User talk:Jeepday/Archive 1

First Major Edit

Made my first major edit. The edit is to the page Tourist trap Jeepday 01:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Kudos. Looks good. Arguably, it should look as cheesy as its subject. :) But this works. I added a couple of pop culture references. I'm sure there are many others, the two I added are just ones that came to mind immediately. Wahkeenah 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Son of Vazul

Please read [1] . --Zslevi 23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Responded on Talk:Levente (son of Vazul) Jeepday 03:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Manuel P. Asensio

I went over this stub carefully, but couldn't find anything that would lead you to tag it with the {{story}} tag. While it is short, it is written in a formal voice, is strictly factual and NPOV, and clearly does not read like a story. Can you please explain what lead you to tag it as such? Thanks. Owen× ☎ 14:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

see Talk:Manuel P. Asensio for reply

Re: Talk:Off-road vehicle

Jeepday wrote:

So how do you get copyrighted, Non-NPOV material removed from a talk page? I have tried to delete it, and it gets put back. I ask for a rational to keep and get the response that Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't apply. I talk until the other editor stops talking, then delete it again, and get threatened with being blocked for vandalism. I am confused, please help. Maybe I am just completely wrong but I thought that Wikipedia policies and guidelines applied to all of of Wikipedia not just articles. Jeepday 20:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyrights are not just a Wikipedia policy but a legal issue, and so apply to the entire project. However, if, as in this case, the page also contains useful discussion, then the page should not be deleted as future editors of the article will need to refer back to the discussion. You say that the content has been put back even after you have deleted it. Have you brought this up with the user in question on their talk page? If they do not respond, and continue to introduce copyrighted material, they may eventually need to be blocked from editing; as a last resort leave a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents – Gurch 20:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at the copyrighted material in question. As far as I am concerned, quoting a paragraph of a letter on a discussion page, for the purposes of discussion, where the content of the letter is relevant to the subject under discussion and where the quote is clearly marked as such and sourced is fine. Were the quote in the article itself, I might recommend that it were removed were it not essential to the article. However, quoting a short, inextensive passage from copyrighted material, with attribution, is not a copyright violation; many examples can be found in our articles. The quote should be restored to the talk page. (This message has also been posted to User talk:I already forgot)

Neutral point of view is a different matter; however the policy does not apply (and could not reasonably apply) on talk pages; the whole point of talk pages is to try to reconcile conflicting points of view. Obviously if you were considering adding any material from a talk page into an article you would need to reconsider – Gurch 01:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeepday wrote on my talk page

I offer my apologies for what I agree has been a very exhausting argument. I would like to post the following to the Talk:Off-road vehicle page. I offer it first for your review for accuracy and inconstancies... Question -Do think our argument could have been alleviated or simplified by an inclusion on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines of a sub section on content of talk page? Jeepday 16:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No apology or reply needed. As for what could have been done to simplify or alleviate? I don't know, but I guarantee we both learned something from the incident and will approach similar incidents from a different perspective next time. No hard feelings and happy editing.--I already forgot about the incident.

Re (Category:Questionable place name spelling

Re (Category:Questionable place name spelling) if you are going to utilise a category label like this - first you better put some comment on the talk page as well or you are going to find that editors who have gone to some trouble to create certain articles are going to descend upon your talk page with some ferocity and ask for you to desist. You will have to ask yourself, should I tread into waters I do not know? SatuSuro 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt offend me - but -you need to put that into the talk page - since when did yalgoo have different spellings? and where did you find the info for something like that> SatuSuro 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It was gazetted as "Yalgu" in 1896, but "Yalgoo" was unofficially adopted within a month. It was officially gazetted as "Yalgoo" in 1938. That's nearly 70 years ago. There is now nothing "questionable" about the spelling of the place name. If your category is really intended for "places who’s [sic] names have two or more published or recognized spellings", then it is inappropriately named. Hesperian 23:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I placed the Category:Questionable place name spelling after reading this.

Yalgu was used because of spelling rules for Aboriginal names adopted by the Lands & Surveys Department (the letter u best representing the "oo" sound). Within a month the Lands & Surveys had decided reluctantly to use the original Yalgoo spelling, and this spelling has been used ever since.

It would appear that a number of people took exception to that category on that page. Jeepday 23:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - most of this discussion should have taken place on the Yalgoo talk page - where the issue is more relevant. Best of luck with the project, you might have to cope with responses like this - be preprared! SatuSuro 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"It would appear that a number of people took exception to that category on that page." Not really; I'm more concerned about the category name. If the category name was something like Category:Place names with multiple spellings, then I would have no objection to you tagging Yalgoo into it. As it currently stands, it looks like a maintenance category, i.e. a category for pages which require editor attention to check whether the title is spelled correctly. Hesperian 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that is much better category name! While I work on changing it take a look at the page that lead me to build it. Harstine Island, Washington feel free to correct my spelling or offer better titles any time. Jeepday 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Harstine Island explains everything - here's the best of luck for a renamed category - and its well worth the support - as I can think of places in the non-english speaking world - where transcriptions by europeans over time have rendered some places problematic (I have lived in Indonesia - and some places can be found with weird spelling in various bits of documentation) SatuSuro 00:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done that was fun :) Jeepday 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan Power Company

Hello,

Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.

Thanks! --Vox Causa 01:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

British Birds Rarities Committee sources

Hi. I noticed your referencing tag on this page - good point, it does need third party sources. I'll see what I can find. Can you let me know your views regarding which aspects of the article's subject matter are most in need external sourcing (I'm conscious that for some types of information, "self-published" sources are OK, so I don't want to spend time specifically searching for third-party sources where it isn't needed, although I'll add in anything useful I incidentally find). Thanks. SP-KP 14:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The page Wikipedia:Reliable sources can provide some good guidelines for what references to pick. When looking for resources you can try your local library or do a search online with your favorite search engine (i.e. Google or Yahoo search) As for what to reference I would start with this statement "The British Birds Rarities Committee (BBRC) is the recognised national rarities committee for Britain" and validate that is it recognized by who and list a reference that is not under the influence of the BBRC. A reference in a newspaper not affiliated with the BBRC would be a good start, a book written by a member would not. IMO The section "Species covered" would not really need a third party reference because it appears to be a restatement of the BBRC mission (i.e. "this is what we say we do"). The section "The Druridge Bay curlew" is partially referenced by wiki links to the article The Druridge Bay curlew this would be tertiary sources but could benifit by the validation and inclusion of some secondary reference (i.e. take a look at the reference used on The Druridge Bay curlew and see if they support the statements in the article British Birds Rarities Committee if they do use them here as well). Thank you for asking Jeepday 16:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know once I've fixed these areas. SP-KP 17:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Argyle Line

I note you have put a {{sections}} tag on this page. Can I suggest that you help us with this by ordering the article and inserting the section yourself.
Stewart 17:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Revised Stewart 22:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC) due to typo earlier on

This request is rather moot some 6 hours after the tag was removed and no other changes were made. '# (cur) (last) 11:15, 9 January 2007 86.132.158.245 (Talk) (Undo revision 99562679 by Jeepday (talk)). Apparently someone thinks the article is fine like it is. Jeepday 03:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

On further review I notice that user:86.132.158.245 reverted several of my edits on January 9, for no apparent reason. [2] I would be happy to see what I can do about sectioning the article Argyle Line Jeepday 04:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I had not noticed that the tag had been removed when I revised (corrected) my comment. It appears that user:86.132.158.245 removed the tag after my initial comment. Stewart 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary redirects

Please do not create Wiktionary redirects for every word. This template is specifically for pages that are repeatedly re-created. If there is a list of terms that are red-linked, either those terms belong in an encyclopedia or do not. If a term belongs in the encyclopedia, then creating a blue link by filling in the page discourages the creation of a proper encyclopedia article. If a term does not belong in the encyclopedia, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, then remove the term from the list of articles-to-be-created. —Centrx→talk • 22:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks User:Centrx That is very similar to what I read on Wikipedia:Soft_redirect#Soft redirects from Wikipedia to Wiktionary before I started working to clean up the page Wikipedia:Requested articles/list of missing legal terms that is very similar to the page Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Law and the page List of legal topics. Some of these pages have/had red links to terms like Fully paid which at this writing had 3 links to it, none of them real articles but all an intent directly or indirectly to have someone write a stub on it.

