User talk:Jasynnash2/Archive6 - August 2008

adding extra stub tags

Hi, Please don't add {{stub}} to articles like RS McColl when they already have categorised stub tags - it just wastes the time of people at WP:STUBSORT. And, if you're adding a stub tag, please add it at the end, not the beginning - See WP:STUB which says "By convention this is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last." Thanks, PamD (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must of overlooked that tag was there. I'll also try to remember the bottom bit (it is where I normally put the tag). Thanks for letting me know. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Deletion?

Jasynnash2, why were my edits to the Discussion Page of "Two for the Money" quickly deleted? In response to your question I provided references about the notability and aliases of Brandon Lang. I'm not happy about having this work disappear. Perhaps you can help explain the process.71.178.120.225 (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of what you are talking about. Sorry. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysynnash2, I realize this is not your fault. But I'm unhappy about working on articles only to have them deleted on somebody's whim. You wrote: 'Is there a source for "The film was based on Brandon Link who used the alias Mike Anthony."?' These sources are easily available with a web search. You can even see Brandon Link/Lang/Land/Mike_Anthony on YouTube, not to mention his own website. Perhaps the references and claims of notoriety needed to be supplemented. But instead, somebody with no clue simply did a speedy delete. I don't understand why somebody with no familiarity with a subject would edit or delete it. I have experienced this before, with people deleting my discussions on the relevant talk pages. I am an expert on this subject. But if Wikipedia works by having the least informed and most meddlesome people ignore my citations and references and delete my work then I won't contribute.71.178.120.225 (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the basics. YouTube and his own website aren't what we call reliable 3rd party sources. I think you'll find the relevant policy/guideline is verifiability. Not to mention notability. Then there is the matter of the history of this particular person/contributors on wiki itself which I'm sure is still archived somewhere. The article that has been repeatedly created/recreated and whatnot about the non-notable subject has been deleted for reasons that fully conform with our policies and guidelines (as far as I can tell). I can't find any trace of you (as this IP address) contributing to that particular talkpage. If however, you are "Gavin", "Vince", or one of the others that have tried to use Wiki as a soapbox and/or warn people about this non-notable person than you need to understand there are a number of policies and guideline that that behaviour violates as well. Deleting discussions from talkpages is I agree not usually needed but, if you included information that violated some policy/guideline than I'm sure the many responsible admins on here did what was needed to protect the project as a whole. This matter had been resolved for quite awhile so I suppose my question is when did you place your comment on the talkpage? And why haven't you addressed this to the appropriate place, which is either Editor's Assistance or AN/I? Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysynnash2, thanks for the basics. I'm not Gavin or Vince, and it is entirely possible that the disappearance of my discussion on the talk page was a web-browser or software error. But previously my attempts to discuss a different article were literally censored by repeated deletions from the talk page. So I am taking the opportunity here to discuss the general issues of control and deletion. Besides, it seems somewhat pointless to write on the talk page of a deleted article. What is Editor's Assistance or AN/I?

I appreciate the notability and verifiability guidelines. But you can see photographic evidence on YouTube that Brandon Lang, Brandon Link, and Michael Anthony are the same person. He appeared on Washington Post T.V. this year and sold his life story for the major motion picture "Two for the Money". This is quite notable and easily verified by web searches.

Instead of doing these easy searches, people are just claiming the information is not notable or verifiable. Then somebody deletes the article. Here is the real story. Brandon Link is a self-promoting scamdicapper who sells sports picks under various names. His detractors don't want him to benefit from a promotional article. His sock-puppet supporters only want a flattering article. Either way the article gets deleted. This is wrong. In addition to addressing notability, a truthful article would serve the public interest of exposing Brandon's business.

