Jump to content

User talk:Jeepday/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair call. I did not take in the aspects of an article being more full than it possibly can be (as with the example you provided)... i must have been going on the 'if there aint a large chunk of text, then its a stub' mindset so please forgive me. Your advice was good though and I will apply it for the future. As for the reverting the decision without notifying, its stupid but i thought i didnt need to bother you, (or waste ur time so to speak) but again i am wrong and should bring things up with editors in future when editing wiki articles in such situations (or similar). Keep up the good work :).petze 14:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I agree with your reversal of my stub removal on Triglav Trophy, which you did correctly. I don't think there is need to contact an editor for single reversal, we all make mistakes. But when you look for and find what you believe is a pattern then drop the editor a note :) Jeepday (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will do mate :). Cya later.petze 14:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply

Hi, Jeepday. I was away for a while, could not reply on time to your message on this. Please let me know if i could anything to do. Kind regards. E104421 22:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Jeepday (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Triddle/stubsensor/20070716

Just wanted to let you know that I left a message at the above. I don't have a problem with the edit but am curious to see if lists should count in the article and yours was the first I saw. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response at same Jeepday (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award of a Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service.

Awarded by Addhoc 10:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dailies

Hi, are you sure you never heard of "Dailies" before (because you did this edit [1])? It's a very, very common term in film. Just search in something like this book and you'll find many occurences. Cheers, Peter S. 04:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most all the hits I found are for Dally News Papers, If you think there are hits out there that qualify as references please add them. You might want to look at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Sources for the rationale on why references are required even if someone has "heard of it". Jeepday (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree that the article is unfinished and a whole section on sources is missing. I'll try to add some sources when I come accross them. Cheers, Peter S. 04:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. I feel ambivalent about this whole procedure though. On one hand it's kind of nice that you press forward on bad articles. On the other hand, the article is pretty good - should an article automatically be deleted if just 4 lines are missing? Is it ok to set a fixed timeframe until deletion if we all know that every article here is constantly under construction? We know that Wikipedia currently has more articles than people devoted to them - is that reason enough to delete valuable information? Peter S. 05:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that, I am glad you found references :) To answer your questions, I came across this particular article while working the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, the goal is to ensure that articles meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference. We do that by starting with articles that have had {{unreferenced}} the longest and addressing them. No article is "Automatically deleted", rather a good faith attempt to reference the neglected article is made and based on those results the editor moves forward to improve Wikipedia usually this involves adding the reference(s) found, occasionally this means nominating the article for deletion, the Wikipedia community then decides if the article should be deleted. It is good that you beleive that the article Dailies contains valuable information. It appears that you are interested and knowledgeable about the subject, I am neither interested or knowledgeable about the subject so they only way I can judge if the article contains valuable information is to compare it to the available references. Jeepday (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film dailies and Video dailies (aka. Dailies)

I will try to add citations for Film dailies and Video dailies and DVD-Video dailies and Raw dailies on the page called Dailies.

However, I am still uncomfortable with the coding required for citations so please correct any mistakes I make.

I see the required coding of:

  1. Place a <ref> ... </ref> where you want a footnote reference number to appear in an article—type the text of the note between the ref tags.
  1. Place the <references/> tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article—the list of notes will be generated here.

but this seems to conflict with the coding which is already there which is: 

