User talk:Javit

Gyros

I'll add my name (IP) to the list of those bothered by your reversions. I added a link for Kronos to the Gyros page because almost every Gyros shop in the US is supplied by Kronos, thus, if you want to learn more about Gyros and Gyros restaurants the best place to learn is not from the Wikipedia page but from Kronos directly. This is not an endorsement or advertisement for the company, simply a fact. Your reversion is, in my mind, akin to calling a link to McDonald's on a Big Mac page vandalism.

Money merge account

I was just editing this article this evening, and adding legitimate, journalistic, internal and external references and content... a 'bot' has somehow marked it as spam... which it is NOT. The articles are form multiple sources, including 2 from bankrate.com which specifically address this finance topic. "Shadowbot" marked as spam incorrectly, and you requested deletion (CSD g11)? Not sure what to do, but please help and revert money_merge_account to last version updated 02:18, 4 June 2007 by 208.118.22.69. Thanks... I'm relatively new to wikipedia editing, and just wanted to contribute on something I happen to know about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.22.69 (talk)

The article is written like an advertisement blatantly to promote a product. As per WP:SPAM, the article qualifies for speedy deletion. I'm sorry but Wikipedia is not a place to advertise or promote a product --Javit 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... The topic itself is the trademarked name of a product... doesn't get much more CSD g11 than that! However that's exactly why I was editing it, to make sure it was informative and fair on the topic to those looking for objective info on it, rather than the page acting as advirtisement. There is enough info on google, but wikipedia comes up 3rd in search, and so was effectively acting as free advirtising and quasi endorsement. Deletion is likely correct by CSD g11 standards, as the page only existed to promote a single company's product, rather than to provide general information about a particular encyclopedic topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.22.69 (talk)

Personally, as someone who was probably responsible for requesting a deletion or two, and then trying to keep the article neutral once Edgarjones and Luna Santin thought it might be possible to unprotect a prior deletion and try to maintain its neutrality (See Edgar's talk page), I can understand the MMA article either being kept or deleted. Given that more than one similar product exists (each with a different trade name, but the MMA term possibly becoming a bit like Q-Tip or Kleenex), I was personally leaning more towards having a more generic article or blurb elsewhere -- but there is no good generic term for this I know to use yet.

In any case, this teaches me not to go on business trips while trying to monitor contraversial articles in my watchlist :) {I do not sell the product, and do not use it, as I am in the "Investments rates are higher than mortgage interest rates" camp of thought.} I will accept the deletion decision given there were always attempts every few days to turn this into an advertisement or use a (potentially commission-based) reseller as a reference, although I wish it was not CSD'd (and ideally went through more of the standard RFD process) while I was trying to request comments on how to clean it up. Cerlyn 04:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and clarification. If you intend to contest the deletion, I suggest Wikipedia:Deletion review. Happy editing --Javit 06:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alan johnston button.png

This image is not in the public domain. I recognize that the BBC would like to see it widely used, but this does not clear it of copyright concerns. The URL you cite [1] for evidence of PD does not indicate in any respect that it is in the public domain. In fact, that URL notes code to be used to use the image, which calls the image from BBC servers. This 'release' does not permit the image to be hosted somewhere else. Rather, the opposite. By distributing the image in this way, the BBC is increasing traffic to their site. This generates a commercial interest. If the BBC wanted to release the image specifically into the public domain, they were well capable of doing so. Yet, they did not. If you want to have this image be in the public domain, you can request the BBC to do so. Instructions for handling this sort of request are located at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If you'd like assistance with that, I'd be happy to help. In the meantime, I've appropriately re-tagged the image back to fair use and removed it from your userpage. Please do not re-add the image or re-tag it as PD without obtaining specific release from the BBC. If you have any questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 02:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Woakes

As per Wikiproject Cricket guidelines, cricketers with appearances at first-class level are notable for inclusion. This is true of Woakes. Bobo . 12:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds quite silly to me but of course I'll go with it in that case. --Javit 12:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bobo . 12:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Tan

