User talk:The JPS/archive18/archive3

The below discussions are preserved as an archive of my talk page, because tak page blanking is frowned upon. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page by anyone other than me.

---

I always welcome polite, constructive criticism and comments. New posts to the bottom, please.

If you're a vandal, do yourself some justice and put some thought into your insults. Simple obscenities show a simple mind.

Archives
2005 Jan-10 May 2006

Images

What does tagging mean? Is there an allowance for a personal page? Thanks for your help, Graham GWP 22:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

ps

I have been using some of the images for my myspace account, in case you were wondering. Its www.myspace.com/londongraham. And my apologies for my part in our disagreement of a few weeks ago, my manners deserted me. GWP 22:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

De-proded

You may want to know that the prod tag you put up in Paul Joseph Watson was recently de-proded by an editor. [1]--Jersey Devil 04:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion stuff...

Fuck you 139.168.189.5 09:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy your block. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Striver is Alex Jones?

I noticed you placed a tag on Talk:Alex Jones (radio) indicating that Alex Jones himself edits under the account User:Striver. How do you know this? --mtz206 11:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

His introduction on his User page says he is Alex Jones and the fact that he edits articles about Alex Jones' webhost and radio show guest and that fact that someone has just advertised Alex Jone's web host's AFD on his talk page. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, his User page states "I am a Alex Jones loving Human male..." (emphasis added). He loves Alex Jones, but makes no indication he is AJ. I could heavily edit Barry Manilow-related articled, but that doesn't make me Mr. Manilow. I'm removing the tag at Talk:Alex Jones (radio). --mtz206 12:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, in that case I do apologise. My honest mistake. Thanks for checking. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem my friend, a honest and good faith misstake, could happen to anyone. Have a good day/nigh! --Striver 13:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your offer. Incidentally, your (apparent) place of work and user ID suggest you may be one particular academic of my acquaintance in meatspace. It's only faintly possible but if so, we met a few weeks ago. Hi! Matthew Platts 12:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm curious. I used to have more details on my user page about my place of work, but info was becoming abused by vandals I'd encountered... The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh. If you don't recognise me immediately then you're not who I think you are. But that's fair enough. Actually, there is something I'd like to recruit you for. Any advice on how I can get rounded enough to become an admin? Matthew Platts 12:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, if you're going from two of my initials, there is someone else in my department who goes under that name. As for admin status: well, you need to prove you have a good knowledge of policy and are civil and mature. A few regulars have standards: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards. My nomination just arrived from someone -- I didn't ask for it. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Helpful as always. Greet your colleague from me! Matthew Platts 10:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Making It Right

I'm just wondering how come why did you delete the Making It Right band article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.62.194 (talk • contribs)

Hi. The article failed to assert notability: see WP:MUSIC. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Captain Jackson

Why did you deleted the Captain Jackson article? I am complaining not because I wrote the article, but because he's a great person with sigificance. It's not a vanity(a1) nor meaningless(g1), and it has content(a3) Firstly, I am a person from Hong Kong, and Captain Jackson is a person from Michigan. I am not his relative, nor friend, nor fan. Therefore, it can't be a vanity. I just randomly found out about him, and I think he's great. Base on my research, he's NOT a man with no sigificance!!! The Real-life superhero article has already said that the Detroit Free Press has reported him (and I believe there are more). Do you know what he has done to the Jackson city? In this world full of evil, someone is the coming out and make a differece. Isn't he a person that we should show some respect to? If the Monkeyman superhero hoax article is not deleted, this should not be deleted.

I can see no trace of a3 in the article, and can you explain where the g1 is? Arthur 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The article failed to assert notability: see WP:BIO. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

When I do the google test, there are 29,600 results of Captain Jackson.

Surely, he's newsworthy check this site

What more do you need me to prove?

Also, in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, doesn't it say that "it would also be considerate to notify the original author — remember, everyone was new once."

