User talk:Ju66l3r/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 →

Please notify authors of speedy deletion nominations

Hello. Thank you for your efforts to nominate inappropriate articles for speedy deletion. The general custom when nominating an article for speedy deletion is to notify the creator of the article. The speedy deletion template actually includes boilerplate text you can use to notify the article's creator, or packages such as Twinkle do that automatically for you. Not doing so is somewhat discourteous and can cause feelings of bad will as in the case of your tagging of Ball me blazer. That being said, your contributions are appreciated. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion tag on Airbag

I don't appreciate your removing the third opinion tag from the page. Next time please check with the person who put it there (me) to make sure the issue is resolved. Courtesy. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 00:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Deleted article

That's absolutely fine, no worries. I've deleted it again. Thanks for letting me know. Happy editing! :-) Lradrama 08:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion tag on my page

Hello,

Recenty you put a deletion tag on my artcile Reasoft pdf printer. However, I don't really think that any other artciles such as NovaPDF or PDFCreator can be considered NOTICEABLE. Just don't see the difference. Please explain me what's wrong with my artcile and how can I 'repair' it :) --Vein eater (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I marked for article for deletion discussion because I do not feel it meets the notability guidelines, particularly the need for secondary sources and awards that make it worth noting. The purpose of the discussion is so that the community can discuss the article because I may be wrong to think it needs to be deleted. Please also see information on product notability where the company is more likely to be notable and not its component products unless the product is truly exceptional. I do not agree that those articles meet the criteria actually, but I saw your article first. I will probably put one or both of those other articles up for deletion discussion as well. ju66l3r (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedily deletion of my entry

Hi there, You recently put a speedily deletion tag on my entry on wheredo-i and I was wondering whether you could please let me know what is wrong with the entry and how I the entry should appear so this doesn't happen again. Also,how come I was not notified by e-mail that you put this tag on my entry? Looking forward to your reply. Jchatt (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)3rd June 2008

The entry did not comply with the website notability guidelines. You could look at other website entries in Wikipedia to try and get a gauge for what websites fit the notability guidelines. Please keep in mind that just because another page exists, however, that alone does not mean it meets the guidelines either. It's possible it also needs to be deleted as well. As for being notified, I don't know if it's possible or not to be notified by e-mail when a warning/message has been put on your talk page, but when your page has been suggested for deletion, it is common courtesy for people to leave a message on your talk page. The next time you view a Wikipedia page while logged into your account after someone leaves you a message, you will get a notice at the top of that page to let you know you have a new message. I left you a message on your talk page about the speedy deletion, I'm sorry if you did not see it in time. ju66l3r (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Commis chef

I just saw you added back a training period for a commis chef under the chef article. These years vary by establishment and are not universal which is why I originally removed that information. It could be reworded to be less finite if it relates to a specific culture like that of France or England but we would need a proper source, where are you sourcing this info. from?--Chef Tanner (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I was only copying that information from something someone added to a new article at Commis Chef (revision prior to merge). I felt that was excessive given the relative size of the Chef article and the lack of context to the new article. I merged the two articles together by simply copying the text into the Chef article and redirecting the other article. You'll have to ask Tuzapicabit about any technical problems you have with the text. If it were me, I would just edit it as you feel is necessary by being bold. ju66l3r (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw what you did. I had only started the article and was about to continue expanding it with citations etc, since my previous entry had been removed from the main article on the grounds that it was too in-depth.
I'm happy to leave it where it is however. Not sure whether Commis Chef deserves its own page.
As for the training procedure as mention above, this is not dictated by establishment, but by National Catering authorities within the industry- in the UK and Ireland at least (which is what I was basing it on) - European countries have a similar structure, although perhaps in a separate article, someone in the know could expand it wih the US training structure etc.
For the time being I'll leave it, but I would imagine given the many people interested in becoming chefs would be interested enough to read about it, so perhaps a page is warranted. (And for all the people that constantly ask me 'what's a commiss chef?'). I'll leave it in your (more experienced) hands.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. Usually when articles are split from a large article for matters of more in-depth discussion, the original article is annotated with the {{main}} template which puts a "Main article: Article Link" text under the sub-heading. I didn't see that and assumed that you started the Commis Chef page without realizing that the subject was also being addressed on the Chef article page. I see now that you had just linked the article name as part of the inline text. While the article splitting guidelines are only a suggestion, I don't feel like the Commis Chef sub-section as it stands now is over-written or too much detail for an article on Chefs and the total Chef article size is still not very large (I think the other titles should be in more detail to match the Commis Chef section as it stands now, rather than the other way around). As this article grows, I could see having separate pages for each chef title potentially, but as was done earlier with Sous Chef (according to the talk page discussion), I think it's fine to have merged the two articles and anyone searching for Commis Chef will be redirected to the Chef page with the full Commis Chef section. As for content discussion as to what's appropriate to say about Commis Chef training, etc., I'm sorry, but I'll have to leave that to you all to discuss on the article's talk page. I only have a CIA-trained brother; I'm just glad to know the difference between an egg timer and a waffle iron. ju66l3r (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

mKR, mKE deletion

The mKR & mKE deletion stuff is identical. Can I just post on mKR, and you assume everything applies equally to mKE? Rhmccullough (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Other than the above question, is it considered "proper" for us to discuss issues on your talk page? That is, should I make an effort to post all talk to the mKR deletion page? Rhmccullough (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I know that the deletion is going to be similar, but it would be best if you say what you would like on both AfD pages. Sometimes people do not realize that both articles are up for discussion. I'll make an effort on both pages to put a "see related AfD discussion" so that if you don't cross-post something it may still be noticed by anyone reading it. As for where to discuss things, here on my talk page is fine for questions like these, such as "what's the best way to do things" but if you have comments or questions about the deletion itself such as comments on notability of the article subject matter or any conflict of interest issues, then it is much better to put them on the AfD discussion pages instead where everyone involved in the deletion discussion will read them (most people won't read any comments like that here). Hope that helps. Feel free to ask me anything else if I can help. ju66l3r (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Hello Ju66l3r, you are invited to participate in WikiProject Geocaching, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Geocaching and similar topics such as Letterboxing. If you would like to join, please visit the members page. Thank you, ~~~~

MobileSnail 20:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merging Category:Business process outsourcing companies to Category:Outsourcing companies

Hi, Ju66l3r. There is a discussion concerning a proposed merging Category:Business process outsourcing companies to Category:Outsourcing companies. Beagel (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)