User talk:JFHJr/Archive

2007

Anti-Hellenism

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Anti-Hellenism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Guy Montag 06:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

2010

Bhutanese Citizenship Act

Hi, now that you've turned Bhutanese Citizenship Act into a disambiguation page, could you help fix the links that need re-pointing per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 17:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your request. I'd actually gone ahead and changed several relevant links that I saw. A careful read of the full list of pages pointing there shows all pages with the nationality laws template, plus about two that actually needed some sort of fixing. I'm not sure why the template, which I updated at the time of the move because current law is most relevant, would continue to indicate all its pages link to the disambiguation. As far as I can tell, they don't link inappropriately. If there's a better fix, please advise. JFHJr (㊟) 19:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, when you fix a disambig link in a template, it takes a while for the pages to update and become "aware" that it no longer links to the disambig. They've been updated now, and there are no more links to the disambig at all. Thanks much!!! --JaGa^talk 21:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Tsa Yig

Well done...very good. Did my notes help in anyway? Hope it makes it to DYN. If so, let me know. OK, take care! Buster Seven Talk 09:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, sorta. We actually had the exact same notes! I think (free) sources of information in English on the Tsa Yig must be very limited. In any event, I think everything you have appears in the article. It was fun to see we'd been working on the same article.

About DYK, I don't plan on nominating anything there, ever. In my opinion, Bhutan experts able to contribute would most likely find the page through links in other Bhutan pages. But if you think DYK would help the article, by all means feel free to nominate Tsa Yig. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I nominated it beacuse it is perfect for DYK. Personally i think DYK helps the article sometimes beacuse then someone can see it on the main page and become interested in the subject after reading the DYK or think its fasinating and maybe contribute but thats me. Also you should think of joining WikiProject Bhutan we could always use help. Spongie555 (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bhutan

Im planing to make an article about Bhutanese passport but i cant find much sources other then the Ministry of Foreign Relations. I dont know if there is anything you can find in the law? Im planning to make the article first in my Sandbox then make the article. Spongie555 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't seen or heard of anything in English-language codes or regulations specifically about passports. Your source, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems to be the passport authority. The ministry is essentially an executive agency. Within the bureaucracy, passport processing seems to be the purview of Protocol Department, Protocol V. The Bhutanese Passport FAQs spell out a lot of policy and procedure, which are part of the law. They don't refer to any laws, however. Otherwise, the application itself also gives you some of the information you'd need to write an article like this or this. The information on the Ministry website is from before 2008 (references expiration dates). There's also Bhutan: Procedures to follow and documents required to obtain a Bhutanese passport from Refworld, reflecting the expiration date for old passports. Other than references like these, I haven't found an act or bill to refer to. JFHJr (㊟) 07:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Also the article Flag of Bhutan article is going through GA review if you would like to watch or help. Spongie555 (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

2011

Barnstar

		The Bhutan Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for all you have done for Bhutan related articles, especially law and politics. They are extremely well-appreciated. You deserve this award ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to JFHJr on January 3, 2011

If you are interested in helping improve Thimphu further to GA level sometime I'd be happy to work with you!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Schedule

Hello could you make an article about the First and Second Schedule in the Constituion of Bhutan?(One article instead of two separate). They deal with the national Flag, Anthem and emblem of Bhutan. It's ok if you can't. Spongie555 (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing! It's sorta on my list of things to do. I was going to add that law along with whatever's needed from the flag rules of '72. But I was going to add it chronologically to the flag of Bhutan article's history section. A brief synopsis of the law as it changed might be better than a stand-alone article. I'll get to it next. JFHJr (㊟) 03:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It is appreciated. I think the two schedules does deserve a stand alone article like Act on National Flag and Anthem (Japan). Spongie555 (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the Japanese article you linked; I think Japan's legislation is distinguishable as noteworthy because the symbols were controversial within Japan. In other words, the Japanese Act was a truly political event. However while the Bhutanese 1972 legislation codified rules, there was no controversy or noteworthiness other than the codification of already extant designs. Neither the 1972 legislation nor the Constitution present a departure from what was there before.

I also looked at the Bhutanese flag article. I wasn't aware there was already a cite to the first schedule in the flag article (though oddly the content isn't the same as the PDF version, e.g., symbolism of the "snarling mouth"). I added additional cites to the content that is in the first schedule. As for the anthem, the second schedule has a slightly different translation of the national anthem. As far as I can tell, though, no substantive changes to the flag, emblem, or anthem were made under the Constitution: nothing changed about the flag, and the slightly reworded English version of the anthem is not authoritative and the Dzongkha version remained the same. Here's the full text of the PDF version:

First Schedule. The National Flag and the National Emblem of Bhutan. The National Flag. The upper yellow half that touches the base symbolizes the secular tradition. It personifies His Majesty the King, whose noble actions enhance the Kingdom. Hence, it symbolizes that His Majesty is the upholder of the spiritual and secular foundations of the Kingdom. The lower orange half that extends to the top symbolizes the spiritual tradition. It also symbolizes the flourishing of the Buddhist teachings in general and that of the Kagyu and Nyingma traditions in particular. The dragon that fully presses down the fimbriation symbolizes the name of the Kingdom, which is endowed with the spiritual and secular traditions. The white dragon symbolizes the undefiled thoughts of the people that express their loyalty, patriotism and great sense of belonging to the Kingdom although they have different ethnic and linguistic origins. The National Emblem. Within the circle of the national emblem, two crossed-vajras are placed over a lotus. They are flanked on either side by a male and female white dragon. A wish-fulfilling jewel is located above them. There are four other jewels inside the circle where the two vajras intersect. They symbolize the spiritual and secular traditions of the Kingdom based on the four spiritual undertakings of Vajrayana Buddhism. The lotus symbolizes absence of defilements, the wish-fulfilling jewel, the sovereign power of the people, and the two dragons, the name of the Kingdom.

Second Schedule. The National Anthem of Bhutan. In the Kingdom of Bhutan adorned with cypress trees, The Protector who reigns over the realm of spiritual and secular traditions, He is the King of Bhutan, the precious sovereign. May His being remain unchanging, and the Kingdom prosper, May the teachings of the Enlightened One flourish, May the sun of peace and happiness shine over all people.

