Jump to content

User talk:Jimmy Pitt/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Welcome page

I'm sorry so sorry. I don't have welcome page. Nobody gives welcome to me. Skitut Master (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bob Merritt

See User talk:Phantomsteve#Bob Merritt. You may want to explain why you felt it was important to speedily remove this page. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Atilano

Hi Jimmy. Did you recently CSD tag this page? Do check to see what's happened. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. Yes, I did tag the page, but I wasn't the first and, unless action is taken, I'm guessing you won't be the last! I see you warned him: did you also report him at AIV? That's possibly the only way to stop the continued recreations of the page. Regards. Jimmy Pitt talk 08:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It's been deleted 3 times now. He might be fed up by now! --Kudpung (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

super rugby

Hello, i would like to inform of a discussion on in the WikiProject Rugby Union discussion page about the format to be used through the season articles of the super 12, super 14 and super rugby seasons. Please click the link below and have your opinion, thank you. JaFa 01 (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Link: Discussion

William James Wanless‎

William James Wanless is now nominated at DYK. You can review the nomination here-- . Shlok talk . 18:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Decolonization POV check

Hi, I see you have tagged the article Decolonization as needing a POV check. However, you do not seem to have made any statements on the talk page of the article detailing what it is you think is needing changed. Without such statements, it is difficult to see how to improve the article in the way you want and thus the template is not particularly helpful in the end otherwise. Munci (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. In fact, I intended only to tag one section, not the entire article. I've now changed the tag and explained my reservations at the talk page. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I understand your reservations now. In fact, considering it was written in a single edit by an IP address who has other wise not edited (Special:Contributions/194.247.212.99), I would think it might be ebtter to just remove the section. Munci (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Pneumatic bladders

Hi. I added a little content to Pneumatic bladders. Do you still think the article merits deletion? Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pneumatic bladders. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

See my comments at the AfD discussion. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

closing AfDs

hi, i would gladly close deletion discussions which i've withdrawn as you did here, but i'm unsure how to perform this action. do you just add a template to the page? cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi WookieInHeat. To be honest, it's the first time I've done it, so while I think I did it correctly, I'm not 100% sure! I followed the procedure set out in WP:NACD and Wikipedia:Deletion process. Assuming I've got it right, you add templates at the top and bottom of the AfD discussion sub-page, stating the result and giving your reason, add a template to the article talk page, and remove the AfD template from the article (though I was able to omit this as you'd already done it). I didn't realise, until I looked again, that you can do a speedy keep closure yourself if you withdraw your own nomination, provided nobody else has !voted to delete: in light of my ignorance, I hope you didn't mind me jumping in! Regards. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
not at all, thanks for the info. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Suggestions"

Re "I never suggested you AfD'd the book because of me, nor did I suggest (as you imply) that I found the policies amusing. But I do suggest, in the interests of keeping the AfD on track, that we call a halt to this exchange.": I can agree that further discussion on the AfD will not help that discussion. However, I don't see how you expect anyone to interpret ...But I do find it amusing that you have now AfD'd the book that is the sole assertion of notability... to mean anything other than that you find policies amusing. The AfD nomination is completely within policy, and the eventual result is almost certain. And, more to the point: 1) there is a clear distinction between assertion of notability and actual notability, and 2) A7 doesn't apply to books, so I couldn't delete The Oxford Virus under A7.

