User talk:JPG-GR/Archive 10

Box nested instead of closed

I'm guessing that yr closing of your closing of the Talk:Booker T. & the M.G.'s#Requested move reflected a momentary distraction, and i'm pretty confident that attention to my fix of it today would be of no value. But i am sure you are the best judge of that. Have a good day!
--Jerzy•t 18:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Improper callsign suffixes

While editing a completely different article, I tripped up on KKTK-AM and KPGG-FM, both created in mid-April by the same editor and both semi-duplicates of KKTK and KPGG, respectively. They have just enough non-duplicate info in them that simply speedying them was out of the question. I know that killing off all those -AM articles has been a mission of yours so I thought I'd bring these two articles to your attention. - Dravecky (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

The proposed decision is up in the above case. It is located here. The proposed decision will be presented to the Arbitration Committee for voting on May 11.

For the Arbitration Committee. KnightLago (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Florida Gov't Copyright again

You closed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_12#Template:FLGovernment; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_5#File:Phillipbrutus.jpg is also about Florida Gov't Copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs)

Templates for deletion

You've reverted your own edits at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 6, though the templates have been deleted. Was this intentional?--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to revert only the single previous edit of mine. All better now. JPG-GR (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yardleyman

Okay, I have just filed the checkuser concerning the editor in question you refer to at Ryulong's talk page. The request is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yardleyman. Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, checkuser data confirms that the user is a sockpuppet of Yardleyman. What do you think? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

TFD

Damn it. I know there's always one that I'm doing wrong but can never remember which one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Irish Open (golf) venues

Hi, you have closed the deletion discussion, but it would appear that you have not actioned anything. Since the venues are already clearly listed in the Irish Open (golf) article, could you now delete this needless template. Thanks. _wjemather^bigissue 09:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done JPG-GR (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Catdesc

Please hang on with the deletion of this template - it will need a bot run to ensure that information isn't lost (and anyway I think you closed the discussion prematurely - there were only a few "I don't like it" statements.--Kotniski (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, sorry if my reverts seemed over-arrogant - I'm just not sure what the procedure is for deleting templates, and I was concerned that having the discussion/template marked as deleted might lead automatically to some sort of bot going round removing all instances from pages, which would be inappropriate in this case, as the template encapsulates key information (parent categories in particular) which mustn't be lost.--Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In the future, it is best not to revert closes like those, because it comes off as very arrogant indeed. Your reverts have been reverted. The WP:TFD regulars are perfectly capable or removing templates, with or without bots. JPG-GR (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems not. Please listen to what you are politely asked to do. You are now leaving categories uncategorized, just as I warned you. Please stop, it's you who's coming across as arrogant now. --Kotniski (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The result of the discuss was delete, so the template is being deleted. If you want it done in a particular way, I suggest you take up the deleting. JPG-GR (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I shall. Can you please roll back all your edits that removed the template, as they've destroyed the information I'd need?--Kotniski (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact (and as a separate issue to the above), I'd like to contest the deletion decision, and the first stage in that is to courteously ask the admin to take a second look. I therefore so ask. I know numerically there were more deleters than keepers, but these things are not votes, and I don't see that any good reasons for deleting the template were given other than "this is too complicated" (the nominator - but complexity is no reason to delete a template, as the many complex templates show) and "I don't think the information is useful" (clearly not true of all the information in question, and commenter failed to reply when asked to specify which, so it seems this was just a casual comment by someone who didn't really appreciate the issues involved). In view of the very small number commenting, the weakness of the reasons given, and the amount of work that would have to be repeated to recreate a template like this, please could you relist this to generate wider discussion? --Kotniski (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my original decision. There was no support for keeping the template other than by yourself, the creator of said template. JPG-GR (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And does that support not count? Which of the opposing arguments do you consider to be of merit?--Kotniski (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have yet to show that there is any support for this template outside of the fact that you like it. Your continued commenting in the WP:TFD Holding Cell is also inappropriate, as your statements are not only your opinion, they are in the wrong place. JPG-GR (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, you've started removing instances of this template again - the very reverse of what I asked you to do above? I'm trying to assume good faith here, so presumably you misudenstood me somehow - please reverse the removals made so far when you get the chance, and definitely NOT continue with any more removals!--Kotniski (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already told you if you disagree with the result of the discussion, take it to WP:DRV. JPG-GR (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't understand - regardless of whether the result was correct, you must not do this by simply deleting instances of the template, because it destroys the information that was being produced by the template (in particular, category membership). I thought we'd agreed above that I would do the removals, and I made it quite clear that I need the information that's contained in the template instances in order to do that correctly. Now please listen, and don't do any more of these until you're sure you understand what you're doing!--Kotniski (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what I am doing - I am removing a template that community consensus wants removed - stop implying that I'm stupid. Additionally, there is nothing anywhere that says the information needs to be maintained, other than you want it. I've got other work to do at the moment, so I'll come back to these at a later time. JPG-GR (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to be on autopilot, doing what you presumably always do when a template gets deleted, and you haven't noticed that this one is exceptional. Clearly no-one wants the categories that this template generates removed; presumably no-one wants most of the other information removed either (since it's mostly stuff that the guidelines recommend putting on categories anyway). The only conclusion from the deletion discussion is that 1 (2?) people think this template is too complex a way to present to editors for putting that information on category pages. So the right thing to do is to preserve that information, but remove the template instances, ideally by recursive substitution (that's why I'm asking around for a tool that would do that). So once again I ask you, when you've had time to look at this more calmly, to please roll back all your removals of this template when you can, but in any case, certainly NOT to remove any more.--Kotniski (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, looks like someone's done the reverts for you, so as you were. Sorry if you were offended by anything I wrote here - that wasn't my intention, I just wanted to convey the urgency of the need to stop what you were doing. Hope everything will proceed smoothly from now on.--Kotniski (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Now listed at deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 18.--Kotniski (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