{{reflist}}

Please explain.

~~~~ Robert Elliott 21:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Instuctor, Wikiversity Film School[reply]

Hi there

I think the Daddy's girl fetish is a common known thing... may be it just doesn't appear with that name in many websites, but I've seen everywhere in pop culture... --Damifb 21:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added a reference. The reference is another wiki which is not considered a reliable source so you may want to look for a couple more reference. Jeepday (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't add that reference. Give me until tomorrow to search for others. Thanks.

--Damifb 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of hits in Google... I figure that the problem with finding legitimate references is going through all those porn sites...

--Damifb 12:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

You know I find it rather ironic to have someone post on my talk page about putting sources in an article, when that article was first started, and last contributed to by me, over two years before that person even began to contribute to Wikipedia. I would also point out that my only contribution to said article was to make it a micro-stub, and that there are many others who have added much more to it than me. I am fully aware of Wikipedia's policies on citation, and I am a good deal more experienced as an editor than you are.

Please don't treat me as if I am a newbie on Wikipedia when I am anything but. David Newton 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, I am trying to make it a habit to include {{uw-unsor1}} as a companion of {{unref}} when ever the original poster is still active. You make a good point that if the editor in question is more then a newbie it can seem condescending. It needs more content that asks the editor to add their original references. I will go work on that. Jeepday (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's that sorted out then. David Newton 17:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there. Just a quick note, discussions about changes to templates are usually carried out on WP:UTM to gain wider concensus and not on personal talk pages, as marked in the edit summary. Any questions don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khukri 06:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I invited user Melsaran to bring it there after I made the change, but they do not seem interested. I did make a BOLD change, as you are the second one to comment on it. I will bring the subject up at WP:UTM Jeepday (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. All the best Khukri 18:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kangeyam

First, I think you should read WP:DTTR. The reference for the above town is available here. The town was created by a bot. It was suggested that instead of adding reference to thousands of towns, it is good to add it at this page. The town was created based on India Census 2001 data which is available here. For notability of towns, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Cities_and_shops. Hope that helps. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that the article is written by a bot, I missed the redirect when I clicked on the link to the talk page. But I can not see why the motivation would be for not suppling references for an article. WP:V is clear If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it and there is no indication on the article that is was created by the reference Wikipedia:Geographic_references#India. I am also confused why the template you choose for the bot does not include a section for references, References are a key piece of all three Wikipedia core content policy.
So what I am hearing you say is that you built a bot, to automatically build encyclopedia articles from a source, but you choose to ignore Wikipedia policy to include reference in thousands of articles and now you are feeling miffed because I used a template message to ask you to include references.
Here I am asking you to please include reference in the article when you add content to Wikipedia. Per WP:V The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. If there is no sign of mention of a reference on an article then a reader will not be able to verify that information has been published and that it is not original research. I would also ask that you go back and add references to all the articles you or your bot built without them. I try to spend some time every day at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles manually finding references for the thousands of articles that have been unreferenced the longest and I would appreciate your assistance in not automating the creation more unreferenced articles. You may notice the when you build a NEW ARTICLE there is a bold message Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted.

I see you are an administrator and builder of bots, and you are choosing to ignore Wikipedia policy and you are upset that I did not write you a personal note to request that your bot please go back and add references. Well here is your personal note. Please go back and add references to all of the articles you or your bot added to Wikipedia without references. I would also like to apologize for using a template message to request that your bot made articles meet Wikipedia Policy. I would also like to request that instead of placing the references to the articles you are responsible for building on my talk page you place them on the unreferenced articles themselves. Jeepday (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been here long enough to know the policies, WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. I have not ignored any of these policies while creating the articles. The article does provide a link to the Geo-references page in the Demographics section (look for {{GR|India}}). This was done per a suggestion at the request for bot approval process. The initial test article did have a link to the Census website. Hope that answers your question. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last example on the request for bot approval process is 24 June 2006 User:Ganeshbot/sandbox/Testing/Kodumudi and looks very different then what was actually produced First edit Kangeyam, the example of what you are promissing to produce has a reference section, two references (if you count {{GR|India}})). I can understand what happened when Melchoir made the suggest, but that was in April and 2 months later your example article still had a reference section and a listed reference and that was what was approved.