I have removed the CSD tag from this article because I don't think this is a clear incidence of spam. I would suggest that if you think the notability is under dispute you take it to articles for deletion. Natalie 14:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed deletion now. I do think it is blatant self-promotion of a non-notable artist. I suggest you check the contribution history of the creator and read Quincy Tan thoroughly. --Javit 14:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is never a reason for allowing something to stand in a purely crappy state. If it needs English grammar and spelling corrected, I'll do that to any article. There is no part of AfD that says don't edit the English, don't correct the grammar, don't wikilink items in the article. If the artist is notable, the article should stay. If he's not, it should and will be deleted. Please don't tell me to assist you in artificially stacking an article to make it look like it is non-notable by allowing it to remain a piece of crap. Style is to be corrected, poor style and lack of citations are not criteria for deletion. Feel free to reread the criteria for deletion to understand this. In the meantime I have asked a competent editor to review the article and decide whether or not the subject is notable. When this editor gets the time, I will vote based on the information she finds. A while ago an editor nominated Rock climbing for deletion because it was poorly written and unreferenced--I'm not buying that crap. KP Botany 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go into what might have happened with other articles but this clearly is self-promotion evident from lack of notability of the subject, single contributor and external links as well as the advertorial tone of writing. I'm not asking you to 'assist' at all. As per WP:VERIFY any article HAS to be properly referenced or it goes. This is a good example of what should go as it fails on WP:NN, WP:VERIFY and WP:SPAM. Your edit merely corrected the tone to indicate a less obvious spam, which is of course allowed, but I'll leave you to decide on how ethical it is. The consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quincy Tan will show. --Javit 22:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Editing for style is now unethical. Thanks for the laugh. KP Botany 22:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Money Merge Account question

Its kind of a moot point now that the article has been deleted, but what external link(s) did I put on that page that was inappropriate? One of the important concepts of Wikipedia is providing verifiable information, how can I do that if I am then accused of providing inappropriate external links, or promoting a specific site? (neither was/is my intention)

I understand (now) that the money merge account is a trademark of one company, but that was not clear until after the Wikipedia article had evolved for a while. If a person is looking for information on the topic, as I was, Wikipedia should be an excellent resource for that. I understand why, but I'm sorry to see it deleted. ...and again, I have no ties with any websites, businesses or programs listed in the article. Eddie Jones 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted per WP:SPAM and you were the editor involved so as procedure I wrote the standard spam caution to your talk. There is nothing personal, and I do understand your points --Javit 13:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Eddie Jones 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Road Kings

I have removed the deletion tag from this article and placed my reasons why in the discussion for it. Please see it at your earliest convenience and inform me if you are still in disagreement. Thank you, Fractalchez 00:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good enough explanation, I'll go with that :) Happy editing. --Javit 13:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas C Hewitt

Resolved

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Thomas C Hewitt, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Od Mishehu 12:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it's going to AfD! I'm amazed you do not see the WP:NN issues of the article. --Javit 12:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check for NN - I just followed the PROD rule. It was 86.154.109.174 who contested it. Od Mishehu 10:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, apologies. --Javit 11:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Can you explain, in your own words, why you think Brown's gas and HHO gas should be deleted? The HHO article still needs some work to be neutral and scientific (which the nominator keeps disrupting), but the Brown's gas article is pretty good at this point.

Even if you think the current article isn't well written, that's not a good reason for deleting it.

Where does it violate WP:SPAM?

Not all of the verifiable references are in the article yet, but they exist. Here's the list. Places this has been mentioned in the popular press, references for the peer-reviewed journal article, and links to skeptic forums. Perfectly reliable, verifiable sources for the claims and debunking in the article. If you think it still needs work, feel free to help us debunk it. Nomen is either a pseudoskeptic who doesn't understand how to write neutrally about a hoax, or deliberately obfuscating the issue from a "scientific" viewpoint to keep the public misled. — Omegatron 14:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind this user of WP:NPA. Asking for WP:RS while you fail to do so for months is perfectly reasonable. Feel free to provide some of those WP:RS in accepted scientific literature.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify who you're referring to? Thanks --Javit 14:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I am sorry If you thought I was addressing you. Clearly it refers to the admin who just chose to undo the deletion of this article he heavily edits. The phrase "which the nominator keeps disrupting" sounds utterly inappropriate to me. Unfortunately he makes these statements all over the place, i.e. the AfD.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked by Omegatron to elaborate further on my reasoning. I will but I first want to make sure I understand his comments correctly. Omegatron claims this article is regarding a hoax, yet this is not at all mentioned in the article.

