User talk:Jayjg/Archive 29

Hi. Kinderdance International, Inc. was deleted. Please advise as what to do to repost it. All information is from Essence Magazine and Entrepreneur Magazine. What do you suggest we change? Thank you for your help.

Regards, Darlene (Nuncscio (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Ophélie Bretnacher

Hello, You delated the page too fast. I didn't have the time to answer. it was the translation of the new french page, which has been kept, after the discussion. Maybe you will have the time too reed this new page, which is an important european problem http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oph%C3%A9lie_Bretnacher It has been improved by the french wikipedians. Maybe it can alsobe improved by english wikipedians.--193.218.15.23 (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher. The author consulted me here and I told him if he wanted it back he would have to go to DRV. Instead, it has come back as Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance, essentially the same but avoiding BIO1E by retitling. I think, despite the attempt to show political significance, it still fails WP:N/CA, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:109PAPERS... Question: do you consider this is a repost per WP:CSD#G4, or does the retitling save it so that it needs another AfD? JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jayjg and Happy new Year, You delated a new page on Ophélie Bretnacher. It was completely different, improved by the french wikipedians, and kept after the discussion. Not the same text, primary and secondary sources. Not the same photo. You didn't reed it ? I thought you were informed, because, I had explained all of that at Hell In A Bucket :

You r tenacity and want-to is amazing Raymond. I appreciate the fact that you were so willing to go up to bat for Ophelie. It is truely a sad situation. I just want to show you the difference between Jon Benet Ramsey [[1]], or Natalee Hollaway, [[2]] now compare Ophelie she had a spike of coverage when she died that has steadily petered away. It is the notabilityy aspect we were talking about. I did have a question is there any articles that highlite this death as a treaty sticking point? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello and Happy new Year Hell in a Bucket,

I have it :

Les familles d'Eva Rhodes et d'Ophélie Bretnacher, autre étrangère disparue en Hongrie, envisagent d'adresser ensemble une plainte auprès de l’Union européenne

http://www.jfb.hu/node/837

D'après le correspondant de l'AFP en Hongrie, ces deux affaires ont été pour lui l'aspect le plus difficile de son métier de journaliste parce que « À cause de l’AFP, on est obligé de poser des questions douloureuses que, personnellement, on préférerait se garder de poser » ::http://www.jfb.hu/node/1026

Eva Rhodes & Ophélie Bretnacher have been kept after 17 days of discussion I am very happy with the way the French Wikipedians have improved the page

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oph%C3%A9lie_Bretnacher

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Rhodes

Best Regards --Raymondnivet (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations Raymond, the article looks real good. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well now that the article has survived a deletion review on the French Wikipedia I don't think there should be aq problem adding it here. I can't speak french or I would offer my services. You might try rewriting the article in English and asking a editor to make sure that the spelling and context should be in English but I think it has a doubled chance of surviving here.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Best regards and sorry if I made a mistake maybe not to inform you.--Raymondnivet (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Temple Israel (Dayton, Ohio)

On January 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Temple Israel (Dayton, Ohio), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 06:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ophelie bretnacher

thank you very much for your answer i hope you Will read thé new page now and will give me your opinion on it best regards --Raymondnivet (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case opens/Chabad movement

Hi Jay: Since you have been involved in the topic of Chabad, this is to let you know that an official arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. You may wish to add your comments for the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. The ArbCom asks that evidence be submitted within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved there as well, but I did have a minor spate with Shlomke and Debresser on Cantonist ([[3]]), if it is of any use to you.Galassi (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Remobo

Hi, you deleted the Remobo article awhile back due to this AfD and the article was recently recreated. Can you look over it and see if it qualifies for a G4 speedy deletion? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 00:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've deleted it. Same product, still no indication of notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Link spammer

Hi Jayjg, I believe editor User:Nt351 exists only to introduce external links to "documents" on his personal website into articles. All of his contributions (except an occassional talk page entry to complain) reflect this. I see you reverted a number of his insertions with this edit of yours, and he has responded directly to you here. I make no judgement as to the authenticity of the documents stored at that personal website, or whether they are reproduced with permission - but I definitely don't think that website qualifies as a "reliable source". I considered reverting his entire list of contributions, but I'm not sure that would be appropriate. Could you take a closer look? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your assessment of Nt351 (talk · contribs) appears accurate. Have you considered taking this to WP:AN/I? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

After a few days of no edits from Nt351, I had hopes that he got the message about his website not being a reliable source - but he is back at it as of tonight. I've taken your advice and posted a brief note at Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#External_link_spammer. I'm not soliciting comments from you; just giving you a heads-up. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

RBF Morph

Hello Jayjg, I'm disappointed for the deletion of RBF Morph page. I have asked to software users to contribute for the review of the page but the discussion for deletion has been completed during holidays! MEB71 (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, I am very sorry about the RBF Morph page deletion. I am using the technology since 2 years ago and I'm still astonished by the results that can be obtained out of it. I strongly believe that this is one of most important technology innovation done in the CSE in the last years and I have very good credentials to say this. Moreover this is one of the most effective example of technology transfer from academia to industry and should be actually indicated as "a model to be followed". I strongly hope the page can be re-considered for publication. Frasiers (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus at the AfD, of those who made policy-based arguments, was to delete. You can always contest a deletion at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Done! MEB71 (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/SimpleCDN

Hi, you deleted the SimpleCDN article, however I showed that links and references were NOT to press releases, and were to 3rd party blogs, and to an article from Tier1Research, a well respected industry publication. Other CDNs are trying to ensure that SimpleCDN is not listed on Wikipedia. I would appreciate any feedback or suggestions to ensure that the article passes all standards.

I have pointed out that other companies that are listed as content delivery networks contains *much* less references, and look much more like advertisements than SimpleCDN. This is obviously not fair - if SimpleCDN is deleted, than the other articles should be deleted too. They won't let me nominate or open a discussion for deletion on those articles however.

Look at CacheFly and Highwinds Network Group - you will see the SimpleCDN article contains more references, none of which were press releases unlike both of those articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akamman567 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_re-posting_an_article_that_was_just_dceleted_via_AfD.2C_then_posting_db_tags_to_competitors--Hu12 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Service award update

Hello, Jayjg! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dre McFly Page Deletion

Im Really Asking Can You Please not delete the article and reinstate this page please?

Iv'e Included Most Of The Evidence I Could Find

Can You please advise what is required for me to keep this artivle up.

HERE'S SOME LINKS OF OF PROOF :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp4e6YZLy8M - Black Entertainment Television BET

http://i48.tinypic.com/wj9kow.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4nKHm2Sr8 - Webster Hall WIth Cipha Sounds

http://i49.tinypic.com/mhc6yx.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygHcPVp_r3k - Wasted Remix

http://i49.tinypic.com/mhc6yx.jpg

http://www.vladtv.com/video/13914/dre-mcfly-freestyle-for-vladtvcom-unsigned/

http://i47.tinypic.com/2ih777a.jpg

http://flyestkids.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/dre-mcfly-jeff-lightyear-bio/

http://i46.tinypic.com/t62crt.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/2qxtjjp.jpg

http://i49.tinypic.com/708dgy.jpg (Tokyo, Japan)

http://i46.tinypic.com/2jefkj.jpg - Intercontinental Make A Wish Ball Red Carpet Miami

http://i45.tinypic.com/ok0gp3.jpg

http://www.lyricsmania.com/crackaloonie_lyrics_dre_mcfly_and_jeff_lightyear.html

http://api.myxer.com/ringtone:480944/

http://images.google.com/images?q=dre%20mcfly&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

http://i49.tinypic.com/eit08.jpg

http://www.myspace.com/crackalooniekidz (fan base)

http://www.myspace.com/yodremcfly (fan base)

None of those links appear to address the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dre McFly. If you wish to overturn that deletion, you'll need to propose it at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Giorgi Chirgadze

why was the article deleted he is a pro soccer playerr who is contracted to the club.