I just register today~ lol

Arthur 15:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Remember that two people decided the article was inappropriate: one to nominate; the other to delete. If I recall correctly, the article did not meet our style or formatting guidelines. While that is not grounds for deletion in itself, it's not a good for the subject's credibility. You are correct that it is considerate to notify the editor; I sometimes do that, depending upon how busy I am at the time. Our guidelines are at WP:BIO. As far as I see, 'Captain Jack' fails to satisfy the requirements. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, welcome :} The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm welcome~ lol

By the way, is "Captain Jackson", not "Captain Jack"

I did do some editting in wikipedia before

A few weeks ago, my schoolmates told me that wikipedia can be editted by anyone.

We added information to our school's article, but was later deleted because of vanity~ lol

Recently, I've been researching about the real-life superheroes

I started my research at wikipedia and followed the external links

I found out about Captain Jackson in my research, and thought "wow! this person is so great. How come there isn't a wikipedia article about him yet?"

Only registered user can start a new page, so I signed up

In fact, I want to write articles about all the real-life superheroes

I think it's hard now because of the wikipedia high standard

P.S I edit catagory by reading other catagories source code to see how they work

Arthur 16:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Editor / User Page Review

Hey The JPS –

You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. joturner 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiLove

~Linuxerist E/L/T has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

thanks and help

Thank you very much for your advice and observations! I am still relatively new in doing nominations for deletions. Since I am working and studying at the same time, I missed out on reeading some of the other instructions. I will contribute to the "Create the Cfd subsection." Feel free to guide me should there be imperfections in my editing. I really appreciate your help and concern. Thank you very much. - 7258 12:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again.

The whole process is a learning experience. Regardless of whether it gets opposed or accepted, it will always be for the common good. Thanks.

Just want to say...

Hi there. Have a nice day. Jason Palpatine 04:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I belive you and I had a dialouge about a year ago concerning my namesake. I personally enjoyed Revenge of the Sith. Pity a lot of other people didn't. I, for one, always condidered STAR WARS to be a single work. There's a box on my User page to that effect. All the movies make up one single very BIG move: The fall and rise of Anakin Sktwalker.

I'm just saddened that Lucas has decided not to doe eps 7-9. Still, it was nice of him to allow it to be released in expanded book form.

Like I said before, I was just saying hello, my friend.  :-) Jason Palpatine 15:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Radio 2 & Radio 3

Hello. When you created the disambiguation pages for Radio 2 & Radio 3, it meant that over 100 articles are now pointing to those pages. Would you like to help disambiguating the articles so they point to their correct articles? I have already completely DABbed Radio 4. I find AWB invaluable. Cheers. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing, sorry for the trouble. I can't use AWB because of my lack of Windows, but I'll do what I can. --Arctic Gnome 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. The temporary alternative would be to have Radio redirect to BBC Radio 2, and create Radio 2 (disambiguation). The top of the BBC Radio 2 page could then have Radio 2 redirects here. For other stations named Radio 2, see Radio 2 (disambiguation). This might be better until all the links point directly to their correct articles. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother, the disambig process is going pretty quickly. --Arctic Gnome 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article The Nationwide Project, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hallie Geier Article

While I understand that it is important to monitor Wikipedia and make sure all information is reliable, I believe that Hallie Geier and/or the LOVE, HALLIE Foundation should be included in this database. LOVE, HALLIE has developed quite the following amongst the youth in New York City, and there is even a Hallie Geier Day (September 18) which has been titled "Annual Kindness Day." Although I generally respect and understand your decisions, I'm asking you to please reconsider removing Hallie Geier's name and LOVE, HALLIE from Wikipedia. For more information about the girl or the amazing organization, I urge you to visit the website at www.lovehallie.org. Thank you for understanding.

A fair use rationale

Sorry, but I still don't really understand this.

I don't suppose you could help me a little bit?

GarryMc 10:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've given you the OurFriends example. A fair use rationale should cover those basic points:

• The article are about XXX and the show itself, and as such are almost impossible to illustrate without using images from XXX.
• A free alternative is either impossible of very difficult to obtain.
• The image is used for informational purposes only and is not believed to detract from the original production in any way.
• Use of the image on Wikipedia does not detract from the original market value of the original work.

On the image upload page, you should see a link to 'fair use rationale'.