   * List of legal topics
   * Wikipedia:Requested articles/list of missing legal terms
   * User:Legis/To do list

I am not a law buff but it is pretty hard to imagine that Fully paid in law means anything substantially different then Paid in full. and it is pretty hard to imagine an encyclopedic article on that sentence (but maybe someone will show me different). I am sure you have also read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary and we both know there is an nearly endless stream of Stubs that never seem to grow. As I mentioned on Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/list of missing legal terms there are projects like Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years that lead to creation and deletion cycles for articles like Drawee (which I see as I write this has been deleted again). Have you looked at the list of links to the article Drawee There are currently (at this writing) eight links to it and I knocked two off after I did a soft redirect to Wiktionary on it. If you or Quarl had read User_talk:Quarl#Drawee or the talk page on the article before deleting it maybe you would have left the article in place the talk is gone but the story is pretty much here Wikipedia_talk:Requested_articles/list_of_missing_legal_terms#Soft_Redirect_to_Wiktionary

* 14:25, 19 January 2007 Centrx (Talk | contribs) deleted "Drawee" (content was: '{{wi}}' (and the only contributor was 'Jeepday')) * 14:59, 28 June 2006 Quarl (Talk | contribs) deleted "Drawee" (content was: '{{db-empty}}# REDIRECT Drawee')

But if you want to make a lifes work out of watching and deleting {{wi}} entries you should take a look at my contributions between 19:45, 15 January 2007 and this writing. Jeepday 04:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, OMG You already did (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Centrx/SandboxA&oldid=101878206) User:Centrx actually went and made a list of every wiktionary redirect I made and removed them. Jeepday 05:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They all show up on User:Zorglbot/Shortpages. Regarding these terms, some terms simply do not warrant encyclopedia articles. There is no need to artificially "finish" the list of "missing" terms. If no encyclopedia article can be created for a term, just remove it from the list. —Centrx→talk • 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

While I was looking to validate your response with some Wikipedia policy that says Editors should automatically delete {{wi}} links unless they meet some criteria, I reviewed Category:Redirects to Wiktionary and a random sampling of articles still listed there (some have very interesting history). I am still not sure why some articles would show up on User:Zorglbot/Shortpages and others would not. I do find it interesting that you took the time to list and delete all my {{wi}} pages put did not take the time to remove them from the lists that you think they should not be on. I am also confused as to how the pages I built with a {{wi}} differ from pages like Irie. Do you have some selection criteria that I am not aware of? I was also not able to find any place where policy or practice says if an editors work shows up on the page User:Zorglbot/Shortpages another editor should take it upon themselves to systematically remove the first editors work, could you point me to that reference please? I am feeling personally attacked here, so what's up? Jeepday 15:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Zorglbot/Shortpages is derived from Special:Shortpages which lists pages in the main namespace with the lowest bytecount; User:Zorglbot/Shortpages is automatically updated each day, removing deleted pages and re-sorting and re-tagging, from the original list. I delete all {{wi}} and other content-less pages listed there that do not have a recent history of inappropriate re-creations. Irie, for example, was re-created as a dictdef for the third time when I added {{wi}}, and continues to have dictdefs added to it. Most of the {{wi}} pages you created have never before been created or edited, let alone have repeated re-creations. For more information, see the usage note at Template:Wi and the discussions at Template talk:Wi that preceded it. See also WP:CSD#A3 and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. {{wi}} is mostly a nicer, more relaxed form of Template:Deletedpage for dictionary words. —Centrx→talk • 18:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for pointing me in the right direction after reading the two discussions on Template talk:Wi about request for deletion I understand your position and actions. I also agree that you are correct most of the {{wi}} articles I built did not have a history.

Thought 1

A suggestion for User:Centrx when you are doing your rounds on short articles, check the "what links here" and if appropriate address the cause. I site Drawee as an example, it should have come off a lot of lists a long time ago reference Talk:Drawee (I was wrong about the talk page being gone). I don't know if you ever saw it before but it makes a good example.

Thought 2

Seems to me the text on Template:Wi needs to be reworded. It currently has 3 points 1. This template is only for dictionary definitions that currently exist on Wiktionary 2. are likely to be re-created in unencyclopedic form. 3. Do not place it on every word! From my perspective I hit every one of those three points (1.) all my Wi pages were on Wiktionary (2.) They all had one, two or three please build me links on them with a high potential (in my opinion) for unencyclopedic creation. (3.) Of the high potential list I was working from I only picked a few and was working on decommissioning the rest.

Thought 3

I think I should finish decommissioning it Project Wikipedia:Requested articles/list of missing legal terms and work on the wikification of List of legal topics

Thought one really does not need a reply because Suggestions are like Opinions, every has one. Thought 2 Maybe I am just way off base but it seems like if "{{wi}} is mostly a nicer, more relaxed form of Template:Deletedpage for dictionary words." it should say that. Would like feedback on thought 3 as my activities there are not drawing feed back. Jeepday 04:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The problem is some of these topics may very well warrant independent articles; they may be on these lists, or linked from other articles, because they warrant proper encyclopedia articles. Drawee, for example, maybe should be redirected to Acceptor (accounting) or Cheque, but I do not know. To some extent, others created these lists and have expertise or interest in a specific area.

2. They had the "please build me" links, but in two years some had never been created. This means there was not a high likelihood of them being suddenly created, and these sorts of templates should not be added until after there has been unencyclopedic creation. More importantly, the "please build me" links are please build me links for creating encyclopedia articles! These lists show articles that do not yet have encyclopedia articles as red links—until {{wi}} is added, when it becomes much less likely that anything will be added to those pages.

3. As mentioned in 1., redirects should be kept in mind. Nearly all of these terms probably fall under the purview of a main, more general article, and someone searching for these terms on Wikipedia the encyclopedia should be redirected to the articles about those subjects. For widirects in the future, keep in mind that these pages show up in Special:Random (hundreds out of the millions of readers will be confronted with these non-encyclopedic pages directing them elsewhere) and deter the creation of proper encyclopedia articles. A list of red links is not in itself a bad thing. Either a page there will never belong in an encyclopedia, in which case a redirect will, however, probably be warranted, or an encyclopedia article will belong there, in which case removing it from the list without creating a stub defeats the purpose of the list in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 04:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Youth Friendship Games

It is bad form for someone who participated in the AFD discussion to close it. Even though my nomination was technical, I therefore will leave it for someone else to close. GRBerry 18:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks I have just started participating in AfD so I am on the learning curve. Jeepday 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mazda Publishers

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Mazda Publishers, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Jeepday 04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. i forget about that article, i dont think its needed. Nareklm 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• No problem, let the Prod ride out it's 5 days, maybe someone will come save it. Jeepday 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Churnet Valley Railway

Are you able to explain your tagging of this article to an interested bystander please? See my comment on that talk page. Otherwise I sugeest we untag. Bob aka Linuxlad 15:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Detailed explanation provided on Talk:Churnet_Valley_Railway#Primary_Sources_Tag_Explanation Jeepday 16:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (it was not necessy to repeat all the primary material though :-)) Bob aka Linuxlad 17:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD etiquette

