User talk:I JethroBT/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Thank you

... for fixing my typo on the RfA. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, though given the level of support, I think the closing bureaucrat will have no problem figuring out the right course of action. :) I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

DPS Azaad Nagar

Hello Sir ,

I am just not much familiar to Wiki in editing and posting information but i regularly vist your page for information and i would now like to add DPS Azaad Nagar as a Part of Wikipedia's info page. We are an Education Based Society in Kanpur India and believe in Education as right in the society. I would like to dispaly information for my school in wiki so plz kindly help me publishing the same. I am concerned about "Speedy Deletion Process". I abide by your rules for not posting any promotional content. I see my page only provides information of school for education purpose. i want my page to be displayed as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Public_School,_R._K._Puram#History

Kindly help me regarading the same

Alok Singh (aks2103@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks2103 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alok-- the reason why I nominated that article for deletion was because it the content was pretty much the same as the school's website. You cannot copy-and-paste content from the internet and put in on Wikipedia-- this is called a copyright violation. Please try to write an article about the school in your own words. That said, schools which contains secondary education (i.e. non-primary schools) are considered inherently notable per notability for high schools and commons outcomes for schools at deletion. If DPS Azaad Nagar has a secondary education component, your article will likely be kept. Just be sure to provide a source demonstrating that the school exists (i.e. the school's website or a news article is usually enough). I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, I JethroBT/Archive 9. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

File:IMGP3165-1.JPG

Google search is your friend. For redirects recently created, ie the original name is recently created then we are pretty safe to delete. But for old names, eg a year old there is a good chance that the file or page will have been referenced off Wikipedia by someone else. We may think that mirrors or others copying images are not important. But we break their legal requirement to give attribution by a link if we take away their target. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep this in mind. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

DPS Azaad Nagar _ Verification Process

Thanks sir for your reply and guidence and reply .. ok once i am done with the article can that be approved you ? i am afraid if i post and its caught under speedy deletion criteria under a new section , so is that possible before posting we can get it approved by you ? Awating your positive reply !

Alok (aks2103@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aks2103 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like to get it approved beforehand, I would try submitting it under Articles for Creation, where it will not be speedily deleted. Instead, you will get feedback on the article from other editors. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

A hug & caffeine on tap to help keep you going through the endless hours of work! Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch-- I definitely need it today, (and I don't even like coffee all that much.) I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Neither do I. For some reason, when I putting in a full Wikipedia day, I end up with coffee-mouth (blech) & the manic brain jitters. I'd offer you a valium for after but, apparently, it isn't PC to do so. Wanna go Mac or Linux? No heckling, please! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This is apt.
Problems playing this file? See media help.

I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

More like this.
Problems playing this file? See media help.

--Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Eitetsu Hayashi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tōjō
Osuwa Daiko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Okaya

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

deletion of anjack

being a singaporean indian myself, the term anjack is very popular in singapore. therefore i hope you do not delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londoncalling111 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Guitar Experience Festival

Thanks you for reviewing my article. --Maik12 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

OE Resources

Thanks for your attention to the Outline page for Open Educational resources. We are in the midst of a project and a few people are editing as part of a WIKISOO project. --ggatin (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification-- my apologies for any disruption. I'll leave you to it, then. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jethro, thanks for that -- but no apology needed! As the course instructor, actually I thought it was great to have an example of how there will always be feedback and varying opinions on how to organize things. -Pete (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me chime in my thanks. I'm a student in the WIKISOO class. Thanks to your action, now I know what a redirect is! --Litjade (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome! I'm glad that my mistake was unintentionally constructive! I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your request for undeletion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is File:Dunn's yellow rose design.jpg. JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Osuwa Daiko

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Asimov

I'm absolutely certain you know it, your fingers just didn't do what your brain told them, but the Good Doctor spelt his name with one s and two as. I'd've corrected it, but it's on your user page, and i don't believe that's for me to edit. Cheers, LindsayHello 18:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC) PS: I'm kinda sorry to have noted the name-change; i liked your previous one.

Hah, thanks for the note. I've changed it, but that sort of uncontroversial thing you are welcome to change-- I should make a note of that on my userpage. I actually haven't read much by Asimov (other than what my previous username alludes to) nor do I know much about him personally, but sheesh, I should have noticed that by now. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. I liked my previous username too, but I think the change is for the best.

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

DYK for Eitetsu Hayashi

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

stuff

hello sir jethro. seeing as ive been able to see a part of your lifes activities I hope you don't mind me sharing a bit of mine with you. im 50 ,live in northern alberta Canada,an avid science seeker from a young age . my grade three teacher instill me with some very intriguing devices ,only one,a simple way to make browns gas, have I seen to date. the ancient knowledge quite possably stumbled apon by gentlemen like mr tesla and ed may very well be hiden in a Bosnian pyramid waiting to be rediscovered. coral castle in florida where ed cut and levitated huge coral blocks ,used this technology, and the simplest bare bones of this device still exists there to day, . my small group ,are all ready generating hundreds apon hundred of volts ,and with the device having a larger capacitance into the millions. from there understanding the devices for cutting the stone, like whats left from the past, to levitating them into place, are all ready a reality . you can also make a self levitating device for space exploration, or simply lifting materials to outer orbit. but really no need as materials are made from the gasses and all the elements can be created threw the device explained under the heading/plasma interaction with hydrogen oxygen nitrogen and carbon to create the fundamental elements. I understand the difficulties Wikipedia must have to keep everything together,lol and greatly appreciate the opportunity to share and express my views and findings.im sure in the end we are all searching for the same truths and all hope for the same outcome, a peacefull planet. to be honest , ive only had this computer for a year and am still trying to figure it out. lol, an update to /electron spin reversal in a d.c. circuit terminating into ie. space. had the circuit run for 20 days after initiation and a 10 day half life before stopping. mr. Tesla drove around in a car with an antenna as part of his circuit terminating into space. I use ie. as an example as there are more than one way to terminate the circuit. most people that I interact with understand the implication of these ancient devices. some are happy witheach level of technology, they have achieved , from levitation to transmutation to production of materials,,there still exists more and probably always will. please note that the page under absorption by carbon was kept short and simple. carbon simply absorbs electro magnetic energy , it is why there is a loss of voltage at the brush, and why it absorbs radio frequency when it is interacted with a secondary plasma field created and using the expanded energy from the initial plasma field. words terms and phrases lol hope to talk again ron Ronald sykes (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ronald, thanks for sharing. I'd encourage you to detail your interests on your userpage so that editors know what your interests are more readily. Also, reading over the above, I am a little concerned something you said above:
I understand the difficulties Wikipedia must have to keep everything together,lol and greatly appreciate the opportunity to share and express my views and findings.
I think it's great that you take the time to do research like this in your spare time, but Wikipedia is not really intended to be a medium for publishing your original research on the devices and mechanisms you've discussed above. If there is information you have on Tesla or his work, and you have reliable sources to support that information, I'd encourage to improve his article or on a related topic like levitation or space exploration. Please continue to use the Teahouse as a resource too-- questions on pretty much any aspect of using Wikipedia are always welcome. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