The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that's a big help. GarryMc 10:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Harald Grohs

Why have you deleted Harald Grohs? The guys has earned his spot in motorsport history, but that won't appear on Wikipedia if articles are deleted hastily. Please restore Grohs (and others, if any), and use a cleanup tag or something first!--Matthead 19:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've just checked, and it was deleted because it was practically empty, which meant that notability wasn't established. There was one line of content. Someone nominated it for speedy deletion under these grounds, and I agreed. Try again, asserting his notability. If you think he's earned his place in Wikipedia, do him some justice by writing an article, rather than a substub. There was no point in using a cleanup tag, because there was hardly anything there to cleanup! The JPS ^{talk to me} 19:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I made a new, hopefully better attempt. On German Wikipedia, too many motorsport-related article get quickly deleted or attacked otherwise. --Matthead 21:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha - much better! Cheers! The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The JPS deleted "File:Bobbitt.jpg" (i4)

Why did you delete the image? (what does i4 mean?) --Asbl 14:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. 'I4' is a speedy delete criteria meaning that the image had been tagged as having no source for at least 7 days. You should always provide a source for your images, aswell as a tag. This is made clear in the image upload process. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought I fixed the licensing issue last week. --Asbl 15:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't. You added the {{PD-USGov}} tag -- that is not the source. You need both a tag and a source. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, please restore the image, I'll look for the source --Asbl 15:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Image deletions are not restorable. Upload the image again, and this time, consider using the template at commons for images... as shown on this page. It has a handy table to fill out and if you fill it out correctly, you'll have given the source. Heck, if the image really is PD, upload it to Commons so other projects can make use of it. Hope that helps! ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

All the images, unless otherwise stated where taken from kryptonsite. They were either screencaps from the trailers or promotional images that the site receives. Instead of being difficult, if you already know that it is a promotional image and it says "screenshot", then please, go ahead and change it. I spent an hour and a half going through all the pictures, that are still available, and adding all the appropriate information that I could think of to provide there sources. Forgive me, if by chance I put screenshot instead of promo pic. Like I said, if you already know the answer then please feel free to change it, instead of just labeling it wrong. You can simply go to the site and go to that episode and view the image yourself. Bignole 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being difficult.The idea is to inform you of your mistakes in an attempt to stop you making them again. Remember AGF. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless it occurred every time, you cannot assume it was a mistake that I would need to stop making. When you are basically copying and pasting the same source material for every image you are bound to make a mistake once in awhile, especially when it isn't clear that it is a promotional image or a screenshot. My point is that if I made a "typo" (which is what it really was, because it was nothing more than me rushing to get all the sources in before the images were deleted, again) then you can take it upon yourself to correct it, and then simply inform me of what I did and what you did to correct it. You can take the initiative, it's ok.Bignole 06:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sarcasm. I deal with dozens of images everyday and I try to be proactive. It's also polite to communicate. AGF. I appreciate it whne others inform me of mistakes I make. I also find it polite to thank them for it, whether ot not I thought it was needed. The JPS ^{talk to me} 09:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sarcastic because you were rather snive when you were telling about my "mistakes". People make mistakes, and they way you were addressing it was like you don't make any. And yes, it was snive when you said "The idea is to inform you of your mistakes in an attempt to stop you from making them again."Bignole 13:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith and be careful before namecalling. By the way, your source for that 'promotional' image is not a press kit. Therefore we can not accept it. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Fair use" images

Question: Why did you tag Image:TVWeekV.jpg? From what I saw, it was being used in an article about what was displayed on the cover (V (TV series) characters on the cover and the images was used in that article.) Please respond on my talk page. It isn't too big of a deal, I just want to know. Lady Aleena 16:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Go to hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben King (talk • contribs)

EastEnders images

Hi there. Maybe I'm not fully understanding what a publicity photo is, but I'm sure that Image:Michael Rose.jpg can fall under another fair use blanket (but a fair use rationale is needed regardless). As for Image:Facade.jpg, just change the tag to tv-screenshot, and give a fair use rationale, and it should be fine. Thanks. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 15:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps the best thing to do here, is tag them with {{Non-free fair use in}} and give a rationale, or remove them from the articles. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 11:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bastard