Just a friendly reminder that if you want to post a comment or question about something that another editor has said, you're not meant to move their signature to below your question. Leave the signature where it is and add your bit below theirs. It will still be more than obvious who you want to get an answer from or who you're talking to. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall doing that, where do you think it happened at? Jeepday 22:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OOPS Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McDonald's menu items (2nd nomination) yep, that would be a poor spacing typo, that will teach me to check "shoe Preview better before I save. Thanks for fixing it. Jeepday 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit on Wikispecies

Hi, could you confirm this rather akward edit as being you, or is somonez using your nick? Thanks Lycaon 07:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep that was me, Trying to expand my horizons with a first edit [3] on Wikispecies. Jeepday 13:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Schoter Scholengemeenschap

I see you prodded this a while ago. No problem there, but I would like to point out that while sources in English are preferred, having sources in only non-English doesn't mean an article should be deleted. In this case, the non-independance of the source was the valid reason to delete this. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Black Ball Line & Puget Sound Navigation Company

Some time ago you had expressed owning resources ... Not me; that was User:DolphinCompSci. Tearlach 11:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jaws

I felt that Wikipedia:Using JAWS was a better title for your new stub. -- RHaworth 19:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Jeepday 19:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year 2006

I am voting for number 4 Jeepday 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Honey Ball

I think that the Honey Ball article is probably okay, particularly if it can be expanded. See the Cracker Jack article for an example of a U.S. product that also includes a "prize" inside the package. --Eastmain 02:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it it is less then a month old also and Wikipedia:There is no deadline, if you take the prod off I won't complain. Jeepday 02:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability

You've tagged Kenneth Fisher as not being notable. A page for a book he wrote, The Only Three Questions That Count was nominated for deletion, but ultimately kept, because of the notability of the author. I'm removing this tag, and adding citations. Netsumdisc 19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see your position and would suggest a couple things to help prevent the article from drawing deletion suggestions. First in it's current form the article reads like spam it very much needs to be written more encyclopedic. Second read WP:N#The_primary_notability_criterion then apply your referenceing and formating like was done with Bill Russell (or any other featured article) which was a Wikipedia:Featured articles. If the subject of this article is half as notable as the article would seem to like you to believe, the strive for Wikipedia:Featured articles instead of peacock status Signed Jeepday 03:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Local history glossary

I started to write this article and someone change the dictionary to glossary. I quickly checked and found that lots of glossaries exist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glossaries#History_and_events.

Why are these acceptable? I thought I had modelled my article on this list.

I would never have put in this much effort if I thought that months later someone would disagree and wish to delete or destroy the integrity of the work.

I have removed the 'glossary' from the Museum of Scottish Rural Life - although I don't think the rules have to apply. Primary school pupils are using this site before and after visits - the glossary simply helped them learn from the article it was attached to by giving them help easily. This seems fair enough and Wiki should consider such actions as acceptable. Or am I wrong - I have taught for 25 years & I wrote this article with teaching and learning of all age groups in mind.

Rooser1954. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rosser1954 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

I have just found the following. This seems to say that glossaries are acceptable and are useful at Wikidictionary. Please put 'my' glossary there as well if you have time. I will start expanding the individual definitions into stubs asap.

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.

Because this article has content useful to Wikipedia's sister project Wiktionary, it has been copied to there, and its dictionary counterpart can be found at either Wiktionary:Transwiki:List of glossaries or Wiktionary:List of glossaries. It should no longer appear in Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and if this article cannot be expanded beyond a dictionary definition, it should be tagged for deletion. If it can be expanded into an article, please do so and remove this template. Note that {{vocab-stub}} is deprecated. If {{vocab-stub}} was removed when this article was transwikied, and the article is deemed encyclopedic, there should be a more suitable category for it. Note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary makes exceptions for glossaries, if this is a glossary, this template may be removed.

Rosser1954

Response

I am not complete sure what you are asking here, "leave the article alone" or "Transwiki it". But I see that you have changed Local History Dictionary to Local history glossary If we look at Glossary A glossary is a list of terms in a particular domain of knowledge with the definitions for those terms. Traditionally, a glossary appears at the end a book and includes terms within that book which are either newly introduced or at least uncommon. So it would appear that a glossary would be appropriate to define words used in a body of work like an article that are not well known. Words in your Dictionary list like Blout are only used in Wikipedia as a last name[4] not as you describe it. You will also notice that Wikipedia:Glossary is a glossary of terms commonly used on Wikipedia. So yes glossaries are ok on Wikipedia but you have a dictionary here and Wikipedia is not a dictionary and changing the name of the article to glossary does not change that. In addition all articles on Wikipedia must meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Attribution. The article Local history glossary only has one reference and that is a dictionary so this article would seem to be original research which is also not appropriate for Wikipedia.

As I see you have three options

• 1. Move the article to User:Rosser1954/dictionary and use it as foundation to build your work to Wikipedia or Wikibooks or Wikiversity where it would be more appropriate.
• 2. Submit the article to Articles for Deletion and see what happens.
• 3. Copy and paste the whole thing as new article in to Wikibooks with a new name something like "Dictionary of Old Scottish Words" or something, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is a global tool and "Local" means something significantly different to each user.

I think choice 3 is your best one, but you decide. Jeepday 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Aveda

You tagged the above article as db-spam and I initially deleted it, but the deletion was contested so I've restored it. If you still think it should be deleted, you may want to start an entry at AfD instead. Kafziel ^Talk 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aveda I will let the community decide. Jeepday 21:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Justin

You deleted the article on Folk Artist Bob Justin I had created a couple of months ago. That article is about an artist who is collected by a State Museum, internationally renowned art collectors and artists (Seward Johnson, Isaac Witkin etc), has had his artwork toured internationally by an American Government Agency, has been shown in various prestigious galleries with individual shows (eg Eisenhower Gallery US Military Academy West Point) and been the subject of numerous newspaper articles and at least one book. He is also an associate, or was, of the late Isaac Witkin who also was a well known internationally exposed artist. All of this is documented in the sources linked in the original page. Clearly these sources indicate the subject is notable under all of the criteria of Wikipedia. I am not associated with the artists work, am not paid by the author, and do not gain any material benefit from posting the article. Its not an advertisement, its a listing of a notable artist as is the one I posted on Isaac Witkin, and will be the others I do on locally based artists if I get over the frustration of this process. Other moderators also support the page being listed, quoted below. Its rather ridiculous that this editing by committee has this need to constantly come back and protect ones work. Is there no way to have an editor say its Okay and be done with it? Frankly I wanted to spend alot of time on Wiki but the picayune method of supervising is galling to say the least. Why bother to add anything if every other week someone decides to delete it????? Do tell me what can be done to put an end to this? Tempted to yank my contributions and be on my way. But I would much rather contribute to what should be a great endeavor that would last through the ages - if people would stop deleting the material entered! Anyway here are the earlier editors acknowledging the notability of the Bob Justin entry. Please undelete. And if possible put something in the discussion so it doesnt get deleted by the next Mod to wander through. I am sorry for being so frustrated but its kinda ridiculous to spend an hour putting an article together and then maybe two more defending it!!! Doesnt tend to make one want to participate. Thanks. - yelloone

The article you included said only that he was an artist and it included a link to his website. That wasn't enough to establish his notability; however, the information you provided on my talk page does. You can recreate the article, being sure to include that information and links to reliable sources if you can. -- Merope 15:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (Y1 - Note I did provide the sources etc on repost, the original was just a start, didnt know then I had to get it all up at once)