The irony (to me) is that I don't think Adam Kolczynski belongs either. But I couldn't delete it under A7, simple as that. And, now I really feel it would be inappropriate to give an opinion in the AfD. But I'm working within policies and established processes; since we agree, perhaps you could tone it down a bit?  Frank  |  talk  19:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not "tone it down", as you so patronisingly put it, for the simple reason that I never toned it up. You declined CSD, as is your prerogative; I took it to AfD, as is mine; you took exception to my AfD summary and I instantly rectified it and offered an apology (which you ignored). So far so good (more or less). I then, mistakenly as I now see, made what I intended to be a light-hearted throwaway line. And you got on your high horse and have not stopped lecturing me since, even to the extent of accusing me (in terms) of taking policies too lightly (an accusation that is false, flagrantly disregards WP:AGF, and is contradicted by my contribution record). I might also add that as I've been here several months longer than you I take exception to the patronising tone of your "how things work around here": if there's any toning-down to be done, it's on your side, not mine.
The irony, to use your choice of word, is that I sympathise with, and accept, your response to the CSD, though I still disagree with it, solely as a matter of interpretation (see below). In fact, "ironical" was the word I used before I altered the comment to say "amused", and with hindsight it might have been a better choice. What I was trying to say was that I found it ... odd? amusing? ironic? something, anyway ... that you could use the fact of the book having been published as an assertion of notability for its author, and then AfD the same book as (probably) not notable. It had nothing whatsoever to do with finding the policies per se amusing, a suggestion that offends me as much as the comment itself seems to have offended you, but it seemed to me then (and still does, to be honest) that there's an element of contradiction there and that policies, no matter how seriously we regard and apply them, can give rise to some quirkish results. But it in no way suggests that your AfD was anything other than "completely within policy", not that I ever implied otherwise.
My view, based on my reading of WP:AUTHOR, is that publication of a single book (especially one that was only published this month) is not in itself a "credible claim of significance or importance" as required by WP:CSD, which is why I CSD'd the article. If the article had stated that he was the author of "an immediate bestseller" or "a succession of widely-acclaimed novels", or something of that nature, I would have seen that as a clear and credible claim and, indeed, I have on occasion removed CSD tags from pages where there was such a claim. Your view, if I understand you correctly, is that the requirement for a "credible claim" is satisfied by the publication of one book, irrespective of whether that book is itself notable, which is fair enough: like much else in the policies, "credible claim" is a matter of interpretation, and another admin might have (and has, on occasion) taken a different view. What it amounts to, in fact, is that we differ not -- as you seem to determined to believe -- because you take the policies seriously and I don't, but, more simply, because we interpret one paragraph in one policy differently. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I would venture to guess that the vast majority of authors with articles here do not have any of their published books as separate entries. Probably hard to discover if that is correct or not, but that's my impression, for what it's worth. Nevertheless, the point you seem to be missing - quite aside from all our swaggering - is that the assertion is sufficient, and WP:AUTHOR does not enter into any discussion of an A7 nomination. There is no presumption here that the book is notable, and even publication of a book most definitely does not assure that the author is notable. (For example, there is the matter of self-publishing/vanity publishing.) But the mere assertion means that the article is not a candidate for speedy deletion. If you interpret that differently, there's not much I can do about that except to say I disagree, and I think most admins also disagree. That doesn't make me (or "most admins", as I assert) right, but that is the current community consensus as I see it, and has been for quite a while (some years).
As to the rest, I think your choice of words was provocative in more than one instance. The first time, I merely clarified my position, without making any comment on your motive. That was assuming good faith, and I didn't feel you "got" my intent. If my subsequent edits focused more on you personally (or on your motivation) than was warranted, I apologize. We may disagree, but that doesn't mean I think you're acting in bad faith, and I expressly disclaim any such thinking on my part. And yes, my own words were perhaps provocative as well. I am seeing quite a lot of drive-by CSD nominations; that doesn't mean yours was one of them. It remains my responsibility to evaluate each one individually rather than draw any negative conclusions.  Frank  |  talk  22:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edge Hill University Law and Criminology Society

This has been deleted and merged into Edge Hill University#Edge Hill University Law and Criminology Society. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

J.I.M. Stewart

Thanks for cleaning up this article and adding references. The one sentence that I still am wondering about is this: "His detective novels, which were designed as entertainments, are written in an exuberantly humorous style, with fanciful plots and contrivances, and an abundance of literary allusions."

Do either of the sources footnoted after this sentence specifically confirm "exuberantly", "fanciful" and the descriptive statements used in this sentence? If so, could you perhaps make reference to the supporting work, perhaps something like, "Rosemary Herbert refers to the exuberantly humourous style in which his detective novels were written" etc.

Guinness323 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do. Herbert, for example, writes: "[He is] one of the best known of the farceurs, variously characterised as donnish, civilized, and literate. His detective novels are distinguished by mischievous wit, exuberant fancy and adroit contrivance, with literary allusion a sine qua non." Rosenbaum writes: "M--I--'s major contribution to English mystery fiction is his wonderful tongue-in-cheek propensity for turns of phrase that prove more intriguing and delightful than his contrivances of plot" and refers to "his predilection for the intellectual with the sheer joy of excess" and "a tour de force of words replete with scores of literary allusions".
For myself, I think the paragraph is adequately sourced, but, adopting your suggestion, I've just rewritten the first part of the relevant paragraph, which (I hope) will meet your concerns. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Excellent writing. I think it reads as being more "grounded" in secondary-source fact now. Thank you for taking the time to do this.Guinness323 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in County Durham

Hey, I have just noticed all you good work on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in County Durham. I think it is fairly close to being of featured list quality, if you are interested in nominating it in the near future. There are a few things which will likely be picked up on at WP:FLC which we can try to anticipate and fix before sending it there, so just to let you know I may make a few changes over the coming weeks! All the best, Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I did toy with the idea of FL -- many of the other county SSSI lists are already featured -- but just never got around to it. By all means make changes: if there's anything specific you can point to, I'd be happy to help out. Regards. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


Just to add that I think it does look better after you put all the text together. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Birds WikiProject! As you've probably guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of bird-related topics.

A few features that you may find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any experienced member of the project; we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! MeegsC | Talk 17:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

P G Wodehouse template

I'm delighted with what you have done with the template and the information you have added. It is very much appreciated. Thank you for doing this. All the best. Figaro (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy. I have expanded The Works of P. G. Wodehouse template a bit more. Could you please check it out and see if what I have added to the template is okay. Thanks. Figaro (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your extra work on the template, and for checking it out as I requested, and also for your intention to check things out further. It is very much appreciated.
I have been adding a bit more information to the template, including more dates, and have been putting the television titles into chronological order. I have also put a link to Radio. All the best. Figaro (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

UK IRC community meeting

Just a quick reminder about the IRC meeting at 1800 UTC tonight to bring together the Wikimedia community in the UK to help the growth and success of the UK chapter and community activities. For information see wmuk:Community_IRC_meetings

Many Thanks
Joseph Seddon
User:Seddon

Delivered by WMUKBot (talk) on 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete EDIT International NGO page???