We are where we are and nothing will change what has passed. Some of the articles like Ghorawal did get created with a reference section and a reference posted others like Ghorabandha did not get a reference section. Many of these bot article have not been expanded but others like Kangeyam was and as it did not have a reference section, the next editors followed your example and chose not to add a reference section or post any references. So now we have thousands of stubs out there that are leading by example so that like Gidderbaha whole edit history editors feel no need to add reference or of article like Mandi Gobindgarh whole edit history editors add references as external links in the article. I can tell you from experience that most content that is added with out references will be removed sooner or later. It is simply impossible to go back and find reference for other editors work. Take a look at Road Edits 24 March to 17 May 2007 , an attempt to reference an article that was mostly unreferenced actually resulted in a near complete rewrite. The moral is you don't do any one any favors by not encouraging the use of references. The original editors work will be devalued and probably removed, and second editor will either delete it or be forced tp completely rework it to bring it up to encyclopedic expectations. There are two problems I see,
1 When the next census comes out and someone changes the entry at Wikipedia:Geographic_references#India all those bot built articles that are using {{GR|India}} will have facts that do not match the "Reference" The population will have changed, the reference will say it the now current 2011 census, but the numbers in the article will be from the 2001 census.
2 The articles without reference sections do not lead by example. They do not encourage or even suggest that an editor should post references when adding content.
If you are going to lead by building stubs for others to build on please use a format that is more in keeping with policy. Example User:Jeepday/Rail Trail Stub Template
Can you have the bot go back and at the very least add a reference section to those articles that did not get one, and add the true reference to the article it's self? Jeepday (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are really committed in making sure articles are properly cited. It is a thankless job and I really appreciate your efforts at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. That said, the reason some bot-created articles have a references section and others don't is because, the references section was created only when a reference is added to the article (in addition to GRIndia). This happened in cases where the bot was able to find the town on the Fallingrain website and was able to pull latitude/longitude values from it. In cases where the town was not on the Fallingrain, the bot did not create a references section as it will be empty. It would have been nice if the bot created a empty references section. But like you said, "We are where we are and nothing will change what has passed". It would be very difficult for the bot to automatically add a references section now. It was been a long time since the bot created the articles and many articles have changed a lot since then. It will not be a simple operation. Sorry, I will not be able to do it. May be someone at WP:BOTREQ will. When 2011 data is released, we need to find ways to mass-update the population values. I have requested for a AWB feature to do stuff like that. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)\\[reply]
suggestions on my talk page for procedure. DGG (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello, I have been reading your very nice contributions. I would like to extend you an invitation to join us at WP:TIMETRACE. What we help with is:

  • Where dates or periods are mentioned that are important to the article's subject, we see that those are clear, accurate and have citations to reliable sources
  • When an article's subject should have its orgins and development described, we see that the article has a history section and that this is accurate and has reliable sources.

You can read why this is important and more information at WP:TIMETRACE. You don't need to dedicate special time to this, you may for example, while editing diverse articles, check if they have sources in their history or chronology (or when they mention any important date. If they don't, you can either fix it if you have that information, or you can place inline {{Timefact}} calls where those citations to sources are missing, this will display [chronology citation needed]. There are also other resources and templates you can use, just visit us to know more. We will be very glad if we can count with your help. Regards Daoken 08:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks! And "Your good work goes unseen unless someone disagrees"--too often true on wikipedia, unfortunately. Take care, Jlittlet 19:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Thank you for the barnstar. Best wishes, E104421 08:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:Unreferenced

I saw a template which could use an icon, so I added one. If there's a discussion or consensus or whatever to change it to one slightly more in line with whomsoever's aesthetic preferences, then go ahead and change it, I don't really care to delve into tedious debate about minutiae. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did neglect the protected notice when editing and I didn't get your message till this afternoon. It was kind of unfair to leave you unable to edit, so I'm sorry about that. It appears that the icon was removed, but there's a minor lingering question: What was the harm of leaving an icon, any reasonably appropriate icon, on a template even if there was ongoing discussion? Having nothing is a stupid status quo to maintain. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a strong and long term consensus to not include an icon on the template. As you can imagine there have been several good natured attempts to boldly add an icon to the template they have always been removed by community decision shortly after being added. Jeepday (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