So in short, the 1972 Act was nothing very new except for etiquette (a national flag already existed), and the 2008 Constitution didn't change anything substantively. The Constitution of Bhutan article, in its schedule section, appropriately links to the flag, emblem, and anthem articles that contain the information from the schedules as it is. At this point I'm not sure if anything really needs to be added. JFHJr (㊟) 05:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a stand alone article for the schedule might not work. But would an article like for example National symbols of Belarus work? Does the law call the flag, anthem and emblem national symbols like Belarus? Spongie555 (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely write an article called National symbols of Bhutan. But it would just have all three with a {{main for the each of the main articles. Basically it would be an article version of Category:National Symbols of Bhutan with a little info from each in one place. I was already thinking of a way to make a template of sorts for the national symbols, but now I think your idea of a new article is better. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 06:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you do make the article called National symbols of Bhutan]] we should make it look like the belarus one so it could have a chance for GA. If we could get a Good topic with the national symbols of Bhutan that would be awesome as we already have Flag of Bhutan as a GA. Spongie555 (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. JFHJr (㊟) 08:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I plan to nominate it to GA soon im just waiting for someone to copyedit it unless you did it already. Spongie555 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The article was copyeditied and they left some feedback in the talk section if you would like to take a look. Spongie555 (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The article was nominated for GA. It could take a while till it is reviewed. Spongie555 (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is being reviewed for GA. Look at the talk page for the review. Spongie555 (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Greetings from zhwiki

Thanks for your contribution on Chinese Wikipedia. :) As for the Afd request of your user page on English Wikipedia, well, User:虞海 did weird things on zhwiki too, don't take it too seriously. Have a nice day! --Kuailong (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Padma Choling

Do you have a source for the Tibetan name of Padma Choling? An anon has argued that it is wrong, and I was wondering about it myself.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I think that's my error. My apologies. I've reverted/undone my edits there. Thanks for letting me know! JFHJr (㊟) 13:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

Great job with expanding the National symbols of Bhutan article. I didn't see your message on the talk page till now. We can contact the original GA reviewer and ask him to look it over again for feedback if you want. I havnt been looking at Bhutan articles lately due to the recent Middle East protests. Spongie555 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all! I took my time getting to it myself. I'm sure it could still be improved, so have at it! JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted him and lets see and wait on his review. Also have you seen the recent controvorsy about the Tobacco Control Act of Bhutan 2010? A monk got arrested(the first person arrested by the law) and he was sentenced to jail for 3 years and I saw somewhere the Oppostion party leader supports the monk against the law. Spongie555 (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have included a few stories from bhutanobserver as citations on implementation. I think the monk story was in at least two of those. I didn't include any of the facts from news reports, other than describing it as "high profile." Feel free to add more about it if you wanna. I bet the controversy over enforcement will continue. Incidentally, there's also a plastic bag ban that authorities apparently want to crack down harder on. Wonder how it'll all turn out... JFHJr (㊟) 16:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The original GA reviewer as you might have seen worked alittle on the National Symbols article. Looks like it might need more sources due to he put citation needed templates next to some sentences for example the national anthem section has a few. Spongie555 (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't do any work myself on the anthem – just copied from the main article – and haven't really looked into it. Have a whack at it, or if not, maybe I'll get back to it in a few weeks. JFHJr (㊟) 06:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Language name moves

Cases like "Latin" aren't necessarily good examples; the fact that they are so well-known makes them special cases. In the case of Latin, for example, there was in fact a "Latin people" ethnic group (the Latini), but it's sufficiently obscure that it's shoehorned into the page Latins (Italic tribe). I don't see the redundancy involving "-kha" as necessarily a problem; in practice, "hidden" redundancy of this sort occurs all the time (e.g. search for "Chocangacakha" in Google and you'll see most hits actually refer to the "Chocangacakha language"). As for ethnic groups, the actual question is not whether we currently have pages for the ethnic groups in question but what they would be referred to if the pages did exist. For example, the Joshua Project [1] refers to an ethnic group called the "Lakha of Bhutan" aka "Lakhapa", where it clearly includes "kha" as a part of the ethnic group's name (on the other hand, for Nyenkha the group is called Nyenpa).

However, all in all I don't feel strongly about the language name moves. Mostly I did it because nearly all the other Sino-Tibetan language pages (and most pages for obscure languages in general) are named "Foo language". If you really want to move them back, go ahead. Benwing (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm answering here because I find broken conversations sloppy (see my Edit Notice). I don't find the Joshua Project to be authoritative or even necessarily credible as it seems to get ethnic information from elsewhere and identify "progress" in evangelizing as its foremost purpose. More credible sources like Ethnologue (also evangelistic but actually scientific) do not make the redundancy. Beyond redundancy, "Lakhapa" sufficiently differentiates the ethnic and linguistic name; in no event is "Lakha people" a possible iteration. Also, I don't think "most" applies to the Cocangacakha results; my first ten hits showed only three as you described. Did you search for something else? Lastly, consistency with other Sino-Tibetan languages is not particularly relevant. Per the unambiguous wikipedia naming policy, they should be moved back; since the target page already exists (I would have to submit a request), you should arrange the move. JFHJr (㊟) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

PS. The Latin example was not mine. My examples appear on your talk page. Hindi, Urdu, Dzongkha. JFHJr (㊟) 15:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it didn't require admin after all. They've been moved back. JFHJr (㊟) 00:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

King of Bhutan

I don't know if you know but His majesty the King of Bhutan is getting married. This is great news for Bhutan. Spongie555 (talk) 05:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep! I think it was announced last week. The wedding won't be for a few months, but I look forward to contributing on it. I think there's already a mention on the King's article, and I've seen some neat things in user sandboxes. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I want to make article for Jetsun Pema but i dont know if anyone else is going to make on due to major news articles usally sprout out very fast. Spongie555 (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I was right the article exists now at Jetsun Pema (Bhutan). If you want to help expanded it or add more info it would appreciated. Spongie555 (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Tibetan naming conventions

A while back, I posted a new proposal for Tibetan naming conventions, i.e. conventions that can be used to determine the most appropriate titles for articles related to the Tibetan region. This came out of discussions about article titles on Talk:Qamdo and Talk:Lhoka (Shannan) Prefecture. I hope that discussions on the proposal's talk page will lead to consensus in favour of making these conventions official, but so far only a few editors have left comments. If you would be interested in taking a look at the proposed naming conventions and giving your opinion, I would definitely appreciate it. Thanks—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Khmer script diacritics

Hello there. I am not sure what exactly did you do to the diacritics in the Khmer script article, but I cannot see them anymore. I am wanting to revert it back to before (in the previous history pages, I can see them just fine). Care to explain for me the technical purpose of your edit? How come I cant see the diacritics anymore? --Dara (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: This appears to be an issue with Google Chrome (on Win7). In IE9, the diacritics shows up fine.--Dara (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No I don't really care to again. But I will anyway. The technical purpose of my edit appears in the edit summary. It says: place ideographic space before combining diacritics to force display. The purpose was to force the display of combining diacritics that were combined onto pipes in a Wikitable. On two Macintosh browsers the result was a bad display: characters either to the left of the table, or which didn't appear at all. My edit forced their display. My edit summary accurately and completely described the changes I made. Your edit summaries, on the other hand, don't say much at all. You might care to take advantage of them. Or you might not, but it's still a Wiki policy. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my tone offended you in anyway, I did not mean to intentionally sound or be rude to you. I did read your summary, but admittedly, I am inept in many regards. When I compared the differences, I did not realize that the spaces you added were actually special UNICODE characters that are different from regular spaces. Thanks for taking the time to explain what the problem was. They had appeared fine for me on many occassions before as well as when I was on Ubuntu, so your edit and summary didn't make sense to me. If I had known such a character exists that forces the display of the characters in the correct position, I would have used them for the dependent vowels which have the same problem (when they are not paired with អ) but is more obvious to me as this can be seen in the browsers I use. Also, I will try to not leave the edit summaries empty from now on, thanks for the reminder. --Dara (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries at all. I'm sorry I got snarky. FYI I also get over things just as easily! I understand browser display is often an issue beyond user control. If you find a better fix that works on more browsers, I wholeheartedly hope it can be put in place. My edits aren't perfect! Again, my apologies for the snark. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 15:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

singular they

Not really related to Wikipedia, but I think I've found a legitimate use for the singular they. Cheers.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh very neat. JFHJr (㊟) 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I love the singular they. It avoids the he/she 'ugly-phone'. Loved the butterfly too. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

IMvHO, they's great (chortle), but goes best with antecedent and verb agreement. I think it's neat when people use "she" to keep it singular. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

An award

I know I've given you this before but you seriously deserve another.