I believe it to be a hoax, but without a reliable source, we can't say that in the article. All we can do is write in a neutral way what is being claimed in the journal article and website, and then write in a neutral way how this conflicts with conventional science. (I'm sure sources exist for calling this a hoax, however; I just haven't gotten to that step yet. I know James Randi talks about something related in his newsletter. But I am still working on covering what Santilli's paper actually claims. Nomen could find and add such sources, but he's apparently only interested in adding weasel word criticisms without any sources whatsoever and then trying to get the article deleted.)

In addition please do not quote WP:Abuse of deletion process like it's chips, I don't see how it fits in here.

Everything I quoted is applicable to this situation. Deletion is for articles that shouldn't exist; not for articles that are not yet neutral. Articles that are repeatedly re-created by independent people usually belong in the encyclopedia; they just need to be fixed. You seem to agree that the journal article and extensive news coverage imply notability, so I don't see why you would want this deleted.

He cites previous deletions as if that means it should be deleted again, but deletion policy says the opposite.

Yeah, it needs work, but how are we supposed to do that if it keeps getting deleted? Yeah, it's prone to drive-by biasing, but if that were grounds for deletion, we'd have a lot of featured articles to nominate. :-)

Do you think that the article topic is non-notable? Do you think that it is fundamentally impossible to present the article topic in a neutral way with verifiable sources? — Omegatron 23:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Here it is. It's actually about HHO. He's a pretty notable source for criticism, no? I'm sure there are many more. — Omegatron 23:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. :) I do think it's a notable subject due to media coverage but I also think it should be clearly marked as a hoax and unscientific. I'm an aerospace engineer and it's rather obvious the 'inventor' is full of b.s. Regarding deletion, I wasn't aware there was a history of cyclic deletion/creation. As long as it's clearly and very obviously indicated that the claims are a hoax (i.e. NOT 'alleged' or anything like that) and the article isn't written like typical spam, it should be kept. When I indicated my position at AfD I took the state of the article as the basis of my judgement. Now that you've pointed me to further coverage regarding the subject and pointed out the article's history, I will change my position from delete to Blank and rewrite. --Javit 23:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the article isn't blanked. This isn't any better than deletion in that we'll have to start all over again. The very reason the references are on the talk page instead of the article is that people kept removing them. Why don't you vote keep and then help me work on it? Starting from scratch will just be a waste of time and energy.

Do you really think the current articles (Brown's gas and HHO gas) are in a non-neutral or promotional state? They certainly were the first few times they were proposed for deletion, but have you read them lately? — Omegatron 00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually decided to withdraw from that discussion and edit-changed my position accordingly. --Javit 00:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and time. Hopefully this advertisement can either be deleted or changed into a real article refuting the bogus claims.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake of Oxford

You supported the proposal to delete and suggested user IPSOS might have a conflict of interest.

The proposed deletion discussion was removed because the person who made the nomination was an alleged sockpuppet and has since been banned.

The original reason for the nomination was valid as the article clearly does not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. On that basis alone I would ask you to resurrect the Articles For Discussion process so that the integrity of Wikipedia Content is protected.

As a member of good-standing you are able to reopen the discussion.

At the end of the day the alleged dispute is about a conflict of interest where IPSOS is attacking Mandrake Press and defending Mandrake of Oxford.