concur with Jeepday. Those working on a problem deserve a little autonomy. DGG (talk) 23:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I guess this is a bigger deal than I thought. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Jeepday, thanks for the recent barnstar and admin nomination! Addhoc 23:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Icon?

Just had a thought, how about an blank image titled image:No image by intention see talk or something to use as a place holder on {{ambox}} to discourage ediotrs from assuming the no icon represents an unmet need? Will it work, and can you do it? Jeepday (talk)14:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of using a blank icon, we can simply add a hidden comment to the template where the problem has arisen. I've just done so at Template:Unreferenced. —David Levy 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yep that is better idea Jeepday (talk)

Invisible Barnstar! :)

Thank you! That must be a great invisible barnstar, as, I didn't notice it until now! :) I really appreciate it, thanks! :) SQL(Query Me!) 06:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voltaire

Thanks for your message on Voltaire.I will get back on this to you.Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unref/refimprove

Don't know if you noticed my notes elsewhere, but the refimprove|section problem should have gone away, as the template is fixed to handle this correctly. Rich Farmbrough, 11:53 22 September 2007 (GMT).

Thanks!

My RFA
Thanks for your support in my request for adminship, which ended with 58 supports, 1 opposes, and 1 neutral. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Addhoc 18:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced Bot

Hi, Jeepday. I think the bot is skipping many articles. Especially, on the physics related ones. I was checking the links/wikifications of the laser article, and realized that there are many articles lacking sources. I placed the tags manually, but if we continue tagging the articles manually, i do not think we'll cope with them. For this reason, a new bot is needed. What do you think on that? Best wishes. E104421 12:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is causing the bot to miss these? Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. The bot is supposed to check {reflist} and <references/> tags, if there is not, it's to place {unreferenced} tag. However, the bot is just dating the existing tags. Regards. E104421 12:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have anyone else look logic? Is there a Wikipedia function that would prevent the bot from posting the {{unreferenced}}? Jeepday (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. Is it possible to check the bot program? Who is responsible for the current {{unreferenced}} tagging bot? Regards. E104421 13:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand now, I thought you were trying to run a bot to tag unreferenced articles. There is not one that does that that I am aware of. There is one that looks for <ref> and adds {{reflist}} which makes the reference visible. There is another bot that looks for {{unreferenced}} with <ref> and changes the {{unreferenced}} to {{refimprove}}. As a rule {{unreferenced}} is only placed manually and should only be used if there are no references or external links that could by any strech be considered references. If there is anything resembling a reference (book, link, news article) {{refimprove}} would be the choice. Also for an article with a stub tag a {{unreferenced}} is generally considered unneeded but could be used if an editor wanted. The moral being that as a rule placing {{unreferenced}} is a human judgment as there are a number of considerations (not all are mentioned here). Does that help? 02:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, i thought at the beginning that the bot was designed just for {{unreferenced}} tagging. I agree with you that there is no need for tagging the stub sort articles, but for more developed articles i think we need a new bot. Wiki has more than 2 million articles, it'll be very diffucult to continue the project with current number of volunteers. What do think on that? A new bot! Regards. E104421 12:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would have a hard time getting support in Wikipedia for a bot to tag articles with {{unreferenced}}. Jeepday (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, it may worth to try. Best wishes. E104421 11:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks, a user just told me about that tag, and I added it to my template. Also, please note that I cannot determine if a user will vandalise a page after I give them a friendly greeting, as that user if you see the time stamps vandalised after the welcome. I find that welcoming users greatly reduces vandalism. Thank for the heads up with the div tag as well! Oh and on my user page, I like the box around :) Phgao 02:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Company Articles

Hi Jeepday,
I understand that it's always good to have multiple sources for writing an article. In the case of organisations and companies, I assume that most of the primary sources are from within the company. Their financial reports, data given on their website and press releases.
Any 3rd party source is quite likely to have received the input for their research also from the company. So even other company articles like BMW would earn the Primarysources flag ??
Please advise, how I can add additional sources, when I just describe the basic information on a company?
Cheers, Jens58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.155.83 (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Barnstar

Thank you for the recognition. I would like to do much more. It would be nice if a bot could distribute a block of ten articles, say twice a week to the talk page of project members. —Viriditas | Talk 01:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting idea. If you got a block of 10 articles and found someone had already worked one or more of them would that be ok? Jeepday (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking for a while, How about a section on your talk or user page that listed 10 different random articles from the category each time you opened the page. Jeepday (talk) 02:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, whatever works. Feel free to place me in the "bot research" category and add whatever you like to my talk page for testing purposes. —Viriditas | Talk 10:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Refimprove