TFD top

Where do I put the TFD template anyway? I was told to put it under TFD links. Also, aren't they supposed to be relisted after seven days if no one's discussed them? That's what I was told on IRC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Tfd top}} goes below the section heading and above the links, as noted on the administrator instructions. If a template receives no discussion, it defaults to delete per the administrator instructions and does not need to be relisted. When relisting, the discussion is to be completely removed from the original log page and copied to the new log page, with proper edit summaries explaining what's going on, per the instructions on deletion review. In the future, I'd recommend not defaulting to asking on IRC when there are instruction pages usually floating around. JPG-GR (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Malformed move requests

• About edits such as this edid, it seems that of the two formats which we 2 have been trying, neither works properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the problem with the whole automated thing - it's buggy as hell. :-/ JPG-GR (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Fleming-Sandes

I'd love to add a rationale but I'm not sure where? Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't really blame you there - read WP:RM and it kinda explains it. JPG-GR (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Query about TFD for {{Stub/doc}}

hi JPG-GR - I have a query about your relisting of {{Stub/doc}} at TFD. The initial discussion was at SFD, the appropriate forum for discussion - a note was left under a heading at TFD explaining why this was done. You seem to have moved it from SFD to TFD with no explanation or note that it has been moved there, and as such those of us who regularly visit SFD but not TFD are likely to think (as I did) that discussion had been closed. The template also has the SFD notification on it, so anyone looking to participate in the discussion will be guided to the wrong place. I've moved the discussion to WP:SFD where it belongs, leaving a note at TFD as per the initial listing. please - in future, check which forum something is being discussed at before reopening it! Grutness...wha? 23:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that, as it is in the template namespace and the discussion may set precedents for templates generally, that the discussion should be held at TfD. At the very least, it should be transcluded in both places. (This was the situation when it was listed at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/June/2 and also transcluded on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 2.) Could I ask if you would consider doing this as an uninvolved admin, as I've reverted Grutness once on this and don't want to get drawn into a battle. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed in the template namespace, as are all stub-related templates, all of which are handled at SFD. It may indeed set a precedent - for stub templates. As such, it should be at SFD. There is a note at TFD explaining where the discussion is, this is just as useful as a transclusion, and is how the discussion was initially dealt with. The template which is being marked has still got the {{sfd-t}} on it - as it always has had. There is plenty of precedent for a stub-related /doc file to be listed at SFD - they always have been ever since SFD was separated from TFD and CFD - note that there are a host of other stub template /doc files listed at SFD, all of which are nearing resolution.