		The Bhutan Barnstar of National Merit
		Thank you for all you have done for Bhutan related articles. You greatly deserve this award for your magnificent efforts with gewogs/chewogs/villages and historical provinces. Keep up the fantastic work and may Bhutan flourish on wikipedia.
		this WikiAward was given to JFHjr by ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's all in good fun. JFHJr (㊟) 07:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bumdeling Wildlife Sanctuary

It says here that Bumdeling located in Lhuntse, Trashigang and Trashiyangtse, but here - that it is located in Lhuntse, Mongar and Trashiyangtse District. --Impro (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary

It says here that Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary located in Trashigang District and Trashiyangtse, but here - that it is located in Trashigang District and Samdrup Jongkhar District. --Impro (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you again, Impro! JFHJr (㊟) 21:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi JFHJr, I've been looking at your recent articles and was surprised that you hadn't already been set as an Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of fixing that. If you read wp:Autoreviewer there is some bling you now qualify for, if you are interested in userboxes etc. Happy editing! ϢereSpielChequers 18:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note re: autopatrol/autoreview! To be honest, I don't mind whether or not I'm autopatrolled. Apparently my name has showed up in requests before, just randomly, and I was denied, in short, because an admin was making up a personal interpretation of a very unambiguous policy. This was our discussion (at bottom). Although I'm pretty indifferent about autopatrol (or even ambivalent – I welcome scrutiny and review because I make errors, too), I got a kick out of knowing some folks just make up policy as they go along. I'm glad to see others such as yourself are willing to practice the policy as it's written. So again, thank you for taking the time to leave me a note, and for rectifying things. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 21:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

BITEy edit summaries

Edit summaries like [this one where you asserted "comm department meatpuppet" are extremely BITEy. Please don't do that in the future. It's quite sufficient to open a sock investigation and leave the template notice on a user's talk page. If it turns out you were wrong, then There's no need to keep a record of that mistake on the user's talk page. An accusatory edit summary, though, leaves very deep bite marks. DeliciousBits (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, quit flogging your self-righteousness in public. Either take your complaint to WP:ANI or shut up. DeliciousBits (talk) 02:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference / citing question

Hi JFHJr,

On this article [2] is it all but some of the references cited from the organision's page and long paragraphs of text cited or referenced? Can you please explain to me why this article was nominated for deletion and then it was discussed by people who were obviously part of the organisation and they said not to delete it? And most of the references cited from the organision's page - how is that approved? Thank you.

Domenico.y (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Howdy Dom! The short answer: Oaktree is apparently notable. However, you're identifying a real problem on the article. That means it needs work, not deletion.

Here's the long answer. The AfD discussion (here) indicates the consensus was to keep The Oaktree Foundation because significant third-party coverage was demonstrated (6 cites from 5 different sources: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]). The editor who offered this coverage also commented, "Could certainly do with a bit of a de-crufting and wikification." At WP:CRUFT, there's a good explanation of what that editor probably means: "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Basically, that editor showed that even though the current content at The Oaktree Foundation is not particularly good, the organization is notable because of the significant coverage and the article should not be deleted. So the points you can take away from this are: 1) during an AfD, editors are supposed to look beyond the current state of the article to evaluate the notability of the article's subject; and 2) even if an article survives AfD, it can probably be improved a lot.

Some information taken from the The Oaktree Foundation itself (references citing the organization) can be useful and reliable. It's important to see the difference between WP:BLP/WP:BIO (for living persons) and WP:ORG/WP:NGO (for organizations). Two differences between BLPs and ORGs are in 1) notability standards (mostly the same, but compare notability at WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:NGO), and 2) how we treat statements by the subject about itself (see WP:SPS for more). The basic preference is for third-party sources, but WP:SPS is not totally forbidden. But I think your concerns are very correct here. The article could use a re-write, from the point of view of an outsider, and without unduly using information from the organization about itself. If you're eager to improve the article, I suggest you re-write it here with the articles linked above, plus the organization website for some basic information that doesn't unduly promote it (probably good: leadership, year of foundation, past and existing projects, countries of activity, etc.)(probably not good: how many lives Oaktree saved, effectiveness of operations, other WP:PUFFERY). Personally, I'm not that eager for more Oaktree in my life, but if you decide to write a draft in your user space, I'd be happy to check it.

Lastly, I don't understand your impression that the AfD was "discussed by people who were obviously part of the organisation." I didn't look very hard, but I didn't see any obvious conflict of interest. Besides, I don't think it would matter very much even if that were the case. AfD is not a democratic !vote; rather, it's a process of consensus where !votes should be weighed according to the points they make. For example, an AfD !vote that simply says "Keep – it is WP:NOTABLE!" means very little without some proof. In this case, the 6 cites from 5 independent sources would probably have been enough showing for a Keep result even if there were 100 votes that only said "Delete – fails WP:GNG." Also, in the unlikely event conflicted editors have an improper impact at an AfD, it's important to remember there is no time limit for deletion, and even deleted articles can be restored for the right reasons. JFHJr (㊟) 23:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi JFHJr,

I like it when you do "the short answer is". In that way I can see what the answer is and I can then read the explanation in depth. Thank you for doing that. Ok, thank you regarding the explanation and the AfD. I will look into doing a draft of the Oaktree Foundation, although I don't think it interests me enough.

Thank you for editing my draft on Lyst. One editor still thinks it is a stub and he is correct - I will look further for more third party sources today and tomorrow and see what I can find.

Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Lyst - stub or not?

Is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Domenico.y/Lyst still a stub? Do I need more references or is that enough to pass the notability text? Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

It certainly is a stub. If it's alright, I'll (lightly) edit your draft and leave comments here on your draft. I'll be working a little slowly as I eat pizza, drink beer, and watch the news. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the article I have created. I hope you enjoyed your pizza and beer! I will research some more and I am sure I will find some third party sources.

I found another article that supports the BBAC show - can you look into it and see if it is good and reference that please in the BBAC article? I don't know whether I should out that in or not [9]

Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

I'm inclined to say it's a decent source to show the event occurred, and that the named artists and designers participated (basically, the first three paragraphs). What you should not do – what I've seen you do before – is take a Reichman claim or statement about herself (4th paragraph) and attribute it as the opinion of the publisher. If you have more questions about whether something is a good source, the folks at WP:RSN will probably be of help. I think this question would be perfect for them. You might explain that you're interested in working on fashion articles in general, and list this and a few other sources you're wondering about, all at the same time. JFHJr (㊟) 17:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that and not reference the article's opinion, I will just reference facts of the article. I will go on WP:RSN and look. Domenico.y (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC) – sectioned-off by JFHJr (㊟) 08:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Domenico.y re: citing question

68.175.22.238 keeps undoing my references that are not cited which were not factual or which were cited incorrectly [10]. In the "view history" tab, they undid all my edits, without an explanation. Is this allowed? Can you look into that please and edit it? It seems a lot of other editor's edits they've rolled back... Thank you Domenico.y (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Yes, the revert, on its own and even without an edit summary, is allowed. Clearly it's not the most helpful edit, though. Edit warring is what is not allowed (see WP:EW). That said, you have a point regarding uncited education and Bill Gates' praise, but the part you removed regarding the other companies looking into the algorithm was actually in the cite. It shouldn't have been removed, which might explain the revert. But the IP editor left no edit summary, so we can't be sure.