However, all I ask is that you act in the best interest of Wikipedia and judge the Mandrake of Oxford article SOLELY on its merits. thanks--86.147.169.220 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll stay out of this for now as I don't have sufficient knowledge regarding the subjects of these articles. --Javit 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my page! I'm not really sure of what to do in that kind of conflict, it hasn't happened to me before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SouperAwesome (talk • contribs)

No problem :) --Javit 11:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrain AfD

I was wondering what that infobox with the "AfD's for this article" has anything to do with the article itself. The Ukrain article has absolutely nothing to do with those Ukraine oriented AfD's.--Atlan (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, except for the first AfD of Ukrain, they're irrelevant. I believe they're automatically generated from template and all things Ukrain* slip through. --Javit 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that explains it.--Atlan (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your NPWatcher Application

Dear Javit,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

«Snowolf ^{How can I help?}» 08:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7

Please do not use 'no assertion of notability' as a reason to nominate speedy deletion for Harvard professors, as you did for Karen Leigh King. Did you look at the backlinks? This person is referenced in numerous places. Charles Matthews 16:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay please provide verifiable secondary sources indicating the person's notability as there are none in the article at the moment. Otherwise I will consider AfD per WP:BIO and WP:VERIFY. --Javit 17:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've just added some external links which now satisfy notability. I would have much preferred if you pointed these out to me rather than stretching WP:NPA by using words such as 'ridiculous', 'abuse of CSD' etc. --Javit 17:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is otherwise. Your reference to AfD is an indication that at very most you should have nominated this for PROD deletion. It is actually ridiculous to call a link to an official page, which provides a CV with a full listing of publications and awards as other than verifiable support of notability. Please note that WP:CSD explicitly says A7 is for 'unremarkable' people. I don't know why you think unremarkable people get into endowed chairs at Harvard, which by many surveys is the world's #1 university. Charles Matthews 18:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in, I explicitly endorse in every particular what the previous admin said. Read WP:CSD , and learn: any assertion of importance prevents speedy deletion of the article. DGG 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is a slight misunderstanding of my perceived position on matter, I have no objections to either comment. --Javit 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandrake of Oxford AFD

ABUSE OF PROCESS

I wish to draw your attention to a serious abuse of process and blatant COI by IPSOS

The Mandrake of Oxford article has been marked for deletion for the second time and has also had PROD tags added twice.

The situation with Mandrake of Oxford started with an edit-war on Mandrake Press article in which IPSOS featured heavily. Whilst this edit war raged IPSOS worked hard to build up the page of a rival company (the page was started by GlassFET. It should be noted that Mandrake Press and Mandrake of Oxford are competitors.

I have just discovered that in a desperate attempt to circumvent the AFD, IPSOS is moving the Mandrake of Oxford material to the Mandrake Press article. This flies in the face of all his previous arguments regarding the Mandrake Press article.

Mandrake of Oxford does not belong in an article about Mandrake Press. IPSOS contributed to (and created disambiguation pages) and added distinguish tags linking both articles.--86.131.37.169 00:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annum Ford

You left me a "message", I have no idea how to reply, perhaps this will suffice. I'm not sure why you deleted my entry, you left no comments stating why, other then some boilerplate pointing me to wikipedia guidelines. I copied the format of another longlived entry. I'm not related to the information in any way, other then I thought it was useful knowledge that others might like. Thanks for deleting all that time I spent formatting. I'm 100% sure I won't ever try to post a new article. Techsmith 02:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you took the deletion personally. Please understand that I haven't deleted your entry. I marked it for speedy deletion per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and then an administrator reviewed my mark and must have concluded that it was indeed in violation and went ahead with deletion. I sincerely hope that you will continue contributing to Wikipedia as an editor aware of its policies. --Javit 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular please see WP:MUSIC --Javit 15:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thank you visiting and commenting at my RfA, I have tried to expand on my philosophy and answers, and hope that these address your concerns. Even if they don't, thanks for stopping by. DrKiernan 12:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. They did indeed. --Javit 14:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"weak keep"

Just as a reference point, when I say week keep I mean I am not going to defend it further, or weak delete similarly. I think others use it in the same way--meaning that the opposite position is also in one's opinion tenable. It counts the same as a keep if !votes are added up, which is of course not always the best way to decide on a close. DGG 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

always appreciated --Javit 19:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CBS Charleville.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CBS Charleville.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:27, 29 October 2007 (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) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]