Why did you delete EDIT International NGO page??? EDIT – Development through Interaction is a non-profit organization that works with international partners in 27 contries to improve and expand their services for disadvantaged people.

some news and links about EDIT: http://www.akcakocapostasi.com/haber/472-kultur-ve-sanat-akcakocaya-uluslararasi-tanitim.html http://www.akcakoca.bel.tr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=442:turizm-sektoeruende-calan-cilere-akcakoca-belediyesinden-uecretsiz-ngilizce-kursu&catid=1:guencel-haberler&Itemid=18 http://surdurulebilirtarim.blogspot.com/2009/08/akcakocada-surdurulebilir-tarm-ve-cevre.html http://burasiduzce.com/haber-detay.asp?id=2493&Haberler-HEDEF_TURiZM_KENTi_OLMAK_ http://www.lpghaber.com/Akcakoca-Tanitimda-Ulke-Sinirlarini-Asti--haberi-364689.html http://www.kdzereglipostasi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=118:su-ueruenleri-kooparatif-bakan-rait-tngazdan-kdz-ereli-cin-ab-projesi&catid=38:genel&Itemid=53 http://www.lpghaber.com/Belediye-Personeline-Ingilizce-Egitimi--haberi-370787.html http://www.kdzeregli.bel.tr/pageView.asp?iid=610 http://www.ereglionder.com.tr/haber-21302-POSBIYIK_A_TEMSILCILIK_TEKLIFI http://www.turkmedya.com/V1/Pg/NewsCityDetail/NewID/322510/CityCode//CityName/Lefkosa/CountryID/2/CatID/1/Header/belediye_personeline_ingilizce_egitimi.html http://www.sirineregli.com/haber.php?id=395 http://www.kenthaber.com/karadeniz/zonguldak/eregli/Haber/Genel/Normal/belediye-personeline-ingilizce-egitimi/d46bd081-cb96-43b5-b2ba-9373e77db9cc http://67haber.com/haber.php?hayns=2&yazilim=haberler&osmanli=hdetay&sece=1&aid=6780&titlem=6780 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editint (talk • contribs) 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I tagged it, but I didn't delete it: only an admin can delete pages, and the admin who did so has already explained why on your talk page. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Good job!

Cookies!
good job on the rewrite of Mauk, Georgia jsfouche ☽☾Talk 20:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Thanks! As I was rewriting it, I found that it was a copyvio! I'm just alerting the original editor to our policy. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


hi from halil

I made the article better, Pls. Sir remove it from deletion because this is very important in the Philippines.I will support and make it more encyclopedic, thanks a lot hope you will make it for me.Halil marx07 (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi halil. What you need to do is find references that discuss the group and establish its notability: just because a topic is currently important in the Philippines (or any other country) doesn't mean that it necessarily merits a Wikipedia article. And even if article survives csd, it may still be proposed for deletion -- a lot of similar articles get proposed because they are seen as current news. To avoid this, try to find references (preferably non-Philippines ones, to give a more general view) that show that the group has been discussed widely and is likely to have an enduring interest, not merely a short-lived news interest. Best of luck. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrol rights

Hi Jimmy, thanks for the suggestion about autopatrol rights. I didn't know it existed, to be honest. I certainly don't want to create more work for new page patrollers than I can help, so I've applied as you suggest. Cheers, James. JimmyGuano (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Apparently I've already got Autopatrolled rights (WP:RFP/A). Doesn't that mean that you shouldn't have had to check John Ward (actor) though? (though thanks for doing so, nonetheless) JimmyGuano (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

DeAndre Presley

I have placed the hang on tag to DeAndre Presley and have explained why on the talk page. Please reconsider your tagging of the page as speedily deletable. Whether he is or is not notable, there is certainly the assertion of notability.--TM 20:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Being a finalist for an award is not an assertion of notability. Though American footballers are usually not deemed notability until they have played at least one professional game [[per WP:ATH#American football/Canadian football, if he wins the Walter Payton Award then I'd agree that he merits a page ... but how many runners-up do you see mentioned at Walter Payton Award?. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
It is an assertion of notability. Given that you call them "American footballers", I am assuming your knowledge of the sport is minimal. If you feel strongly, nominate it for AfD and let others decide.--TM 20:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Which bit of [[WP:AGF}} do you not understand? Actually I have been watching American football since the late 1980s: I call it "American" football (as, incidentally, does Wikipedia) because, not being American, I am familiar with at least five other codes of "football". Jimmy Pitt talk 20:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
What part of "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines" do you not understand? Being a finalist for a major award (also known as the Heisman Trophy of FCS) is a credible claim of significance. You may think he is not notable, but that is not speediable claim.--TM 20:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Wikipedia calls them Category:Players of American football, not American footballers, which is why I assumed your knowledge of the sport is minimal. I apologize if I offended you in this respect.--TM 20:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrol rights

Thanks for suggesting the autopatrol rights. I did not know about those. I followed your advice and requested them. --AnnekeBart (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hello Jimmy Pitt! I have replied to your notification. Petrb (talk) 11:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:NuGoth. Thank you. Also, you applied a warning template to an experienced editor's talk page because they removed the inappropriate warning. Please see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Thank you, Alpha Quadrant talk 17:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not an infringement of WP:AGF to csd tag a page (subsequently deleted), or to caution the user about removing that csd tag, and a so-called "experienced" editor who steps in and removes that caution deserves a template. In any case, Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is neither a policy, nor a guideline, merely an essay, with which not everybody agrees: see Wikipedia:Do template the regulars. If I wish to use templates, I shall do so. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that!