Also, I don't think you're representing the situation accurately. You say the IP "keeps undoing" your edits, "they undid all my edits," and "a lot of other editor's edits they've rolled back." This is simply untrue in regards to this particular IP, and that IP hasn't edited in a few days. If a number similar IPs keep undoing your edits, that's another matter and I haven't looked into it. If that is the case, you should show what's called a "diff."

Here's the skinny on diffs. To show what particular edit or several edits you're talking about (what that guy did), just go to the article in question and find "View history" at the top. In that list, find the two versions you want to compare, and click the "compare selected versions" button. It takes some getting used to, but the result will show all the exact changes that happened after one edit, or after several edits. If you copy the link at the top, you can insert it in conversations like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ori_Allon&action=historysubmit&diff=454628466&oldid=454115677]. The real result will be a number in brackets [11], unless you decide to give it a title like this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ori_Allon&action=historysubmit&diff=454628466&oldid=454115677 title here] → revert at Ori Allon. Now that you're armed with the power of diffs, you can show exactly what behavior you're talking about.

Back to your situation. I can think of three things you might try:

1. Assume good faith (see WP:AGF). It's not always easy, but it's very important. Objectively, there's nothing wrong so far. Despite your claims, this IP hasn't done any large scale reverting.
2. Make careful changes, removing only what's not sourced, then leave a note on the talk page explaining that Bill Gates' praise and all statements about education should be cited, or removed until they can be cited. Objectively, they're probably true, but here it's all about WP:verifiability.
3. If your changes are reverted again, leave a note at WP:BLPN explaining that your edits were reverted, explaining that you will not edit war, and asking that a more experienced editor look at the article and make appropriate changes. In that case, you should also include a diff for each edit in question. If you decide to post anything at WP:BLPN (notice board for living persons – review WP:BLP before posting) or at WP:ANEW (notice board for edit warring – review WP:EW before posting), please take care not to exaggerate or overstate the situation.

I'm sorry, but I'll decline your invitation to edit the article. I think you raise good points, but that you should WP:BE BOLD in this case and keep in mind to assume good faith. You're showing yourself to be a capable editor, and I'll be glad to help you with advice if you need it. JFHJr (㊟) 08:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thank you for the tips on "diffs". I will assume good faith on this one and I will only remove only what's not sourced. Thanks again. Domenico.y (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

Thanks...

...for your contribution to the articles NXIVM and Keith Raniere!Chrisrus (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome! We'll see how the cookie crumbles. JFHJr (㊟) 14:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Case

Hi JFHJr, One Admin said "the CU data has me thinking twice about this case" and another Admin said "All the non-stale accounts look Unrelated." in [12]. I respectfully ask that you do not make accusatory remarks please against me. I am trying my best to find articles that I can successfully edit and it is true that I need assistances, but please help me not hinder me. Thank you. Domenico.y (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y

You seem confused: you're using conclusions of the Check User to ask that I stop talking about you. Do you understand the context and meaning of these comments? The Check User information and results show only that you or someone else did not use the named accounts by logging out of Domenico and logging in as another account from the same computer (socking). But the problem at issue wasn't just sock puppetry; it was meat puppetry. Please note, I didn't accuse you of anything. I gave truthful, relevant information to admin during an investigation of accounts that seem related to yours. In fact, you have even shared an IP with one of them. So thanks for asking me not to talk about you, but I'll participate in discussions if I want. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 15:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Reichman

We agree. Nevertheless, as I raised it at WP:RSN, I moved your comments and the follow up there. Hope you don't mind. Cheers, Racconish ^Tk 17:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all! I thought twice about where to put the comment. But only after I wrote it. I actually enjoy the fact that you move comments, especially in the context of discussing this article, as major contributor(s) often fragment it to hell. Thanks also for all the time and effort you've put into the article. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for the encouragement! Racconish Tk 18:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OMG! The place around the corner from my office serves these! Very close to home, and much appreciated! JFHJr (㊟) 21:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

AFD template

Hi, thanks for all your recent contributions to the BLP noticeboard. I just wanted to use the opportunity to publicize a template I find this template beneficial for uses at the noticeboard like adding it to your watchlist with one click .. - {{lafd|add article here}} - which creates something like ..... Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Gelb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Awesome, thank you Rob! JFHJr (㊟) 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Clover Food Lab AfD

Hi, I've expanded Clover Food Lab, and the article now has more references that give substantial coverage to the subject. Is there anything further that would help with regard to the article's AfD nomination? Emw (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment on the AfD page. JFHJr (㊟) 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben T. Smith, IV. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ossum, possum. Gave it a shot. I would have nom'd instead of just cleaning/tagging if he were slightly easier to research. Thanks for the heads up! JFHJr (㊟) 20:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Dale Kildee

I'm moving that discussion to the article talk page, but out of curiosity, why did you remove the link to Commons? Kelly ^hi! 03:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The commons removal was my mistake. JFHJr (㊟) 03:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no problemo. Kelly ^hi! 03:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Something to go with the beer

Thanks! The pleasure was shared ;-) — Racconish Tk 13:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing is believing!

Quote: "I do not work for or publicise or have anything to do with 77-pieces, iClothing, Lyst, Hugh Evans, Davina Reichman, Anina (model), GPP, Being Born Again Couture and Vikki Zieglier and adventure sports. They are articles which I take an interest in and edit."

See: This link.

Quote: "I do not [...] have anything to do with [...] Davina Reichman [...]"

Supreme facepalm of destiny!

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 16:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that farewell party needs an article here. Look at all the notable people in attendance. JFHJr (㊟) 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

LMAO! Exactly what I was thinking! That's a reliable source! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

@Marcus - FWIW this is the evidence I was referring to during our exchange a while back. I didn't feel comfortable posting it as I thought it would be WP:OUTING Dom, and preferred to air on the side of maintaining his privacy best I could in the face of being constantly attacked by him. But I hope you now understand where I was coming from when I was calling BS on there not being a COI. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Could have simply e-mailed me it.. I do have e-mail option open, and I don't bite! Without providing this crucial evidence when you appeared to be harassing and bullying him you didn't really give me a chance to accept your concerns as genuine. I can't really apologise for that, but as long as there have been no hard feelings or repercussions, it seems to have blown over and I doubt you need to worry about it. WP:Outing doesn't seem to include photos, just personal info. Barring his name, nothing else seems to have been given in her album. Nevertheless, he's lost his only ally in me.. c'est la vie! I played fair, he didn't. Simple as that. Peace, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 02:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