If you believe that a discussion which relates only to stubs (which this does) and which is a continuation of a discussion started at SFD (which this is), and which has massive precedent that it is of a sort of template normally dealt with at SFD (which this has), and deals with a template which is marked as being discussed at SFD (which this is) should be relisted at TFD with no note about it at SFD, then feel free to leave it at TFD. If, like me, you regard this as contrary to just about every standard Wikipedia practice, and contrary to the reason why SFD was created and why it is separate from TFD, then please move it back to SFD. Grutness...wha? 10:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down. There is no reason why it shouldn't be transcluded at TfD as well. This is what I've asked JPG-GR to do. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm, thank you. I am, however concerned that transclusion defeats the purpose for which SFD was created. What will transcluding do that simply noting the location of the debate won't, other than lengthen TFD? If there is a note at TFD saying where the debate is - as there is now, and as there was for most of the time that the original debate took place - then surely that is sufficient. This is normal practice across Wikipedia on a wide range of things, including other deletion process pages. If there's discussion of an issue at one project talk page, for instance, you don't transclude the debate to the talk pages of other relevant projects, you simply post a note there saying where debate is in progress. Similarly, if a deletion debate gets moved from AFD to MFD, say, the entire debate isn't transcluded into the second place - the debate is taken lock, stock, and barrel to MFD, leaving a simple note in AFD stating that the debate has been moved. This is standard practice - and was particularly common back when there were separate process pages for user categories and article categories. A note on WP:CFD of "debate moved to WP:UCFD" was a regular sight. There was certainly non transclusion of the debate into both process pages. In any case, as I pointed out, debates on stub /doc files are normally handled at SFD without any indication of their debate at TFD other than the navbox link at the top of the page. This is also standard practice, since the files relate specifically to stub templates and therefore fall within the bounds of SFD. The same applies with all stub-related items, and all deletion/renaming debates there are just as relevant or otherwise to TFD (or, in the case of stub categories, CFD). If you wish to transclude the current debate, then it makes exactly as much sense to transclude all other debates on stub template-related deletion to TFD, and stub category-related deletion to CFD - which would defeat the entire purpose of having a separate SFD. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) Hmm... what have I missed after a few days... Well, since I'm not the one who "moved it from SFD to TFD" in the first place (as stated in the first post of this thread), I'm not gonna try and read through all of this (as I wasn't involved in the discussion regarding {{Stub/doc}} either). If there's something I'm still needed for, let me know. JPG-GR (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By "moving it from SFD" what I mean is that the original discussion took place at SFD (at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/June/2, to be precise) - when you reopened it, you reopened it at TFD. As such, you effectively moved the discussion from its previous venue of SFD to TFD. Mind you, you may not have realised that, since I note that MSGJ blanked the discussion at SFD... hardly helpful on his part. Grutness...wha? 01:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm guessing the discussion was transcluded at TFD? Had no idea. JPG-GR (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Briefly, then closed there with a note pointing to the discussion at SFD. No matter anyway - it's at SFD again now. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

May I ask why "Lists of countries" is getting deleted?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 27#Template:Lists of countries JPG-GR (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Lists of countries

The template has been fully replaced with the exception of 2 editprotected pages. Replacement requests have been left on their talkpages. It would be terrific if you could make the 2 edits and then truly delete the template. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Y Done JPG-GR (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

your opinion please...

User:Docu nominated Template:ReadingCSRTNotice for deletion on June 27. And you were the administrator who closed it.

I just reviewed Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Listing a template.

it says:	Notify users. Consider adding {{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} ~~~~ on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion. This is especially important if the TFD notice was put on the template's talk page. Use an edit summary such as Adding notification of deletion discussion entry for [[Template:TemplateName]] replacing TemplateName as above.
and:	It is considered civil to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template.

I plan to ask User:Docu to explain why they didn't comply with these recommendations from policy. I am concerned that they didn't do so.

I started this template, and several others similar templates. I stopped using following a {{tfd}} that looked like it was going to close as "no consensus". The closing admin closed it as delete, and was patient with my questions, and convinced me.

I replaced every instance of a more controversial transclusion right away, with an inline version. I didn't replace every transclusion of this template with an inline version. It didn't seem urgent. When I edited an article that used this transclusion I replaced the transclusion with inline text.

So, I have no problem with this template being retired, or deleted. But I think the question of whether the image of the CSRT Notice being read to captives belongs on articles of individuals who had the notice read to them is an editorial question. I would have liked to offer my input when this question was considered. And I question to appropriateness of discussing this editorial issue in a discussion forum that was supposed to be for the discussion of the appropriate use of templates.

Can I ask you whether you had a robot assisted editing tool to help you remove those images?

Can I ask you how you came to decide that the articles should not have those images? Did you choose not to {subst:} the text of the transclusion solely because that was User:Docu's suggestion?

At this point how difficult would it be to set that robot to go back and {subst:} in the text, inline, rather than remove the image?