Done. I must have accidentally edited an old version. Thank you for pointing it out. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! Marlith T/C 02:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

President of Earth

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article President of Earth, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of President of Earth

President of Earth, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that President of Earth satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of Earth (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of President of Earth during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 15 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ANDRILL, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--EncycloPetey 23:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil fuel

In the reference, [2] primary sources of energy: paragraph 4 petroleum 36.8%, paragraph 5 coal 26.6%, paragraph 6 natural gas 22.9% for a tolat of approximately 86%.Silverchemist (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{vacation3|[[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]]|start=[[18 December]], [[2007]]|end=[[1 January]], [[2008]]}}

Arbcom Nomination

Hi, I noticed you seemed to have accidentally posted you statement in the main namespace instead of the Wikipedia namespace. I have moved it to the Wikipedia namespace, your statement can now be found here. I have not completed the nomination for you which can be found here VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 03:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Hi Jeepday:

I saw your candidate notice and went to ask a question. I put the question at:

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Jeepday/Questions for the candidate

and it saved okay.

However, the link to that page from your candidate statement is showing up as red. I don't know why this. Sorry if I have messed anything up.

Wanderer57 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is solved. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
    I am an editor currently not holding any advanced positions, but I am a founding member of the Wikiproject Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, the goal of this project is to ensure that articles meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference.
  2. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
    First: because there was an add posted asking for self nomination and the field for 5 positions was fairly small. Second: I think I have a lot of problem solving skills and experience to bring to the position.
  3. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
    I read about them in the Wikipedia Signpost and sometimes take a closer look.
  4. In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
    I have no opinion on past arbitration cases. I did not follow any close enough to feel that I have all the facts available. Neither did I fully research all the appropriate references and policy as they stood when any specific arbitration was active.
  5. Why do you think users should vote for you?
    I have a long history on Wikipedia of reading policy, being active, and wadding into discuss about it; starting with conversations that can been seen here Talk:Off-road vehicle/Archive 1 in "Edward Abbey qoute" a learning experience when I was new (two weeks) and in "Build a criticism section" an application of joint venture involving differing perspectives months later. From some of the questions I am getting here and in my Questions for the candidate I am guessing that there is some strife in the community about arbitration committee actions, I did not nominate myself to swing that strife in one direction or the other. I am asking users to vote for me because I want to help Wikipedians who bring a problem to the committee to find solutions that are within the bounds of Wikipedia policy.

Posting here and your talk page Jeepday (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on my talk page. We've already gone to press for this week's issue, but responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

I am not a vandal i am a good boy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.41.236 (talk • contribs)

Edit summary

Regarding this edit, a cursory reading of the preceding and subsequent verses makes it quite clear that the Bible explicitly forbids those species with one characteristic and not the other. How else does one explain the fact that Jews eat beef etc?

That said, I apologise for a lack of assumption of good faith in the edit summary when I corrected your edit. JFW | T@lk 09:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any further references are necessary on kashrut. The Bible is pretty clear about the requirement, and if you want I will happily add a reference citing the section of the Talmud where these concepts are developed into practical law. Your choice of sources on cloven hoof and unclean animals is of course entirely up to you, but I think directly quoting the Bible is less confusing than referring to a book called "Jewish Laws and Customs: Some of the Laws and Usages of the Children of the Ghetto" published in 1900. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually sure if the Talmudic source adds much. There are numerous statements in the Talmud that have been reinterpreted in subsequent works. Given that Orthodox Jews regard the Shulchan Aruch as binding by definition, that is probably the most useful source. JFW | T@lk 21:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was hoping to find something at Wikisource:Shulchan Aruch/Yoreh Deah but it's not all translated there yet. Interpretation can be a funny thing especially when applied to biblical works so I like to find something that is not a direct biblical quote when available. The call is yours, what every you think is best. If you find anything better then I have please let me know, I would like to use it in my other works. My edit to kashrut was a passing edit done while searching for reference to use on Cloven hoof so I don't have an invested feeling in kashrut. Jeepday (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you need to chill

Take a pill, my friend, and go easy on the trigger finger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.80.248 (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you vandalizing my page?