You got caught in my editing crossfire. I was trying to undo some other things on that page and commented and undid your edit when I didn't mean to. I am very sorry and ask your forgiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Rider (talk • contribs) 03:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem: thanks for the explanation. regards Jimmy Pitt talk 10:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your edit

This is CLEARLY NONSENSE: I perfectly realize that I am unequal to the task, being bound by my innate limitations. Nonetheless, I feel compelled by some force from within, that I should make a humble contribution for the enrichment of joy of myriads of disciples and devotees of Guru Maharaj who yearn to hear more and more about Him.. — Timneu22 · talk 12:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not nonsense. Nonsense, as defined by Wikipedia, is gibberish. This sentence makes sense, even though it is undoubtedlty non-encyclopedic. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
You are quite wrong. It's defined as Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This is incoherent text with no meaningful content. — Timneu22 · talk 12:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, the deleting admin obviously didn't agree: it wasn't deleted for any of the three reasons you proposed. In fact, the best reason would probably have been copyvio: there was a reference to "in this book", which, in context, suggested that the whole thing was taken from a book or pamphlet of some sort, but I couldn't find a likely candidate, so couldn't tag it. Anyway, good riddance to it! Jimmy Pitt talk 13:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
There really needs to be a reason to get rid of such awful articles. Nothing was encyclopedic and we all can see that. It was probably just as much a stretch to delete it under G11 (I guess it was promotional but it was too hard to make sense of it) as it was to delete under patent nonsense. — Timneu22 · talk 13:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Progessive realism

Hello. I saw you marked this page for speedy. I agree with it as the page currently stands. I just wanted to give you a heads up that after researching the topic, it seems notable enough to warrent an article. As written though, it's a hoax. Just giving you a heads up if you see a recreated article.--v/r - TP 14:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Otto Kohn

Jimmy, I have updated the article on Otto Kohn, I guess this should stay in Wikipedia. I hope this is OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeregrinusX (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an improvement, certainly, and good enough, I think, to avoid speedy deletion. But if you want to be sure that someone else doesn't come along and propose the article for deletion, it would be good to find some more references if you can. Regards Jimmy Pitt talk 18:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thank you, will try :-) --PeregrinusX (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Catholic University of Korea

An attempt was made to move this page improperly with a cut and paste. An edit you made redirected to this new page. Please check the edit history in the future. Ng.j (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. As I recall, all I did was to redirect a new page, entitled something like "Catholic university of Korea" (with a lower case "u"), to the existing article, Catholic University of Korea. I had nothing to do with any cut-and-paste move. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the great work at Digital continuity! --Ronz (talk) 04:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE do not delete my article

i have permission from christian beccone to make this article and he is a highly scouted baseball player so please do not delete the article on him this will help other scouts/coachs learn about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srbaseball (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If the subject of the article is deemed to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, it won't be deleted. Frankly, however, I think you will have a hard time making the case for an article about a 15-year-old baseball prospect when, as you say, the purpose of the article is to raise interest in him among the scouting fraternity: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the message I'm sure I will be able to comply with all Wikipedia Rules and I hope to help Wikipedia in every way I can. Magister Scienta (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Best of luck. You'll find it can be a somewhat process-obsessed place at times, but don't get disheartened. If you need help, just ask. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Jimmy Pitt. You have new messages at DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered's talk page.
Message added 21:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: The Walrus Was Paul

Hi, I definitely agree on the lack of notability. But perhaps a PROD is better suited. Thanks for clearing that up. I just joined the RCP recently so I'm still learning. I mis-tag things here and there. And I appreciate the note on my talk page. Most just delete the tag w/o notice. Cheers and happy holidays! Bped1985 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I often delete the tag and just explain why in the edit summary, but that's only because experienced editors should know better. As a relative newcomer, you deserve to know why the tag was reverted so you can learn. And I'm glad to see that you took it in the right spirit; some don't! If you want any help or advice, feel free to drop me a note here. And seasons greetings to you also. regards Jimmy Pitt talk 10:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

KnowledgeShare

Well, I'm a new user of Wikipedia and need atleast a week's time to put all content related to KnowledgeShare on the page. I should hopefully be able to put all content by 28th December 2010. So please do not delete the page KnowledgeShare until I upload the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahesh Knowledge (talk • contribs) 11:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As I explained on the article talk page, if the only source of information is the company's yet-to-be-created website, the article will not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. From your username, I am guessing that you may have some connection with the company (my apologies if I am wrong), in which case you should also read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy,

Thank you for the inputs. I shall review the COI. Yes, I own the company KnowledgeShare and i'm new to uploading content on Wikipedia. I request some time to upload the content on the KnowledgeShare page. I hope the page will not be deleted by then. I should hopefully put all the content by 28th december 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahesh Knowledge (talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jimmy,

Can you explain what you don't like about my entry The Sladmore Gallery. I've kept it very factual not what i would describe as advertising at all, maybe i was too brief! I certainly planned to add more but wasn't ready too as i did not have confirmed information.