I understand User:Docu is an administrator. But, when making this nomination, and piggybacking in the editorial question of where the images belong, he or she was, I believe, just acting as a regular contributor. Would you agree that I owe their opinion on this editorial question no more respect than I would any other experienced contributor?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely following what you're getting at exactly, so I will answer the questions I can - this template was removed from all pages by myself with no assistance from any editing tool when it became clear the community consensus was to delete said template at WP:TFD. As there is no text included in said template, save the caption, there is nothing to subst back in.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. JPG-GR (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Quadraphonic sound Archive

Thank you for speedy deleting User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Quadraphonic sound. If you have an opportunity, please also take a look at deleting Talk:Quadraphonic_sound/Archive_1 for the identical reason (they are a pair). Many thanks, HairyWombat (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Y Done JPG-GR (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. HairyWombat (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wp:rm broken

Probably has to do with the outage this morning. I will look more into it when I get home. —harej (talk) (cool!) 18:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

template:wronguser

Hey I don't think there was a clear consensus on this issue, could you have relisted this for further discussion? riffic (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The only argument for keeping (yours) was not convincing enough to warrant the template being kept or the discussion being relisted. JPG-GR (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

that is subjective and arbitrary. in my opinion the opinions to delete were not convincing either, and the option to delete does more harm than the option to keep. Either way, there was zero consensus riffic (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As someone who wanted the template to be kept, none of these statements are overly surprising. The arguments for deletion were valid and the arguments for keeping was not convincing enough. I also fail to see (a) how deleting "does more harm" than keeping or (b) how that is relevant. JPG-GR (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

see, that proves my point. Both viewpoints (your opinion and my opinion not being "convincing enough") are completely subjective. A "not convincing enough" argument is surely not what goes for objective policy these days, is it? Looking at the template deletion guidelines, there are only 4 reasons for deletion listed:

Reasons to delete a template

1. The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
2. The template is redundant to a better-designed template
3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
4. The template violates a policy such as NPOV or CIVIL

Now the only arguments moved forward for deletion were that it a) wasn't being used enough, and b) it was a superfluous duplication. I had argued against the duplication, but didn't really address the argument that it wasn't used enough. Looking back at the reasons to delete, this doesn't meet item 3. I still stand behind the argument that the template wronguser is not a duplication of wrongtitle, they are designed for different purposes (article titles, and user pages) riffic (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

as well, I'd like to discount any arguments made by ip user 70.29.208.69, as it seemed this user didn't understand what the template's purposes were. This user did not clarify their position after I had asked for more information, so I took their comments to be ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 08:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your ability to cut&paste from WP:TFD minus the part about consensus not withstanding, the template was a superfluous duplication. No one argued to keep the template but yourself, and your argument for the template's existence isn't supported by policy. Regardless, WP:DRV is over that a-way... JPG-GR (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I left that part out because I felt it did not apply. There *was no* consensus, what was there was one person saying the template was superfluous, and one person saying it was not. It is not impossible to believe that seven days for a TFD discussion is not enough time to build consensus, wp:TFD is not a heavily trafficked area and there is a large barrier to entry for the average contributer, hence most discussions are slanted towards delete. I feel that DRV is set up in a similar fashion, most people who care enough to bother are of the slash and burn variety. This issue needs more time, please reopen riffic (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not impossible to believe that some TfDs need more than seven days of discussion - though this is not one of them. Making references to a process not being "heavily trafficked" and it being difficult for average editors to take part in is grasping at straws at best. JPG-GR (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a legitimate concern. There just is not enough visibility for a realistic quorum of interested parties to get their word in in a set amount of time. riffic (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPP is over that a-way... JPG-GR (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_8#Template:Franchises_owned_by_Lucas

You got Template:Franchises owned by Lucas, but not the spot to which it was moved mid-TfD: Template:Franchises owned by Lucasfilm. --EEMIV (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Y Done - JPG-GR (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Topo_Surveyor.jpg

You deleted my image, Topo_Surveyor.jpg from the article, "Ethiopia-United States Mapping Mission." This is my first article and I'm afraid I may be handling it a bit clumsily. I believe I erroneously tagged the article as non-free because the author's e-mail response, which I ssent to the permissions folks, was originally vague; something like, "Bill is free to use any of my pictures," or something like that. The permissions people sent me back an answer to my e-mail saying that permission was denied, however if I got a clear statement from the author saying that the image could be released under a general license, they would reconsider. I have since gotten a clear statement from the author in an e-mail which I forwarded to permissions a day or two ago, giving his permission to place the image in the public domain. He even used Wikipedia's own statement, which I sent to him, which said, "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." Then he added his home address and phone number to the e-mail. Therefore I believe the situation has changed and the image should now be assumed to be in the public domain, so I would like to upload it and again with a free license tag while I'm waiting for the response from permissions. I was proud of that first article, but now it isn't right without that special image. Is it OK for me to do this (upload again and retag)? Should I have retagged the image as free while I was waiting for a response from permissions in order to avoid the deletion? I guess I've got a lot to learn. Thanks for your consideration. Bill (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to re-upload. JPG-GR (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