Thanks for your contributions Yelloone. However, I'm worried that some of them are copyright violations. The articles http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob_Justin&oldid=104329187 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaac_Witkin&oldid=100519825, at the time you created them, appear to be obituaries that were perhaps slightly changed. How did you go about creating them? The people they are about easily pass WP:BIO so I definately agree that there should be Wikipedia articles about them, but we have to ensure that all content here is free and licensed under the GFDL. -SpuriousQ 22:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Y1- Note his concerns regarding obits were resolved, it was not a copy of one)

Thats two editors who have had no problem with this. Someone else brought up the ad issue in an email and it was also resolved. Can we put this to bed and put the article back and let me not have to worry about it again so I can do something more productive? Thanks - Y1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelloone (talk • contribs)

• Response - The article has been deleted 3 times [5] and I may have nominated it for deletion last. Please review Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability each article must stand on it's own and be well referenced. It appears from the comments you pasted in above that at one point you may have listed reference on editor Merope's talk page. You are always welcome to contribute to Wikipedia and per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines the contribution may be modified at any time (which would include deletion). Your last sentence above "Can we put this to bed and put the article back and let me not have to worry about it again so I can do something more productive? Thanks - Y1" implies that your goal is to maintain an article for Bob Justin on Wikipedia and makes one question if there is a conflict of interest. If the article had actually referenced (with reliable sources) for all the attributes mentioned above there is little chance that the article would have been nominated or deleted as often has it evidentially has been. Signed Jeepday 15:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Response to response - Actually the article was deleted twice, and BOTH times the person deleting it conceded that it was a valid notable article and okay to leave up. THATS my point, that its ridiculous to have to post an article over and over again till when? I have had this discussion with every single Editor in all of Wikidom???? And this is with every thing posted it seems like, or darned near. Two editors say its fine, why do I have to convince every other one on the web? Do you outrank Merope? If so, who outranks you? This hodge podge is ridiculous. My desire to put it to bed is to avoid having to waste hours of time defending an article that already took an hour to complete. Everything thats posted seems to result in an endless cycle of writing, arguing that out, reposting and then repeat with someone else. What the hell is the sense in putting up any articles at all if everyone is either going to be deleted or result in endless hours of arguing with every editor who thinks he knows better than the last editor?

As for THIS article, what part of notable dont you get? It has newspaper citations, museum collected, association with famous artists, a book etc. I looked at the notable stuff and that sure seems to match the criterion pretty darned well and ALL of that was in the article from the second time it was posted (and would have been in the first if I had realized you couldnt do stuff piece meal). It meets the notable requirement, as agreed by two different editors and the clear terms of the requirement. So whats the problem here???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelloone (talk • contribs)

Ohmefentanyl

Just a quick note to let you know that User:Nuklear has recreated Ohmefentanyl. If you still believe it should be deleted, I'd suggest renominating it. As it was speedy deleted last time, it can't be speedy deleted as a recreation. JulesH 12:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I placed a note on the talk page and a Original Research tag on the top of the article. I have looked around for a Wikipedia Policy that clearly addresses the situation and did not find one. In the mean time I will just keep an eye on the page until his lordship returns. Signed Jeepday 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

OOPS

Thanks, for the fix. Jeepday 13:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem! That happens to everyone from time to time.  :-) —David Levy 13:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars Tales Volume 3

What references would you like from information about an issue drawn from that comic issue? Everything is gleaned from the comics themselves. —Skope (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Response posted here and article talk page

To meet basic notability criteria every article per Wikipedia:Notability#The_primary_notability_criterion "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." this could be in addition to a reference showing that some information is from the book it's self. Wikipedia:Attribution talks about all article needing reliable sources. I should note the currently Wikipedia:Attribution is under significant discussion, the discussion is about how to present the policy not about the policies in general. Jeepday 12:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Indeed. You gotta love those people who have the unshaking will to vandalise and let you know about it. :) —BazookaJoe 02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, LOL. Maybe it makes them feel better, or something. I am just adding up the times (two so far). Maybe I should go get me one of those info boxes? Jeepday 02:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

David Gaiman

If you actually bothered to check the discussion you will see why I removed the content from David Gaiman, and that there was very good reason, please do not vandalise others contributions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.187.226 (talk • contribs)

• (NOTE - dublicate of response on User talk:81.79.187.226

I see and saw that there was an active discussion about a son on the article David Gaiman. But you removed content including properly referenced content about a daughter. You also failed to use an edit summary for a major text delete [6] and did not post your rationale on the talk page until after making that deletion.[7] I am glad to see that after some more back and forth you have come what looks to be a solution. Jeepday 12:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You mention that I did not make my contribution to the talk page until after my deletion - but that is not a reason to remove it, other people (including you) have altered my edits without making ANY input into the talk page. I made a change, and stated my reasons for doing so. Nobody has so far responded on the talk page to counter this argument (including yourself). Therefore the suggestion that I did things in the wrong order (when they were done in one motion) is scurrilious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.1.65 (talk • contribs)

• Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Because I reverted your changes before you posted your rationale. Nothing personal towards you or the article. I was doing vandalism patrol, and found a large text delete, including removal of referenced text, with no comments so I reverted it. In the future if you use the Edit Summary it will show up in the history tab and help other editors understand why you did what you did. Jeepday 15:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Gateway School District

Hi, Jeepday! I see you added a {{wikify}} tag to the Gateway School District article. Since you didn't offer any meaningful comments in your edit summary, can you expand on what it is you specifically think needs to be done for the article? Thanks! -- Mikeblas 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Made a few comments on Talk:Gateway School District Jeepday 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"ibid"

I've read your reasons for prodding, here is my response;

• ibid is a standard latin phrase used in citations to mean the same citation as previously, ie. the same reference as the previous reference. "ibid" isn't the name of a source, (if it was, it would be the most cited source in the world), its a formal way of saying "ditto".
• The Jewish Encyclopedia is a highly respected academic source on Judaism. Its out of copyright, and an online version (if you are interested) can be found at www.JewishEncyclopedia.com (which I'm told often has server problems), as well as several other sites, and will be found in any good theology department library.
• As you will note, someone has already removed your prod notice; as mentioned in the talk page this is because "corn" in the context of the article simply means grain, and usually wheat. That is reflected in the sources used.

--User talk:FDuffy 14:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It took a couple minutes but think you are talking about the article Levite Tithe, I saw the argument about "corn" and found that it was reasonable, so decide not to pursue that case. Thank you for reminding me about this because I had meant to put a couple comments about citing resources on the talk page, I will go take care of that now. Jeepday 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

SLOW DOWN

I watched an excellent documentary on Jonestown which contained eyewitness testimony from cult members and audiotapes Jim Jones of Jim Jones begging his cult members to drink the poison and die. Pretty heavy stuff. Imagine my surprise when I when to the Wikipedia article and found appended to end, a bunch of CIA conspiracy theory crap. (Ever notice that conspiracy theorists think they're smarter than everyone else, but they seem to be the most gullible poeple in the world? But I digress.)

When I edited the article to give the conspiracy wingnuts their own article, Jeepday reverted the article on the grounds that I hadn't finished creating the conspiracy article before deleting the contant from the mainstream history article. DUDE! I appreciate your dilligence, but you literally reverted five minutes after I submitted the change. Give me a little longer than that to create a new article and submit it, OK?