That's not really very nice, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.80.248 (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be friends?

Please, find Jesus through me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.80.248 (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right To Vanish

Sorry but i believe i have a right to vanish i was formerly user:[Catalyst in Society]edited re username change. Coppertwig (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content from Wikipedia is considered vandalism, there is nothing linking User:121.216.52.193 and User:Catalyst in Society edited re username change. Coppertwig (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC) claiming to be the other user does not give the right to edit their or delete the other editors work or words. Jeepday (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My God its true, do an IP check, its my bloody account. I want to delete evrything from it. Come on now, y would i waste my time deleting irrelevant posts by another user from over a year ago - come on now!

Y cant u take a chill pill- i want to have no connectiion with wikipedia but if u type in my name into yahoo the first thing that comes up is this wikipedia account taht i want to leave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH the reason im not logging in to my account is because when i leave a comment and sign it it links to my user page and therefors comes first on the list on Yahoo.

Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct. I'm sorry that this message is so late; I wasn't aware about your nomination when I sent out these messages.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table.

I used the template Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table/cand to make it easier to enter the values in the table. I'm sorry that I didn't get around to entering all values, I will do that in about 21 hours if you don't get around to it. — Sebastian 09:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. What skills do the links show? I'm sorry, I can not judge your evidence without knowing what you are trying to show. "Active and vocal" isn't really what I'm looking for. Personally, I am mostly looking for conflict resolution skills. Do you have any evidence for that? Please look at the page to see what categories are available. Also, please be specific: General links like the one to Signpost are not helpful, because they do not exhibit anything you did. I would prefer if you could enter them yourself, like most other candidates, but if you need my help, let me know. — Sebastian 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't "want to just rely on a candidate's words", it would probably be a poor choice to rely on a candidates research about their position. WP:COI and WP:PRIMARY provided guidance for obtaining unbiased references. Jeepday (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your concern; the page was indeed unclear about that. I think this has been addressed now. Please check out the project and talk pages and let us know on the talk page if there's still something unclear. — Sebastian 03:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation continued on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. — Sebastian 18:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)[reply]

vandalism by admins?!

why the hell the article Lapa Church was deleted?! -Pedro (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't take the removal of the article personal. I placed a prod Template on the article after a good faith effort to find references had failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability and verifiability requirements. After five days of being reviewed by other editors (and several make a habit of checking each article with a prod) no one stepped forward to save it, and it was deleted as no hope of bringing the article to expectations could be found. Jeepday (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now you delete articles because there's no reference saying that it exists, this is getting crazy. I don't take it personally, but honestly I think it is insane. IMO this is just vandalism, I know wikipedia's ways pretty well, vandalism or really lame administration. Sorry for that. --Pedro (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 7 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cloven hoof, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RINGS

FYI, when you see mentions on MMA pages about "RINGS" or "Rings", especially in the context of "he fought for Rings" or the "Rings King of Kings Tournament," those are not references to a boxing ring. They're actually talking about RINGS, an old Japanese pro wrestling/MMA organization. I've corrected the links I noticed. Tuckdogg (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abt Guthi

Thanks for the interest in Guthi. I had searched for verifiable information about guthi in English. However, there are none online. Of the few that are present in publications, they present a very "foreign" view of guthi. So, I have included a Nepali publication as a reference. I will add more to article after I am done with a few articles in Nepal Bhasa wikipedia. Thanks again.--Eukesh (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig

Hi, thanks for the help with the disambig pages, we'll take all we can get! I'm a regular visitor to Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup, which is how I first heard about the Ring article. I'm not sure what you mean about having concerns about some of the pipes? You can either try to explain, or, just edit the page and then I'll see what you mean that way.  :) --Elonka 18:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you're talking about now. Well, generally the rule on that kind of syntax is to put an album name in italics, but individual song names in quotes. See WP:MOSMUSIC. If that particular song is more of an album though (I'm not personally familiar with it), then either method may be fine. Do what you think is best! :) --Elonka 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use some common sense

I've reverted this edit. Ring (disambiguation) is a redirect page. It redirects to ring, which is (as you should expect) a disambiguation page. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeepday/Archive_2&oldid=1187882758"