IronKey deletion

Hi, I was just hoping you could clarify the reasons for deleting the IronKey article I just put up. While I'm not as familiar as I might be with Wikipedia rules, I didn't think the article would really classify as advertising. I tried to be as factual and neutral as I could, without leaving the article too low on content. If you could provide me with some tips, I'll look at resubmitting the article. Thanks. — Endareth^Talk–Edits 10:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The article both read like an advertisement as well as failed to establish the company's notability. JPG-GR (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I can see how a part of it might have read like an advertisement, but I'm a little unsure as to how to establish notability. If I include references to a selection of the large range of news sites (and others) that refer to IronKey to a significant degree, would that suffice for a resubmission? Thanks. — Endareth^Talk–Edits 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

News references would definitely help. JPG-GR (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

List of M.A.S.K. toys & characters

Hi JPG-GR, I'm turning to you since I don't really know what to do about user Chris rabbit. He keeps adding the same nonsense[1] to the M.A.S.K. toys article, and I know you removed lots of his nonsense and speculations before. (At least two of his additions are definately untrue, BTW.) So I hope you can tell me what to do about this vandalism. Caudex Rax (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye on him and hit him with user warnings. Eventually, he'll likely get himself blocked if he continues. JPG-GR (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Shinjuken ryu

You deleted tis page but by the a7 guidelines cited many martial art pages could be deleted. Is there anything significant I can do to get this to be an article? Thanks for input I am a hardcore user but novice editor.Tenswords (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide references that prove the notability and/or existance of this artform. JPG-GR (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So how could I go about getting Japanese texts referenced in a way that WP accepts?Tenswords (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITE. JPG-GR (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

ref Watatani, Kiyoshi: Bugei Ryuha Daijiten Tokyo Koppi Shuppanbu pg. 341-343 /ref; ref Hon'ami Koson Kyoho Meibutsu Cho pg. 46 Oritomo original 1719 revised Hawley, Wm. 1956 /ref ; ref Watatani, Kiyoshi: Bugei Ryuha Daijiten Tokyo Koppi Shuppanbu pg. 342 /ref

That is how I ref'd.Tenswords (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Trini Kwan

In this diff, you say "a good deal of that is sourced in each blurb". What do you mean by that? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Motion 2 - "Mythdon will still be restricted from making edits such as unnecessary questions and abusive warnings to users' talk pages." JPG-GR (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Walter Jones DUI

I see you deleted it and I quote you "its true, but TMZ isn't reliable." Well if as a person you know it's true, if you felt the source wasn't strong, why didn't you just find a source to your liking? If you know its true then TMZ is reporting the truth therefore it is reliable.

Thanks [for deletion of Template:Israel lobby ]

Thank you for your sound judgment here. --GHcool (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Creator of the template Michelle Bentley strongly protests about foul play

There was no consensus about deletion. I am sure that you as as a Sysop has familiarised yourself with what consensus means. It means that everybody aggrees. As will be clear from the link that GHcool provides above, they didn't all agree with it. That means that you are out of bounds. You have deleted something you had no right to, and something that was means as an improvement of Wikipedia. This goes beyound what a Sysop's job is. You are not some kind of a judge that have heard the Jury and then are supposed to rule. If no consensus can be reached, that means that the template in question should stay. You got to realise that the majority of the people who wanted to delete this template, primarily were concerned about how Israel and its lobby are portrayed. They are part of the conflict in The Middle East. some of them live in Israel. A gross injustice have been committed. I have used hours on this template and its subsequent improvement, that uses information that is well known and verifiable, and all the neoconservatives mentioned would themselves admit that they are neocons, as Michael Ledeen does. (It says so in his article.Michelle Bentley (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

As a sysop, I am familiar with what consensus means - apparently you are not. It doesn't mean "everybody aggrees". Consensus was to delete the template, and deleted it was. JPG-GR (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Zhane

Why don't you agree with this? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the Silver Ranger's secondary color. JPG-GR (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

But if you take a look at his suit, you don't see any green. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I've just taken a look at this image, and it looks like there's green. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ref indent

