User talk:JulesH/Archive Sep 2007

Species integration nominated for deletion

As someone who has commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Banned users

Contributions of banned users can be removed on sight by anyone for any reason. Removed. Not stricken, not explained, just removed. Qaka, and Iianq, are current incarnations of User:Instantnood who has a three year history of edit warring and banning. There is no reason to put up with him or re-prove every instance of every sockpuppet he creates by the dozens. SchmuckyTheCat

Removing the text makes my contributions, which refer to these earlier combinations, nonsensical. I also suggest it is necessary to prove that he is a sockpuppet before removing his posts. Take it WP:RFCU and/or WP:SSP and then when the new user is banned, remove the comment. Not before, because right now I see no evidence that you are correct. And the contributions I see in those AFDs are entirely reasonable. JulesH 21:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to restate a valid argument in your own comment, but don't re-post material for banned users. SchmuckyTheCat

Dissociative identity disorder

As someone who has been active on the talk pages of this article, this is a request to please have a look at Talk:Dissociative_identity_disorder/ArticleSandbox. This sandbox represents an attempt to format the article as per the medical template and to retain an NPOV stance. After a period of discussion in the main article talk page and subsequent editing on the sandbox article, I would hope to copy the sandbox version over to the actual article. --CloudSurfer 19:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Talk:Dissociative identity disorder

Hi JulesH, thank you for the input into the discussion page of Talk:Dissociative identity disorder. Just contacting you about the first sentence in your comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADissociative_identity_disorder&diff=148007130&oldid=148005122

"Question: which policy do you believe prevents the removal of sourced information?" Was this a mis-type and did you really mean to write "unsourced information" in the first sentence, instead? If it was not a mis-type, then I will try and answer the question. Thanks, --Standardname 17:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JulesH, the only reason for asking for clarification is because the question was raised in a discussion, and it wasn't clear who should respond to it. Would appreciate clarification. Thanks. --Standardname 22:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JulesH, recently, I realised new threads added to article discussion pages should append to the bottom, which automatically happens when using the '+' button, as old comments at the top get archived. So, I'm moving a recent thread I started in Dissociative identity disorder - which contains your comment - to the correct position, where I should have posted it originally. --Standardname 18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thematic motifs of Lost

User:Coredesat has put the article Thematic motifs of Lost and it's history here. I have asked that he move the discussion and its history here. I think the next step is to open a discussion regarding how and if we can bring this article to the point of recreation. I am considering whether it would be good to open a RfC about this article. You're invited to help improve this article. Ursasapien (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

why did you close this?

Back at [1] I failed to understand the form and my reason was in the wrong place, why wans't i given 24 hours to respond to the request for a reason? Was it too much to go back into the history to see that I had already proposed it for deletion, that seems like AGF to me? BTW, the reason was wp:not#stats Pdbailey 16:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, can you help me then get it listed correctly on today's proposed deletions? I don't think it's on there right. Pdbailey 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JulesH. I saw you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest airlines as keep (in fact the result is speedy keep for the nominator gave no reason). I find no problem with the result (albeit I think you should have reminded the nominator), but such bold closure isn't encouraged. According to speedy keep guideline, "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" instead." Thus I say here to remind you to be careful when closing AfD and remember to follow WP:DPR#NAC. Best regards. @pple 04:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Gallery of coats of arms of English counties

Hello JulesH. I'd like to ask you to revisit and consider modifying your stated stance. Your stance, at the moment, encourages keeping the article based on restoration of the images. Restoration of the images is not possible as this violates Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and our policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The question on this AfD is not whether to restore the images; they can not be. The question is should this article remain given that 80% of its images are gone. It is supposed to be a gallery of such images, yet can only display 20% of them; a completely hamstrung article. Thank you for your consideration, --Durin 12:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]