You are a power tripping bastard. Go to hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben king (talk • contribs)

I have never been incivil to you, Ben. It is a pity you a choosing to damage your previously good reputation by acting in such a way. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

23/05/06

Errr......what did I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.96.197 (talk • contribs)

Adding "Scottish paki-poof" is not civil. feydey 12:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's how he refers to himself though. He even said he was one TWICE on the first night! And he used those exact words! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.96.197 (talk • contribs)

Oh, right. I'd still be careful about how to use them. Some people can be very offended by both words. If it is to be included, then it is vital that it be rephrased and sourced (...he describes himself as... [source to external URL]) so that it is not misconstrued again as vandalism. I'm suprised that Channel 4 allowed 'paki' to be broadcast in a frivolous way. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

i dont need it explain to be about uploading images i've uploaded plenty using that template and putting wwe.com which is the source so its given so nothing can be done, now no one else has ever commented on it or had a problem with it since ive joined here and theres hundreds of pictures on this site with that tag and with just wwe.com, so i have correctly upload an image as it has the copyright tag and the source. Lil crazy thing 16:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but there's more people uploading images than there are policing them. That means there is often a delay before people start commenting on them of have "a problem with it". The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But theres pictures that have been there since last year and there is nothing on them, check every single picture on the pages of the wrestlers and you will see there exactly the same and have been there months and nothing has been done. I dont accept and will not accept being singled out which i am being. Feydey is the only person on this site that has ever had a problem said there is no source when wwe.com is classed as a source, and seeing as wwe.com changes it url's daily putting a url is less of a source and going to that url you will most the time not find it as it will not work.Lil crazy thing 18:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So how can it be verified that the images are really from wwe.com's page? Because following copyright rules cannot be a matter of faith. feydey 18:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How can it be verified giving a url when they change or get removed daily. I am following the rules i've put a template and the source more then what many have done for there pictures. Lil crazy thing 19:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point: "How can it be verified giving a url when they change or get removed daily" - but if You cannot find a source then the images will get still deleted. Wikipedia policy requires that. How can Image:Mickiechamp.jpg have a valid source for weeks and You cannot produce it even to 1 of the articles. It just seems You haven't copied them from wwe.com. I will put back the notices, do not remove them unless You have added valid URLs, not just wwe.com. feydey 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice to The_JPS, this is my 3rd rv. i'm not going further (3RR). It's Your call after this. feydey 19:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

how can you say i havent copied them off wwe.com when you havent even looked, but the fact still remains they do 100% come from wwe.com as you can only get them pictures from there and i stick by my statement until you go around adding that tag to all the other pictures that are exactly like mine and to the ones in articles that have nothing at all then i will not accept it simple as that but you've done nothing at all to all the others, i've included a tag and a source which are both correct and i've never once since i've joined been told its wrong because its what everyone else puts and nothing is done because nothing is wrong. i have stated my reasons over and over again which you are blantly not taking any notice of. Just because your an admin doesnt mean i will back down in what i think. Lil crazy thing 19:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:MelandKim-beachpic-smaller.jpg

Sorry, it's from the 'Showing Out' video. Do you want me to add it to the pic details? Sorry I don't understand all of how wikipedia works. Ellectrika

>> Well it was used as the single cover and I think it's from the video for the single too. I know it was definately on a single cover. Is that better? Sorry. :o( Ellectrika

Well, this image cannot be classed as a single cover because it clearly isn't!! (The image might have been used on the single cover, but this file is not it). Is it a genuine screenshot? A screenshot is one single frame taken from a video or film. It is not a promotional photograph taken on the set of the video.

