely would have differed profoundly. The fact that no one had said knowledge, furthermore, should render the second discussion moot, as a conclusion to such a matter should inveritably be based on facts rather than uninformed bias. As such, the article should be kept, or rather, in this scenario, undeleted. Edit; also, I'd like to request a copy of the article, as I am quite convinced that the subject is article worthy, and am presumably capable of finding adequate sourcing. 24.16.165.217 (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, the article will be at User:DolphinBlueUK/Bentley Jones so improvements can be made ... and major improvements are needed specifically as far as WP:RS/WP:V is concern. The vast majority of the sources in this article are from blogs, forums, personal sites and other non-recommended sources such as YouTube, etc. And even from sites that are not even built (Reference no 2 for example). So, in other words, there are very few of the sources that are considered reliable. It would need a lot more of sources in the third-party type otherwise it is hard to determine if the individual is notable. Looking at Google, doesn't seem to have significant coverage aside from blogs, etc. This could be quite a difficult task but I will put the copy at userspace regardless. Thanks. JForget 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your assistance please
You recently closed the {{afd}} on Malem Jan Sobari. Could you please userify the article to User:Geo Swan/review/Malem Jan Sobari? I'll put {{noindex}} directives on it, once it is userified.
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Similarly, could you userify Tank Nafaz Shariati Muhammed Molakand Organization to User:Geo Swan/review/Tank Nafaz Shariati Muhammed Molakand Organization?
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Both were done and I've kept the edit history as well. JForget 21:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
see the Cryptid Hunters talk page...
Nice working with you... 24.4.101.72 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Deletion review for Atlético Peruano
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Atlético Peruano. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MicroX (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Respected administrator,
Please help respected editor SpacemanSpiff to understand that he/she can not vote twice in an Afd, once as 'Delete' and secondally as 'Comment about Move'. He can rather put his comments below someone's vote but he/she can not add it as a new entity which might appear as a brand new vote to the administrators. I have tried fixing it, but this respected editor refuses to understand. Kindly help.--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Actually, as long as he only bolds "delete" once, he can comment all he likes. There's no rule that says that all his comments aside from his !vote have to be in reply to other comments/!votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. It was very helpfull--DawnOfTheBlood (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Please do not be biased against IP editors
Hello. I noticed that you reverted this edit. The IP editor was clearly trying (and eventually managed) to solve a rather tricky template problem caused by another user (incidentally, an administrator). This problem was breaking a few other templates. I can only assume that you did it because you did not investigate the matter properly, and you have had many bad experiences with other IP editors. Please be more careful next time, thanks. 122.26.2.86 (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry about it. JForget 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
63.131.4.149
Could you also take Talk page privileges away? Judging by his edits they'll probably come cuss at us again through their talk page. Mr. R00t Talk 23:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Done - I usually lock the page for about the block duration or a bit longer (depends). JForget 23:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Mr. R00t Talk 23:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| Hii! --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 14:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC) |
- Hey thanks very much for it. Very appreciated. JForget 14:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to have both closed the AfD for this as delete and simultaneously relisted it. Reyk YO! 01:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- I've fixed the AFD removing the wrong templates, thanks for the message. JForget 01:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes
Hi JForget.This article have been kept by you.And now nominated again Articles for deletion.Some users demonstrate preconceived opinion.If you have time, could you take a look at the Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes.Thanks.--Earth Defender (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Rule 34 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rule 34. Since you had some involvement with the Rule 34 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TJRC (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Might need a rangeblock...
For these recent vandalism edits to San Marino and now Anti-LGBT slogans. I'm sure they'll find a new target soon. Each edits' from the same range, with one early exception. They're hopping IPs pretty quickly, but it's all on the same network out of LA. Here are the IPs I've spotted so far. Blocking the 216.244.65.* (CIDR for that is 216.244.65.0/24) range for a short time should do it, if you think that's appropriate.
- 216.244.65.76
- 216.244.65.89
- 216.244.65.86
- 216.244.65.101
- 216.244.65.116
Shadowjams (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Usually in these cases I semi-protect the article for a short period especially since it might be just a group of people or a single person just having else to do and would eventually stop and really never opted for range blocks - and actually never did one. JForget 23:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like they are using different ranges now with a 72.xxx. I will stick with the brief semi-protection for now. JForget 23:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Somebody's mad at you.
See here and here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you really think that relisting this was a good idea? Everything that could be said has been said. The debate has been unnecessarily lengthened by novice editors, but there should be enough discussion to come to a conclusion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, even excluding the IPs, there wasn't enough consensus either way and also one Keep and one Delete didn't provide rationale for their positions.JForget 13:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. You closed the discussion as a no consensus. However, I think a delete may have been more appropriate. One editor voted userfy, in effect a delete. The other gave a cautious comment saying "Possibly not enough notability". I had already raised concerns of sourcing and notability. Given that no users voted to keep and that many of these discussions only get one or two participants, I feel a delete may have been more appropriate. The article is a puff piece and likely COI and this project has enough of that already. Regards. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| I hereby award you, JForget, the Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for your outstanding work fighting vandalism. Keep up the great work! :) --Meaghan :) ≈ 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC) |
Cats and dogs 2
@Jforget. Was there any need to threaten me? I think that part should of been deleted it added nothing to the wiki but criticism and not the suitable kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello20092010 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- That isn't a threat at all. You have removed well- sourced and by-the-way neutral content without given an explanation to why in the edit summary, so most editors will perceive it as a non-contructive edit and therefore might risk a block if it the blanking of content continues. Besides, the majority of the films, tv shows, etc has a review section though criticism and compliments of movies requires reliable sources. In this case, the review section seems appropriate as sourced and neutral (with criticism and praise) so there is no reason to remove the content. If you have an issue you can discussed the matter on the talk page although most would say the same thing or other reasons NOT to delete the section. JForget 13:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
My Bad
My bad on the teletubbies review, its very late were I am and I accepted the wrong version so thanks for the revert, time for me to go to sleep I think. Cheers ZooPro 14:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, it seems the automatic approval for bots and admins when they revert did not worked this time unless they are doing fixes right now. JForget 14:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of notable race articles
I'm the one who created these articles. I was not invited to debate these matters. This is not fair.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've let the nominator a message on that one. Probably nominators should require to notify authors on AFDs - maybe it should be proposed as discussion eventually and Twinkle makes it easy to notify people as clicking the. The nom keeps on blanking his talk page, It's up to you if a review is needing even though the consensus was obvious. JForget 15:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)