Kind Regards

Gary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyskipton (talk • contribs) 12:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gary. On reflection, I think I was unduly influenced by the tone and by the previous creation of the page: that definitely was spammy and was deleted accordingly. I've removed the csd tag from the page, to give you chance to improve it. What you need to do -- and quickly, before some equally zealous editor tags it again! -- is put in some references to establish the gallery's notability. Also, the sentence about "exhibitors have included" Rodin et al looks like a strained attempt to establish notability by association: Rodin, Maillol and the others were all dead long before the gallery was opened, so while works by them may have been exhibited, it's slightly misleading to describe them as "exhibitors". regards Jimmy Pitt talk 13:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Some Mistaken Views of Economists

It is an article that alread publisched in Thailand. Please put it in Wiki for hearing public opinion. And please help him to compleate an article. Rojer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.176.95 (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

See my response on the article's talk page. It's an essay, original research, and doesn't maintain a neutral point of view. Wikipedia -- not "Wiki", please -- is an encyclopedia, not a forum for seeking public opinion. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It is an opinion that will be usefull in science. And it need to edit, but it is short time and near long Holiday. If I can lobby, I'd like to do. And if you can help, please to do so. Thank you. Rojer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.176.95 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion, but you are welcome to make the case for keeping the article at the deletion discussion page. Jimmy Pitt talk 16:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

One for All (band)

Please remove the speedy deletion tag that you put on One for All (band). It is a well referenced article about a notable group.BassHistory (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Done! You're quite right. My apologies. And thanks for going the right way about it -- so many editors just remove the tag themselves that it's a pleasure to deal with someone who doesn't. regards. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I should have put the references in first but I slipped and hit the "save page" button instead of "show preview." Anyway, your pretty fast on the draw.BassHistory (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. If I could ask a small favor: Would you please check out an article which I have marked for speedy deletion? All published sources say this concept is non-existant, as is made clear with the citations. Please delete if you see fit. Thanks for your time,
BassHistory (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I know very little about musical theory, but it doesn't seem to me that it's reasonable to describe the article as vandalism. Unless I misread the argument, it's not that this interval doesn't exist, rather that the term used to describe it is a disputed one. I'd be inclined to let the article stand but leave the technical description of the interval for the relevant section of the Semitone article and merely present both sides of the terminological debate in this article. As to sources, the Sembos book looks like a reliable source, the Brian Blood article less so (he's a musician but not, as it seems, a musicologist). If I were editing the article, I'd leave "non-standard" in the opening sentence but remove "widely unaccepted", which reads like POV-pushing, as does "established main-stream" (unless it can be shown that Sembos is less established and less "main-stream" than the others: I can't judge that). I hope that helps. regards Jimmy Pitt talk 15:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
First, thanks for taking the time to check it out. I can understand that at first glance it may seem like there is a controversy. I have a formal background in music theory. The Sembos book is self-published, and he is not a respected expert in anything, following WP:SPS. And there is no terminological debate among actual scholars (Kostka and Payne is the major text used by universities on this subject. They are scholarly, and if there was any debate, they would certainly mention it.). The apparent debate is among bloggers, who are confused because Wikipedia doesn't agree with their textbooks... As an analogy, let's say I found a self-published book that said cats and dogs actually belong to the same species. Can I put that in the cat article on Wikipedia? Hey, I have a source for it...
Going from the published sources, I think the only appropriate mention of "diminished unison" would be in the "augmented unison" section of "semitone", simply explaining that there is no such thing. BassHistory (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Given what you say, I can see why you'd regard it as vandalism, but an admin, looking at the page history, would, I think, be more inclined to see it (as, in my ignorance, I did!) as a content dispute and decline the speedy. You could, of course, adopt the course of action implied by your last comment, be bold and redirect to Semitone#Augmented unison: we don't usually have two articles on what is, essentially, the same subject. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
"Vandalism" isn't the best way to put it, as I believe the article was created in good faith, only with unacceptable sources. Thanks for the advice.BassHistory (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Peace Dove - Season's Greetings

I have no problem with the citation top hat and I appreciate wikilinking for me I had that in mind. I have been through some bruising ham handedness from highly decorated folks who reversed themselves on appeal and that stuff is just, imho, a big wast of time when it is more productive to work on content. Thanks agains for constructive rather than destructive patrolling.Wikidgood (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


Thank you. And Seasons Greetings to you also. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