Don't worry: everyone makes mistakes when they're new. It's nice to have someone who is actually willing to learn how to do it properly!! Welcome! The JPS^{talk to me} 22:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

BB related/headshots

Just to let you know, I'm pretty relaxed on the headshots that are uploaded (not cropped versions of original images). I consider images as such as having no creativity needed for making. Although professional looking one's I challenge. Just my approach. PS. How's that wwe thing going? feydey 11:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Though I think ownership is a massive part of it. They probably paid the housemates for a photoshoot (or at least paid for a legal team to draft it in their contracts), ship them to the studio, hire studio time, hire a photographer... not the most creative of images I agree, but if I'd paid a lot of money for their production then I'm not sure it's up to anyone else to judge that they can copy them because they're not creative enough!

As for WWE, I'm unsure... we need wider consensus to cover our backs for those becasue there's going to be a lot of images/uploaders. Without being too stereotypical, I'm guessing there'll be a lot of 12 year olds out there. When was that tag created, who by, and where is the discussion? The JPS^{talk to me} 12:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a cost issue f. ex. between television photos and university webpage headshots. feydey 14:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nikki Sanderson.jpg

I had overwritten this image a couple of days ago with a new one of a tv screenshot which is fair use. You can check the Nikki Sanderson page and see a new image is now there. You can delete this one straightaway as I wanted to replace it anyway. I suggest you check every image in EastEnders character pages and most of them if not all are uploaded by Gungadin and yet he doesn't get warned of copyright violation and I do. He has uploaded a lot more copyrighted images than I have ever done. (Shakirfan 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

Trust me, I have already communicated with User:Gungadin on these issues. A lot of her images were checked by me, and subsequently deleted. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and I mostly only upload screenshots of actresses mainly for Coronation Street and Emmerdale now. You can check them and if they are incorrectly licensed then let me know. (Shakirfan 16:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

Voolvif Monn

Im not trying too. but please dont try to edit it, im doing that right now

¡Hola!

Thanks a lot for reverting the vandalism done to my userpage. :)Rosa 09:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure :) The JPS^{talk to me} 09:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw on your userpage that you're an admin and that your page has been protected temporarily from editing. Could you please protect my user page temporarily too? If you check my userpage's history, you'll see that these couple of weeks I've become the center of attention of vandals *lol*Rosa 09:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million. Please set the level of protection for 'new and unregistered users'too...that would be excellent. :)Rosa 10:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete my acccount and leave no trace of it

What I really want if you can delete my account or rename it to something and don't tell me about it so I can forget about this whole thing called Wikipedia. I am fed up with the POV, constant reverting, not even trying to reach a consensus, soapboxing, not reading and discussing comments, sockpuppeting and bullying that exists in certain sections of the this Wikipedia. If you can do this it would be much appreciated. FrontLine 12:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know what's upset you so much, but I'm sorry you feel that way. Accounts cannot be deleted -- they just become abandoned... I gree, there are a lot of stressful things about the project: vandals, people who ignore simple copyright rules, and all the things you mention... You just need to shrug your shoulders and remember its only a website. I suggest you just call it a day and forget about the project. Perhaps come back at a time when you have a fresh mind? The JPS^{talk to me} 13:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

uploaded images.

Hi JPS, I have uplaoded a couple of screenshots from EastEnders and when you get a chance would you mind having a look at them and telling me if I need to include anything else in the rationale on the image page. Just so that I know what to do in the future if I upload. mick McFarlane & Josie McFarlane. Thanks S Gungadin 17:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

for your help and support.
-- Lady Aleena talk/contribs 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

FIBERTOWN

To The JPS: I created FIBERTOWN which was deleted. FIBERTOWN is the name of a high density, high tech tech real estate development in a blighted historic district of old Bryan, Texas (based on Jane Jacob's development principles). We thought it might be a good addition to Wikipedia. I am an owner of the FIBERTOWN development. Please let me know how I might improve or correct the entry. I may have overlooked something in the guidelines. Thanks. -Randall Spradley, spradley@fibertown.com / jrspradley@yahoo.com -RS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonrandall5 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 May 2006

Hi. It's not-notable, I'm afraid. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Verissima

Quite a number of the entries within the category skin care are also plainly advertisements for large companies and are well known brand names e.g. Head and Shoulders, Clinique, Lotus skin care, Beauticontrol, Selsun Blue, They may be in some sense more notable but only in the context of being highly promoted global commercial brands As to the style of writing and content of my article. I have a good deal of further information about the background, philosophy and development of the verissima company which I could make available, and would welcome any help to develop this into a worthwhile piec. [Lutterworth]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Verissima" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutterworth (talk • contribs)