sorry

its simply me not being able to interact properly with Wikipedia due to my lack of knowledge of the computer. it was given to me last Christmas by a friend ,otherwise I still probably would never have started learning how to use it.Ronald sykes (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A tool for you!

Hi I JethroBT! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script: 

// Add [[WP:Reflinks]] launcher in the toolbox on left
addOnloadHook(function () {
 addPortletLink(
  "p-tb",     // toolbox portlet
  "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName 
   + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage,
  "Reflinks"  // link label
)});

onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. You may consider taking on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. So long! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Phil-- I actually have this tool already, though I'll readily admit I do not use it everytime I am able to. I'll check out that category, though, when I have some downtime. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, you know what? I have already sent you the exact same message on 3 December 2011. I saw your name on the NPP log and thought that you might appreciate some assistance. Little did I know I was the person who sent you this message two years ago. Oh well, it's good to hear that you've got the script installed :) Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

FYI

I thought you should be aware of this. Cheers, Stalwart111 07:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, I JethroBT. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 20:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Haniwa with Drums.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Haniwa with Drums.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
  2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

neuroleadership stuff

Not wanting to dredge up the whole thing again, and agreeing that we can disagree, I want to ask you why the obvious self-promotion of this guy and his use of Wikipedia for that purpose seemed to have so little traction for you (see WP:NOTPROMOTION). Between us, I think you can see that this guy is bullshit artist, as did others in the discussion. If he's successful at getting middlebrow executives to part with their money for his brand of training... well, he's making a comfortable living. But what concerns me is the exploitation of Wikipedia and your comments never really addressed that. You dwelt on notability... we don't have to get into that because we already did... but what do you think about balancing things with regard to self-promotion? Non promotion is a real Wikipedia concern. Notability is one too. I didn't see any balance in your comments, just a laser-like focus on notability.

I'd like to make an observation without wanting to seem like an attack on you, so not being able to find the words, let me just be direct... You said some things about PR that were showed little practical knowledge and seemed to be naive about how marketing professionals operate nowadays. You doubted somewhat incredulously that mainstream magazines could be used as PR vehicles. The reality is that they can be. I work with some corporate marketing guys and know first hand how they operate and the level of deception involved nowadays. One particular acquaintance of mine (not exactly a friend) quit because he couldn't stomach the deception anymore... and it was his job specifically to place product/services into news stories of mainstream magazines and newspapers. Seriously, that was his job. Guys like him would say that a lapses in journalism ethics wasn't their problem, it was the journalists' problem. In some instances the marketers write the "news" story copy for the journalists to use simply use, as is, *unattributed*... and they give themselves high fives whenever they pull it off. This happens very easily as one might imagine in small, local newspapers and in industry newsletters/journals. But big guys like WSJ, Forbes, etc are constantly targeted. And it works (!!!) there too not because of lack of editorial control but because of different needs of the mega-media organizations, namely, they have a ravenous need for web content. WSJ and Forbes, for example have extensive blogs, so one strategy for the marketers is to target the journalist blog to pick up your item, then wait and push it to the news editors, being able to point out it was already part of WSJ or Forbes etc website content. The editors know this is poor journalism (a necessary evil, lazy, bad, unethical... the rationalizations vary) but they have a content beast to feed so they do it. You're not going to find this taught in business schools but that's common practice. So it's wrong to think something is notable just because it appears in a newpaper / magazine.... mostly it is, but a minority of things are exploitations of the system.