From the outset, these goons were a constant source of self-disclosure. They both registered under their own names, and Dom provided his full name in submitting images to Commons. It's very hard to unring a bell, and Dom indicated he wasn't interested in concealing his real life identity. Besides, as Marcus said, there's nothing about the photos that approaches personal information. At any rate, I too suspect these editors are pretty much gone, but they may have left a bit more to work on. There's been commentary on Dom's talk page about the manner in which some of his articles were deleted. They might need to be debated after all. JFHJr (㊟) 20:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I likely should have just linked directly to those photos when I was being attacked for calling him a COI editor. I wanted to air on the side of caution in protecting editor's privacy - even when it was fairly clear he was lying about not having a conflict and throwing up smokescreens (which were being believed by some experienced editors) by attacking others that were calling him out on it. Live and learn I suppose. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree there were smokescreens - however, it wasn't until the introduction of "OliviaBlond" that I started to get really suspicious and starting looking for direct relations current between Dom and Davina to confirm COI. Being in college together 10 years ago wasn't enough to qualify, given that he maintained that he lives in NY whilst she's still in Aus. But all that bullshit about her PC, with the same IP, being sold to a "friend" who was a "flatmate" that he "didn't know" yet somehow could email made less sense than one of George Bush's answers. If "Olivia" is real (as opposed to a sock) she certainly threw a spanner in their works and blew their cover by being arsey. Either way, if Davina does business as well as she does Wiki publicity, it's little wonder that her notability is lacking credibility. Saw her on a Youtube vid (here) - wouldn't trust her an inch, personally.. something about her.. kinda creepy. I don't think there's any need to get hung up over the deletion of those articles - plenty of AFD discussions took place and they still persisted in COI edits against a large number of editors advising otherwise. Seems like they just wanted to wind everyone up, and became their own worst enemy. Can only say "good riddance" if their attitude is going to become ignorance and page blanking, because that is all the proof we need to see that they just don't want to listen to reason. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(←) This one is probably my favorite. JFHJr (㊟) 01:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

*shudders* Whatever happened to shoulder, back or handbags.. all that fuss over what is, essentially, a pocket - which have been around since at least the 15th century. Talk about reinventing the wheel.. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's entirely more dire than you're making it out to be. Someone else reinvented the wheel. This one made a big pocket for the new wheel, but I swear it looks an awful lot like big coattails. Hopefully her ventures in non-notability will remain consigned to the blogosphere. JFHJr (㊟) 02:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw this. — Racconish^Tk 11:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, from the getgo. I'm excited because of the talk pages. Autographed by Davina. JFHJr (㊟) 14:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen this process before. Why are they looking to overturn an SPD just to have it go through AFD and still be nuked? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The process is appropriate when deletions are improper in some way. It's a good process to be aware of if you ever stick a toe into Speedy or AfD. In this case, I completely agree in overturning the deletions because they were procedurally wrong, a kind of due process overstepping that even a meatpuppet could overturn if aware. And personally, I've been, well, addlepated as to the rationale since they were deleted. And while I'll never ask for the articles to be restored, others doing so shouldn't be questioned because it's probably in everyone's best interests. The best way to get rid of something, even if it's been WP:SPEEDYd before, is to walk it through a proper AfD while its memory is still fresh, lest it crop back up when everyone's stopped looking. Think of it as lending a teaspoon of legitimacy to standards here and look forward to making your case. I don't believe I'll be AfDing either of them myself, but I'll probably participate if there's anything I can add to the discussion. JFHJr (㊟) 06:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like exasperating reasoning, but fair enough. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Silk Purse Award

		Silk Purse Award
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your superb improvements to the Matthew VanDyke article, essentially changing what was seen as a sow's ear into a terrific silk purse. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Why thankya! JFHJr (㊟) 01:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Doug Williams

Thanks again for the Doug Williams AfD comment. Would that other editors were as civil as you in AfD discussions. As for your follow-up with Williams himself, I'm not sure if you're brave or foolhardy, but good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. And thanks for the luck. I get the feeling my offer won't go anywhere, but the article really could use his full name, age, background, whatever else isn't a self-serving claim. I've been reading some of what Jimbo says about BLPs about compassion, and I think this subject is relatively unsophisticated from Wikipedia formatting to core policies. I think he probably deserves to have the problems spelled out for him, and maybe he won't go away feeling bad about Wikipedia, or try socking. As always, it's been nice working with you, Bbb. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Burton Bagby

I declined your speedy request on him as he seems to have plenty of press coverage. You may want to take the article to WP:PROD or WP:AFD. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look into the press coverage, you'll find lots of insignificant coverage and trivial mentions. Even a source connected to the subject for most information. Thank you though. JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to your request...

Hello! Sorry, I was very busy this week and I saw your request about checking out the Hungarian reviews on Agnes Rapai only now, roughly one week later. But I did check the links, and will respond on the article's discussion page, hoping it would still be helpful Cristixav (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks! I don't think there's a very big question anymore about the merits of the article. But it could certainly use more improvement. Thanks again for anything you can do! JFHJr (㊟) 22:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

2012

Hey

I saw your !vote on the Herzog AfD. I've missed you at BLPN. Happy New Year.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What a mess that one is! I've been sidetracked, but I'll wander back to BLPN sooner or later. Best wishes to you for 2012. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

M M Alam

Hi, you removed this (<ref name="avhist">''Pakistan's Sabre Ace'' by Jon Guttman, Aviation History, Sept 1998</ref>) source from M M Alam, Even though the resource might not be reliable the source can still stay in the article per WP:SOURCEACCESS. There's no requirement of the sources being online. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove it because it was unavailable. I removed it because it linked to tripod, which isn't even reliable to reproduce information. JFHJr (㊟) 22:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I assumed that, but that means only the tripod link should be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, my bad. JFHJr (㊟) 22:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Was just clarifying. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Latif Yahia

Hey, just wanted to let you know a little more about why I reverted one of your changes (explained a bit in my edit summary). Yahia's claim that he was Uday's double is sourced in the article (the first source). It's also included in the sources by the journalists who challenge the claim as they complain that everyone accepts his claim without verification. I'm sure I could find more sources that support his claim, but the one source is enough.

Also, the article, which if you divorce yourself from your role as a Wikipedia editor, is kind of entertaining. Yahia makes such outlandish claims. Everyone seems to accept them. Movies are made about them (why should anyone care of it's true - it's just a movie, anyway). Then along comes these two investigative journalists who, uh, investigate and debunk the claims in some detail. So, on the one hand you have Yahia and his unquestioning supporters (which are often secondary sources, though) and the challengers. And, to some extent, we feed Yahia's need for attention by having an article about him, although I can't see it not surviving a notability challenge. But at least, with the challenge section, we have a more balanced article. It probably needs more work, but I spent a fair amount of time trying to sort it out, make it cohesive, and make it source-compliant.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's cool. I appreciate that great big explanation, but I wouldn't have butted heads over it. Thanks for all your help on that article. And I agree, it's relatively hilarious. Yet another polished turd, if you will. I wasn't going for the jugular with my approach; agree it would definitely survive at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 02:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

About slating Shahid Alam for deletion

Shahid Alam is an important intellectual, author of about 20 books (one of them is a key text in development economics), teaches at univ in Boston, ..., author of hundreds of articles... and you slate the article for deletion? This is preposterous. --Antidotto (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Archiving Latif Yahia