JW

I'm not sure what "skype highlighting" is, but it sure seemed like vandalism. Please be more careful. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to remove the skype highlighting. Seems like my edit conflicted with something else. Please assume good faith and don't fling accusations of vandalism about unnecessarily. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like you have a Skype plugin enabled on your browser, which automatically applies formatting to what it recognises as phone numbers. The formatting doesn't affect what is seen by users who do not have the plugin. If you do not want to see the Skype highlighting, you can disable the browser plugin on your system.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
You're mistaken. I have never used skype. And the skype highlighting wasn't added by me; I was actually removing it from pages that are listed via one of the filters. In fact, if either you or the other user had bothered to check the [diff] of my edit, you would have seen that the only change I made was to remove the skype highlighting. AuthorityTam needs to learn something about WP:AGF and desist from unfounded allegations of "vandalism", and you need to avoid jumping to conclusions. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Racquetball at the 2009 World Games

Why remove the wikilinks from the players' names on the Racquetball at the 2009 World Games - Single Men page? Isn't it a good thing to have links from the players' names to their wiki pages - where they exist? Or is that contrary to some wikipedia policy? Trb333 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

please

sir please dont delete the page lissaze it is related to lissaze.com a company of clothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egassil (talk • contribs) 09:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to do with me this time. I tagged the page for deletion in mid-December and it was deleted -- but not by me: only an administrator can actually delete the page. It looks as if you recreated it, somebody else tagged it, and it was deleted again. Whoever tagged it this time was at fault in not leaving a notice on your talk page, which is presumably why you thought I was responsible. Before you attempt to recreate the page again (assuming you wish to), I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's notability requirements. Both times it's been deleted, the reason was that the company doesn't appear to meet WP's notability guideline. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sai Baba Mandir

Dear , You have deleted some topic of Sai Baba Mandir. But will you check this temple is avialable in Khudala,Falna.

and The temple is not small and that is very holy temple.

so kindly do the needful as your condition otherwise replying me.

thanks & regards

Jayesh nagar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayesh Nagar (talk • contribs) 09:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the speedy deletion of the page today, I had nothing to do with it. Another user requested speedy deletion of the page and an admin deleted it. I can't do anything about that, as I'm not an admin: you need to contact the deleting admin, User:TomStar81 -- Jimmy Pitt talk 15:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Northumbrian Water Group

Under 'Controversy' you have seen fit to remove reference to Sir Derek Wanless' ousting from NatWest, albeit this is soundly referenced with a BBC article. Furthermore, you have removed the link to a 'You Tube' clip from a televised Treasury Select Committee Meeting into the Northern Rock crisis. A meeting that was broadcast live on Sky TV and BBC TV in October 2007.

Both Northern Rock and Northumbrian Water Group are based in Newcastle, hence, the career history of Sir Derek was/is seen as highly controversial. Wiki readers were/are able to read both the BBC article, and clip of the televised Treasury Select Meeting, and make their own judgement on the pertinence of this factual information to Sir Derek's present role.