Elomen76

It was deleted because that was the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giorgi Chirgadze. If you wish to overturn the deletion, please propose it at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Annika Väisänen

Why did you delete the article Annika Väisänen?! WP:OLD Despite a large number of arguments put forth by both sides for 7 days, it's quite clear that no consensus was going to be reached there. Therefore, the result was no consensus. Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep".--Linnea78 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The arguments made to delete were based on policy/guideline. The arguments made to keep were mostly not. Consensus is measured based on the statements of those who make policy/guideline-based arguments. It is not a raw vote. Oddly enough, a week ago you insisted the article should be deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Some people are not knowledgeable about the policy/guidelines. Especially if they are new users. I counted and the "Votes" where 4/4, therefore there was no clear consensus.
ALthough, one of the delete comments should not even taken into calculation, since "Votes" of simply the words "delete" do not make a case and should not be counted in a deletion discussion. (By Musamies) WP:JUSTAVOTE

I wanted the article removed previously because I felt that it was proposed for deletion for just to be mean. I answered all her questions about references, notability and so on, and still, after all that work, she lied, and gave some mickey mouse reason for deleting G6 or something like that. That was not at all what she had said in the discussion.

It should have not been HER decision tp dele the article, but it should have been a decision based on the 4/4 vote and therefore should have been kept!--Linnea78 (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's now before WP:DRV, and so far the discussion is decidedly against you. If you recreate it again under a different name, as you did with Annika Suvi Johanna Vaisanen, I'll block you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ley farming

Hi, this looks like a simple case of lifting an article verbatim (see the second external link [4]). As an administrator, perhaps you know what to do about this? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Winona Ryder

Why was the Russian-American Jews category removed from this page? I am neither Jewish nor did I add this category, but I was just curious. I sometimes watch this page. Her paternal grandparents were Russian Jews. Her father is a Russian Jew and she considers herself Jewish. What guidelines are to be followed on Wiki?--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: because no reliable sources describe her as a "Russian-American Jew". Longer answer: a Russian-American Jew is a Russian Jew who moved to the United States, or (much more rarely), an American Jew who moved to Russia. One could argue that the children of two Russian Jews, even if born in the U.S., are, in some sense, "Russian-American Jews" as well. But when it's one grandparent or two, in a whole mix of things, then the term is meaningless. How far would you take it? If someone had one great-great-great-grandparent who was a Russian Jew, would that make them a "Russian-American Jew" too? There are many Wikipedia editors who, for some unfathomable reason, like to slot people into as many ethnicity buckets as possible, based on an odd one-drop rule mentality. It makes no sense, and in any event, violates WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to see the reasoning. I understand where you are coming from. Irish Catholics like Enya are listed as Irish Catholic (sourced and added by me I might add), and Pierce Brosnan is Irish, a naturalized American, but still Irish-Catholic. He isn't Irish-American, which would mean he was born in America (don't know why people keep adding that category). Moira Kelly's parents are born in Ireland, but she was born in the United States. She has the categories Irish-American and American-Catholics. However, when I've spoken to Irish-Americans, especially first generation Americans, they refer themselves as Irish Catholic. I get the grandparent aspect of your argument, and have to agree. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I wasn't disagreeing with you by the way, just wanted the reasoning fleshed out, so maybe others could see why as well. Take care.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Actually, Pierce Brosnan is without doubt Irish-American, since he holds both Irish and American citizenships. "-American" means an American citizen, not that you were born in America. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, this was discussed, and he is a naturalized citizen. The naturalized American category fits best. Irish American generally refers to people of Irish descent, not nationality. Pierce Brosnan became a citizen when he was middle-aged. He still holds his Irish passport, too. The Irish-American category was unanimously removed, and the Irish-Catholic category remains as well. He spent most his life in Ireland. Even Irish people consider him Irish, but a naturalized American. It's also less confusing for people, more so due to the fact that he became an "American" at a much older age. Irish Americans are Julia Roberts, Eric Roberts, etc. The category implies less ties with Ireland. I'd argue leaving both if he was a U.S citizen as a child or early teenager. I am a Persian-American, born in Iran in 1981, but have lived in Texas since the age of 1 month. My parents have lived in the U.S. since 1971, and we all became U.S. Citizens in 1982. However, we all retain our Iranian citizenship. I am Persian-American/Iranian-American, but my parents aren't really. I also call myself Iranian because that is my ethnicity, Indo-European yes, but my ethnicity is Iranian. I guess it's one of those nit-picky things. I agree with you that you can still call him Irish-American, technically, but the term by itself is used with restrictions. Most people refer to Pierce Brosnan as Irish, and mention the naturalization. The same for Sir Anthony Hopkins. People still call him Welsh.

100% agree with you on Winona Ryder and similar cases. On a random note, I am amazed at the living person category. I guess it makes sense, since there are many notable people who have passed away, but what about all those notable people who are alive and DON'T have the living person category? LOL Sorry, I am in the mood to find something this lame amusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeSoul7981 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever consensus was reached on the article Talk: page was incorrect. As Wikipedia's Irish American article says in its lead: "Irish Americans (Irish: Gael-Mheiriceánaigh) are citizens of the United States who trace their ancestry to Ireland.": Not people born in America who trace their ancestry to Ireland, but citizens of the United States who trace their ancestry to Ireland. In Wikipedia terms, someone is Irish American if reliable sources describe them that way. For example, "Irish American actor who was perhaps best known for playing James Bond in a series of films." "Pierce Brosnan." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2010. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Dre McFly Article for deletion

Everything Was Proved On My Article No FICTION i'm trying to find some proof about MTV TRL but the pictures was lost and the show was cancelled . A lot was done with my article and BET and im trying to find more internet proof i provided pictures, accomplishments , magazines , Television and More. Nothing was made up and the artist has notability. I'm Begging For You To Restore This Article. Thank You , Have A Blessed Day. If Theirs Anything THat Does not belong can you please just remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.14.174 (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The place to request article restoration is WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proteans Software Solutions

Hi Jayjg, I'm disappointed on the deletion of Proteans Software Solutions. There were only 3 votes and the article got deleted on 2:1. I still consider this company has notable mentions in reliable sources. Please reconsider this for undelete or for more discussion. Vipin Hari || talk 10:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there were 4 !votes: Smerdis of Tlön, Samboy, and Pcap all !voted to delete, and you !voted to keep. So the article actually "got deleted on 3:1". Moreover, you had no response to Pcap's points. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That graph

I placed the (modified) penile sensitivity graph on the penis page with what I believe was some genuinely neutral text. It has been reverted, and I have asked for the opinions of other editors. Since you commented on the matter elsewhere, I thought you may interested Johncoz (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Church of Reality

Hi there. Back in 2005 you discussed this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality. The article has since been recreated, and I have re-nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Reality (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article: Barry Weeks

Jayig,

Is there any way to view articles and their revision history once they've been deleted? If so, would you please show me how to do this? Thanks!

paul klenk ^talk 16:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Only admins can do that. What were you looking for? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the last version of the article before it was deleted, and the last version of the article before I edited it (which is about a day or so prior). paul klenk ^talk 09:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you want to improve it so that it could be brought to WP:DRV? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but someone else might. paul klenk ^talk 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you run into anyone who does, please feel free to send them to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

One Shot (JLS song)

Hello, can you tell me if it was you that blocked One Shot (JLS song) the user you spoke to had re-recreated the page under a different title using the second word without a capital letter. I think the page should stay as the song has reached the top #10 it's noteable to have it's own page even if it wasn't a single which it is. Can you unlock it please so I can movie it to "One Shot (JLS song)" rather than "One shot (JLS song)" thanks. Jayy008 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of this deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Shot (JLS song). If you wish to contest the deletion, please do so at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

An admin already re-directed the page for me, however I don't know which was it was. The song has reached the top 10 now. All the reasons listed on that page were no longer valid per 6.30pm GMT today. So can you tell me why you deleted it again? I put it alot of work into that page, and now you've deleted it for no reason. I would like it put back and I would like my edits restored. Jayy008 (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think the reasons for deleting it a month ago are no longer valid, then please take it to WP:DRV for review. Continually re-creating it is not the way to go. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you check the history and find out which admin moved the page for me? I will ask them to help. Also can you tell me where abouts on that page I should put my argument, thanks. PS. When you delete things, please be more careful and review it to see if the reasons for deleting it before are still valid, an admins job. Jayy008 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You should put it at the top of the WP:DRV page. The instructions there are pretty clear. P.S. My job as an admin is to assess AfD consensus and enforce it. In the future, when you wish to create an article that has been deleted via an AfD process, please ensure that you bring your reasoning to WP:DRV, where third parties can assess that reasoning for validity. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to me because when I read it it said put it in where the day is. And that template confuses me. I did not recreate the page. The page was there I merely added an infobox, and everything to the page. Can you please add it to WP:DRV for me. If not, can you re-direct me to an admin that will help. PS. I'm third party, I'm all for deleting pages that have no noteabilty because they're pointless. However when they are recreated no other admins delete them again, I suggest when you go to delete something see if there is reason to keep it. It saves wasting time deleting it then arguing it later. Jayy008 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't actually re-create the page, and apologize for implying that you did. Regarding the deletion process itself, I really only assess AfD arguments; my personal opinions about an article aren't relevant. That's the way admins are supposed to assess these things. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