Hi. Don't know when you are planning to start changing instances of {ref indent} to {refbegin}. Would you be able hold off on that for a little while, so it can be worked on to see about importing the functionality of the former as an option in the latter? It would save on an awful lot of rework. As you know there's around 500-ish pages. It won't be as simple as just replacing all occurrences of {ref indent}} with {refbegin}. A sizeable number already have {refbegin} too, but more importantly you'd also have to change each reference's (list entry's) bullet marker from 'invisible'—ie what really is a defn list achieved by (  : ) to the visible one ( * ) that some folks seem to be so partial to. A simple global "find and replace" (of colon with asterisk) action won't work, since quite a few references contain colons as part of their title. It'd have to be done by hand, more or less. Most occurrences are not bulleted lists. --cjllw ʘ TALK 10:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I likely won't be the one to remove/switch the templates, though I will likely help as I do a lot of TfD cleanup. Likely best to note these concerns at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#To_convert so that whomever begins the undertaking knows what's going on. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What is your name

When Sysops have taken so much power as to be Judges that can interpret divergence of views as to mean consensus on deletion - and when he doesn't take into account that many of the participants have a stalke in The Middle East conflict, and an interest in shielding the activities of The Israel Lobby, it would be fair to demand a full disclosure of his name. I know that you are from Michigan, but your full name is necessary, I am afraid. It will help in the future so that you cannot under the cloak of anonymity rule over divergence of opinions in this way. To step forward with ones full name will help to prevent this misuse of powers in the future. This is our guarentess that nothing of this sort happens in the future. You may think that this will be too harsh, but then there are presumably many others willing to take your position. What we will end up with is therefore a more fair ruling, to the benefit of the ordinary men and women on Wikipedia. The ones who on a daily basis through constructive work creates Wikipedia and makes it a richer place and a source for updated information.Michelle Bentley (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

*yawn* This is why I avoid editing politics/religion articles - I don't care about either. But, it's not gonna stop me from cleaning backlogs at the process pages I frequent.

Also, you may want to read WP:PRIVACY before you get yourself in trouble. As for my name, it's User:JPG-GR. But, you can call me JPG-GR for short. JPG-GR (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

User: ryulong

Stop making articles about the martial arts style whose name translates as "True Ten Sword Style" in any sort of form. There is nothing online that says it exists other than these articles that you, obviously a proponent or the creator of this style in the United States, have created. No one other than Mitsuka Maeda has written about this, and it is obvious that you are somehow related to this person. I have requested that every page you have contributed to regarding this sword fighting style to be deleted, because it exists nowhere outside of the writings. Everything I'm finding is a direct copy of what you put on the English Wikipedia. If you continue to act solely in a way to promote your martial arts style, you will find yourself blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the threats of a blocked account by a non admin. ryulong drew incorrect conclusions about the article that was written and seems to have some sort of personal issue with the content. Shinjuken-ryu is indeed a real style and is in fact on 3 separate japanese websites. Diane Skoss of koryu.com, the foremost expert on martial arts lineage, is currently writing a book that Shinjuken-ryu composes one third (136 pages) of. It was solely a family style and not taught to outsiders. Used since the late 1300's it has served the second most powerful family in all of Japan behind the Tokugawa. A Maeda was responsible for the branch off of Shinkage-ryu and two other well known kenjutsu schools. Oda Nobunaga trained in it briefly and Tokugawa Ieyasu called it "The strongest style he had ever seen used in battle. Maeda Toshinaga looked invincible in battle!" (Taken from the Nikkō Tōshō-gū, a Shinto Shrine where Ieyesu's writings are intact still. Refers to the Battle of Sekigahara). I understand if you feel that Shinjuken-ryu is not notable enough for inclusion and I am not upset with your decision at all and in fact I respect your choice as WP could be clogged with obscure, irrelevant entries. I just want to clarify that the style is real and I would like to know why ryulong thinks he is all powerful on WP to the point of talking to me like that. Thank you for your time. Tenswords (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please add this to the front page?

* - FBI andIRS agents arrests 44 people, including five rabbis, two New Jersey state legislators, and three mayors in Operation Bid Rig.