Your amendments in 'sanitising' this article are deemed inappropriate, and I would respectfully ask that you ruminate further over your action, and please undo the deleted information Hethinksthereforeheis (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not wait until I've finished my overhaul of the article before expressing your opinion and accusing me of "sanitising" the article? What happened at Northern Rock and Natwest belongs in articles about those companies and in the existing article on Derek Wanless; it does not need to be repeated here. And you are clearly ill-informed about Northumbrian Water (with which, let me hasten to assure you, I have no connection beyond that of a metered customer): it is not, as you claim, based in Newcastle; its head office and registered address is at Northumbria House, Pity Me, Durham. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
You should not be so hypersensitive to the disparate views of others. I did not appreciate that your 'overhaul' was a work-in-progress.
Surely, if it is deemed pertinent to mention Sir Derek as Chairman, then I agree with the article's original editor, it is also pertinent to mention his controversial career background. Given the parlous state of the UK's finances, to which the banking crisis was unarguably a major factor, it would be disingenuous to the article not to cross reference this information.
I bow to your sage advice on the geographical centre of Northumbrian Water Group. I see that it is indeed a short cycle ride away in Durham ! Please, do or undo as you wish with your article editing. I was merely tendering a view for the pot.
Thank you for responding. (Hethinksthereforeheis (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC))
I was not being "hypersensitive": you really should take some lessons in tact and diplomacy! I am happy to take on board the views of editors who approach the matter in a reasonable manner. All you had to do is ask "why did you remove . . ." and I would have readily explained. But I do not appreciate being hectored, accused of "sensitising" the article and told that my edits "are deemed inappropriate", all by someone whose total contribution to wikipedia is represented by four edits, all to this talk page. And, on the same subject, the addition of the "Controversy" section was made by an editor whose contributions to wikipedia amount to just one edit: while all editors are regarded as equal, someone whose experience is confined to just one edit is unlikely to have much idea about WP's policies and practices and is certainly not someone whose views should determine the structure or content of an article on one of the UK's largest companies.
That said, I'm in two minds about the material on Wanless's controversial background, and perhaps you could help here. At the moment, I'm not persuaded that the material is directly relevant to an article on Northumbrian Water. This article is not about Wanless or Northern Rock or the British banking crisis, so we should avoid giving undue weight to something that is not directly concerned with NWG; the material is all available in the article on Wanless (to which I added a link from the NWG article yesterday), so it's not as if the information is being hidden, and my view is that this particular article should merely state his previous background, not repeat what is readily available in another article. I would readily change my view if it could be shown (via reliable sources) that his fitness to be chairman of NWG has been questioned because of his background; in that case, it does become relevant to this article. If you are able to find reliable sources dealing with this, you can either add them to the article yourself or -- if you prefer not to do that -- let me know and I can add them when I get to that part of the article . . . which is not going to be for a few days: at present I'm trying to deal with the operations of the two water supply divisions, which is taking rather longer than I'd expected. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Further to the above, I have just come across this, which is enough to justify some mention of his past in the NWG article. I don't think it merits the sensationalist "Controversy" heading, but it certainly deserves a mention. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear Jimmy - Many thanks for continuing this post, hopefully, we are gradually clearing the bad air !
I agree, I would not cut the mustard in the Diplomatic Corps. - but is that altogether a bad thing ? Yes, I tend to say what I believe, in preference to what I suspect people want to hear. In that regard, perhaps I do need lessons in diplomacy, although I will eschew your well intentioned offer. Still on this topic of diplomacy, the Telegraph carried an interesting article recently on the release of convicted mass murderer Megrahi. They (the Telegraph) had access to Wikileak documents which provided conclusive proof that Megrahi's release was indeed a consequence of diplomatic manoeuvers between Britain and Libya. British diplomacy which had nothing to do with veracity and justice, rather the desire to secure unruffled trade relations with Libya. The subsequent views expressed by relatives of Pan Am 103 passengers might also be described as lacking tact and diplomacy, but I know whose camp I am in ! I am too old to change now, so I will continue with a straight bat if you don't mind, and endeavour to mitigate upset along the way.
You go on to ridicule the paucity of my Wikipedia contributions. Again you are right, and by implication you appear to favour width over quality ? I am an avid reader of Wikipedia, and generally I find that it is exceptionally well edited. However, were I to produce articles, I would certainly take umbrage if someone came along and removed salient content without first trying to resolve an issue through intelligent debate. Let us agree to disagree on that one ! I had to open up a 'user name' simply to convey my views.
As for your alignment of 'controversy' with 'sensationalism', again we are in different minds. Sensationalism and controversy are not the semantic nuance you imply. Surely, controversy merely describes a less emotive situation where there are strongly opposing views on a public issue ? Wanless was judged by the quasi court of the Commons Treasury Select Committee to be profoundly guilty of reckless and imprudent mismanagement of risk at Northern Rock Bank, a situation which led to taxpayer funding that would swamp the GDP of many smaller nations. Yet, you struggle to find the polemic nature of Wanless' career history relevant to his Chairmanship of NWG ? To reiterate, Wanless was ousted from NatWest in 1999 for failure, and he was ousted again from Northern Rock for failure in 2007. Individuals must judge for themselves whether that information is relevant to his role at Northumbrian Water, although they should not be denied the facts on which to base that judgment.
Jimmy - thank you for the linked 'Accountancy Age' article - I read it with great interest !
So, you are now referring me to article headed up 'Shareholders Rocked by Water Chief's Past'. So, it appears that NWG came under fire for disingenuously omitting reference to Wanless' past life at Northern Rock. Precisely ! That information is relevant to customers and investors alike, and should not be hidden from sight. You appear to be moving from the defence to the prosecution - perhaps I have not been labouring in vain after all!
When you continue your work on the NWG article it would be pertinent to link this Accountancy Age article under the 'Controversy' heading. I think we have now thrashed this matter to death, although I am happy to continue the exchanges if you feel there is more mileage to be gained. Hethinksthereforeheis (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work on the older musicals and plays today. These articles don't get enough attention. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you kindly leave the stub tag in the articles if they lack a plot summary? Without a plot summary, it's not much of an article. Nice clean-up work. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with your definition of a stub (and more to the point, neither does AWB, which I was using :P), though I do agree about the need for plot summaries. But the stub tag is, in any case, too generic -- it languishes on an article without giving any indication what's needed. A better idea, I feel, though a bit more work, is to add the plot summary section header, then mark it with {{expand section}}, or {{empty section}}: that has the merit of highlighting just where the article is deficient. But for the moment, it's academic, at least where I'm concerned: I can only manage so much cleaning-up, before I feel the urge to get back to writing new articles, or expanding existing ones, which is what I'm doing again. But rest easy -- my articles WILL have a plot summary! Regards Jimmy Pitt talk 21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Merveilleuses is a great start. Can you indicate in which Act the songs were sung? Also, are you sure that it was a musical rather than an operetta or comic opera? They are governed by two different projects: WP:OPERA and WP:MUSICALS that have different style guidelines and are categorized separately. You call it a musical, but the reviews say comic opera, and Hugo Felix's bio says he wrote operettas. You might be better off following their guidelines, and if so, lets put the scene headings back in, as Opera project uses them, while the Musicals project does not. However, if the libretto describes itself as a musical play, then I think you have it categorized correctly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything on which songs were sung in which acts: that list is compiled from about three different reviews, so I doubt that it's even complete, and though a few songs can definitely be assigned to a particular act -- "How I Took the Redoubt", "I'm Sorry" and "It Might Have Been", for example, are all in Act I -- most can't.
As for the category, I think the Times's reviewer was being just a trifle condescending, bestowing what he obviously saw as the superior title of "comic opera" on the work. From the lengthier descriptions that I haven't quoted, it seems that at least two of the characters, the two police agents, were played by noted comedians -- Fred Kaye and Fred Emney -- not singer-actors, and the character of Églé was played by a dancer, from all of which I have the impression that it was closer to a musical than an opera. But I'm not sure: when it was performed in Scotland (I'm in the middle of adding that bit!), it was described in the same paper on different dates as a "comedy opera" and a "musical play", but even when it was described as a comedy opera, a few lines later it was being described as an "entertaining play of the light comedy class". All of which leaves me confused but tending to favour sticking with "musical play". Jimmy Pitt talk 21:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to add to the above, I started to draft the plot summary by scene, but nothing in the sources gives any indication what actually happens in Act II sc 1. So I'm afraid I chickened out and reverted to merely listing the scenes, then describing the plot in general terms, which is how it came to be structured the way it is. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're doing a great job. More info always turns up over time. There is definitely some grey area between musicals and operettas. Often operettas did have comedy and dance roles. The fact that it was in three acts and that the composer was Felix are strong indications that it was an "operetta". British musicals were generally two acts, while the operettas usually followed a three-act structure. You might check with User:Voceditenore, who seems to have a pretty good eye for this question. As for Act II, scene i, often these operettas/musicals had a sort of "fashion show" scene, in which everyone would go to some fancy place and strut around in the newest fashions by Lucille or other designers. If that is what this is, then there wouldn't be much to say about it: "Everyone goes to the stock exchange looking for someone else, but they all fail to find the person among the haughty/jolly frenzy that ensues". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits last night were not helpful. When I came to save the results of about two hours' worth of additional research and writing (which had been interrupted while I responded to your queries here), I encountered a huge edit conflict that, that late at night, I had neither the time nor the energy to resolve. I know the "under construction" tag doesn't prohibit other editors from editing the page, but a note about what you were planning to do would have saved me a lot of angst. If you really want other people to edit these articles, you need to lay off this aggressive "ownership" attitude. I've no objection to your editing the article--that is, after all, what WP is all about--but you could have waited until I'd finished. As it is, I lost my work and no longer feel motivated to have anything more to do with this area. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

