User talk:JamaUtil

JHU Template

Your version of the JHU template from 2009 looks nice. A few too many blues, but still very nice to look at. Have you seen it lately? We need to do something about this. JamaUtil (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I reverted it back to the version I created. You should probably remove your comment about my template being ugly though since the new one wasn't mine. :) TennisGrandSlam (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, JamaUtil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wintonian (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links inline

Sorry I had to do this revert [1]. My edit summary explains it.

You seem like you really want to help. There are plenty of guidelines here that spell things out pretty clearly. It's just a bit of a challenge at first to find them. Here are some good links:

wp:help - the search works pretty well
wp:EL - guidelines on external links
wp:mos - manual of style
Wikipedia:Fa#Education - Feature articles about education. Many university articles there. A great way to learn how to do things is to read these over as a model, and if necessary, go to the edit screen just to see how they did it.

If you have any more questions, I'll try to help. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting prods

I have notice you have removed several prod templates with the justification "so that deletion can be discussed". However, you have then not provided any reasons for removing the template. See Wikipedia:Prod#Objecting, which encourages users to:

Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page.
Consider notifying the editors involved in the PROD by placing a {{Deprod}} tag on their user talk page.
Add or modify an {{Old prod full}} tag on the article's talk page, to prevent renomination under Proposed deletion. It will then be listed at Category:Past Proposed Deletion Candidates for easy tracking.
Consider improving the article to address the concerns raised.

In future, I would be grateful if you would provide explanations for why prod templates are removed. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing prods

I see you have removed my prod tag from Brando Advertising Agency citing "agency appears to have a well referenced article that is actively updated". This does not address the prod rationale I gave; indeed it directly contradicts it ("Refs are actually refspam"). I'm asking you to stop deprodding my prod tags without good reason, something you have done previously. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct that does appear to contradict your rationale. The links I clicked on took me to independent sites. The ones I've chosen just don't seem like clear cut deletions to me, I'm glad they are getting the chance to be discussed. Cheers! JamaUtil (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potomac Education Foundation listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Potomac Education Foundation. Since you had some involvement with the Potomac Education Foundation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). AirplanePro^Radio_Checklist 21:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IACBE

Thanks for fixing my mistake. I was doing some cleanup of a list-article in the wake of some mass-production edits done by another user, and I misread the IACBE article. --Orlady (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep an eye on International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education. I am in danger of violating 3RR in my interactions with a user who is eager to announce a change in the recognition status. --Orlady (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I haven't seen an update. The meeting where this would be announced was yesterday. JamaUtil (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does cite that news update on the IACBE website. My concern is that another user has been trying to make the article say that CHEA's website lists IACBE as recognized, but that's not true. So far, the only source that reports this news seems to be the IACBE itself. Since I've already reverted 3 times today in that article, I'm looking for other people to help watch the article. --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is we'll see this in The Chronicle in a few days once they get back from the conference. JamaUtil (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed -- but I didn't want to get hit with a 3RR violation for repeatedly reverting the contributor who was eager for Wikipedia to break the news before it hits any other news outlet. Thanks for your followups. --Orlady (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Small-scale fishing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Small-scale fishing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small-scale fishing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism of the SNCF article

For what is apparently not the first time (at all), you are attempting an edit war. You have failed to respond to talk items that pointed to excessive and non-NPOV edits on your part. Please avoid doing this whenever possible, in order to maintain a collaborative atmosphere.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have apparently read my message on your talk page. I found your parroting charming. Thank you. JamaUtil (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop erasing material that plainly belong in the article, the topic of which is the SNCF. Feel free to edit from what I and other editors are contributing, including in my case a history of the SNCF that only adds to the understanding of subsequent controversies. To do otherwise is to hijack the article for your personal, non-NPOV purposes. Consider how little you have contributed to the actual contents of the article through all this - and for what? Thanks.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make this personal, it is not. I do not appreciate email threats. I have incorporated some of the material that you added in the location you prefer to have it added. Please see the current page. I have not yet verified the information, but I am assuming good faith, the material is reasonable and I hope it works well for you. JamaUtil (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that your turning to personal attack (in talk and sandbox) and using WP:AGF insinuations is constructive. The full material about the circumstances of the Armistice and subsequent oversight and activities of the SNCF and its employees is plainly relevant to the article, and even if one cares only about (a subset of) the deportations, provides relevant material that illuminates the subsequent controversies on that topic too. Removing such material only weakens the entire article, including the section about recent controversies. As I wrote before and you agreed, the earlier article was weak in context. I and other wikipedia editors have worked hard to provide such context. Please help advance the article rather than destroying it. Thanks!Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could not make sense of your latest personal talk, whereby you deleted material and then asked for translation of same as existed in the article before you deleted it. I will be glad to help, but you can help yourself - let alone the entire wikipedia community - by reinstating all the context material first, as that contains translations of all essential points.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the improved tone. I am referring to this article:

Ribeill, Georges (2002-2003). "Obstétrique de guerre: Le cas de la SNCF (1939-1945)" (in French). Les Cahiers de Recits, Laboratoire de Recherche sur les Choix Industriels, Technologiques et Scientifiques (Belfort-Montbéliard: Université de Technologie Belfort-Montbéliard) 2: 49-61. Retrieved 2012-01-09.