PS. I have done it now (added to that page). Jayy008 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, and good luck with the review. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Obama administration health care proposal"

You recently deleted several articles, including "Obama administration health care proposal." Please take a second look at that decision. The AfD began with a false assertion (that the administration supposedly has no proposal, so there is nothing to write about), put there by someone who had made several deletions turning the article into a straw man. In fact, "The President's Plan" is clearly published on the White House website, and the WP article on it listed 19 secondary sources in addition to the three primary sources (2 White House + 1 CBO). The 19 secondary sources included the three largest newspapers in the United States. The initial 'votes' were based on the straw man version. The restored version barely had time for consideration before the deletion. (Less than two days.) Now, WP has no article on The President's Plan for what is probably the leading issue of our time. His plan is only mentioned briefly in other articles, e.g. the reform debate article which is so long that WP is automatically suggesting it be broken into smaller articles.TVC 15 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I can only interpret the consensus of the AfD discussion, and the consensus was clearly to delete. If you want to contest this deletion, please feel free to do so at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Done: [5]. It's my first attempt and I may have got the formatting wrong, so I'll check that and try to fix if necessary.TVC 15 (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

==Deletion review for Obama administration health care proposal==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Obama administration health care proposal. 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.

Is it possible to notify the editors who had contributed to the page? I tried to find the history tab but it's gone. Deletion was favored by a small number of editors, while a larger number had contributed to the article. I think the earlier editors may not have known the article was nominated for deletion, as I didn't know until less than two days before you deleted it.TVC 15 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just following up on this. I would appreciate being able to notify the contributors to the article and its talk page. If you check the history, I think you'll find the nominator for deletion never even attempted to discuss the article on its talk page. Even though the article has been deleted, it would seem reasonable to provide this information about its revision history.TVC 15 (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, at WP:DRV it's best to get uninvolved editors to review the deletion, rather than people who might be biased as a result of their previous work on an article. WP:DRV is a place to review deletion decisions, and is not supposed to be a second round of AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the text of the deleted article may end up going into the larger article of which it was said to be a fork. The text remains available via Google, but that doesn't notify the editors. (BTW, the DRV process seems to focus on whether policies were cited, rather than whether they were applied correctly, which seems odd. The result is a determined deleter can nominate an article when people are away, and get it deleted before they come back, as happened in this case.)TVC 15 (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that DRV focuses on whether applicable policies and guidelines were applied correctly, and consensus was assessed accurately. The reason a week is given for the AfD is to allow sufficient time for people to make their arguments. I understand that you believe that wasn't enough time in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I personally had been away, and none of the other editors who had contributed to the article participated in the AfD so I think they were likely away also. Most of the article had been contributed by others, and the article had been stable for quite some time - then the nominator made some deletions and then nominated the whole article for deletion, without even trying to contribute first. Also, I had never experienced an AfD before; I thought they were mainly for non-notable subjects, which obviously didn't apply in this case (although the nominator claimed falsely that the President had no Plan and thus there was nothing to write about). I was very surprised to see the article suddenly deleted. Frankly, it feels like witnessing a virtual arson. Is there some way to find the list of people who contributed to the article?TVC 15 (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing other editors isn't going to bring the article back. Neither will repeating the same falsehoods and attacks against me personally all over Wikipedia. If you can frame an argument that doesn't have anything to do with me, people might listen to you. Otherwise, this "vast conspiracy" against you by the Wikipedia community will probably continue. (And Jayjg, I'm sorry to bring this to your talk page, but this is everywhere and I felt I had to respond. Better here than deletion review. Don't worry, I won't continue this argument any further). --Loonymonkey (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article: War of Legends

Dude, can you return the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Legends article? It was originally removed for having no third party sources, well the game is now launched and had a ton of third party references in the article. As for notability: USA today and the Financial Times were calling it a big deal so I would have thought that counted. I get why you removed it (necro of a naff entry that had previously been speedy deleted) but I think if you check the changes in the situation of the subject (its been launched, it has references, it's notable) you'll see its now all groovy. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.7.174 (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to contest the article deletion, you'll have to do it at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for the direct :-)Wolhound (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman

Hi, I have no desire to get into an edit war with User:Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun, but it looks like one is starting. He and a new editor, User:Moshenanach, have as their sole goal the promotion of Rabbi Yisroel Ber Odesser's teachings and this popular mantra. They added information to the article with no regard for NPOV or RS and just started flooding the talk page with diatribes on all the discussions to date. All the things I corrected this morning were reverted an hour later. Could you please help me here? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

He has been blocked for a week, so you can probably go ahead now and bring the article back into line with policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Something controversial

I have reverted your close for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination). Sorry Jay, this is likely to piss you off, but you have given absolutely no reasoning behind why it is keep. I was writing up a detailed closure which was to delete, I'm going to post this now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've already closed it, so you can't re-close it. Feel free to ask me my reasoning, or take it to WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You should have added your reasoning to the AFD page. Especially on such a controversial issue. Don't undo my edit or undelete the article. I will put an AN/I thread about this so others can comment. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why you imagine this is a "controversial issue". The consensus was pretty clear, and no reasoning is required on the AfD page, though one would have been provided had it been asked for. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted back to Jayjg's close, as it is the first one; an administrator's close cannot be unilaterally overturned by another administrator. Jayjg, please post your reasoning since this close appears to be controversial. Cunard (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you really should not have anything to do about it. Jay, I've noted this on WP:AN/I#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (2nd nomination). Could you please comment? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the article. Once the DRV is finished, I'm taking it back to AFD. This time hopefully the closer will give a detailed explanation as to their reasoning behind the keep/delete decision. Nothing personal, but that was a poor close. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice that you asked a question. It is actually pretty controversial amongst skeptics and non-skeptics. As an evangelical Christian myself I have often been to this website, which I find faintly ridiculous. However, the reasons for notability were that it was referenced in two non-notable publications. Most of the deletes objected to this, and I cannot see why you thought it was notable enough to keep. It's a discussion after all, surely you would have been able to use some discernment and taken into account the opinion of those who wanted it deleted? I'm hoping you did take them into account. Anyway, as I say, I will be listing this on AFD again in a few days time. This time the closure will close with better reasoning.

I want to emphasise that while I overrode your decision, and risked annoying you considerably, it was not personal and as far as I'm concerned we are still friends. However, I respectfully suggest that the way that you closed this dicussion was not great. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and P.S. - it it's not clear in my messages, you have offered to give a detailed reasoning as to your closure. Could you please let me know what this is? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done so at the DRV discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and of course, no hard feelings. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Jay. I'll ensure that I take to DRV next time. Thank you for giving a more detailed reason. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review for S-Preme

Jayjg,

Can you please put the S-Preme page up for review? because it seems like the main reason why it was deleted the first time was because it had a lack of sources according to a comment posted on January 18th, but I didn't add any sources until about the 20th. I think I had a good 13 or so sources for the page and all of them were from credible sites and interviews.

Among the other reason, JBsupreme said that S-Preme wasn't a notable studio gangster which I have no idea what that even means. So can we put the page up for review please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymestyle (talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the history of the article, there were no edits at all made to it after the 19th. If you'd like to contest the deletion, just follow the instructions at WP:DRV, they're pretty straightforward. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I request the review, I wanted to know why you felt it should be deleted, were our sources not credible enough or did we just need more? comment added by Rhymestyle (talk • contribs) 03:44, 26 January 2010

I deleted it because that was the consensus at the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S-Preme. More specifically, the consensus was that it failed WP:BAND and no significant coverage in reliable sources could be found. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Fantastic Four film series

Just wondering... was it just the one or all 8 of the articles Marcus Brute nommed in that one?