I've already given you an explaination why it was deleted. It was not notable. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I await your explanation as to why other clearly commercial advertising sites are allowed against the policy of wilkepedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutterworth (talk • contribs)

They are notable. The ones you've cited (Heads & Shoulders, etc.) are clearly more notable. They are to encyclopedic interest, therefore. They do not need Wikipedia for advertising. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I just check this to make sure I have it straight Major companies based around the petro-chemical industries with huge advertising budgets can be listed on wilkepedia with explicit links to their company websites to further the promotion of their products but the same criteria do not apply to brands which you personally are not familiar with This seems to be a trifle parochial, narrow minded and an intellectually flawed argument —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutterworth (talk • contribs)

Flattery will get you nowhere ;) The JPS^{talk to me} 12:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== A smart answer but not a clever one

Try again By the way a simple search on google for verissima may guide your views on notability

Top 5 hits for the product Lutterworth

To coin a phase

I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong Lutterworth 13:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC) ......... == —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutterworth (talk • contribs)

Deletion of Ronald Brittain

The JPS, perhaps a bit hasty here. creator ( not me ) looked 1/2 way through creating this one. Ronald Brittain was the red-faced RSM who acted in many british comedy shows etc.. Do I need to go through the undeletion review or is it kosher to start again and write a decent +referenced article ? - Peripitus 13:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused... I thought it was created by User:Snedger. At the time of deletion, it showed absolutely no degree of notability. It was about two sentences long, and neither mentioned the notability you express in your message. Yes, it is kosher to write a decent +referenced article. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - you're right that there was no notability in the initial article nor any references of any type. I picked it up in new-article-patrol and was researching it when the axe fell. Should have a new one up as soon as I can find a PD or fair use image :-) - Peripitus 04:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please reconsider "Nocturne (movie)" deletion.

I am asking you kindly to reconsider deleting Nocturne. I feel that you may not have investigated the article strongly enough and jumped to many hasty conclusions, particually regarding the age of the filmmaker and crew. I am sorry if I come across as a 'student' to you, but I feel you may have underestimated my age and the age of my crew just a 'little' bit. I have chosen to focus on highschool students as they are usually amazingly energetic and enthusiastic to work with (they are also happy to work for a free lunch and a free copy). I also have a fascination with Highschool. (Reminitions of the places, people, education, etc) So I am sorry if this came away as a vanity article. Also, my additional comments may seem a little harsh. Anyway, if there is anything I can do on the article to make it convey a more appropiate tone, it would be appreciated,

Thank You, Cameron Chamberlain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchamber (talk • contribs)

Sorry, the movie is not notable. Come back when it has been made and has been commercially released in cinemas. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A cinematic release is surely not needed for it to be deemed appropiate for entry? The vast majority of movies are not released cinematically. Surely you wouldn't want Wikipedia to end up as a constricted point of reference on any subject? ~Cameron—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchamber (talk • contribs)

There is no evidence that your movie is notable enough for inclusion. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just for a future reference. What would be classed as notable evidence?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchamber (talk • contribs)

We have Wikipedia:Notability. Films are judged on a case by case basis, with some common sense. We'll look to see if it has an entry in IMDb, but even if it has, that is no guarantee that we'll keep it because Wikipedia is not a database. Has it been released commercially? Is the information verifiable? Who has added the article? If it's the director, etc, then it's probably not notable: a good guideline of notability for anyone writing about themselves or their work is that if that the subject is notable enough then someone else will/would have already written the article. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please sign your comments using ~~~~ The JPS^{talk to me} 12:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:images

Thanks JPS, thats a big help. I appreciate you doing that for me .  :) Gungadin 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reblock of 66.4.57.3?