This is a general problem with controversial articles on living persons. How do we get beyond the vested interests to restore an article on an obviously notable and verifiable subject?96.231.89.192 (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually people did do "these easy searches". The subject is neither notable nor verifiable (at least as far as I and many other reliable contributors were concerned). The article that existed and got deleted was total (insert appropriate swear word). If the person was truly notable and a balanced article was going to be produced that would be fine but, that wasn't and hasn't been the case. Editor's Assistance is here, AN/I is here, Deletion Review here. Please sign in next time as your changing IPs make it harder to maintain that I am infact speaking to the same person (or in fact to verify the contributions you say you have made). Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I created username Kimleebj to learn Wikipedia. Let's address notability and verifiability separately. Are you saying it is not notable for an individual to have his life story made into a major motion picture and appear regularly on T.V.? www.imdb.com/name/nm2144413/

Do you doubt the movie credits, the movie cameo, and the pictures of him with Al Pacino and Matthew McConaughey at www.askmen.com/sports/business_100/147_sports_business.html Do you doubt ESPN? sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=expertexplainsnbabets One name-change is mentioned in the interviews below. www.askmen.com/celebs/interview_200/215_brandon_lang_interview.html www.bullz-eye.com/mguide/interviews/2006/brandon_lang.htm.

And presuming he is notable, do you doubt the following video evidence that Brandon Link uses the aliases Brandon Lang and Mike Anthony? www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOwJLpE8P1E. KimLeebj (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB and YouTube are not reliable sources. I've pointed you to the relevant policies and guidelines which you should read. If you really have a problem with the things I've already said than please take them to the other places I have already pointed out to you. I'm quite frankly done discussing this here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysynnash2, you did not answer my simple question. Aren't ESPN and Washington Post T.V reliable? Remember you specifically asked about aliases. So I created an account and answered your question, and then you ignore the most reliable sources.KimLeebj (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring the sources. They confirm a guy "named" Brandon Lang exists. How about you go to the deletion log and have this conversation with someone more relevant. Or go to one of the other places I have already linked to and address it there. I'm not having this conversation over again on my talkpage. I'll ask nicely, please do not bring this subject up here again until you have addressed the issue at the appropriate places (which are all linked above and also here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvanix

Actually I have no axe to grind, but have added some good stuff anyway. Thanks for the vote. MediaMob (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, like I said I didn't mean to say you did have an "axe to grind" just that at the moment it was what it could look like. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your comment on my talk page

A situation like that takes a bit to absorb, especially if you're newer to the site. I looked at it from the start, and it seems that MediaMob mistook your saying that the AfD nomination was in bad faith with the notion that the article creation was in bad faith. I commented here. Also, your comment to User:Ed Fitzgerald might be perceived as a teeny tiny bit bossy. A more suggestive tone, such as a polite query to expound on his opinion, would seem less strident. Thanks for considering my opinions to be of some merit to you, and I look forward to future interchanges. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was actually talking about the section above (the whole Brandon Lang thing) but, thanks for the input on this one as well). I'll look at the comment to Ed and try to find a way to phrase it better. I mean I know from the edit history what I think he means and all and agree with him so yeah but, like I said I'll review it anyway. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, sorry about the confusion. As for the section above, especially are unregistered anonymous users expected to know less about the processes, so simply explaining them to him/her would have been less mildly accusatory than tones such as "why haven't you" done something they may have no idea exists. Know what I mean? Also, you should definitely direct your replies to their talk page, even though it is an IP, because tehy may not know how to know when you've replied to them. They should see the same yellow-orange new message indicator the next time they return. My suggestions are merely in the guide of keeping Wikipedia civil and dare-I-hope even pleasant; other users get away with "reverting idiot's edits/comments'" without so much as a warning, but just because they do doesn't mean it's good practice. I commend you for seeking out ways to communicate more effectively so as to foster positive communication and avoid even unintentionally irritating and distracting dialogue that distracts us from the strictly academic task at hand. Keep up the good work! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'll pop over there and leave them a talkback template. I get the impression that the IP is simply someone who forgot to log in but, yeah I suppose they could in fact be totally new. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marlo Morgan: discrepancies