You have used it to write this sentence:

The terms of the Armistice provided that all French railroads be turned over to German occupying forces

Would you mind citing text in that article which applies to the above sentence, and how this specifically applies to SNCF? I just find it strange that the article is not used in the French fr:SNCF and do not see the connection to SNCF, but this does seem like a potentially helpful source. JamaUtil (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole front end of the paper, especially the first three pages, deals with the onset of the German occupier's relation with the SNCF, and starts to discuss on what basis SNCF employees resisted (in the general sense) German inference. The armistice, its implementation terms, and the Goeritz note are all referenced or quoted, as they were in the (English) wikipedia until you deleted all this material without reason. Your insinuation aside, you cannot compare with the French wikipedia, first because you are unable to read it, and second because the material about the SNCF's history is found in multiple articles. Above, you are not even referencing the relevant page of the French wikipedia. Again, if you lack the skills to edit French history, please let other editors do it, and don't destroy their work without reason and without addressing issues appropriately in the article's talk page.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I find it most odd that you "do not see the connection to SNCF" in the Ribeill article or where and how it was cited; I trust the title fragment "SNCF (1939-1945)", at least, does not need translation. It is also disturbing that you are arbitrarily limiting the discussion to this one source, when there were several others in the article until you destroyed this section. As I said before, this topic will be clear if you reinstate all the changes you unduly removed.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you could have provided an answer without trying to insult me. I will continue to hope you can edit collaboratively and preserve that sentence. It makes sense, even if it's not used by any other third party source. JamaUtil (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fallacy in what you just wrote will be plain if you just read about the Armistice documents (pity you removed the quotations, pitier yet you did so without reason), and about the era's history. You have not introduced a single history source while you were destroying the existing material. I wonder why.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I like reading English newspaper articles, not French historical journals. I also find newspaper websites are preferred by most Wikipedia editors (who are themselves a diverse bunch). JamaUtil (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be curious to know on what basis you say that "newspaper websites are preferred". Not if the goal is to build an encyclopedia. By the way, I trust you know that newspaper articles are not, and should not be referred to, as tertiary sources. See WP:SECONDARY. Newspapers are, at best, more or less reliable secondary sources. They are prone to include short pieces based on limited research and opinionating, and thus typically inferior to the earlier-listed sources such as journals and academic books. Certainly, editors should avoid claiming that a newspaper is a tertiary source.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my language was incorrect! Still, that page does say secondary (which I now know are newspaper articles) are preferred, it says:

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources.

It's nice to know my thinking was correct, even if my language wasn't. Thank you for that. JamaUtil (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you are taking this small step towards best practice. As for correct thinking, I am not sure what you mean; but plainly, newspapers are inferior sources, especially in historical matters, and I am glad that you know that too now.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really tickled pink at the way you parrot my words back to me. Thank you for that. JamaUtil (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to put it another way: It is wrong, logically, to write "secondary (which I now know are newspaper articles)". Some newspapers articles are secondary, but not all; and there are other, superior secondary sources. But, again, glad that you are paying attention to this.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Brian K. Johnson

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Brian K. Johnson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice!!. JamaUtil (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the article, because college presidents are notable. However this is a Biography of living person article, with special rules for fairness in the use of non-negative material- see WP:BLP. The negative material here is sourced, but I'd suggest you try to include something positive about his earlier career, and if he made a statement on leaving office, link to it and quote some of it. Please be very careful, and try to write in such a way that, if you were the person, though you surely would not like the material, you nonetheless would not think we were being spiteful.

Good point I'll try to find more sources. Didn't know that all college presidents were notable, but makes sense. Sounds like good wikiproject!. JamaUtil (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Brian K. Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consulting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

It doesn't matter if you think the article is NPOV or not, that I am reasonably disputing it, with sources showing negative material seemingly ignored is enough to add the tag. Prodego ^talk 04:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly want to get involved in editing that article. I'm just identifying a problem and justifying it. While {{sofixit}} is always good advise, and I should try to improve the article, I really don't want to commit to doing that. Placing that template flags it as something that someone should eventually look at. Prodego ^talk 04:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sim City

Hello, I don't know if you're aware of it , but in the WP:NAME guidelines that relate to video games (WP:NCVG), there is a specific line that states "never use "(computer game)" or "(computer gaming)" for any disambig even if the article is exclusively about a PC-related topic.". - X201 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 18#SimCity (2013 computer game). The consensus there is that per WP:NCVG the right title for this article is SimCity (2013 video game), so I have moved the article there and arranged that all the redirects caused by different moves now point to that. Please don't move it again unless there is a serious reason, in which case establish consensus on the talk page first. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]