Would you consider reblocking these guys, this time for a couple of weeks? They're back with vandalism a week after your last block. To do any good, I suggest that each block should be twice as long as the previous one, or twice as long as the period between the last two acts of vandalism. Perhaps whichever is shortest? Longest? Sbharris 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I haven't blocked them today cause they were finished by the time I got your message. Next time you spot them, report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism -- this will get the attention of admins who are online at that moment, and they'll be able to act quickly. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse a relatively newcomer to Wiki, but WHY is it important to block an IP while the vandal is still "online"?? Surely if you're going to block somebody for a week, it hardly matters whether they're knocked off for lunch or for bed or something. And many blocks do need to be longer than 24 hours. As you know, there are people who vandalize everyday for breakfast. They must do it in place of brushing their teeth or having coffee or something. Or maybe they do it in school during library hour. Blocking them for 24 hours 10 times in a row does no good at all. Why bother to do something which has no point, and just wastes your time? Sbharris 23:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's related to the Wikipedia philosophies -- open-source/free access, etc. We have to be particularly careful with IPs because it could prevent genuine users from editing (which is against the philosophy). Some vandals indeed vandalise regularly; others don't. I very much understand your point and frustration, though. Banning users is a process taken seriously, though, and the reputations of admins are at stake if we go against the rules too often!. The talk page on that page contains similar discussions. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying it's "against policy" is saying nothing at all. You're basically saying that it's done that way because that's the way the owners of Wiki want it. Okay, fine. I guess it's their service. But don't expect me to agree if they don't have a good reason. And if they want my donations they had better do better. The idea that blocking an IP might prevent somebody innocent from editing is like saying that blocking a company from polluting a river is impossible/unthinkable, because not everyone in the company might be culpable, and it would put the night janitor out of a job. Well, yes. But first, worry about the river. Stop the criminal from doing further crime, and worry about the effects of his arrest on his innocent family, second. Worry about stopping the deeds first. All civilized societies have eventually come to similar conclusions about communal misdeeds, and the communal effects of punishment. It will be interesting to see how long it takes Wiki to figure out that when Pearl Harbor is being bombed, diplomacy and nasty notes and small oil embargos are no longer good opinions. They never worked in the past. They won't work in the future. Sbharris 01:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that Wikipedia has a philosophy, enforced by policy. Some people believe in the philosophy more strongly than others. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My photo album

Not all images are fair use images. So what you ae doing can be considered vandalism.

micoolio101 (talk)

Yes they were all 'fair' use. I checked. No it can't be considered vandalsim. Assume good faith. Be careful before labelling people vandals. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They don't have the fair use tag so how can they be of fair use?? And I'm not vandalising these images. Let's not forget, everyone makes mistakes! micoolio101 (talk)

That's fair enough... I'm more than happy to give you advice and help you correct your mistakes so long as you are willing to accept it. All of your images are fair use. They all have a fair use tag... the specific one about TV screenshots, rather than a generic 'fair use' tag. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I accept. And if you leave a reply can you do so on my talk page?? micoolio101 (talk)

User's can choose where to leave their answers. If You had read the wikipedia guidelines none of this would have happened. feydey 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Family Friendly Gaming

What makes Family Friendly Gaming non-notable in your opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FFGaming (talk • contribs)

There is a lot of POV, and it has a low Google hit rate. The article is poorly written. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you don't want Christians here, and justify discrimination. FFGaming 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want POV and articles about non-notable 'magazines' here. Don't play the 'discrimination' wild card - it's cheap. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001: A Space Odyssey (film synopsis)

You wrote:

"Weak keep per Weregerbil. If this spurns a series of similar articles, then I'd vote delete. Any OR should be removed, but a pure NPOV synopsis is not OR. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)"

• Thank you for the confidence.
• I am curious though. What does "spurns a series of similar articles" mean?
• When I created the article a month ago, it was in repone to the size/split notice on the main article. I can not understand why all of this is happening.
• The article does not contain any OR.

-- Jason Palpatine 00:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a disuccion going on over at the Film WikiProject about the length of plots. We're trying to keep them down. If this survives AfD, then I forsee many more similar arguments. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The above discussions are preserved as an archive of my talk page, because tak page blanking is frowned upon. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page by anyone other than me.