Peace. Farcast 04:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

stubsensor

thank you for your note re. stubsensor and striking out of articles. I realise that no one else will take them, I was doing the striking for my own reference - to remember which ones I've done. :P EvokeNZ 04:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

East Side additions

The user who keeps adding to the East Side article, has not been reading edit summaries or his talk page. He has good intentions, so far as I can tell, but doesn't understand the communication tools in wikipedia. Any suggestions?--Loodog 01:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Try making your point on the articles talk page, maybe you can get the editor to read that. If you need to and you are in the middle of an edit war, try posting the link to the talk page in the article where they will see it (but remove it, after). Jeepday 02:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Well, there's the references and external links which is a huge clutter. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 15:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The references on LaSalle Trail were formated correctly with a single exception [8]. You are watching recent changes and randomally throwing out templates on new articles for reasons unknown. Jeepday 15:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the worst thing we can do right now is attack eachother. We shouldn't be arguing over something silly like this; I was wrong. There wasn't anything to cleanup, but the article was so short, and the reference section was cluttered. I should be helping the article, not putting cleanup tags on it. Let's just mutually end this discussion per WP:COOL. Good luck with your article! Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the helpful reference to how to cite -- I've been being a bit haphazard but will try to standardize my cites using the tools you've provided. If you see me screw it up again, don't hesitate to let me know. In the meantime, I'll be working on paperback as noted. Cheers, Accounting4Taste 15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Do you remember that about a month ago you gave me a warning for deleting warnings in my talk page? I'm sorry I did that because I did not know that that was vandalism. I thought it was OK to do it only to your talk page. 24.205.181.154 07:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I remember. Apology accepted :) If you are thinking about becoming a productive member of Wikipedia you might want to consider creating an account and logging on to edit. Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users meaning you will have greater privacy. (Though your IP address is still saved and accessible to users with Checkuser permission, it is rare for this to be used.) Jeepday 13:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced

The way I see it, this template has been made for articles with no sources at all. Then in March the word adequately was added. For which, from the looks on the talk page, not everyone agreed with. Now in April again there are people disagreeing with the change (not only me). That looks to me like there was/is no consensus (yet anyway) for adding the word adequately, ergo I removed it. Garion96 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• So your saying since the The Wrong Version was posted your side of no consensus should replace it until when? 14:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that it should be changed when there is a clear consensus to do so. Garion96 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore this message if you want to step back. But what is wrong with {{unreferenced}} (in the current version) for no sources at all, and {{More sources}} for partially sourced articles? Garion96 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

With adequately one template meets both needs, and no one has to change from one to the other. Adding one reference just makes the article less broken it does not fix it. Jeepday

New Messages

After I found out about your new message, it still said I had new messages. I found out that there were no changes, but no matter how many times I clicked on new messages, it still showed that I had new messages. Is there any way to stop that from happening. 24.205.181.154 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Some times that happens, I think it takes a while for the servers to catch up. It should go away in few minutes. Jeepday 00:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Geo Tagging / AWFP

Thanks. I'd considered the issue of linking to April and agree I need to keep it under review. I think it is better to link to the list of articles needing attention than to the geo-coordinates page, since the latter is unfriendly & mostly incomprehensible (to me). I'll do the mini AWFP thing. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Articles created

You asked for the list of articles you'd created... your list can be found 1&limit=500&offset=1 here. --Interiot 21:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Television program

Unfortunately not. The explanation is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#I.27m_leaving . --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Womanizer

You quoted WP:V: If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The article lacks sources but there are probably many on the topic. WP:PROD: This process should only be used for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates that obviously do not belong in the encyclopedia. I don't think that is satisfied. I have removed vandalism (resulting in a death threat!) and WP:BLP violations from womanizer in the past but don't plan to spend time on additions. You can take it to AfD but I only think it should be done in this case if you don't think the topic satisfies WP:N. PrimeHunter 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You have some good points there, but just because the word is used in 750000 Google hits on womanizer, 377000 on philanderer, does not mean there is even a single reference on the topic, as you probably realized when you did a Google search for WP:N. To compound the problem it is wikilinked from over a 100 articles. But when you look at the article it just a Dictionary entry and a list. I am thinking of going to AfD with Transwiki and categorize. Still looking into it though. If you have more thoughts let me know. Jeepday (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I understand all that I preferred the old version. Thanks anyway. Quadzilla99 14:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

:) Wikipedia doesn't keep to old versions, the only thing constant is change. Jeepday (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Wladislaw Taczanowski

I found it easily enough in Google, referring me to Google Books, and I added the ref. Since they add things to G.b. continually, it might not have been there when you looked. I was fairly confident there would be something, because the article came from the de WP: they don't always list sources, but I have yet to catch them in a mistake. They aren't a mirror of us, their article was written in Jul 05 and out page translated in Sept. 05. DGG 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All's well--between the two of us we got it sourced. Challenging an article does tend to do that sometimes. DGG 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That it does. Thanks Jeepday (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ORV crit section

You said- Do you have a desire to participate in writing a criticism section for Off-road_vehicle? Jeepday (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If by "participate," you mean "would you like to write a crit section while we whittle it down to nothing," the answer is no. Who else is going to help build (and not deconstruct) it? I would like to participate, but I am also reluctant to begin a lot of hard work on something (according to your guidelines) that won't pay off. Please, by all means, convince me otherwise.Athene cunicularia 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for coming off as irritated. I think you're probably trying to help with something, and I think that you probably put some hard work into creating the guidelines. I guess I just need a little more evidence that I wouldn't be going it alone.Athene cunicularia 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will help, as long as I'm not the only one working to create it. I think that our personal differences might be a benefit, as well. Perhaps you can lend your expertise to safety concerns and I can work on environmental. I want to get good resources to create a useful section, not just spread opinion.Athene cunicularia 12:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link!Athene cunicularia 12:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks- I have plans to work on this today.Athene cunicularia 13:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks haha. I have to admit, it was an addictive litle project :).Cya around. petze 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Swingin' Thing

I added some references and a few other things to the Swingin' Thing article. Also, I HOPE I'm contacting the right person this time. Gringo300 06:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Winship

1. You are right that I was being a little sloppy, so I replaced it with the largest at the time, which is certainly documented. and less POV. He is anyway even more important for the books. I've put an underconstruction tag on it because I am adding the details of the books. There's a good reference, in any case. Not all that many librarians have separately published book length biographies. DGG 07:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Prod

Since there do seem to be some sort of related articles to this one, would you mind taking it to AfD? I'm sorry to be a bore, but I think possibly some wider consensus here might help, for clarity's sake. Apologies for cowardice. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 09:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• On reflection I did a merge and redirect to San Jose, California and carried over the unreferenced tag with a similarly dated {{fact}}. Jeepday (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

syntactic methods

Haven't finished finding the stuff yet.DGG 23:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I located some general references -- made a point of getting some with "syntactic" in the title--the experts had better take over after this.

The Wedding (2000 novel)

I came across this while clearing out prods, wasn't sure what to make of it, and decided to list it at AfD. I've quoted your original concern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wedding (2000 novel), but you might want to comment there anyway. Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

profs

Just before you sent the note, I was trying to figure out if it would seem too self-important for me to suggest something like that. Of course I will certainly look at anything you mention, but you and me agreeing isn't enough--we have to get the articles improved so that others don't delete the worthy ones. In general, a good faith AfD on a N subject means the article isn't adequate to do the subject justice, and the PB one falls in that class. What I don't like about defending at AfD is the lack of time--after 24 hrs the steamroller effect takes over. And I cannot upgrade more than three or so a week at most, unless I did nothing else here, even though I know where to look. It's not adding one ref of any sort as for some subjects--that isn't enough, because even the beginners have 2 or 3.

It is style which is some of the problem, both professors and other people--they are either too modest or too self-advertising. You cant avoid COI--any good article will be done by the person or a former student or close colleague, & the poor ones by someone mindlessly entering the minimum. (It's even more of a problem for articles on businesses and businesspeople).