List of songs with lyrics by P. G. Wodehouse

I see you have a passing interest in Wodehouse - I have a unverified list of songs which was originally added directly to Category:Songs with lyrics by P. G. Wodehouse that I am working through. I trust the list but have songs appearing in musicals which I cannot verify ie songs that were probably dropped/added during the production. Do you have/know of any sources I could use for references? Also, any help you can give would be appreciated. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talkpage, no need to apologise, we are all volunteers. I have about 200 songs left which I cannot verify on the internet, some I suspect were added/removed from productions, some productions I cannot verify what musical numbers were included, and none of them I can verify who the composer was. If you have books then you have the references and the omissions, (the basic list is on the talkpage), but I can email/post to a sandbox what I have left. Having gone this far with the list, seems silly not to try and make it a complete list. --Richhoncho (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The apology was for seemingly ignoring you, but, as you say, we're all volunteers. Anyway, I'll have a look at the list on the talk page -- I should be able to provide references for a good many of them. Jimmy Pitt talk 16:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CFD

See the CFD here. "Plays" is an acceptable parent category to musicals and other stage or theatrical works. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The CFD concerned the use of the term "stage works" and I accepted the consensus on that, but the works categorised under "Musicals by P G Wodehouse" are revues and musical comedies for which he wrote lyrics: to describe them as "plays by " is inaccurate. There is no more reason to categorise these as "plays" than there is for the likes of Tim Rice, Stephen Sondheim and other well-known lyricists, none of whose works are categorised as "plays". Indeed, I haven't found any other works within the scope of WP:WikiProject Musical Theatre that are categorised as "plays", so I can see no reason why Wodehouse should be treated differently from other lyricists. There are Wodehouse works that do fall into the category "plays by " (usually adapted from his own novels or from plays by foreign authors), but to conflate those with his work as a lyricist is misleading. There is a category for "Works by PGW", which already includes "novels by ", "short stories by" and others; there is no reason why it can't also contain "plays by " and "musicals by ", not as parent and child but as sibling categories. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks like an attempt to by-pass the CFD, which is inappropriate, IMO. For now, until resolved by a future CFD, it can be in both categories, but it would be inappropriate to completely empty out the name that was selected by CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Bullshit. The CFD did not -- and would not anyway have been the appropriate forum -- decide that "musicals" are "plays". And to treat a work in which a lyricist provides lyrics to a few songs as a "play by ---" shows a total lack of understanding of the difference between a lyricist and a dramatist. But what the fuck. You do what you want. I can't be bothered with this crap any more. There's a good reason why Wikimedia bemoans the decline in long-term content editors. It's fucking nonsense such as this. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Best wishes, and good luck. --The Σ talkcontribs 19:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
You welcomed me back in 2010 when I joined Wikipedia and you were one of the first editors I had a conversation with on an article talk page. Best wishes from me too. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimmy_Pitt/Archive_2&oldid=1136175673"