- J Greb (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've clarified, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Thoughts that was where it was going - J Greb (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Holiday (2nd nomination)

Hi, Jayjg. I think you erred slightly in your closing comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Holiday (2nd nomination). Mentioning the source http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49406 , you said that it "also doesn't use the term 'Spring Holiday'". But that's not important, as the article was about a broader concept than simply the phrase "Spring Holiday", and the source does refer to that concept. Powers ^T 00:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that it makes a difference for the closure, but the source itself doesn't use the term, as I said, and the article was primarily about a term. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

But it was also about the more general use of euphemisms around Easter-related holidays and events. Powers ^T 13:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It was primarily about the term. The brief article (four short paragraphs) used the word "term" or phrase "the term" nine times. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Shot (JLS song)

Hi, would it be possible to lift the ban on creating the page for the JLS song, One Shot? I would like to add information on it. Thanks. The90sKid, 12:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was at DRV. Whoever closes the DRV should do that, if required. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I now see that someone has restored it. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfy of Cloud Slam

Could I please get a userfied version of Cloud Slam at User:Smallman12q/Cloud Slam? Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank youSmallman12q (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

your eyes....

After 20 days and no dessenting votes, do you think Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_Betty might be finally closed?? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Skeptic's Annotated Bible

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. 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. Ucucha 03:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So, according to this...

Those arguing to keep were generally well-established editors, many with tens of thousands of edits (or in one case over 120,000 edits) to their credit - not WP:SPA accounts with little familiarity with Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, and interest in only one article.

...does that mean by extension that those who argued to delete were "generally" (whatever that means) not "well-established" (again, whatever that means) editors who are SPAs interested in only one article and who have little familiarity with WP policies and guidelines? I see at least five of those 9 editors (I am excluding myself) who have edits going back 3 or more years who would take exception to that description. Even with the rest of those 9, it's certainly obvious they all have more interest than in just one article and have at least a modicum of familiarity with policies and guidelines. I'm not taking anything out on you for ruling to keep the article and closing the discussion, but even if it was unintentional, that particular comment can easily be seen as indirectly (just barely) defaming editors who supported deletion. Seregain (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what it means "by extension", or in any other way. It means that those !voting to keep were serious editors who were generally familiar with policy, and whose view on it could not therefore simply be dismissed. WP:AGF applies to everyone, including you and all others reading my explanation. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd just ignore Seregain. Aside from him being a fundamentalist POV pusher and trolling you just for being honest about that AFD, I'm not sure if you've been following me and Guy's comments on his edits, but check his 1st edit if you want a general idea of his modus operandi. Thanks.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But you felt that you could simply dismiss every single one of these other editors because they weren't serious and not familiar with policy? Seregain (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you always ask loaded questions? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Only when faced with loaded comments. *grin* Sorry. Bad joke. I won't bother you any more about this. I was just concerned with the wording you chose as it related not just to those whom you were directly referring, but also to those whom you weren't. It's like siding with group "ABC" over group "XYZ" by saying, "Because you're generally good-looking, physically fit and bathe regularly." It gives the people in group "XYZ" the idea that you think of them as generally ugly, flabby and smelly. Seregain (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The words I chose contained none of the negative meanings you imputed to them, as I made quite clear in my response of 01:14, 28 January 2010 above. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD rationale on Desire (band)?

Hi- can you give your closing rationale for this article, either here or on the AfD? Since it was less than clear, I'm hoping you can elaborate on the "no consensus" result. tedder (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The !votes were 3 deletes, 2 keeps, one "probably should be kept", and 1 "weak keep". The keep !voters thought the independent references were enough to indicate notability, while the delete !voters didn't consider those sources to give substantial enough coverage to the band to indicate notability. Thus, "no consensus". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. tedder (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Balkan Wars

Would it be possible to temporarily protect the article Balkan Wars? Maybe by protecting it, that will force Kostja and Athenean to the talk page? Just a thought. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Perhaps if a few other editors get involved this can be sorted out. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be great, both in Balkan Wars and First Bulgarian Empire. The problem in these articles is that outside editors willing to get involved are very rare, and the debate gets deadlocked between two rival factions whose positions are dug in. Any help in sorting this out would be greatly appreciated, at least on my part. Athenean (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've explained in detail what I think are the major issues with the lede of First Bulgarian Empire in the talkpage for anyone who is interested. Athenean (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected now. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Israel FAR

I have nominated Israel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cptnono (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have posted this [6]. It might be worth knowing whether you would want t be involved in the review anyway.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bdanthony

S/he is still adding inappropriate categories. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis

Hi, thanks for commenting on Venezuelanalysis at WP:RSN. I've actually started a new section to summarise and refocus: WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis Reboot - perhaps you could comment there? (I'm asking everyone who participated in the old WP:TLDR thread.) Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 12:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Thanks for the reminder. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Changing archiving periods

Hi,

I notice that you have recently altered the archiving period of a number of article talk pages to a period of 120 days. I think that, for inactive talk pages, this is too short and leaves a brief talk page that fails to inform newly visiting editors of issues which have been addressed already. I raised this issue at Talk:Science in the Middle Ages#Archiving and you might want to comment there.

Best wishes, --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

On a more general level, you may also wish to comment on the discussion at Talk page guidelines --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Lloyd Bryan Adams

Somehow i missed the entire discussion on this, yay holidays... But I believe this was judged incorrectly, and am prepared to begin a Deletion_review

referencing this discussion : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd Bryan Adams

1. There is the extensive imdb record

2. Lloyd Bryan Adams is one of the founders of the cable network Extreme Sports Channel

3. Stating that the receiving of a Telly Award [7] is insignificant is laughable...

4. The weak delete comment stating that a producer is more business than creative... is not a very informed statement, george lucas is a producer... is he not creatively involved in the process??There are many roles that said producer can take, in the very wiki article referring to producer Film producer it clearly states, " A film producer or movie producer is someone who creates the scenes and conditions for making movies. The producer initiates, co-ordinates, supervises and controls matters such as fund-raising, hiring key personnel and arranging for distributors. The producer is involved throughout all phases of the film-making process from development to completion of a project." --Loganis (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the !vote was 2 "delete" and 1 "weak delete", with no other comments, it would be very difficult to imagine the consensus was anything else but delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I should not bother?--Loganis (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's likely you'll be successful, anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

First Bulgarian Empire

Could you temporarily protect this article as well. It appears certain editors have taken their egos to this article. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again, sir. Sorry to bother you again. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's no bother at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The page protection is about to expire, while the debate has stalled. It got off to a promising start, but I don't think we will get anywhere until outside editors become involved. I have posted at CCN, but I don't know what else to do. Athenean (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you re-protect this page again? It didn't take long for the edit warring to reignite, I'm afraid. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to consider protecting Balkan Wars as well. This situation is getting monotonous. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

One is already protected, and the edit-war seems to have died down on the other for now. I'll try to monitor, though I'm afraid that blocks, rather than page protection, might be the ultimate answer. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Na Nach Nachmu Nachmun is back

Dear Jayjg, The one-week block expired and he is back to reverting and rewriting Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman with unencyclopedic format and POV-pushing references. He even forked off two new articles, The New Song and The Petek, both of which have not yet been reviewed by an editor. We both have had experience trying to talk to him about reading Wikipedia guidelines, to no avail. What do you suggest now? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC

Thanks for your suggestion. If you would like to comment on the AfDs, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Song and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Petek. Yoninah (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian War

I'm not sure if you know much about the history of this war, but could you keep an eye on the talk page and edits of this editor[8]? His/her first edit was to remove referenced information[9], then claim on my talk page it wasn't referenced[10]. The (VJ) issue is meaningless and simply a ploy to remove the Yugoslav People's Army from the sentence[11] along with the references pertaining to the Vukovar massacre, which according to Polargeo was not part of the Bosnian War, yet is mentioned here[12]. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I know little about the topic. However, that editor does seem to have a very shaky grasp of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no worries with another oversight on this. I am generally supportive of the intentions of Kansas Bear. I do think of myself as a fairly neutral observer because I have no axe to grind. However the Vukovar massacre occured before the Bosnian War began and in a different country so in this instance I have to say Kasnsas Bear is being a little over-enthusisastic. Better sources are needed. Polargeo (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Katia Tiutiunnik

Hi, Jayjg. I think you deleted the wrong article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process was supporting a redirect of The Symbolic Dimension: An Exploration of the Compositional Process to Katia Tiutiunnik. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you're correct. I think the redirect messed me up. Fixed now. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

David Spring

If the result of the AfD discussion was no consensus, why did you delete?  kgrr ^talk 05:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus regarding Willard, delete the other two. Read the close again. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ok ... the close is at the top. Got it.  kgrr ^talk 05:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gregory Hoover

If the result of the AfD discussion was no consensus, why did you delete?  kgrr ^talk 05:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The result was no consensus regarding Willard, delete the other two. Read the close again. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ditto ... thanks.  kgrr ^talk 05:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Hi Jayjg,

Have you got bored of the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources? I gave some links to some pages that show the sort of thing we are talking about when we say that it can be appropriate to quote a primary source. Maybe the conversation will lead us to working out when it is and isn't appropriate.