I have no experience with Miszabot so I'm not daring to change its settings, but I'm puzzled by one parameter, "archive = Talk:Davina Reichman/Archive" . Shouldn't that refer to "Latif Lahia" instead? NebY (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Aye, my bad! I copied the code and didn't change that part. D'oh. JFHJr (㊟) 18:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Easy done! BTW after pruning those repeat posts, you might be amused to take a very brief look at the Amazon UK reviews of his latest [13]. 26 of them, all 5-star, all found helpful by everyone else and several virtually identical including three that begin As an Investigative journalist I am always interested in these "true stories". <sigh> NebY (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the hilarity continues. I love especially that the "helpful" ratings grow rather exponentially over time, as if the newest reviewer marked all the previous helpful each time. Also impressive is that the reviews come from tons of WP:SPA, or whatever the equivalent is in that parallel universe. I'm sure there are more shıts and giggles in store for the article here as well. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR at Khalid Amayreh

You wrote

• Your recent editing history at Khalid Amayreh shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

• If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. JFHJr (㊟) 02:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My response:

• • I've made two revisions in the last 24 hours (the third edit was an addition creating a new sub-section and not a revert). I have not violated the 3RR rule. I was removing material that had been removed by you based on reasons (in my opinion) are not supportable (you have not provided any evidence the translation is inaccurate, and an interview broadcast on Press TV (the national news agency of Iran is certainly notable). If you want to discuss this on the article's talk page, I will agree to that without reservation. I appreciate your concern about my potential violation of the 3RR rule, even though no violation has taken place. However, next time, I think you should simply suggest that an issue be discussed on the talk page, instead of immediately complaining about real (or in this case, imagined) violations of the 3RR rule.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

You need to read the warning template more closely. What you call "imagined" is addressed in the first line: you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule. The warning doesn't require you to have actually broken it. I'll be bringing a discussion at WP:BLPN. JFHJr (㊟) 02:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In your comment on my talk page, the edit summary read "You've broken the 3RR". I thereby concluded that you were accusing me of violating the 3RR rule. You subsequently write that I was "in danger of breaking the three-revert rule" which seems a little contradictory, but I'll assume (based on your comments above) that you were only warning me about a potential violation and that your edit summary was made in error. Anyway, I have placed this issue on the article's talk page. I won't revert the edit for the time being.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

Yep, apologies for the erroneous edit summary. I corrected the header as soon as I realized. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa

I struggled very hard to understand your comment on my Talk page, but I failed. I came up with a few different interpretations, but I wasn't sure which one, if any, was right. Would you enlighten me (it's been a long day)?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Mostly to show that user her behavior is specifically addressed in warning templates, but without going so far as to tag her. If you want to use humor, or even sling snark (which wasn't the case, but anyway), that's up to you. If anyone actually has a problem with it, they can discuss instead of removing, or even warn or report you if they're so compelled to act. Also, that user isn't an admin and she shouldn't perform anything like oversight on others' comments. JFHJr (㊟) 02:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand, thanks. She is an admin, though - she just doesn't say so on her user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha, shows what I know. And what even admins do. JFHJr (㊟) 04:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Marc Edelman

AfD next? Drmies (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but was imagining it would be easier once the vandal is permanently banned. JFHJr (㊟) 02:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

But the short answer is "yes! to be sure!" even if I don't do it tonight. JFHJr (㊟) 02:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Too late, my friend. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I'm always glad to participate. As always, it's nice to work with you. JFHJr (㊟) 04:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought the time was right for, ahem, decisive action and a shitty remark. Thanks for helping out with that disruption, and happy days. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sanford H. Calhoun High School

Please do not remove any of the information on the Calhoun High page. It has been a work in progress for years now, and most is cited by reliable sources. Please let me know if I can be of assistance to help find cites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.99.238 (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2012‎ (UTC)

You can add content when it's cited. For works in progress, please sign in and create a WP:DRAFT. JFHJr (㊟) 04:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Critical animal studies

• Critical animal studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical animal studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hi JFHJr - thanks for notification that i screwed up the listing on critical animal studies and center on animal liberation affairs pages. as you can see, i'm not the most literate user...having once upon a time been an editor and writer under a different name but have not been involved save as a user for a few years. things are much more complex (though in a good way than i remember).

i tried to follow the directions the first time. think i did a better job the 2nd.

but i still don't think i have it right.

can you check the critical animal studies page and help me if i've muffed something? or tell me where the error took place and of course i'll be happy to go do the legwork. liborgone — Preceding undated comment added by Liborgone (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2012‎ (UTC)

thanks

hi, i got your message this morning. no worries! your edits of my discussion are very much appreciated. i'm starting here with these entries because these are pages that i've been aware of for a while that have been red-flagged by me as a heavy wikipedia user (i'm a scholar of animal rights matters), but i would like to do my share and be a contributing member instead of just a reader. it seems that at heart this is the spirit of the whole wikipedia project, no? use it, build it, improve it. so your feedback and help has already gone a long way to assisting me to understand good protocol and form. i'm really thankful for the tips and oversight. if i have time to get in and clean up, i will. really busy yesterday and today, though.Liborgone (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

the page for the poet Simon R Gladdish

Hello JFH

Thank you for your previous helpful comments on the situation I find myself in. ie. The proposed deletion of the article I wrote on the subject of the poet Simon R Gladdish. One little question. I've decided to follow your advice. If I start a new draft on a userpage will the original page still be deleted?

Thank you

Riccardito (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article will be deleted unless notability can be established. In fact, drafts are mostly appropriate for content that doesn't have a live article. I hope you'll look into copying the contents into your draft space before it's deleted, to avoid starting over. You can even copy an old version by clicking "view history" at the article, finding an old version in the list (I'd choose the one with the largest size) and choosing "edit" to see the code as it previously existed. Copy and paste to your own draft, and voilà. But be sure not to click save on the old version of the live article (which will cause the article to revert to that previous version). Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hugo Schwyzer

John, thanks for pitching in on the Schwyzer article, but, as colorful as all those tags are, I'm not so sure that's the right way to go. I think we have to decide whether his comments about himself and his history are even related to his notability, such as it is. If the comments are indeed relevant in his amorphous role as a blogger/commentator on gender issues, then it might be kosher to use him as the source. If we go with your position, then his comments are only reportable if someone else (secondary source) talks about his talking about himself (heh). Anyway, I'd appreciate your giving me a little more analysis of what you think is right here because, even as I write this, I feel like I'm being unusually wishy-washy on what's appropriate, and it makes a significant difference on what belongs and what doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got my cleaver out but right now I'm mostly marking for the record. After the bulk is shunted, the remaining tags might help voters at AfD. FWIW, the webcitation links were bogus, just the same blog post over and over. JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought I looked at some of the webcite links, and I vaguely remember that the ones I looked at were not dupes. It's hard for me to look at them, though. For a while, webcite wasn't working, and then when it started working again, I had to look at them with IE because for some unknown reason they never work with Firefox (my preferred browser). Oh, well, I'll leave you to your cleaver. Even if it were to survive AfD, to me the article is junk.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm done for the moment with it; here's some analysis. This BLP apparently asserts the subject's notability as a writer and a professor. The subject is clearly a prolific writer about himself and sex, mostly in the blogosphere, but fails to as to WP:BASIC substantial coverage by multiple independent reliable third parties. He unambiguously fails the requisites of his central claim, a WP:WRITER, and the alternate WP:ANYBIO. The tags might help folks come to the same conclusion as to BASIC and WRITER. JFHJr (㊟) 01:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad

John, could you weigh in on the Talk page? I don't care if you agree with Sarek. I'd just like another opinion from an editor who was involved in the contretemps. Apparently, the other involved editor (Andy), based on a message he left on the IP's Talk page, is okay with the result.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hope I could be of help. JFHJr (㊟) 18:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

HWWilson

User:HWWilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is appearing too reluctant to follow the rules of Wikipedia. That person believes that the "death" of Kip Noll should be included as truth without verifiable, reliable sources. I'm running out of words to convince him that truth doesn't matter as much as verifying the truth. You did a great job analyzing the article, by the way. Please help me do something about HWWilson. --George Ho (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

New articles

John, have you ever participated at WP:AFC or been involved in patrolling new articles? I've been thinking about doing one or the other or both and, as with so many things on Wikipedia one hasn't done before, it looks complicated. So, I was hoping for a cheat sheet from someone with some experience in this area.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I think I've NPPd two articles. About the closest I've come to AFC is humoring a disruptive editor in his draft space. I looked at the AFC directions for the first time right after you posted. They look mommicked up. But I think NPP is relatively straightforward. And there's that checklist, which despite the TLDR project page is pretty short, and seems to sum up gut instincts an experienced editor would have about new articles. I say if it looks interesting, jump in. The NPP backlog could certainly use it. I think about patrolling once in a while (mostly when I run across the "mark patrolled" link), but I think my willingness to delete would probably get in the way... JFHJr (㊟) 20:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a belated note to thank you for responding so quickly. I've been buried this week in my personal life, so barely have time to go through my WP watchlist each day, let alone participate in collateral "duties" (BLPN, etc.). Sorry for taking so long to even acknowledge your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, 'tis the season. Real life is nuts for me also. No worries at all. It's always good to hear from you. JFHJr (㊟) 03:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Is this the same person?

Please note from my user name that Idaho is not a densely populated area. Despite this, with close age, nearby location, and name, a woman claimed my father got her pregnant and had to do right by her. Despite a common first name and uncommon last name, she had misidentified him (sight unseen), and later married the correct man. My family still laughs about this, so no; while there are enough similarities to prompt a search for more references, if we included other material with no better sourcing, we would have to scrap WP:BLP. Dru of Id (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Macleod

The guy wins a silver medal at the world masters games, and wins a couple of I tern atonal photo comps? How come you deleted that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.171 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 13 March 2012‎ (UTC)

The subject's swimming seemed at best irrelevant to me. As did the photography. The photography is clearly insignificant, as it's backed solely by primary sources, indicating no actual coverage or importance. The swimming is back in the current version, so there you have it. I'll note your contributions to the article undid the work of several editors who are trying to make it conform to WP:BLP guidelines. You've repeatedly replaced unsourced content, much of which is WP:UNDUE. You've produced and replaced crap inline citations referencing irrelevant material and other Wikipedia articles. You've also added citations to sources that don't support the claims made in any way, relying on synthesis and inference to indicate, for example, the subject's importance and relevance in the cluster relief approach generally. You've restored a list of ostensibly unimportant and unreviewed publications, essentially making WP:RESUME material while removing the related tag at the top of the article. Both the content and your reversions are problematic. If you're going to edit the biography of a living person, there's not much way around reading the BLP guidelines and related links above. Editors have tried to explain this to you in edit summaries and on the talk page. You've also been directed to WP:BLPN for a relevant discussion there. You've left neither edit summaries to speak of, nor meaningful discussion at either forum for discussing edits to the article. By the way, my talk page is not a forum. If you'd like to discuss the article or guidelines any further, you should have that discussion at the article's talk page or at WP:BLPN. As of right now, the thread is still active: WP:BLPN#Andrew_MacLeod. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts about Outing

Hi JFHJr, I got your message on the Andrew page. Completely understand. Do you think I should delete my comment? I don't think that it is outing anyone. I wanted to leave a message on his talk page but not being registered I presume means they don't have a talk page. It seemed a fair way of conveying a reasonable heads up that people can connect the dots very easily.

As for the photos. I suspect that user and Andrew are one and the same and hence he does have rights to the photos. But if he claims he isn't then I suspect its fair to presume that he doesn't. Quite frankly, it seems like splitting hairs over something not that important. I mean, odds on are that its the same person so the rights are legit. Since this is not about the individual, but about the quality of the article I'm not sure if there's anything further to pursue here. But if you think that its something that should be further discussed I would, but I'm not sure how it'd help protect Wiki? I'm a bit lost here as to the merit of taking anything further, though happy for any thoughts.

Cheers, --Ddragovic (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow in responding. You hadn't outed anyone last I checked. I just wanted to caution against the topic. But I don't think anything needs to be deleted. You raise very good points, and reasonable questions, but I just wanted to make sure the particular line of questioning regarding that editor stopped on that article talk page. The biggest reason is that article talk pages are places to discuss article content, not necessarily the behavior of other editors. The editor's own talk page (even if it is an IP editor!), WP:COIN, and Wikimedia Commons (where the files are stored) are appropriate places to follow up license and identity issues that you have raised. For instance, it would help Wiki generally if photos with false licenses were removed, or even questioned in good faith. But only if you're so inclined. Again, I'd like to thank you for your diligent and even-handed editing at that article. All the best :) JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Bo Lozoff Page

Hi. I have been out of the country for several months but I just returned and was going through some Wiki pages. I looked at the Bo Lozoff page and Truthcon seems like he is trying to take off edits again. I am mentioning it to you because many months ago you put the below on my talk page. I put something on the WP:ANI page, hopefully I did it correctly. I was wondering if you would look in to it? Thank you either way :)Molliegiles (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your post at the Bo Lozoff talk page, and though I think you meant well and raise valid concerns, you should instead post at WP:ANI or at WP:BLPN because you're discussing the behavior of another editor, not particularly the subject of the article or any of its contents. I've removed your comment from the talk page, but please don't take it personally. I'll keep an eye on ANI and BLPN, in case there's a way that I can help you further. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:18, 13 January 2012 (UT

Coaster92

Hi JFHJr. Thank you for taking the time to leave me a message and explanation re Buddy Fletcher. We do seem to have had a miscommunication. There is a lot to learn re Wiki and now I have yet another perspective. Thanks again.Coaster92 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (generic name of socialist publications)

Just FYI – I've located the following sources and have added them to the above AfD discussion:

• Morton, Victor (April 30, 2012). "New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism". Washington Times. Retrieved May 02, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Galupo, Scott (May 2, 2012). "What Barack Obama's 'Forward' Slogan Really Means". U.S.News & World Report. Retrieved May 2, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) (A valid WP:NEWSBLOG source)
• Ismael, Tareq Y., and Ismael, Jacqueline S. The Communist Movement in Syria and Lebanon. Gainesville [u.a.]: University Press of Florida, 1998. p. 246