This is the way the neuroleadership guy did it. Several of his initial targets were news organization blogs, then other news organizations would cite each other. What I was trying to do when showing how many articles there were in the academic literature and then tracing it back to the neuroleadership guy's website... that wasn't "original research" as you characterized it, rather it was objectively showing how he got his marketing stuff into the secondary sources of seeming repute... the ones that you were doggedly focused on. He got is company and services recognized, but he did not create a new field. BTW, looking at your photo, I've got about about 20 years more on you with a lot of experience in a variety of fields. Also, I see that you do really good work. So please take my "experienced" advice to be less black & white about things like the notability issue and others... more nuance will benefit Wikipedia as well as yourself. The reason I'm following up is not because I lack better things to do but precisely because you obviously do good work and are dedicated... and I'd like to influence that dedication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapabc (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate that expressing what you want to tell me is not really that easy to do without coming off badly. I appreciate the compliments on my work. That said, I think the comments on your perception of my age and of our age difference were unnecessary. You've already given me plenty of good reasons to listen to you. You don't need to act like the wise, older fish to get my attention.
Anyway, sure, I don't claim to know much about the underhanded methods of PR. My impression is that it is an ugly and cutthroat business. "Know thy enemy" seems like a good maxim to follow here and it's one I'll readily admit not doing in regards to the PR field. My main question is, how are you certain that is what has happened here? You seem absolutely confident based on what I see as incomplete information. Your account of how PR can work sounds plausible enough, but all I really have to go on is this blog entry and your word. Based on that, I can't wholesale buy into your argument about Neuroleadership's coverage being the result of a PR campaign to create the illusion of actual coverage. My objections extend from there being quite a big leap between these premises:
  • Neuroleadership is junk science,
  • There's not much academic literature on it,
  • The originator is a PR guy,
  • The PR industry can exploit the news industry,
  • Journalists can be lazy and unethical sometimes,
and these conclusions:
  • A targeted PR campaign was definitely launched for Neuroleadership,
  • Newsblogs picked up the topic because of the PR campaign,
  • News magazines picked up the topic because of the newsblogs and/or the PR Campaign,
  • Books and newspaper articles included coverage on the topic because of the PR campaign too.
I think all your premises are spot on and I have zero disagreement about them. I also think their application to this case is spotty and I therefore do not think you have convincing evidence that the reason why Neuroleadership was covered in this manner was due to focused exploitation of the news industry via a PR campaign. How can we ever know that is actually happening based on this information? These conclusions rest on too many assumptions that lack concrete evidence (i.e. evidence of that a PR campaign actually happened, evidence that a major news outlet used a newsblog to cover the topic, evidence that the editors published info on the topic primarily because of copying from other news sources / industry demands / PR campaign / whatever, evidence that the PR campaign extended to an Australian newspaper and coverage in German news, etc.) If you can present additional evidence, I'm open to looking it over and reevaluating my opinion. Until then, I can't buy into this, and that's it. I can't take a more nuanced approach to evaluating articles based on evidence that doesn't strongly support its conclusions. You obviously see all this differently because of your experiences in the industry, and that's fine, but I don't share those with you and from where I sit, there are too many questions about these conclusions without real, concrete answers.
As for WP:NOTPROMOTION, the fact that an article exists on this subject does not inherently make it promotional, nor do the motivations of its originator make the article promotional. What makes an article promotional is how the subject is presented. Presently, neuroleadership doesn't look promotional at all-- it looks like a crappy article (probably because no one wants to work on it.) Ultimately, it's seems wrong to delete something as promotional when it is not presented as such. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Socks cat 1.JPG

File:Socks cat 1.JPG
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Socks cat 1.JPG, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Mentioning that all of the Zimmerman's recent suspicious persons calls to police involved blacks

[1] What does this mean? Your closure doesn't make any sense. As I said in the discussion "You can't word things in a way that make it sound like he might be racist, trying to lead people to that assumption, since that violates BLP." Someone calls the police to report crimes in the area, and by chance these people just happen to be of a different race. Why would you mention that if it has no possible relevance at all? He had black friends, he mentored black youths, his black neighbor spoke well of him. This violates BLP to try to give undue weight to ridiculously bias media sources. There is no possible way to word it without it making him sound racists. Dream Focus 21:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously some people did not agree with you-- that adding that information does not actually imply anything in particular (although it may to you). I stand by my close, and I gave you your options in it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Gemini (2002 Tamil film)/GA1

When you crossed out the old reviewer, I think you must have done something wrong, because it's messing up Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama. Could you fix this, please? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 11:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I'm sorry. Didn't expect that at all. I've updated the GA and removed the strike from the nominations page. I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey! I have been replying to your suggestions at the article's talk page. Take a look and keep me updated-- Sriram Vikram (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the review? Are you still doing it? -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I work, am married, and am busy with other matters outside of Wikipedia. Please be patient and give me at least a week to finish the review. (BTW, some editors wait months before a GA review happens.) I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I respect that. But I got to make myself available for the review process. That's why asked. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry. I'll give you plenty of time to make the needed changes. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. When you need me back for the review, just leave a message in my talk page. -- Sriram Vikram (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh my god! You are really a tough task master! Poor me!! :) -- Sriram speak up 19:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The peer-review process can indeed, be pretty tough. Your writing is good, but everyone's writing can usually use some fine-tuning, even native speakers. Peer-review is worthwhile, trust me. You should see the GA reviewer I had for my first (and only) GA. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker of English. That's why I'm finding it difficult to accept some suggestions. Most of these terminologies appear in most leading English newspapers in India. The so-called 'Indian English'. -- Sriram speak up 20:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there some way to get a contents list on the talk page? -- Sriram speak up 08:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid not. I did some looking around, but I didn't have any luck. I put a Table of Contents on the talk page, but it can only provide sections for the GA and the discussion. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The TOC was what I asked for. Thanks for adding it. Sriram speak up 18:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I did not want to keep mentioning your name everytime to grab your attention. So posted on your talk page. -- Sriram speak up 02:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you for completing the review in such a short time. By the way, I have replied to some comments in the discussion section. Can you take a look and let me know what you think? -- Sriram speak up 08:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello! The talk page template says "This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed." Can you fix it? And the category at the bottom too? -- Sriram speak up 15:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, but there's nothing keeping you from doing it yourself. This kind of removal is not really controversial, so it's OK even if you're the article creator. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh really! I thought the templates in the talk page should be edited by uninvolved editors. Does that mean that, if I create a new article, I can review the article myself and create it's talkpage? -- Sriram speak up 16:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
There are different perspectives on this matter, so I can't speak for everyone. WP:ASSESSMENT provides some guidelines, but advises that "anyone can change an article's rating" and that it's up to the individual WikiProjects about how assessments should work. Assessments are largely for internal purposes, so aside from GA and FA status, the other grades don't really mean too much, so I don't consider self-rating in those grades to have any real negative consequences if it's inaccurate. My own opinion is that things like B-quality assessment and up should have someone else look at it, but even if it's your article, you can rate it C or below based on the relevant criteria on the WikiProject and your own judgment. As for rating importance, I generally leave this to others, but if I can't get anyone to rate it after asking, I usually rate it myself, and I usually rate it one lower than I think it ought to be, just to be one the safe side. As for other things, like whether a picture is needed, article creators are certainly OK to change those templates. If you're ever not sure, feel free to ask me or check in over at the Teahouse. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for that. I owe you. -- Sriram speak up 04:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Anna Quick page

Hi!

Can you please have a look at Anna Quick and let me know if it's ok now? I'm new at this and it took me a while to figure out how to include references.

Thanks!