Yaris678 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've responded there. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen this edit? Yaris678 (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

N.B. The English translation etc. are taken from the article. Yaris678 (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen that, thank you. I've commented. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grays Harbor?

Hi, I've noticed that you've commented on a number of AFD discussions and I was wondering whether you could chime in here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Grays Harbor ? The discussion is going around in circles with a new Wikipedian who doesn't appear to understand policies and I'm just getting frustrated. I'm happy to be found right or wrong but I think it would be extremely beneficial to get some input from independent Wikipedian's who have an understanding for the policies as I readily accept I'm rusty. Cheers, PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. The situation seems to have sorted itself out. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rekonq

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rekonq. 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. jgpTC 22:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've noted on your Talk: page, you've misrepresented the facts of that AfD, no doubt entirely unintentionally. I'd appreciate it if you could correct your statement there. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

User:THF

Since you were an advocate for unblocking this user, will you be taking an interest in his subsequent behavior? You might want to have a look at Talk:American Liberty League. If he's going to react in this way to an innocuous comment that wasn't even directed at him personally, what will he be like when a serious conflict arises again? He proudly announces that he was unblocked early without even needing to use the unblock template, so I suspect he has learned nothing from his block and does not see his behavior as inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gamaliel. To which comment were you referring? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The comments are gone now, but you can read them here. He took his complaint to ANI and they laughed it off but did nothing. Then he returned to ALL and removed the inappropriate comment tags I placed on his comments towards me, so I just deleted the whole exchange. If his comments on ANI are to be believed, he feels that I've stalked and attacked him because I posted the innocuous comment "We should remove or rewrite those sentences". Even if you accept his proposition that was a coded way of saying THF was "countenancing a violation of WP:COPYVIO", he managed to post numerous comments attacking me on ALL and ANI before he got around to actually identifying what he was supposedly offended by. And this was me deliberately trying not to regignite a conflict with him after his block and purposely avoiding previous battlegrounds at Bill Moyers and Nina Totenberg (both of which, for the record, I was editing long before he showed up at either one). I do not want a conflict with him, I am not seeking a conflict with him, but I should be able to edit whatever I want without fear of him becoming unhinged and I shouldn't have to be his punching bag. Gamaliel (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. Could you possibly put your two cents in at this thing? Cheers SGGH ^ping! 13:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the AN/I thread. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fix

Just letting you know I've made an obvious correction [13] to a post of yours. Hope you don't mind. Pcap ping 06:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course you're correct, thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis.com

Just letting you know I posted some more comments at the RSN thread a couple of days ago: Wikipedia:RSN#Use_as_required_reading_in_university_courses. From looking at these course outlines, these seem to be bona fide uses of the site as a reliable source. The list is not exhaustive; more such course outlines can be found. --JN466 10:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look, thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

RE:The Only Exception

You recently deleted the page The Only Exception, and you stated it as under ‎ G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Only Exception. I believe it as notable now as the official video will be coming out for the single on this Wednesday, 17 of February. I even put it under discussion for the page. Explain.

Thanks Mcrfobrockr (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The place to discuss, and argue for, restoration of deleted pages is at WP:DRV. Please do so there, rather than simply recreating the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I did participate in the discussion. They voted to redirect until a later date and now it is almost a month past the discussion. I believe it is quite notable now.Mcrfobrockr (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you believe that. Now, please take your arguments to a new discussion at WP:DRV, and make your case there. That is where the decision will be made, not by your unilaterally recreating the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, alright, but it seems quite unfair that you block me just because I'm recreating a notable page. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide that; the community has spoken, it will have to speak again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you created it yet again. Do it one more time, under any article name, no matter how good a reason you think you have, and you'll be blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have any right to block me just because I'm re-creating a page that is notable, which also is a single with a official music video. What is so un-notable about that? If you do block me, I would like to appeal against this case, and you need a reason besides me re-creating page which everyone else thinks is notable now. If you tell me to put it at WP:DRV, it won't do anything. I've tried twice with different articles at DRV and nothing happens. When do you think I can create the page then? Huh? It'll have to created sometimes sooner or later. I have no idea why you keep trying to delete it. I've even provided sources on the page. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As I've explained already, it's up to the Wikipedia community to decide if the article's topic is notable, not you. If you recreate it you will be blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can still re-create it as it gets closer to it's release date without being blocked. I could appeal, since you blocked unfairly. I can bet that someone else will re-create it at least once again this month. When will I be able to create it then. It is a single already with a music video. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, you cannot "still re-create it as it gets closer to it's release date without being blocked". You can re-create it when you take it to WP:DRV and the consensus there that it should be re-created. Any other attempt by you to re-create it will inevitably lead to your being blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why's that? Someone will be bound to create it sooner. Do you even take any interest to the article or song at all or are you just trying to mess around with me?Mcrfobrockr (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why's that? Because the Wikipedia community has decided that The Only Exception is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and the only way you can overturn that view is to get the Wikipedia community to change its mind, via WP:DRV. I've explained this all to you before. If you ever get the urge to re-create the article in any other way than a WP:DRV, please re-read this discussion, so that you understand the inevitable result of doing so. Asking the same question again and again, particularly after it has been answered, isn't going to change that in the slightest. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you have to understand, that discussion was more than a month ago. If you haven't noticed, the release date is coming nearer. I've already told you that WP:DRV does nothing for me. I reckon that if someone else re-creates the page in a later time, you won't delete it. Will you? Mcrfobrockr (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You may not believe this, but a month actually isn't a very long period of time. And if someone else re-creates the article, I will indeed delete it, if one of the many other admins who have deleted it already doesn't get to it first. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_21#The_Only_Exception Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