My rough guide is- Class A: --if the guy is a full professor & it's a notable university, enough sources are probably be found, (but many of them just say professor, as did PB, & that makes it necessary to check), Class B: Anything somewhat less than that--the Iranian physics professor from a place we never heard of, an associate professor, a research associate, an administrator like the guy from the NIH, an MD with a clinical appointment, a JD with some articles--they all take work and judgement. I never say keep on these till I've checked the publications. If I don't have time to look, I say weak keep. Class C: Postdoctoral fellows, faculty at small college, assistant professors, grad students, etc. they probably aren't--I know of exactly one grad student in my field who would have been notable when still a grad student.

What you could do with class C is prod, & say something about their status in the tag like "probably NN asst prof." I will either remove the tag, or more likely add a prod2.

I'm going to take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting, because in general there ought to be a better way than the present. Such as "the chem WP knows about this, and will get to it." DGG 05:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, as a rule I prod things that look to me like the should go. That gives lots of time for other editors to contest or address. If you find something that will bring Prods quickly and easily to the attention of editors that would like to try and bring the article to at least minimum criteria that would be very cool. Jeepday (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

re: maize

Yeah, I got it from the rice article which has a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.162.255 (talk • contribs)

Section specific maintenance templates

You were correct I did misunderstand your closure, Thank you for adding your response to the discussion. Jeepday (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Sorry for the confusion. :-) —David Levy 04:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oiled road

Are you sure that the redirect [9] is right? It doesn't fit very well with Template:Road types, Types of road etc. Pavel Vozenilek 23:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are a number of road sealants. As best as I can tell a road that is oiled has really had bitumen applied. Bitumen is an oil product Per Bitumen#Uses Bitumen from tar sands is projected to account for 80% of Canadian oil production by 2020 and Bitumen can also be made from waste material by fractional distillation of used motor oils. I did not research extremely heavily. So if you have references that say different go ahead and take oiled road back out, but everything I was seeing (was researching Road) was that oil and bitumen are synonyms with bitumen being the correct term. Jeepday (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not knowledge on this topic: I was curious, clicked on it in the template and got suprised by the redirect. Perhaps you may remove the reference from the template to avoid such a confusion. 85.70.83.93 21:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nashville Municipal Auditorium

I had intentionally removed all that text from Nashville Municipal Auditorium, per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Everything I removed is unreferenced, most appears to Original research. I beleive that you beleive that everything is true and please don't take offense because I removed it. Per WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If I can help you to understand better why I removed it please leave me a note. Jeepday (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the wikinazis like you that are ruining this great bastion of information. No reply is necessary, nor is it welcome. --Zpb52 02:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Right to Edit

I've written my own essay about the subject, can you please restore the history of the page? Thanks! Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the ability and it looks like you are already talking to User:JzG about it. [10] Jeepday (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Narvin Kimball

I see you have twice put a "Prod" notice on Narvin Kimball and claim that the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). I disagree. Before start to offer a defense, I wish to ask: why you are doing this? Puzzled, -- Infrogmation 15:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Almost correct about the double prod the first was actually a {{db-bio}} the second and current is a {{prod}} that was posted after the talk at Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jazz#Narvin_Kimball which is listed on the prod. I have nothing personal against the article and no defense is required. Currently the article appears to fail WP:V by providing a single reference that leads to fail WP not a Memorial so it fails WP:BIO. As is pointed out in the talk references to support notability per WP:BIO were not found. I am prodding the article because it does not meet Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for inclusion as an encyclopedic article, you are encouraged to improve the article to meet expectations and remove the prod. Jeepday (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your reply. I'll add some material and references. I was asking because at present Wikipedia's coverage of jazz musicians below the level of the few most famous figures is quite haphazard, with probably a couple hundred musicians considered notable enough to have entries in standard jazz encyclopedias and reference books (and at least a few who've had books devoted to themself alone) having no Wikipedia articles. I and some others are bit by bit working on filling things in, and I wanted to avoid lots of work put into many articles that would quickly be proded. Cheers, -- Infrogmation

unreferenced articles

Howdy, I noticed some comments you left on a template talk page. I'll just copy them over for reference:

Does anyone know how we can get an estimated count of how many articles have {{unreferenced}} on them? I am thinking it might be an idea to try and set up a project like User:Triddle/stubsensor/20070206 to go through and clean them up. The Stubsensor project in it's current format addresses 10,000 articles at time. With 9 registered volunteers we have done about a third of them in 6 weeks. There is always a gap between us finishing and Triddle getting a new one up, so we could potentially migrate that group of volunteers to a new Unreferenced clean up project. Jeepday talk 02:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can swing something like that if you want. I'm pretty sure it would be a simple report to generate. Are you still interested in that type of report? Does it work better than using the category system for finding unreferenced articles? Let me know on my talk page. :-) Triddle 05:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Response at User_talk:Triddle#Wikipedia:Unreferenced_articles History Jeepday (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Rail Trail Link

"I have removed the external blog link a second time from List of rail trails diff The trail is already listed as the article Aidrie to Bathgate. Please do not repost the blog link. Jeepday (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)". The Wikipedia article on the Aidrie to Bathgate consist of two lines. If you are prepared to write a better article please feel free to remove the blog link. If you are not prepared to do so, or to explain your reasons for removing the blog link then do not remove it a third time. Mrslippery 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

see Diff Jeepday (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lucille Ball

Why did you leave me that message? I do not see anything that appears to be vandalism.!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.148.219.239 (talk • contribs)

Stop the nonsense, Lizzie. Miranda 05:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Per comment on your user page Lucille Ball is dead. Please don't edit the page to make it look as if she is not. There is a standard Wikipedia format for articles, and to try to make it look as if she is still alive is misleading. And please don't claim that disagreements over an article is vandalism. Corvus cornix 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC) [11] and References [12] I have removed your repeated vandalism Diff Diff Diff. Please note that repeat vandalism will leading to Blocking Jeepday (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And as an added bonus, here is her grave. Happy? Miranda 05:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Lizzie and the sock ISP are blocked, but still actively working towards something User talk:172.148.219.239. Jeepday (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Page fully protected for a day. Miranda 05:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

---

To be honest with you, I've always had something of a grudge against PROD in general - so I apologise if I was a bit curt. It seems like the pointless compromise between Speedy Delete (Bob Phillips is an awesome Grade 10 student at Highbrook Collegiate...), and AFD ("Economics of Maryland Real Estate" are a complicated subject...) - anything clearly not encyclopaedic can be deleted without discussion, such as vandalism/etc, but something you/I simply "believe doesn't really meet criteria", but is still a notable persona - deserves an AfD. Anyways, good to have the compromise, appreciate the civility Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:) Jeepday Children of the mind 04:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Mark Allen (golfer)

I removed the prod based on the assertion that he had finished 6th in the Australian Open (it appears it was actually the much less significant Australasian Tour championship[13]), and that he was ranked 177th in the world (I looked, but was unable to find any support for this ranking). He did, however, finish near the very bottom of the 1999 British Open.[14] So, based on our mutual research, I changed my mind about the prod. Good sleuthing!--Kubigula (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings

See WP:USER#Removal_of_warnings. It's not prohibited, so we can't (or at least shouldn't) block for it. It's a common misconception. I've been a sysop for months and only figured it out a few weeks ago.--Chaser - T 05:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

template:Unreferenced

Adequately to any refixed -- didn't think that one was controversial. Thanks for your note to mention it! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced three kingdoms

articles from this group are a unique problem, because they are both in the real world and in the novel, and the correspondence is usually very close.The article you mentioned is sourcable--it will certainly be discussed in the various referenceworks on the novel & the history. But it is not sourcable by me. The correct approach would be a renewed project of 3kingdoms if there isnt one.

More to the point, why dont you simply propose a merge for the minor characters? It's much less troubleandinfull agreement with the trend of things.I agree we should not have many little articles when we can make stron ger group ones about the minor charactersfrom one particular reign. That would be really improvingthesituation, and avoiding what will otherwise be afight overeachparticualrarticle.