--LovesFilmandTV (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the proposed deletion notice, but I'm still not sure the subject fulfills our requirements for notability per the general notability guideline or the notability criteria for acting professionals. Her role on Lalaloopsy is probably the most significant role, but I don't think it would be considered a "significant role" in the absolute sense. In addition, Quick does not appear to have multiple, significant acting roles yet. Coverage of her volunteering efforts, while admirable, appears to be somewhat limited in coverage with the exception of the CBC article, but I just don't think this is sufficient coverage for an article. Are there any other sources on Quick? Otherwise, it might be too soon in her career to have an article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Your userpage

I Jeth, sorry for pocking my nose, but I was wandering around and don't know how I hit on your userpage, and I read again and I saw this My name is Jethro. It was a nickname given to me by some friends of mine who liked. -- I am racking my brains, is Jethro your name or your nickname? Sorry, you don't have to answer this... I am being too curious. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 19:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologize-- you ask a fair question. Jethro is not the name I was born with, so it is a nickname. But because many of my friends call me Jethro, it is basically a second name. I do not use my real name on Wikipedia, though I imagine if someone wanted to find out what it is, it probably would not be very hard. It's kind of difficult to maintain privacy in that regard these days. Does that answer your question? Also, you can just call me Jethro or Jeth, instead of I Jeth, if you'd like. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it answers my question. Hehe, maybe I'd start a research to find your real name, I was kidding hehe, but I think I saw it once somewhere, I am not sure. My name isn't hard to find either. By the way, I am going to start watching Star Trek, I guess you'd recommend it :) Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 20:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
You guess right! Star Trek is wonderful, and I think each series has its own qualities. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Which one do you recommend first? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 20:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably Next Gen or TOS to start. Both are classics. It's interesting because they both explore similar philosophical and interpersonal themes, but they are very different in their approach. Also, Picard and Kirk, the captains and lead roles of the two series, are like night and day (by which I mean that they have very different personalities). Feel free to e-mail me if you want to talk more about Star Trek-related stuff, or about episodes as you watch them! I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I hadn't seen your response before :D. Oh and... thank you so much Jeth, I will email you for sure as soon as I start watching the episodes :D You are cool! Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 17:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I do have curiosity about Mr. Spock personality. (O_o) Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 17:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Maître d

Hi, I think I could have a go at being a Teahouse maître d' for a few dates in the near future. What exactly does it involve? Cheers, --LukeSurl t c 00:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Luke, thanks for offering-- I thought there'd be nobody at all for October! The basics are described here. But mostly, I try to do some of the following things:
  • Welcome new hosts,
  • Remove new hosts if, based on their contribution history or editing behavior, they're clearly not suited for hosting just now. I usually leave a note on their talk page briefly explaining why, and encourage them to come back when they've had more experience interacting with other editors / working on articles / etc.
  • Check to make sure that hosts are answering questions appropriately and clarify answers if not,
  • Check to make sure hosts have either pinged or left a talkback notice on the editor's talk page to inform them that their question has been answered (some new users may have no idea when to check, or may forget how they got to the teahouse / can't find their question after a few days, etc.).
  • Address conflicts when requested to (e.g. see this as an example).
  • Continue to answer questions from new editors.
Being the maître d' is basically no big deal, but it's definitely helpful to have a set of eyes on these set of matters. I would continue to do it through October, but GLAM and Wikipedia Loves Libraries will be keeping me busy enough this coming month. I'll probably pick it up again in November. Anyway, does that answer your question? I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Esper language

Please be patient as I have just spent almost 3 months being homeless thanks to the city of Los Angeles having decided that the apartment I WAS living in didn't exist (at least on paper) even though every other apartment in the building did... so I'm a bit burnt out. I'll get it straightened out the best I can as soon as possible, but it's not going to be easy for me. By the way, I like the way you have set up a link to leave you a message. Perhaps some day I can do something like it. Right now, my computer is over-heating, and my back is killing me from being in an awkward location in order to get online... so all in time. DonaldKronos (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm real sorry to hear that, and I appreciate you telling me. I don't know what it's like to be homeless, and I hope things turn around for you real soon. For the time being, though, I'd encourage you to move the article in your sandbox to work on it. I can do this for you if you'd like-- just let me know. Not everyone will be aware of your circumstances, and you'll basically get all the time you need to get the article ready, and I'm concerned that another editor will come around to nominate it for deletion. Keep in mind that one of the big concerns was that I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing the language in-depth. You'll need to find some of these to make a case that the language is notable. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Need suggestion

Hey hello! Regarding the Gemini article, I got some information about the story of the hooligans on whom the film is based. I intend to add a brief background about them and how the director was inspired by it, each about a paragraph. I am in a dilemma. I don't know under what section heading should I add them so that it doesn't violate Manual of Style and where to put it. Can you suggest me regarding the same? Thanks in advance. -- Sriram speak up 16:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey! That's great material to add. I'd suggest that it go either under its own header "Inspiration" or as a subheader under "Production". Check out Jaws_(film)#Inspirations_and_themes as an example of the former. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Inspiration sounds good. But in Jaws,it appears after the music section. I don't know where to place it precisely, to improve readability. The narrative should flow seamlessly, one leading to the other. Any idea? -- Sriram speak up 16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
And I wanna know how much is too much. I got hell a lot of references that I don't know what to add and what to leave. As the GA criteria says, it should not diverge to unwanted details and stay focused on the subject. -- Sriram speak up 16:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
For now, worry less about precise placement and more about actually getting it written. Shifting contents around is easy, but writing is not. I can't really tell you how much is too much without knowing how much is actually written about it, though I won't have much time to devote to the article in the next few weeks. Trust your judgment, and let another editor look it over. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for that. -- Sriram speak up 17:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Template:Did_you_know_nominations/IQ_classification suggestion.