If the latest example of the all to frequent air-crashes in Iran are worthy of inclusion on the front page, so this should be. Naturally.Michelle Bentley (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C is that way... JPG-GR (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

TXF Template

First of all, four persons said keep and another four peope said delete, which means no conseneus... I'll fix the removing of my template. you are removing valuable information and promotional images updated for each episodes when removing my template. You obviously don't know how to act carefully so i'll remove the template myself, okay? --TIAYN (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You want to do the work? Be my guest. JPG-GR (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my template my work. :D --TIAYN (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This, however, is not removing the template... JPG-GR (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I know, but you are removing a promotional image!! I'll fix it later, as i wrote in the comment. Trust me on this JPG-GR --TIAYN (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I restored the images in the two articles on which they were removed. JPG-GR (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Question, the guest section in the main infobox, i know my one was template will be deleted but the guest section is clearer then the main infobox which you constently need to use these:  

not to make a mess of things. Can you change this or must i take this to a bigger discussion area? --TIAYN (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you are asking if there is a way to keep the guest stars in the infobox (at least that's how I'm reading it), your best bet is to take that to Template_talk:Infobox_Television_episode. If there's no objections, ping me in a week or so and I might be able to code it up for you. JPG-GR (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, not sure what you mean... JPG-GR (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at the guests sections at the two templates, the first template's (main template) guets section is all muddled up, while in the second (the last one) one's guest section is neeter and clearer and in better order. Do you understand me? --TIAYN (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Go ahead and propose at Template talk:Infobox Television episode if you haven't already. JPG-GR (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have, but no one has replied to my message, and it has gone over a week now... so i'm talking to you since you have the power to edit the page, which i don't. --TIAYN (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So..... how can i change this? --TIAYN (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

As is this is heavily-used template, I'm not comfortable doing the coding to make such a drastic change. I'd recommend contacting someone on this list. JPG-GR (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Where should i discuss this? Or who should i ask? --TIAYN (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed the link above. JPG-GR (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your help --TIAYN (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed all The X-Files infoboxes now, so you can delete it now. Second can you move the Duane Barry (The X-Files) page to Duane Barry? Thanks for your help. --TIAYN (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Y Done on the first, but no can do on the second until you tell me where you want the Duane Barry article (on the character) to be. JPG-GR (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The character only appeared in two episodes, he isn't notable. So i thought we can move the Duane Barry (The X-Fies), to Duane Barry because of notability problems . --TIAYN (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Move the character page to Duane Barry (The X-Files), that always works.c --TIAYN (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why

...did you revert this? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove it? JPG-GR (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I felt it was something that needed to be reliably cited. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. JPG-GR (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And what about this revert? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Large removals of information should be discussed before completed. JPG-GR (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why does that apply in this case? What is required is consensus, not discussion when editing. Did you revert the edit based only on the fact of "no discussion, no editing", or do you have an opinion on the edit? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes - much of your large removal of information was uncalled for. JPG-GR (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (3)

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong (3). I am notifying you of this since you've stated that you want me topic banned should I do another one of those verification AfD's. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Not that I am asking anything to be done to you, but see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic ban threats at WT:TOKU as you're mentioned there. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 17#Empty football manager templates

I think you may have mis-read my comment in this TfD discussion. My suggestion was that the templates be kept and populated rather than deleted. Since mine was the only comment other than the nominator's, surely the decision should have been "no consensus" and the templates kept by default? – PeeJay 08:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no prejudice toward the recreation of the templates if they are to be fully created this time around. JPG-GR (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for King Mondo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of King Mondo. 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. Exxolon (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why (2)

...did you revert this? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove it? JPG-GR (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As the edit summary is intended to suggest, I felt that the information required a reference. There is nothing to reasonably indicate that the Quantum Ranger's Mega Battle Armor is in fact a Battlizer unless you cite a reliable source. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Then this would be an appropriate edit, not this. JPG-GR (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To be completely serious for a moment, it is edits like that which bring you so much attention, so much flack. Rather than hitting (parts of) articles with dynamite, it is much more sensible to use a chisel and a brush. JPG-GR (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Walter Emanuel Jones

Hi. I see you re-added the material about the guy having nine fingers. As I said in the edit summary, it wasn't just because it wasn't sourced that I removed it, but also because it's not relevent. Just trying to stick to BLP and all that! Quantpole (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, I suppose. Fine by me. JPG-GR (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Obscure/doc

Thanks for closing the Template:Obscure deletion. One very minor point: I noticed that the documentation subpage remains (it's just a blank form). Should that be deleted also? Mike Serfas (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done JPG-GR (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Wild and the Innocent"

The page, "The Wild and the Innocent" was deleted and protected by an administrator, i don't know if they deleted the Millennium episode or any other work. While it is unotable i want to redirect it to the Millennium (season 1) article, but i can't since the page is protected. Can you redirect the page to