User related problem

User:PANONIAN that you diff told him that his source is unreliable (same thing diff that i said in the section start), , is refusing to truly listen other users on this issue. Even with non-Greek users as Greek users like me, he states are nationalists or anti-albanians [14], [15], [16]. He has already threatened and insulted me in the commons section and that is the reason of their "denial". Socks are being used that not even an attempt is made to hide their originator, in example [17], [18] (whois shows that they are both from the same city, the city he declares to live in at his userpage and the expressions are similar) . Another user has so patiently (not a Greek) explained and analyzed the obvious issue to him, but User:PANONIAN is using an ethnic conflict position diff excuse to retain his position. He ignores all sources presented to him, and up to now all users. No matter how many sources are presented to him and whoever user adresses him, whether an admin or a regular editor does not matter to him. But the most important issue is a complete disregard of Reliable Sources (using fringe theories, random googled sites, 1970's communist sources). He acts based on his own theory and pretty much dogma diff, PANONIAN; I support idea about "autochtonic" or "historical" origin of all Balkanic nations in their current countries and my work in Wikipedia was to a large extent related to the history of these nations in the territory of their own country. Adamant. Megistias (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to have edited many articles recently; this may be better dealt with in a user conduct WP:RFC. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess you must be referring to this, Wikipedia:RFC#Request_comment_on_users. Megistias (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the very thing. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to answer to these ridiculous accusations from user:Megistias: I always listen other users if their claims are constructive and supported by sources. In the case of Albanian origin there are many different sources claiming different things, but problem is that user Megistias want to push info only from certain sources and to remove info from other sources, i.e. he wants to conduct POV censorship and to use only those sources that confirm his POV. Note that I never claimed that any source presented by him is not reliable - I only claim that there are different theories and opinions about the subject and all of them should be presented to Wiki readers. As for "socks" accusation, I never created any sock. I do not edit English Wikipedia very often, and when I do, I do not always logg in, so what is presented there are my IP numbers, not my "socks" (and it is not forbidden to edit Wikipedia while not logged in especially if I did not used IP number to violate 3 revert rule or any other rule). As for accusation that I base my edits on "my own theory or dogma", modern genetics have proved that all Balkanic nations are autochtonic in their countries, so how exactly that could be "my theory". And from my statement is clear that my work in Wikipedia is related to the "history of these nations in the territory of their own country", meaning that I will draw a map or will write about history of (for example) Bulgarians in Bulgaria, but not about Bulgarians in other countries - it certainly does not mean that I will push my own theories or that I will use sources noted for unreliability. Contrary to this, some other users (and user Megistias is very good example of it) are pushing POV about their nation, i.e. their edits are centered around their nation and they want to "prove" that their nation have "rights" to territories in neigbouring countries. In the case of Megistias, his work is clearly related to the POV that Macedonia and southern Albania were "always" Greek. Due to the nature of this problem (and such problem exist in the entire Balkans) one should rather trust to what (for example) Albanian authors would say about history of Albania than what Greek authors would say about it (Greek authors would be certainly influenced by nationalistic territorial pretensions towards Albanian territory and therefore their claims would be questionable). Of course, I do not claim that we should not present opinion from Greek authors - I claim that all opinions should be presented, especially opinions of local historians about their own countries, i.e. we cannot have NPOV presentation of anything if we do not have view of Albanian historians about history of Albania, view of Macedonian historians about history of Macedonia, etc, etc. The whole problem here is that user:Megistias want to push only Greek point of view about Albania and Macedonia and trying to stop me to present other views about subject. Also note that I am not an ethnic Albanian or Macedonian and that I am completelly NPOV and neutral in this. PANONIAN 11:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Awesome tiling window manager:

You seem to have deleted article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awesome_(window_manager). It is a very notable and robust example of tiling window managing approach. Please, can you provide your justification for deleting it? Are you familiar with the state of the art window manager systems? Thanks, looking forward for your answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.159.19 (talk) 05:50, 23 Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiling_window_manager#List_of_tiling_window_managers_for_X There are around 10 other tiling window managers on the wikipedia, are they going to be removed as well? Thanks. February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it because that was the consensus at this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awesome (window manager). Jayjg ^(talk) 06:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you help me undelete it? It is very wrong. Different information entities recieve very different coverage in the "reliable sources", moreover, reliable sources are different for every area. In this particular case, the situation becomes more difficult as "awesome" unfortunate name and is a very common word, so someone who has no idea of what window manager in general is could be lost in the search results. Things like this "Combat WP:BIAS by transwikifying to en.wikigeekia.org, the site for articles on unix software and lists of occurences of farting in episodes of The Simpsons." are beyond amateurish, as well, but it seem to have played a role. Compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_(window_manager), for example. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.159.19 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to contest the deletion, you have to make your case at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A few notes: (1) the article was now reposted without its edit history, violating our license, and (2) in the mean time I did find one WP:RS covering it, in German (LinuxUser), but I would still !vote weak delete because it's only one source. (3) There's a massive off-wiki canvasing campaign going on at dwm's AfD, in a popular Russian forum, and this repost is likely related to that. Pcap ping 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that would explain the spate of IP vandalism on my User page and on the AfD page. I knew it was because of the deletion of the Amazing article, but I didn't realize it was the result of off-wiki canvassing, or where it was happening. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There are independent sources for that one, see Ion (window manager)#Further reading. Pcap ping 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I should admit do use awesome_wm at a big multinational company, and measuring relevance by occurance on large .com sites seems very superficial. Ion wm, for example, is an outdated project ( It is not actively developed by the author) , while awesome is a current example of this class of software, which is not too popular with journalists. See, for example here:http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Comparison_of_Tiling_Window_Managers. To conclude, I am a bit puzzled how removing a properly-linked informative article about current software can add value to the Wikipedia project. Please make sure you are not deleting for the sake of deleting by following rigid rules. I am sorry, I took enough of your time, but could you point me to a rationale behind deleting (properly integrated) stuff which failed to show on news radar? I could not find one myself. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.233 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

RfCs, MfDs and more

Hi Jayjg: Your wisdom and experience are needed on RfC and MfD policy matters at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Thanks a lot. Happy Purim. IZAK (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Some help please

Hi I am not sure, if you are the right person to ask, but if you are not, maybe you know who is. I am editing the article List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners For some reason few last references in the reference list are not allow one to click on. Could you please tell me what I've done wrong? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Temple Israel

Hey, take your time with it, there's no rush. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you please not delete things completely. When an article is deleted, the information on that page should be redirted to a page that is noteable. Ie their homepage or the album page to which the tour was supporting. You deleted the article, and deleted all information associated with it. Can you please find me the information that you deleted so I can add it to their album page. Jayy008 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

When the AfD consensus is "delete", then one deletes. A "delete" consensus is quite different from a "merge" consensus. To which AfD are you referring? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize I didn't read the top of your page to which you reply here. The JLS tour consensus. I agree now with the reasons why it was deleted, not enough third party coverage. I don't mean merge it all, just some of the information could have been pasted onto the album page. Jayy008 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there were no references in the article, so the material in the article wouldn't be useful to anyone. Please remember, information in Wikipedia articles must be cited to reliable sources. I recommend starting with reliable sources, and using them to add to the information in other articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I didn't find sources for it before, I will now but because the article isn't there I can't find sources for stuff that I can't remember. Jayy008 (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

inre: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Ant's Life

Would you be so kind as to set An Ant's Life as a redirect to the filmmaker Michael Schelp as was done for Spark Plug Entertainment. No need to have someone perhaps recreate the article if we can get a redirect set in place. No one commented after I brought up that the article was part of a discussion between myself and User:Cunard a few weeks earlier HERE. It was that conversation that led to my creating an article for Schelp so the Spark Plug Entertainment would have a natural redirect. I had already back then included the informations, so it would make sense for Ants Life to redirect as well, sending readers to where the subject has context. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Michael. The consensus really was to delete, not redirect. I'm extremely leery of creating these kinds of re-directs; in my experience, after a few weeks they inevitably turn back into an article. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As I had posted above, there were no comments after I pointed out that there had been a related discussion nor after I made my suggestion for the same redirect consideration as was done for the Spark Plug Entertainment article at its own AFD. Had I been earlier to the Ant's Life AFD, my having pointed out the precedent might not have been overlooked. So... while it might serve for me to now ask the participants if they would consider a simply redirect in the aftermath, I suppose 1f/when the article is recreated, I'll simply recommend a bold redirect to the prodding editors at that time. Thank you, for your response. Much appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've turned it into a re-direct, but please make sure it doesn't become an article again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments made good sense, and I was willing to wait for an eventuality. However, your setting a redirect is appreciated... and the title IS on my watch list. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigam Arora

The only comment I wish to make in this is that it may prove to be a contentious deletion decision despite appearing, at least to me, obvious. The article's main contributor has opened a request for an arbitration case against me as nominator, something that will run its course and which I am absolutely not seeking to involve you in. I am simply leaving you a message here to suggest that you may wish to expand your closing rationale to show that you have taken all aspects into account when closing the discussion. I have a strong feeling that this will run and run whether you do so or not, but it seemed sensible to make this suggestion to you.

I hope you don't feel this message is critical or out of place. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

With six guideline-based "delete" !votes, and one "keep" vote (repeated three times by the same editor), I'm not that worried. But thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would be worried. The editor who was so eloquent and repetitive is still likely to follow any and every available route, whether appropriate or not, in order to protect what he appears to believe as 'his' article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Protesting Biographical Scrunity

I am hereby protesting your accusation of defamatory biographical editing of the Laura Prepon article. Under no condition is a person's biography considered to be "controversial". It is ridiculous to insinuate such things. Acknowledging any person of interest's activities, investments is a critical and fundamental issue to the freedom of information act, with no need for free use.