I do not thing 5 days is a suitable period to find sources on articles; for example, the need to do this for the academic people with wholly inadequate articles is a majorproblem for me--it takes a at least oneor two hours each, and I can consequently not do more than 2 or 3 a week. I dont want people to fight everyone of these either to delete or to keep - it is not a productive use fof our time. For the same amount of time, we could get good articles with sections for minor characters.My model for this is the solution fro elementary and intermediate schools, of school district articles--though no agreement could be reached on the project page, there is a practical agreement in the actual editing. I am having internet problems, so I may not be able to follow up immediately. DGG 01:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My perrmision

By all means get rid of it Briaboru

I see someone dropped a (Speedy deleted per (CSD a7) on it (Joyce Nondwe Kanyago) and it is gone. Jeepday (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Unreasonable nagging templates

Hi Jeepday! Answer written at Templates needing talk links.... I certainly got your attention! Any specific change You wish me to undo? (Yeah, I know I'm provocative but I wish attention on this template stuff, seriously!) Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 16:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch

Thanks for the good catch on "paperback". I'm guilty of just reading the comment by the previous editor and deleting the link without checking it personally. Some of the links to later chapters that run from that page are broken, but I agree, this is good and useful information. Accounting4Taste 17:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I thought I took that edit off the other day when it got added, but it looks like I forgot to save it. "show changes" then close window, you know, it happens. Jeepday (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon

So I created a mess by using {{editprotected}}. I didn't know the rules of consensus, so I'm sorry for that! Pardon. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• You got a mess when you went charging into a something you had not researched or considered fully and made big splash. If you can undo some of the splashes before they are noticed and try a smoother approach you are more likely to be successful in your goals. (as we are talking about on several pages now) Example Template talk:Wikify, Category talk:Templates needing talk links and other improvements, User talk:Rursus, Template talk:Citation style, etc and the list goes on. Jeepday (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

John Wilkinson Taylor (educator)

Hi, you nominated this article for PROD on the grounds of notability. It doesn't seem cut-and-dry non-notable (as would deserve PROD) to me and I'm pretty sure this article would be considered "notable" by even some of Wikipedia's most hardlined deletionists. Could you explain how this article is non-notable and deserving of deletion? Thanks, Oldak Quill 20:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In reviewing the article I do not see where the subject is claimed (or shown) to meet any of the the Criteria for notability of people. Before nominating the article I looked for references and did not find sufficient reliable sources to verify the subjects notability. Clearly the article as it stood did not and still does not cite the multiple Secondary sources required by policy to show notability and verifiability. As it says on the prod template If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page Jeepday (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability

Your posts on WT:V are becoming more and more literal in their reading of the policies. You should keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and the spirit and practice of our policies matter as much as (or more than) what they literally say. The consensus that has emerged after an extremely large amount of discussion about WP:V is that it is acceptable, as a compromise, for material to remain in articles without explicit sourcing so long as nobody challenges it. This has been discussed at least five times in the short period I've been at WP, and the result has always been the same. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• And what happens if someone challenges material? Are they all brow beaten as User:Until(1 == 2) was until they desist from challenging material? I am not saying everything that User:Until(1 == 2) did was the way I would have done it, but the user makes some good points. Or take a look at Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced articles where an project attempting to add references articles was repeatedly attacked (Wrongfully) and driving off volunteers. Sometimes you just can not reference articles and there needs to be a vehicle to address that. I am proposing RFV as that vehicle. It would seem clear that placing a Request for Verification (RFV) would qualify as challenging, if the article is not referenced in a reasonable period of time it is deleted. If the article is not challenged it remains. Policy WP:OR is clear all articles require references, the burden of providing references is on the submitting editor WP:V, yet there is no acceptable method of deleting unreferenced material. Begin hypothetical (but realistic) ramble Unless of course an editor want to first attempt to reference the material, then when that fails post comments to the talk page of the article and the one or more editors, then if that doesn't work maybe move the questionable material to the talk page, where whomever may move it back, now the still unreferenced can be take to AfD where of course the the topic is inherently notable so it should not be deleted, of course still no one want to reference it or even suggest them, so it has survived and AfD it is unreferenced has little hope of ever being referenced and so where do we go from here? So our hypothetical editor speds weeks chronologically and hours attempting to challenge this questionable material, how does that equate to if challenged it is the contributing editors responsibility to address it? End Ramble Ok now that I have vented a little seriously tell me what you think really happens when material is challenged? I have not looked at [{WP:V]] yet this evening. But no place have I suggested that all unreferenced material be deleted. I have suggested that a tool for deleting unreferenced and challenged material be developed, as there currently is not one. I have also pointed out that this is supported by policy and have asked if anyone can point to a policy that would conflict with it, currently no one has pointed to a policy that would conflict with a Request for Verification (RFV). So now I go to post a note on your page that there is a reponse here and take a look at what happened at WP:V while I was off Wikipedia today. Jeepday (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the long post, I think I see what your concern is. I don't know anything about the behavior of Until(1==2), so I can't approve or disapprove of it. If you are having issue with article content that you feel is incorrect, but another editor keeps inserting it, there are ways to deal with that. One thing is to start an RFC, which will bring in outside editors. If that fails you can try the mediation cabal or a formal request for mediation. So there are already established processes for that situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The above example is combination of real examples (take it with a grain of salt), the point is that in Wikipedia's fear of deleting content we have made it difficult for the random editor to challenge content. I want to give them and the many editors who make it a habit of going out and referencing articles a tool for challenging articles that is appropriate, reasonable and acceptable all. Jeepday (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You are still misreading the policies. Neither WP:V or WP:OR requires sources to be added unless material is challenged. I have no desire to participate in another long discussion to arrive at the same conclusion, that we don't delete non-BLP articles just because they don't have sources, and that except for BLP articles the deletion process is not related to sourcing concerns. I encourage you to find more productive uses of your time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with CBM on this. As an example, for the article Validation rule, you have just deleted 90-% of the text as unreferenced. But it is perfectly standard uncontroversial material, showing no sign of real OR or POV. Its an article a knowledgeable person wrote out of his knowledge of the subject, which is in turn derived not from original research into validation rules, but from his previous reading of references. Agreed, he should have supplied at least a general reference--but so could you. Of course, in some subjects -- for any real human here, most subjects, one might not know enough to tell if its standard & uncontroversial. The way I deal with such articles is to skip them unless they appear on their face to be obviously contentious or unbalanced or otherwise defective. For the ones I really don't know, such as Bollywood or Football, I skip altogether. There are enough people who do. DGG (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL Ok, I spent 10 minutes on that one, did a quick check to see if was a copyvio. found a couple references and trimmed down the article. Then you came along and reverted not only my deletion of the unreferenced text, you deleted the three references that I had added to the article History. You may also notice that the article had been tagged as unreferenced for over a year, with one minor change. It would seem that the leave it alone with a {{unreferenced}} tag approach was not working to improve the article. The references would make a fine spring board for developing the stub into a proper article. If we are ever going to make any headway on Category:Articles lacking sources we are either going to have to find more help or stop undoing the addition of references. That article will have someone who knows more come along and improve it. It just needs to be improvable. I was not comfortable that the references I found supported the entire content that there. Like I have said before you can find an article in Wikipedia to support what ever argument you want to make. Take for instance Vaitere which has very little chance of having anyone who is a subject matter expert stop by and improve it. I spent nearly an hour over a couple days on that one, before I put a {{tl:prod}} on it and created Vaitakere. Jeepday (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Turns out we've both been fooled by that example. There is a considerably better WP article on the general subject, Data validation, prepared along the same lines, but without the extraneous detail. Neither of us saw it, which shows the limitations of working too quickly, and also of working in response to a challenge. My error in overlooking your additions and reverting to the wrong version is also an example of the same problems. But I have an excuse for that--you had not removed the unreferenced tag. Possibly you forgot, possible you meant more references were needed, in which case you should have used the tag {{morereferences}}. I cannot do accurate work in 5 minutes & I was trying to respond too quickly, especially when there ar errors in the tagging. So I took a little time with it, linked the two articles together, added back your references & some of my own, removed what I considered the over-elementary example used in the article, & added a real-world example that is covered in detail in Wikipedia and familiar to me. The net result, not surprisingly, is probably better than what we each individually had done, and also to the original article, the normal result of cooperative wiki-style editing. It still needs more work--the two articles have a good deal of duplication which should probably be partially removed.