1. redirect Millennium (season 1)#ep010-110 Thanks for your time. --TIAYN (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And another thing, Within redirects to the Within (The X-Files) article, can you redirect Within (The X-Files) to Within? --TIAYN (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And delete this page, File:Walter Skinner Badge TXF.jpg which features an image i uploaded. Please delete --TIAYN (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

refindent

Hi there JPG, would you mind holding off on modifying those articles currently using refindent? I've managed to migrate the functionality to incorporate into the refbegin template, and I'd be happy to complete migration of the articles to refbegin myself over the next couple of days. It wld mean less work & hassle all round. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you intend to begin eliminating the template, sure. JPG-GR (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've made a start migrating a few over. Another 400 or so to do, will take a few more days to complete, hopefully sooner if I can manage to sling together a couple of uninterrupted hours. Once they're all migrated I'll update the template doco and do the del/rdir of the former template. Then it shld all be finished.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear JPG-GR. I would like you to possibly take another look at the deletion discussion, I do not quite understand based on which arguments you closed that nearly tied 7/10 discussion as a "delete". Would you care to explain that to me please? ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:XfD is not a vote. JPG-GR (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is why i am asking for your arguments. As far as I could see none of the deletion arguments were based in policy but were rather subjective value judgements such as "it is ugly".·Maunus·ƛ· 04:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny, the same could be said for the keep arguments, showing no basis in policy for not following the WP:MOS in the first place. JPG-GR (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well one argument we made was that the MOS does not disallow different citation styles but in fact encourages using the particular style of the main contributor. Another argument was that the indented style is a requirement in several professional style guides. Let me ask again: could you please take the time to explain how you weighed the different arguments?·Maunus·ƛ· 04:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no argument for "using the particular style of the main contributor," which I don't find to be a valid argument anyway. And, professional style guides are irrelevant as we have our own. JPG-GR (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You may not find it a valid argument but it is in the MOS.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Which one? The one you didn't mention at the TfD? JPG-GR (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, as it appears the functionality has been integrated into the established template (as shown here) and discussed at the TfD, I fail to see why you are asking these questions two weeks after the TfD was closed. Looks like you need to catch up on what's going on with the situation. JPG-GR (talk) 06:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your courteous replies.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Michigan Radio Stations

Not sure if you are still away (hope all is well), but I have noticed on some Michigan radio stations that the pages include radio schedules, not in prose form. I have deleted a couple from WYCD, WDTW-FM, and WWWW-FM while passing through on other business, but since this is kinda your area of expertise you might want to go through (if you have time) and check them all. If you don't, let me know and I will be glad to go through and check them out. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple editors who routinely revert any attempts by me to clean up the schedules - I've unfortunately given up on it for the most part. Keep up the good work. :) JPG-GR (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I will give the pages a once over and remove them. Hope you have a good day. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have identified the user that is reverting our edits. I have warned them multiple times and filed a ARV notice on AIV about them. They will be blocked and then I will go through and remove the schedules...so you will see my name pop up on your watchlist alot in the coming hours. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The user in question has been blocked for 48 hours. You can make all the cleanup you need. I have removed the schedules from the pages, using the List of radio stations in Michigan and went down the line checking each page. Mostly the ones being affected were Detroit area stations, so that will be easy to watch. If you have any other areas that I have missed that require schedule cleanup, please let me know here or on my talk page. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He's always been a Detroit-area specialist. You likely got them all. JPG-GR (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There were a few others outside of Michigan that he had hit as well, so I took care of those. Interesting to see what happens in 46 1/2 hours when he comes back from a block. We shall see :) Take Care Dude...NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits at Heroides

The last of your 3 edits at Heroides left the article formatting a lot worse; your manual replacement of {{Indent|3}} with &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; is insufficient because it lacks the <br />-bit.

You write in your edit summary: "manually subst template that is to be deleted"; can you point me to a discussion or decision to delete {{Indent}}? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 5#The .22indent family.22 of templates. JPG-GR (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And my apologies for missing the break when looking over the slop that is the code of that template. JPG-GR (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Opinion

Do you think this page is necessary? I understand the need for the template at the bottom, but a page just for the listing of stations in a small area? Should I (or you if you are so inclined) nom this for deletion? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's necessary - not even sure anyone refers to it as "Thumb Radio" outside of it being what we called the template (i.e. WP:NEOLOGISM) JPG-GR (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your opinion. I will take out the template and nom the page for deletion. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not saying you have to, but if you like to vote: here it is. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thumb Radio

This article is up for deletion. Your opinion counts. Please take a look and offer your opinion. Thanks and happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Stan

this link ---- Stan

TFD from August 7

If you are around, could I get you to close or relist United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal? I would do it myself, but decided to vote instead. I may ping another admin as well, just in case you aren't around. Thanks. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Network television schedules

Hi JPG,

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)