However, I understand Wikipedia's challenge to delete libelious information. As for your statement claiming the reference is "poor" I can offer no other alternative but to find another reference and post the same information as before. Once this is updated, it will thereby void the Wikipedia libelous policy.

If this is sufficient, I will continue with my editing. Otherwise I protest to speak to another administrator. Preferably one who will not threaten to ban me the first time he/she speaks to me.

Thank you.

--Penfish (talk) 03:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you've added the information to the article, nor the second, using unreliable sources. And I've made it clear, it's a controversial claim; therefore you will need excellent sourcing to include it. Do not re-add it to the article; bring it up on the Talk: page first. I will quote from WP:BLP:

Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion

and

Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption.

I'm tired of people treating WP:BLP like a joke, and thinking that they can get in a few reverts before discussing the material. Discuss it first, and gain consensus. Do not simply restore it to the article with another source that may well be equally unreliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for your reminded about refs. My bad. Let me know if there is anything else you want to complain about 138.253.48.80 (talk) 10:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Congregation Beth Israel (Vancouver)

On March 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Congregation Beth Israel (Vancouver), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Query

Hi Jayjg; SV suggested on my talk that you might be a good set of eyes for this question. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First Bulgarian Empire

I'm not sure if there is anymore that can be said(or done) concerning the lead for this article. I recently posted[19] that both sides needed to find a compromise and work towards that and Athenean's response(concerning the Turkic origin of the Bulgars) was[20], "That is still not a compelling argument for not including it.", and the discussion devolved from there. So what is the next step? I'd imagine it is only a matter of time until the edit warring starts back up. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The edit-warring seems to have abated for the past week. I've read through the RFC on the Talk: page, and it appears that people are at least still bringing sources and making arguments. Please let me know if the edit-wars start again, and I'll take appropriate action. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Albuquerque move

I thought it was agreed that the name would not change. For reasons, see Talk:Albuquerque#Move proposal Postoak (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I've responded there. This is Wikipedia, not the Associated Press. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC review ?

Interested? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurva Synagogue/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess a missed a step somewhere ? Doesn't sound good ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Catskill synagogues

You're welcome! I have probably a couple more pics of synagogues in Sullivan County to convert into articles (there are a bunch on the Register, and they've added a few more in the last couple of months), but that won't be for a while.

I'm sort of amused, as a Gentile, that I've been the one to do this. Interestingly enough, that picture of B'nai Israel was taken on Rosh Hashanah of that year (that's why the door's open) and I began writing Hebrew Congregation of Mountaindale Synagogue last year when I was in Jerusalem during Passover. Is there any mitzvah value to that? Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you liked those articles, take a look at the other Catskill synagogues listed on the NRHP that I've done:

• Ulster Heights Synagogue (only one whose founders were primarily farmers, not farmers-turned-hoteliers)
• Spring Glen Synagogue
• Ohave Shalom Synagogue (neat interior art that I someday hope to photograph)
• South Fallsburg Hebrew Association Synagogue (full sukkah in basement)
• Anshei Glen Wild Synagogue (has never had its own rabbi)

Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Awesome (window manager)

Hi, Jayjg. You closed the deletion discussion for Awesome (window manager). Since then an additional source covering it was found in LinuxUser [21] (it was not mentioned during the discussion). Do you think it would be enough to undelete the article? If so, please leave a note here or at the requests for undeletion page. -- MagV (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is really the kind of thing you should take to WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. See the deletion review. MagV (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Only Exception

Hi Jayjg,
for some reason I have The Only Exception (song) on my watchlist, and checked it on Friday following the recreation. Seeing that since the AfD, it has now been released and charted on a national chart, I found that it would require a new AfD – changed circumstances like this are usually enough of an improvement with regard to WP:NSONGS to get a song article past G4. There are also several sources covering the song itself these days (1 2 3), in my opinion even enough to get it out of the "probably notable" gray area of WP:NSONGS and make it explicitly pass that guideline.
Would you please undelete it, and revert to the 18:37, 6 March 2010 version?
Thanks, Amalthea 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The AfD closed 5 weeks ago, and the DRV closed less than a week ago. Both of the conclusions were to delete (or keep deleted). I would recommend respecting that detailed deletion process and review, letting the article rest for a few weeks, and perhaps trying again in April. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that. And I quote: "[...] with no prejudice against a recreation in the future if the WP:NSONG criteria are met."
You show considerable prejudice if you base deletion on the deletion review. For the reasons I mentioned above, I am convinced the WP:NSONGS requirements have been met. The "song must have charted" criterion may only be a litmus test, but taken together with two quite detailed MTV articles I am convinced it would pass a new AfD. In any case, the article has certainly been improved enough to get it past speedy deletion. Amalthea 19:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea, the DRV completed less than a week ago, and the commenters there were quite explicit in their view that it did not satisfy WP:NSONG. Elen of the Roads cited NSONG in her comment:

Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article.... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Given that this song has not been released yet, it would appear that the above cannot apply. No objection to recreating the article when the single gets into the Top Ten.

Exactly which national chart did it chart on, and at what position? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It charted on #23 on the New Zealand chart, according to acharts.us it's been on that chart for two weeks already.
I don't see why it should matter one bit whether the last discussion was one hour or one year ago if the situation has sufficiently changed in the meantime to moot the previous concerns. If the article came to an AfD at this point, without any history, it would quite certainly be kept. Why should the baggage it has force it into a four week hiatus? I myself know neither song nor artist, and don't care about the article per se, but judging by the recreations of several editors during the last weeks, it's certainly going to be recreated another dozen times (at The Only Exception (Paramore song) or wherever else) in the next weeks.
We constantly ask folks creating song articles that the songs either need to chart on a significant chart, or that there needs to be very significant coverage in reliable sources before standalone articles can be seriously considered. Telling them now that "well, it does all that, but now you also have to wait an arbitrary time since the last discussion" only blurs that line, and doesn't help enforcing that community position. I wouldn't mind if you opened up a new AfD straight away, but I'm convinced that a G4 was wrong in this case, both from a strict policy point of view and from a pedagogical point of view. Amalthea 19:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in these matters, but 23rd on a chart in New Zealand (currently 123rd on the list of countries by population) doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG. I recommend having this reviewed at WP:DRV, if you feel strongly about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's just as much of a "probably notable" indication as if it were on a US chart. It's there on #13 now, I find at least three articles in reliable sources dedicated to that song, none of this was known in the AfD or at its DRV. I know how annoying it is if people ignore community consensus and continue to recreate articles, but in this case the situation has certainly changed enough so that G4 deletions are inappropriate, and based on my experience it clearly passes WP:NSONGS now and would certainly be undeleted/kept in a new DRV/AfD. Seeing that one of the article titles has now been unprotected by another admin following a request at RFPP however, I will ignore this rule by skipping another review and undelete the most decent version, so that it doesn't have to be rewritten from scratch and we don't get in revision history merging trouble. I hope you don't mind too much and don't consider this wheelwarring, but I believe starting another DRV now would be a waste of time and would be made moot through another recreation in the meantime anyway. If you're terribly unhappy about it, I am absolutely open to bringing this to a wider forum at DRV or AfD nonetheless, but I think a quick undelete is at this point the smoother option.
Amalthea 23:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, Elen is OK with it, even though she hinted at the same concerns regarding New Zealand's music market you had. Amalthea 00:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

On WP:RS

Hi I would like to say something about your comments on the radical website kavkaz center on the wp:rs page. Please note that nobody believes the website isn't extremist in nature. The only rule for inclusion is to publish statements from rebel leaders / commanders which is something all tabloids do. For anything other than that the website has never been regarded a reliable source on wikipedia. The persons who post about it on wp:rs have the intention to remove all references to the site, playing onto the sentiment of people like you who do not like the extremist nature of the website. Well Neither do I or anyone else who has quoted the site, we've only used it with utmost scrutiny. I hope you understand. Grey Fox (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't at all appear to be the argument Biophys is making, nor the use he wishes to make of it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted page Artist Vs Poet

Hi, i know the page was previously dleted via a discussion and, at the time, that was the correct decision. Since then the band have released a second EP and a full-lengh album on reputable indie labe Fearless Records. They have also garnered significant coverage in Alternative Press magazine and have a strong online following. They are now a much more notable so a page would be appropriate. For example, I am from the UK, if they were not notable it would be very unlikly that I would have, or even been able to, purchased an album by an unknown American band. Can you un-delete it? Thanks! Adam2201 (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think the circumstances surrounding this article have changed materially, I recommend you make that argument at WP:DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for MUME

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MUME. 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.

Thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article - IronE Singleton

Hi Jayjg,
I just created IronE Singleton's page and just discovered you deleted it. I am a fan of his work and he has been getting a lot of press lately, due to the success of The Blind Side being up for an Oscar tonight for Best Picture. Could you please explain how this article can be reinstated for those of us who is fans of his work? You can view his portion in the trailer of The Blind Side at [22] His performance begins at the 1:40 mark. Thanks! FilmnMusiCritic 23:58, 7 March 2010
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmnmusicritic (talk • contribs)

Hi Filmnmusicritic. The IronE Singleton article was deleted as a result of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IronE Singleton. If you want to contest that deletion, or request that it be overturned, you need to make an argument for that at WP:DRV, the Deletion Review page. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, Thank you so much for the information. I started the contest and I have provided the updated information that will prove that he was in The Blind Side, which was the main discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IronE Singleton. Thank you once again!Filmnmusicritic —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

Good luck, I hope it goes well for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wonky close

...I think your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disco-Funk was malformed. — Scientizzle 19:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for fixing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Centre stick vs side-stick

why nothing of info saved to center stick and side-stick ? (Idot (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

Because the AfD consensus was to delete it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

it was not a consensus it was simple majority for deleting! even more some people explained thtat before deleting info should be move to other two artilces + you are the one who said that it should be deleted so you can't be fair when you tell the results of discussion, 'coz you are just have interwest on it (Idot (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

check voices carefully and be fair:

7 people (Jayjg, Ahunt, Reyk, MilborneOne, Nick-D, Dave, Pcap, Armbrust ) just said detele without explanation what should be done wityh content

for saving info:

5 people (Rlandmann TomStar81 BilCat Satori Son) said delete but save info

1 people (ErikHaugen) just said "it should be broken up into two articles or renamed"

1 people (Fnlayson) said "Merge any useful content to existing Side-stick and Yoke (aircraft) articles "

5 people (Colonel Warden, Idot, A Nobody, Dream Focus, Hepcat65) people said keep

so totally we have 12 people who said that the content should be saved

which is more than 7 - who didn't say anything 'bout saving (Idot (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC))

• will you save? (Idot (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC))

I was not stating my own opinion, but summarizing the consensus of the policy and guideline based arguments. That consensus of those arguments was to delete the article. Is there specific material from it that you wanted to preserve? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

advantages and drawbacks, as both Centre stick and side-stick articles are really small and need to be expanded (Idot (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC))

Were you planning to use the material to create, say, comparison sections in the articles, along the lines of "centre stick vs. side stick"? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

unfortunatelly I can't see the text of Centre stick vs side-stick :-( Idot (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed prod from Bet Shira Congregation

Hi Jayjg, I'm guessing that you missed it, but the article has already survived a deletion discussion in the past, see here. That means that it's ineligible for PROD, but you can still bring it to AfD. Just letting you know, thanks! -- Atama頭 04:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize it had survived AfD before. Glad to hear it, and thanks for letting me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible problem

This individual[23] has went through removing Constantinople along with supporting references[24][25] from numerous articles. I've posted two warnings on this person's talk page, but judging from the volume of deleted sources, I would say this will mean nothing. Could you keep an eye on this person? Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on his Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm still waiting for responses to my concerns (preferably ones that don't use out-of-context quotations from mass-market histories). Please add to and comment on my summary of the argument. DNYHCA (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, Donnyhoca has deleted a reference and referenced information, since his argument on the talk page is nothing but his opinion and does NOT refute the 3rd party published source that he deleted[26]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Then Donnyhoca copies and pastes what I posted on my talk page on the Talk:Halide Edip Adıvar[27], in an attempt to give his "argument" some validity. So far, this individual has posted NO 3rd party published source to refute the references he continues to delete. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Donnyhoca, I've responded on your Talk: page. The course you are taking will not lead to a happy outcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I would like to apologize for making a large number of edits to articles without trying to reach consensus with other editors. I have stopped reverting those articles. That said, in the Halide Edip article, her place of birth has been listed as Istanbul since the article was created; it is the person who keeps changing the city's name to Constantinople who is ignoring the consensus process. Awaiting constructive comments at the talk page. DNYHCA (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'ma confuzzled

Greetings Jay! Well I really don't like bugging administrators about their closes (I get it all the time [too?]), but would you consider relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the War on Terrorism? I understand that the article contains original research, but I felt that that could be fixed by a removal of content rather than deletion. More importantly, however, there was still some active discussion at the time of the closing that had yet to be addressed. Does this make sense? So sorry to bother you with this, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arbitratily0. I appreciate your efforts to save the article, but the AfD had continued for the full 7 days and more, the only real "active discussion" at that point was you responding with JokerXtreme, and the conclusion of the policy-based arguments was pretty clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Unfortunately, I'm still confused (but on the good side, I've renamed this section header appropriatepy :) ). It seemed to me that the argument to keep the article (because it can be sourced and ridded of original research) was just about as valid as the delete rationale. Since by !vote count alone the discussion was fairly balanced, it just seems like a relist would probably be helpful. I hope you don't think I'm trying to convince you that 'my way is right', I'm trying to look at the discussion as you are, without bias. Sorry again for wasting your time, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As I noted in my closing rationale, the keep arguments generally didn't address the issue of WP:NOR. In fact, I can see only one commenter who did attempt to directly address it, that being you. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams, for example, said "Lacking some sources, but not a huge issue unless there are some factual issues coming up". To me, this seems to address the original research rationale by saying 'should have better sourcing, but deletion is avoidable' (note that in the discussion I volunteered to source the article and remove any unsourceable content). Reenem also seemed to contradict the deletion rationale for the same reason by saying "All unsourced content can easily be replaced with sourced content, rather than simply deleting the page." Wouldn't these be considered two more valid keep !votes? Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Those commenters never specifically mentioned NOR/SYNTH, and in any event sourcing doesn't directly address the OR/SYNTH issue; OR often contains many individually well-sourced elements, but the combination of material creates a synthesis, as was the consensus in this case. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Original research, "citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked". For that reason, I equated the keep rationals above (and the like) to having regarded the original research issue. I stopped by my local library and picked up this source:

• Combs, Cindy C. (2007). Encyclopedia of Terrorism. New York NY: Infobase Publishing. pp. 417–424. ISBN 0-8160-6277-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Near the latter half there is an in-depth timeline which lists many of the events (and many more) that were covered in our article. Wouldn't sources like these, which make numerous connections between individual events and the War on Terrorism allow us to accurately remove any original research and synthesis? Hope you are having a good day, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are linked to Original Research, but reliable sources don't necessarily save one from producing Original Research, as explained above. The source you've brought is a good source, though I'd be hesitant about creating an article based solely on one source. Why not find a couple more sources like this, then start an article in your user space, being careful to avoid the synthesis problem of the previous article? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your acknowledgement of the source! Since it wasn't that difficult to find, I'm fairly confident that there are more available (I should be able to make another check within the week). My problem with just creating a version in my userspace is that it would probably be easier to go through each existing bullet item than to make all new ones, especially with the prior AfD hanging over my head. I feel that if the discussion were relisted, it might at least build a more clear consensus to delete, no? Seems like more consensus building could only help in this case. I don't know, your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was clear, the discussion lasted a full 7 days and more, and it's now closed. It requires no re-listing. Rather than basing a new version on a deleted version, it makes more sense to simply create a new version in your user space, using sources that ensure it does not suffer from the problems with the previous version. There's no rush here, the previous article was an orphan anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Jay, thanks for being so responsive. I'm sure you've gotten the picture that this closure seemed premature to me, but I'm completely willing to accept it how it is (after all it was your close, not mine), especially since you've communicated so well. I'll write a new draft shortly and bring it back here for you to look into, with your permission. If this discussion has caused you any stress at all or has been too time-consuming, please accept my sincere apologies. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and good luck with the new draft! Jayjg ^(talk) 04:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)