Hi, JethroBT, thanks for looking over the DYK nomination for IQ classification and making your helpful suggestion there. I would be glad to go with your idea about the hook. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it already got approved. Also, I'm very impressed with the article-- excellent work. : ) I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCR

When closing a discussion at WP:NFCR, please always substitute {{archive top}}. If it isn't substituted, then the archive bot will mess up the wikicode when the discussion is archived. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stefan-- I didn't know there was a substantial difference between the two for archiving purposes. I started using substitution, but switched over. I'll be sure to use the former for future closes. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I've attempted to fix my closes; things on WP:NFCR look OK at first glance, but let me know if I've unintentionally broken anything along the way. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
That looks fine. If you use {{archive top}}, then the archive bot changes it to {{tl|archive top}} in the archive, which makes it hard to see the closure rationale. See for example Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 29#File:Usain Bolt wins the 100m metres final at the Moscow World Athletics Championships 2013 as lightning flashes over the stadium.jpg for an example of this. You don't need to substitute {{archive bottom}}, only {{archive top}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hey mate! I have opened peer review for Gemini (2002 Tamil film) in an attempt to elevate it to FA class. So, can I request you to leave your comments and suggestions here. Thanks. -- Sriram speak up 16:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sriram, my apologies, but I don't think I'll have much time to look over new changes and provide another review. I'm currently preparing for my own GAN for Taiko and will be busy doing some work for Wikipedia Loves Libraries here in Chicago. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
No probs. Carry on with your work. I'm good. Thanks anyway. -- Sriram speak up 02:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Abigail's Cross

Hi there, I have reviewed the requirements that wiki sets forth to determine whether a band submission has the appropriate notoriety for creating a wiki page, and I honestly think I can make a strong argument that it indeed does. Can you please take a peek at the talk page for the submission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azeltroth (talk • contribs) 06:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Roundup closure

First, thanks for taking the time to close the discussion. Those are hard things to do. I want to point out that your point #2 on the "pro" side was "There are some meaningful chemical differences in RoundUp that differentiate it from glyphosate, or". That is true, but it misses the point. Glyphosate is the active ingredient; Roundup is a brand for a line of formulations (glyphosate + other stuff). Here is the problem - there are scads (say 50) commercial formulations of glyphosate, of which there are maybe 5 different ones branded "Roundup". ("Roundup" is not one thing, but a product line, each of which has " meaningful chemical differences" from one another.) And of the say 44 others, there are ones exactly the same as the Roundup-branded ones. Roundup is the most famous for sure, and the anti-GMO people focus on Roundup since it made by Monsanto and was a key in their GMO strategy. But for about a decade already, since glyphosate went off patent ~2000, Roundup has not been unique compared to all the other formulations. So we are going to end up with duplicative material in the glyphosate article, where we cover formulations, and in the Roundup article. Sorry to ask, but do you get that? Thanks. And thanks again, I know it is a lot of work to close. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments-- this was a tough close, for sure. I do understand your point; Roundup is not unique from many other products on the basis of its ingredients. To be fair, this was not really the strongest argument for splitting, but some people argued that glyphosate and Roundup are chemically equivalent (or essentially the same), and thus no split should happen, which was an argument based on a false premise. I only noted it because it was a common theme on the support side. I don't think that simply having a different chemical basis is sufficient by itself for having a separate article, as is the case with many products that redirect to the chemical compound that have little to no independent coverage. That said, in the current case, I don't think it is a substantial problem to summarize some of the content from glyphosate to the new RoundUp article, as it is relevant. We do this all the time and put a "Main Article" hatnote and write a little bit about the topic in summary style for a given header or subheader, and I expect it will be no different for this article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, nobody argued that glyphosate and Roundup are the same thing... some of the supporters of the split characterized opponents' arguments that way, but no opponents ever said that. Confusing I know. One of things that makes it hard to work on GMO/Monsanto stuff, is that there is a lot of passion, and unfortunately a lot of misunderstandings, on the part of the anti-GMO crowd. That is a potent combination. In any case I appreciate your responding to me. Have a great day! Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I have to disagree-- editors did make statements that were fairly unambiguous on that point:
  • Having a separate article on a specific brand of glyphosate could be seen as...
  • Round-up is just a brand name stuck on glyphosate.
So I disagree that supporters in this case were creating strawmen on that issue. That said, I appreciate the difficulties in POV editing on topics like these, and I learn quite a bit about just from seeing the back-and-forth. Honestly, the editors in this discussion were fairly mild-mannered compared to other RfCs I have closed, though I get that misunderstandings must crop up all the time. I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Great job! I look at things like this and wonder how people like you sort this stuff - it is as if you manifest clarity from a crowd. I care about this issue and it is hard for me to think clearly about how to summarize the consensus. I am happy with what you wrote and I feel like it does reflect what people discussed. Thank you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Bluerasberry. I actually take out a pen and paper and write down notes and do at least two reads of an RfC (unless it's a case of WP:SNOW). On the first pass, I write out summaries of people's arguments, and the second pass, I check them in relation to other arguments and also note policies that are relevant or have been explicitly discussed. I actually find the whole process kind of fun, in part because I like the challenge of having to help resolve legitimate, good-faith conflicts where matters might seem unresolvable. To be fair, sometimes situations cannot be resolved (which is why I'm sure glad no consensus is a valid close). But it does require a bit of time for reading, writing, and thinking. Some have said that closing RfCs is a thankless task, but I actually get thanked much more often than I expected for making closes, even the easy ones. But I get it with the "issues I care about are hard to summarize" in a balanced way. I tend to know when that's the case for me and I either avoid or participate in those discussions instead. Anyway, thanks for dropping a note my way, I really appreciate it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the thought you put into all of your RfC closes. I mentioned you here. Best, Cunard (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Taiko

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Taiko you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Value Pack 1

Hi! Could you review the article that I wrote for Value Pack 1? It has been reviewed and the sources that I were provided were deemed unreliable by Sulfurboy. Thank you. Malcolmrevere (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I can take a quick look over the source later this evening. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing Hurricane Sandy debate