Hi Jasynnash, just to say I've blurbed smthing on the discussion page of that page - not calling that an article in itself: it's not fluid writing to say the least I entirely agree; and it properly is an 'annex' of the main article. The blurb is me trying to , heh... surround / center, let's say, the 'personal reflexion' aspect. I'm sure "I'm the victim" ! :-)) of a mirror effect somewhere, between Morgan's 'type of reflexion' and the one as per defined in the collection of refs I got together. Interesting situation (with a whiff of the Chinese curse effect, possibly... :-) As I said, I think me needs take a few steps back before I can get that piece together more smoothly. I hope you'll leave me good time for it... if you or smone else doesn't come up with something better meanwhile (am dreaming or what? :-)) Okay, maybe later, then. Best wishes 2 u Basicdesign (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All honesty, I already gave up on the article. I copied offline and tried to rewrite it from a more neutral tone and failed. You do what you need to do but, at present I still think it violates a number of the policies and guidelines around NPOV, and SOAPBoxing but, I'm willing to leave it until someone else picks up on it or you manage to fix it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Captain America

Please do not edit other people's comment on talk pages. THe IP was restoring my comment after someone else saw fit to do a lot of 'fixing' to the talk page in various forms. Please review the edit history first when presented with edits that seem unusual. ThuranX (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I saw the edit history and the only change recorded in the history itself. Why does correcting an obvious typo produce a problem? I mean I could understand if they'd changed the context or content but, this didn't do that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It's generally taken as insulting the other editor by pointing out their mistake. Unless the typo produces some sort of obvious confusion (the typo produces another word that changes the meaning) don't do it. especially when the edit history shows it being reverted once. ThuranX (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I think taking it as an insult is a bit silly but if that's the way you want it so be it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vitol

I added a cite, more information, and formatting. Do you think that is that good? Bearian (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good effort but, that the article needs a lot of work. I've added some comments on the talkpage of the article which should be addressed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Greenow

Hi you just beat me to nominating Eve Greenow for deletion, but, and I hope you don't mind; having Googled her and seeing that she has won this I changed the nomination to notability and left a message on the creators talk page. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah okay although the fact that she has "one" awards etc means admins are more than likely to decline the A7 tag. But it does explain all the misspellings and made up books in the article as well. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Accounting4Taste moved Eve Greenow to User:Evieg18, not what I would have thought of doing, but I think it is a neat solution. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 14:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. Although it still contains obvious misinformation. I'm sure it will get sorted out in the wash. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solemio

Has facts, verifiable data, references and numbers. what would you change? Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start by having you read the relevant policies and guidelines. Something existing isn't the same as it being notable. Verifying it exists isn't the same as verifying it's notability. I'd write the bulk of the article from a completely neutral point of view making sure to reference to reliable 3rd party sources (which doesn't include press releases, primary sources, etc) that cover the subject in a non-trivial way (so not just directories, or other things that prove it exists). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may imagine, the first thing I did was to read all guidelines. As far as notability is concerned this is the number one online dating site on my country (as the links I referenced to show). Since I think I wrote it from a neutral point of view, can you point out some examples on my text? Last but not least, I did not use press releases or directories as references, I used articles from well know magazines as well as studies from credible study groups (Jupiter research and Pew). Thank you for your help. Vanessa Rôla (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dictdef tag

Hi. Before you use the {{dictdef}} tag, you should check whether the word is already in Wiktionary. "Bwana" is, so I have replaced the tag with a PROD citing WP:NAD. I wish there was a speedy category for these dictdef entries, both the existing words and the obviously "made up in school one day" ones. I tried suggesting it, but opinion was against me. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for the advice and I'll try to remember it in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy criteria

There wa snothing wrong with your tagging, but I didn't perceive the article as spam, and neither did a handful of other editors. It is the largest trans-national museum on the internet which should qualify for something. Sure it needs expansion to assert notability, a rewrite and referencing. In my view it wasn't "unsalvagedly incoherent" and I've asked some museum experts to look into it later. If it isn't notable then it can be deleted later but at least give it a chance The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. It was just the wording in your edit summary that confused me. I've added a couple of references which another user put into the Eva "somebody" article which are actually about the museum so that should help some. I also notice that some merging is going on that will benefit the subject as a whole. Thanks for responding so quickly and apologies if my message was out of line or badly worded. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]