DGG - The current version of the article (History)Data validation looks much better then the original and much better then my stub, but your excuse for deleting the references is incorrect, I removed the unreferenced text and tag at the same time History. It would seem that bringing an article it to the light to examine it does benefit the article, We have now had three editors working to improve the article. If I had not challenged the content of the article would we see any improvement in it today? Jeepday (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the best sourced part seems to have been accidentally removed. I don't think responding to challenge makes for accurate editing. DGG (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your other example, there was a preferred and easier way, which is changing the title of the article, which also produces a redirect from the old title. To approximate it, I changed the prod to a redirect; then, to explain the redirect, i added a suitably tentative version of some of the old material, and, since obviously there is more that can be said--the legend really should be described--added an {{expert}} tag. You may possibly thing the old name not sufficiently authorized, in which case you should challenge it on the article talk page, and then I will get hold of a modern printed source, not one old enough to be available on Google Books (unless I can find a suitable online article). Even better, I should look for someone active on WP who is interested in related topics, and ask him to have a look. And so could you have done initially--though of course a lot of the reason for working on WP is learning a little about new things by myself.

And here is the reason that I reject this approach. I can do this work properly of about 1 article a week, & in most topics I could not do it without online & usually print access to a research library. I can do an incomplete job enough to rescue an article, In an hour, and can mange about one a day--and I do, usually in response to challenge at AfD. You report a similar time. But I can tag articles a great deal quicker than that. So the articles that have not had time to be improved would end would removed from Wikipedia; I think 3/4 of the ones with no worse fault than unsourced probably could be improved; probably you think 1/4, so let's say one half. I am not prepared to remove half the proper content to get rid of the other half. I think it harms the encyclopedia. We will have to see what others think if the question is put that way. DGG (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

DGG - In the other examples Vaitakere and Vaitere you removed a prod that questioned the accuracy of the content History (Vaitere), without making any attempt to validate or support the challenged claims, that is in direct conflict with WP:V#Burden_of_evidence and exactly why we need {{RFV}} which would be the appropriate tag for the article Vaitere as (proposed) it requires the addition of references before the removal of the tag. You also, still without any visible attempt to validate claims redirected and inserted the challenged material (Vaitere (also Vaitakere, "full of water")) into the referenced article History Vaitakere Making it appear that the challenged content was validated by references, when in fact it is not. I do not know if Vaitere is sometimes called Vaitakere or if Vaitakere means "full of water", I do know that I found good references that do not support it. You also placed an {{expert}} on Vaitakere presumably to get confirmation that questioned content is invalid before allowing for it's removal. This is exactly what we have WP:V and WP:OR to protect Wikipedia from. For an example of what happens when unvalidated and unreferenced content is presented as fact look at the content in Harstine Island, Washington#Spelling/History. Are you really asking for proof that a statement is incorrect before you will allow it to be removed? Jeepday (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As for the article, i have now simply asked someone who works on articles in the area to have a look--I don't want to get diverted from working on articles in fields where I do have resources available, to work less efficiently on those in which I am less knowledgeable. DGG (talk)

More generally, there is considerable discussion at the V talk page & elsewhere about the justification or lack of it for putting source tags on uncontroversial statements. Personally, I think it diverts energy from challenging and sourcing the controversial ones, and is not a constructive way of improving the encyclopedia. We obviously disagree on this. DGG (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the most significant change in the last few years was the introduction of the WP:BLP policy, which allows instant removal of unsourced content and deletion of articles that lack references. This policy wasn't the result of consensus, it was introduced by the foundation in response to criticism from outside of Wikipedia. I don't believe there is going to be a consensus inside of Wikipedia to address the serious problems caused by a culture that tolerates unsourced content. However, I'm hopeful that in due course the foundation, possibly in response to outside criticism, will extend the WP:BLP approach to all articles. Addhoc 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

BLP was always policy--we never accepted unsourced negative information about living people--but it just needed to be restated. The reason, however, is not the quality of the encyclopedia, but a concern to eliminate even the appearance of libel. And you've got the policy wrong--we do not delete articles because of BLP--we delete BLP from articles; we only delete the articles if there is nothing to substantiate notability otherwise, or if the entire purpose of the article was unsourced disparagement. I'm a strong supporter of the present BLP policy, which should be applied strictly but only within the stated narrow bounds, and what will harm it most is unjustified extension.DGG (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this link which confirms my understanding. Addhoc 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Addhoc, I agree Jeepday (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the argument from authority returns.DGG (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, did you get my email, I just found and responded to one you sent Saturday. Jeepday (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CharlotteWebb

The final decision of the arbitration committee in the above case has been published. Considering your July 6 comment, I believe reviewing their final decision would be a good idea. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

stubsensor feedback

Hello, could you please let me know how you would gauge the performance of stubsensor on this run? Since you'll have your hands in it more than I do, you'll have a more accurate picture of how stubsensor behaved on this run. Seems to me it made *a lot* of mistakes this time, mostly related to identifying articles as stubs that don't even have the stub tag. :-/ In any case, if you could let me know how you thought the performance was, and what page number and sections you were working on, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks :-) Triddle 16:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do Jeepday (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just did my first section on this run. First question would be how old is the data set you are running the query against? I did find a few nice big articles with out stub tags. When I checked the history all but one had lost the tag in the last few weeks. So my first impression is that it is pretty clean run. If I notice anything else I will let you know. Jeepday (talk) 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm - that's interesting; the dump is actually supposed to be recent. Every wikipedia dump file is tagged with a date (of the same format used for the stubsensor report numbers) which goes year, month, day, all munched together, so the 20070716 stubsensor is from the wikipedia dump dated Jul 16, 2007. We found stubsensor flagging articles because they have the sectionstub template in it - it has code to specifically not do that but there are so many instances of sectionstub template aliases that it's a losing battle trying to keep up with identifying them by name. Could that be the problem with the articles you saw that were in error? Glad to hear that it isn't performing extremely poorly in general though. :-) Triddle 06:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it was section stub's I was seeing in the 20. I use the search function in Firefox to locate all the stub tags in an article both in the article format and in the edit format. This usually brings me straight to the bottom of the article so I can check for references at the same time. I don't recall seeing any section stubs, but I did see an article stub in a section. I just did random looks in history to find when the stubs had come off for those that did not have them. With one exception (that was older) most of them seemed to have lost the stub mid June with ongoing edits continuing past then. I did not try to track down the exact date the stub came off. From here it seems like a the dump is from early to mid June not mid July. Jeepday (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Help please

I made a comment at ... WikiProject Fact and Reference Check I have tried to correct the article North Sea. Please advice, if it is referenced now appropriately, adequately, correctly? What to do now?SriMesh | talk 04:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check#North Sea Jeepday (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh! thank you. I have now remedied the tag, and the citation naming is oh so awesome! I wish it was on "tip of the day" Thank you so much. SriMesh | talk 17:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)