I thank you for closing that long, drawn out, and somewhat idiotic discussion. I had just checked back to see of an further discussion since my post on Sept. 29 to find that there had been an unnecessary two-day argument over me putting "Option # - per AA, BB, CC, and DD." I couldn't believe that. United States Man (talk) 04:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Believe it. And I've reopened the discussion and reverted the change to the article. Sorry, Jethro, but you don't just pop in and close a discussion an hour and a half after two new editors join. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 04:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is really going nowhere. You are the only one arguing, so just give it up. The consensus is clearly against you; no need to keep fighting. United States Man (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I've barely posted on that talk page in the last 24 hours. Plenty of others have, though, including two editors who are new to the discussion who actually had a few things to add. And the consensus isn't "against me"; first of all, it's not my position, and second of all there is not remotely consensus for either side. Unless we're counting votes, which we are not. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But you don't get to shut down everyone else. Don't try to make this personal; I just happen to be the only one on at the moment. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 04:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion has been ongoing for almost 2 weeks now we have had two separate discussions regarding the matter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kafziel. I can see why you think my close was wrong/premature, but I'm going to disagree with you. The two newcomers do not really change the consensus-- one of them even favored either Option A or B which is consistent with my assessment of consensus. I disagree that they added any kind of compelling new perspective that would have altered consensus. CrazyC83 noted here the current situation seems fine. There is no official meaning of a "superstorm"..., which is an argument that had already come up very, very early in the discussion from you yourself. I suppose there is an argument for leaving the discussion open longer, but with 12 days of discussion and the present level of participation, I do not think that argument is particularly compelling. You are, of course, welcome to request re-opening the RfC through the proper channels. I, JethroBT drop me a line 05:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you as well for closing the debate, closing heated debates is not an easy thing to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to jump in here, and I really don't care one way or another whether debate stays open, but as this may be relevant, I feel that I should disclose it (as it appears I've indirectly led to this spat): in order to gather more input on the discussion, I notified the relevant meteorological Wikiprojects and top editors to the page (who had not yet commented, and I left out one who explicitly noted that he has retired from Wikipedia and is working only on Wikidata now). One of the "two new editors" was someone who I had notified (and is part of the projects). I was unaware that Knowledgekid had asked for a formal RFC closure; had I been aware of this, I would not have posted the notifications; however, since all of that is in the past, I think it is best to disclose this and let you all discuss amongst yourselves whether reopening the RFC is appropriate. Again, I have no dog in the race, and I don't care either way. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know if this will help anything, but, since I'm apparently one of the "two newcomers" mentioned above, I don't have a problem with the way that the talk discussion in question was very recently closed. Note though that I did not read any of the old discussion above the phrase "POLL regarding mention of 'Superstorm Sandy' nickname in article".
In the future, I wouldn't hesitate to make a plea for comments at the "relevant meteorological Wikiprojects" earlier than what was very recently done. The discussion that took place on that talk page (about what is really a very common way for refering to this hurricane) was probably way too long and might have been brought to a close earlier if some more "experts" (I actually don't believe in experts per se when it comes to meteorology, but it's the best word that I can think of at this late hour) had chimed in sooner. I fear that elevating this kind of discussion further is really just going to cause more drama than anything else. Happy editing... Guy1890 (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Quite honestly, I had just assumed that someone had notified the projects at the beginning of the discussion; had I noticed this omission earlier, I would've posted the notification earlier. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, I'm not sure that this "RfC" was formatted as per usual, and I'm not an expert at RfC formatting at all. However, I don't recall ever seeing this discussion showing up here, which is an article alert that I watch routinely. Guy1890 (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

To toss in my two cents.... The result was close to my second choice, and I can live with it. Still, though I can allow that it was done in good faith, I don't at all like the way this closure was handled. I am not a Meteorology Wikiproject member, but I contributed some to this article (mostly editing, cleanup, etc.), including a fair amount to the present discussion. At the very least, I, as well as all others who "!voted", should have been notified that this RfC had been submitted. Also, United States Man, just because you disagree with some of the participants in the discussion does not justify calling it "idiotic". And it is not at all true that Kafziel was the only one in favor of Option F. There were at least two others besides myself. The way this was abruptly ended without most of us being told about what was going on does not sit well with me. It smacks of a secret "back-room deal". That's not the way we are supposed to do things on Wikipedia. As a result, there has been considerable confusion (e.g., Inks.LWC acting in his own way since he had no idea of this RfC either). And it looks like it has triggered an edit war on the talk page, to boot. --Alan W (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I've had a busy weekend, so let me now respond and comment on some of what's been discussed above. Given the current state of the discussion, I still stand by my close, but there are two points that give me some pause. 1) Knowledgekid87 put up a notice on WP:ANRFC without informing the rest of the participants in the discussion. While this is not explicitly required, it is a general courtesy so that others are aware and can agree/disagree with a need to close. Clearly, some felt like the close was somewhat abrupt here. 2) Inks.LWC contacted a number of individuals and Wikiprojects to weight in on the discussion, which conceivably could have shifted consensus, which I was only aware of after my close. Few of those people had a chance to weigh in. None of the options on the table are in conflict with policy or editing guidelines. Given these two points, I think it may be best to reopen the RfC, and will be doing so shortly. I'm sorry if some people want this to be over, but given the circumstances, that doesn't really seem very fair. I will recontact the individuals notified by Inks, and let them know they can still participate in the discussion. Please do not post again at WP:ANRFC without leaving a note at the discussion itself AND please wait until the discussion has clearly died down. If folks would like, someone else can close the discussion this time around; it doesn't matter much to me either way. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As stated before, I have no problem with this, so you have no objection from me. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I do appreciate your efforts at being fair, I, JethroBT. And thanks for the notice on my talk page this time. For myself, I wouldn't necessarily argue for a result other than what we got, given the number of participants who strongly supported Option B (so the result, without the boldface, seems a reasonable compromise). But I do believe, still, that a few others involved, who felt more strongly about Option F (or maybe yet another option), had their voices abruptly cut off by the sudden closure and lack of general notice. If the RfC is reopened, I will certainly read it and participate if I feel I have anything more to say. Thanks. --Alan W (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Rand edit request comment

I think you mean to be commenting on MilesMoney's edit adding "untrained" prior to the protection, but the wording make it seem like you are opposing the edit request from Yworo. Yworo is asking for implementation of the RFC you just closed as consensus, so it's kind of confusing. --RL0919 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's just the indentation that makes my comment confusing. Miles has fixed this. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI, User:Orlady made an interesting one word comment on another page. It was WP:DENY. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Last night...

I had a tough night, couldn't sleep, so about 11pm I turned on the TV and guess what? They were broadcasting a Star Trek movie. I thought about you. It wasn't the beginning of the movie, so I cannot tell which movie was. I don't know if it was The Voyage Home or The Search for Spock. Two of the characters were having disagreements because of Mr. Spock staying at The Enterprise... or something.

Well, sorry for the long chit-chat... just wanted to let you know that I saw my first Star Trek movie and I liked it (the part I saw... :)...) Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 12:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh good, I'm glad you enjoyed it, though I imagine it's probably difficult to understand what's going on when you start in the middle of the film. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it was hard but I enjoyed what I saw. Good actors. I liked Mr. Spock. Since the first time I heard about that character I wanted to know his personality. Good! Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Excellent. If you want to talk more about it, feel free to send me an e-mail. : ) I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. You got mail! Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 19:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I sent you one back. I check my e-mail pretty often, so you don't have to notify me here in the future. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok! :D I'll trust you on what I asked. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 19:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Bulkin_Bert_with_CORONA_recovery_hook_about_1960.jpg

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Your DYK nomination of William Foley (artist)

Hello! Your submission of William Foley (artist) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy RFC

Now that it's been 10 days without any further discussion, would you like to re-close the discussion? I think it's clear it has run its course. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I can close this again this evening. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
No problem with the closure this time, which was very fairly handled; but I want to point out that you included two other discussions in the boxed-up, closed-off area. No reason to think that they are closed. An oversight? --Alan W (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Oops! I was having trouble with the archive templates for some reason, and while fiddling around, I forgot to put archive bottom back in. Hang on... I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hurricanehink beat me to it (thanks!) I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Just saw that. Looks like we're OK now. --Alan W (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha!

Thanks for catching that mistype of mine - pretty embarrassing!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. The rest of your statement made it clear what your thoughts were, so I doubt there was any actual confusion. Still, it's funny to consider that some of our big donors might have a masochistic side. :P I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

wiki meetup

I will be late, on my way. - Prabodh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.85.18 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem. We are on the third floor! I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Terribly sorry that I was unable to attend. Some work related issues required my attention. Please let me know of any future events. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
That's quite alright. I'll be sure to notify you for our future events! I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

A kitten for you!

Thanks for all your hard work helping with the meetup! The Library staff enjoyed hosting the Wikipedians.

TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for William Foley (artist)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Oedo Sukeroku Taiko

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Seidō Kobayashi

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kiki (Kiki's Delivery Service)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you celebrate Halloween but... Happy Halloween!

 Hello I JethroBT, Miss Bono has given you an lovely bat, to wish you a Happy Halloween! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a lovely bat! Enjoy!
Spread the goodness of a lovely bat by adding {{subst:User:Miss Bono/Halloween}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks Miss Bono! I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome. Will you be dressing up? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 19:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Not this year, sadly. I didn't make time to think about a costume, but perhaps next year I will. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Ohh, hope being around next year to ask you what costume did you choose. If we celebrated Halloween here I know what would be mine. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 19:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Miss Bono, JethroBot, please! Celebrating the concept of halloween does not require permission from one's society. This year my costume was a cardboard box with some fallen leaves taped to it, put together in twenty minutes, due to real-life time pressure. Some friends and I are planning to hold our own Second Halloween celebration on the final day of November, since we ran out of time for the traditional date (set by The Man no doubt to oppress the costumetariat) at the end of October.... putting on interesting costumes, and going door to door asking for candy, right around dusk, is not actually illegal, right? Right. You are both welcome to celebrate Second Halloween with us, if you like, but I'm not sure I can walk all the way to either of your doorsteps.  :-)    Actually, for JethroBot at least, dressing up in silly clothing may not be something robots do, you know? Perhaps with some tweaks to the ol' positronic circuitry.... hmmmm..... 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I think I hear a sad song coming on:
♪ All of the other humans
used to laugh and be all mean.
They never let poor Jethrobot
dress up for Halloween... ♪
Just kidding. I definitely celebrate Halloween, though I've never done a second Halloween. 74.192, it's probably not illegal, but I can guarantee you'll get lots of stares, surprised looks at the door, and unfortunately, not much in the way of candy. Still, there's nothing wrong with having a costume party any day of the year! I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, although I avoid using TXT-ese like the plague, that song made me Laugh Out Loud. As for the stares and surprised looks ... what more could one ask?  :-)     Any candy is just a bonus. There is no better sugar-rush, than to see an honest smile. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for noting the Petronilla RfC close at WP:CLOSE. I should have thought of that but it's my first close and I'm still learning the procedure. Thanks again for your help! — Keithbob • Talk • 14:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing. Closing when a discussion is unanimous is (usually) uncontroversial, but as a general rule, I still try to avoid doing it if I have intentionally participated in the discussion. I think it'll be fine this time, because no one seems to have objected to it, but it's just something to keep in mind for the future. I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, good advice. In future I will not close any discussions I have participated in even if the consensus is unanimous as this one was. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Sacred Twenty

Hi there. I have checked out the ref that you put in the hook, which refers to pages 277 through 279 in Frank. However, although those pages discuss the subject, they do not support that particular fact. However, further digging in the same book shows that on page 415 the claim is supported. I notice that references 8 and 9 in the article are essentially the same, has there been a slight mixup with the references perhaps? I'm happy to say that it qualifies for DYK but we should fix this up before putting it forward. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC).

Ah yes, that's right. My mistake! Allow me to fix this. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

January will be a busy month for me, both on and off-wiki. Doubt I'll be a contender (I'm mostly in DYK-land), but I guess that isn't really the point, huh? Let me give it some thought, and thanks for the invite. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

John Green's Support of AFc Wimbledon

I have added a citation to this section, also it is common practice to include celebrities support of football clubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.208.150 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lisa Bufano

Thanks for the tweak. Haven't nominated a photograph for a featured picture before! kencf0618 (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I only just did it for the first time myself recently. Your submission looks really amazing! I'm going to look it over and put in my thoughts. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

no, you need not punch anyone in the jaw, I'll take your word for it

Hello JethroBot, saw your post over at WP:RETENTION, so I investigated you a little. I have not seen the movie (your friends are correct), but I read the book into tatters. I seem to recall *very* clearly one of the protagonists, a powerful politician of some sort, whose father was unable to walk, ended up proving their humanity by eating an apple, and then punching a heckler in the jaw.

Don't worry.

Your secret is safe with me.

:-)

As befits someone bound by the three laws (or four if you like the sequels), your WP:IMAGINE is very helpful to us humans. I've been trying to put together something like that on my own, but will be happily directing people to your essay from now on. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've read the book, so I probably ought to give it another read! If you feel like you can improve WP:IMAGINE, please do. I put it out there for people to not just read, but to engage it. And thanks a bunch for the kind note. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I may just give that a shot. Your second example, about the rouge-slash-eguor-admin, who is called in by a friend, and then gets hot under the collar, fails to properly grok the thousands of kilobytes that existed before the admin arrived on the scene, and pulls out the ban-hammer (well, block-hammer, but does not roll off the tongue)... plus, then, worst of all, goes on a bit of a witchhunt with the person's previous work... and admits no wrong-doing, plus refuses to discuss even in theory whether there *might* have been the possibility of wrong-doing, or at least, overly-hasty-actions.
  I absolutely positively saw it happen, or at least, saw something so indistinguishable from the real thing as to hardly matter (perception is unfortunately often as crucial as facts). I don't hold a grudge, and was indeed a totally uninvolved bystander that stumbled across the mess by luck. But some of the people involved ... especially methinks the peripherally-involved folks, not the blockee nor the block-er personally ... will either be angry about, or cackling about, this foolishness indefinitely. Which is in my book, Not Good.
  One of my big complaints, and the reason I went looking for something like WP:RETENTION in the first place, is that wikipedia is organized to ignore false-positives, such as a too-quick-block. We'd rather pretend that a too-quick-block, or even (*vastly* more common) a too-quick-revert/templateSpam/AfD/whatever is 'Just An Oops'. But they aren't, they hurt. Some People Say that weasel words are great, and that blocks & reverts are inherently[2] divisive.
  Anyhoo, as always, the situation is complex, but I'd like to suggest something like a merger of the moral-of-the-story found in WP:IMAGINE with the heuristic of WP:NOCLUE. People are complex; sometimes, they are very smart in many areas -- which we must assume exist if we are to assume good faith -- but may suffer from a clue-blindness (temporary or permanent) in one area. Other times, they are subject to external confounding factors -- which we once again must assume exist if we are to really really assume good faith -- that can color their judgement, impair their competence, or ruin their hair-day.  :-) &nbps; &nbps; Anyhoo, definitely a good essay, captures a key part of what wikipedia ought to be, or at least, ought to strive to be, even if we don't always achieve it with 100% accuracy. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Jethro, I very much appreciated your kind words, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! I, JethroBT drop me a line 06:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Fun


Hello I JethrobBT! I offer up this tidbit I helped reference and write as part of TAFI some time ago in a reply to your statement that fun is not the first thing you think of when thinking of Wikipedia. From the above I can see why you would feel that way. Many of our vandals and disruptive editors are having fun with us at the project's expense an should be seen through more than just a critical eye. However (isn't there almost always one of those) what is fun to one may not b to the other. I started out on Wikipedia because I enjoyed writing. I derived pleasure from it and the experience and constant re-enforcement led to longer intervals of...writing. On Wikipedia, it is difficult to write much if you don't research and I have always "enjoyed" that aspect of work. With more leisure time on my hands, of course that simply gave me more time to learn which I really can't help but admit I really enjoy. Learning to me is a discovery and that sparks an emotional response, enjoyment. I know what you meant and am not trying to get at you. I just remembered this snippet from our article when I read your Editor Retention comments and thought, well...if the fun was to ever really go out of volunteering here (and I try many different ways to keep this enjoyable) then I would probably contemplate semi retirement. I look at how we are regarded as editors by some who would use are material unattributed (and as Jimbo said it isn't that big a deal) and then look at those who regard us as a collective of writers who should at the very least be attributed. What I see is one group that makes use of our material and another that notices to begin with that the material is ours. If that gives us satisfaction then our fun has at least achieved recognition and that at least means we're being read. I think we want to be read and that if you can find some joy in the work, it's a net plus. ;-)

By the way, never heard anything from the artist of those military paintings.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think I was feeling a tad cynical when I wrote that "fun" isn't exactly the first thing I think of when I consider doing work on Wikipedia. I get a lot of enjoyment, or at the very least, a nontrivial kind of satisfaction from the kinds of editing I do and other contributions (I've recently started setting up a GLAM here in Chicago that's been going pretty well). The "research" and "learning" aspects of it you discussed above are also big ones for me. (I'm actually going to lose access to my school account soon, so I'm actually feeling a bit frustrated that I'll be losing my ability to get to scholarly articles pretty quickly and easily.) Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I actually have a lot of fun with my work here, and I suppose my comment was more to express understanding that sometimes, the bad times on here can feel truly awful-- the kind of awful where you dread logging in. I think such experiences can effectively mask or undo the satisfaction an editor has experienced and drive folks to retire, though I certainly cannot claim to know when that has happened because I usually do not know enough about the circumstances, and also because I try to imagine editors complexly. Speaking only for myself, I think it would take a lot of abuse to drive me off to retire. More likely, I would retire if off-wiki priorities like family or job demands would force me to spend less time here.
As for the military paintings, I can see if the Chief Librarian at the Pritzker can get in touch with him. Might be able to get a quicker response that way... I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ Bailey, Nathan (1775). An universal etymological English dictionary: comprehending the derivations ... R. Ware, W. Innys. pp. FU–FU. ISBN 978-1234363932.
  2. ^ Andreyev, Judith (2005). Wondering about Words: D'où Viennent Les Mots Anglais ?. Bréal; BREAL. p. 26. ISBN 978-2749503059.
  3. ^ Cousineau, Phil (2012). The Painted Word: A Treasure Chest of Remarkable Words and Their Origins. Cleis Press. p. 156. ISBN 9781936740253.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I_JethroBT/Archive_9&oldid=1168301809"