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ira Einhorn

Should the page be semi-protected? Should they be given an edit warring notice or reported for it? This user is rather annoying. If you check the history of the page, this IP editor has been active on that page since July 2011. All of their edits to that page consist of removing information relating to his environmental activism, and adding in pov view. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a step ahead. Waiting to see whether the request is honored. JFHJr (㊟) 18:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Lydia Cornell

I'm not sure the BLPN discussion is resolved if no one other than the person closing the discussion explicitly offers the resolution. What you're saying is that the multiple sources stating she was nine in 1963 cannot be used to verify the date of her birth, correct? If so, that needs to be stated. It would appear to contradict WP:CALC. --Ronz (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My bad. Feel free to remove the resolved template and carry on. In my opinion, even that math is probably original research. Assuming it isn't, though, you could give a year range with that information, unless the publication makes clear whether it was before or after her birthday. But I find a range pretty unsightly. Best to have a reliable source, even if it's a primary source, that explicitly states the year. JFHJr (㊟) 04:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We've a primary source as well. I'll reopen it. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Bonhomme

Hello...I am very curious about your edit of the entry for me, Pierre Bonhomme. You deleted a fair amount of information that is actually valid and true. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierrebonhomme (talk • contribs) 05:01, 11 May 2012‎

(Butting in) I noticed that Pierrebonhomme (talk · contribs) posted at Help:Editing/feedback asking for the article Pierre Bonhomme to be deleted. Since you're active at WP:BLP/N, can I leave you to answer that? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

First, see WP:TRUE. See also this archive for background on the removal of content from this particular article.

All content in living persons' biographies must be supported by reliable sources; even material that is reliably sourced must be given due weight, so that the article consists of material that of enduring biographical and encyclopedic value. Primary sources such as the subject himself or parties involved with the subject's accomplishments are generally insufficient to demonstrate either notability or the noteworthiness of significant content (see also WP:BLPSPS). Primary sources can, however, be used to give basic biographical information. Most often, third party coverage — even just a mention — is required to indicate the importance of any particular event. Sorry, but verifiability, reliability, and due weight always trump what people may simply know to be true. I removed content that was unsupported by reliable sources, as well as content that appeared to have no importance to an encyclopedic biography as demonstrated by third-party sources.

Also, I again want to point you to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. While you're not strictly prohibited from editing the article about you, doing so is more often than not problematic because all humans are rather unable to maintain neutrality amid a conflict of interest, even when they recognize that one exists. Good advice on autobiographies and how to treat articles about you is also available for your reference. However, if you're still convinced your article should be deleted, you can either follow the steps at WP:BEFORE, or you can leave another note here and I'll nominate for deletion on your behalf. Please keep in mind that if you are actually encyclopedically notable, it is unlikely that your article will be deleted. Please also keep in mind that due to your conflict of interest, you should probably not participate a great deal in the deletion discussion once this process is underway. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ira Einhorn again

I find it interesting that both yourself and Harizotoh9 regularly overlook the fact that each time you edit his page you put the fact that is name is a german jewish name twice, in two sections.

You are clearly not interested in writing a good piece, but instead purporting the lie that he was the master of ceremonies when in fact he was not.

You seem to really be interested in ensuring certain things are in that piece but don't bother to carefully read it - or research it - to ensure the truth is written there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthTime8752 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 12 May 2012‎ (UTC)

That's not at all my objective. And the bare truth as you know it is not necessarily what will appear in an encyclopedic article supported by a verifiable, reliable source. Currently, the source appears alright. It's up to you to show, preferably with a more reliable and definitive source, that the information should be otherwise. You should remember to assume good faith, though your very brief editing history ([14], [15]) indicates you might have strong views in the matter to the extent that you might benefit from third party input. I've posted a second thread at WP:BLPN regarding the edits on this subject, so I hope you'll have a look at policy on living persons' biographies and then take part. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to be your objective because although you and Harizotoh9 always almost instantly correct any edits from IP editors or others that dispute - WITH RELIABLE SOURCES - the claim that Einhorn was the master of ceremonies. It is certainly not "the bare truth as I know it" - it is fact and truth that is distorted on what should be a reliable source for facts (Wikipedia). You (nor Harizotoh9) seem interested in the style of writing on the page as I pointed out to you and Harizotoh9 on that person's talk page that it is written in two sections that Einhorn is a german-jewish name - a completely irrelevant fact that does not even need to be there - let alone be written twice. Yet neither of you have jumped in to edit that issue. Your only interest in fact seems to continue the falsehood about his involvement with Earth Day. Two reliable sources dispute that, including sworn statements and testimony under oath, but you find it important to regularly cite the biased, ill-researched piece on msn. Have you read the articles at Time, the New York Times, Salon etc. or you just want to continue to ensure that the falsehood of his involvement in Earth Day is shown as "fact" on Wikipedia?

BTW - I did not see anything at WP:BLPN about Einhorn so I can't really have a look.... TruthTime8752 (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Your claims re "German-Jewish" are false. Check editing history before you make accusations. The term appears once in the prose, and once in the category. I did that, as a reduction from your additions. You seem not to care to understand: court ongoings are generally not acceptable for BLP content, especially regarding third parties. If you didn't see anything at WP:BLPN, you weren't looking hard enough. JFHJr (㊟) 16:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

John, if you have a moment, please take a look at Ira Einhorn. I'm having some trouble with TruthTime and IPs. My assumption is the accounts are related, but I don't know if I will take TT to SPI. On the SPI issue, I'm curious as to what you think. Then, of course, there is the issue of the disruptive editing of the article. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

John, if you have a moment, please read the referenced articles regarding Einhorn's role at Earth Day instead of blindly reverting to those who engage in edit wars to put forward a falsehood as if it were true. The continued insistence to cite a single poorly researched, very short and erroneous article instead of the multitude of reliable sources regarding the event calls into question every piece of information on Wikipedia. If the length of time a person edits gives greater value to the truth then what is this website for? A private club whose longer members get preferential treatment for their biased opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.195.5.182 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The tone and content you support are unencyclopedic and unsupported by sources. Please learn how to sign comments. JFHJr (㊟) 22:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sources for awards

Hello, please see "Sources for awards", and respond there. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Aleksandar Simic for JFHJr

Dear JFHJr....you have completely destroyed a solidly verified and documented Wikipedia article - .If this is your idea of good editing, then, Bravo for you...I don't care any more....I feel terribly violated...not nice...If you want, please put back everything the way it was (since an army of others have been keeping me busy these last few days trying to meet their requirements and I can not do it any more...so, please put it back...or delete the article completely . I hope you can understand my frustration.... Signed by: Aleksandar Simic aka 12text12....a guy who has been working for decades on his career (and now can not even contribute to his own wikipedia page with all the secondary confirmations and references....feel so bad and sad...really :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12text12 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

12text12: if you want a more solidly verified and documented article, you will need to add verifiable and reliably sourced information, preferably from English-language sources as this is the English (not Serbian) Wikipedia. I can't find any reliable English-language souces for any useful information about Simic or Simic's music. You might have better luck. Writegeist (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Camryn

Is it worth me going for semi-page-protection on such a minor article? I only ask since you commented on both the original OTRS query on the BLP noticeboard and the current one. I am up to 3 reverts of IP's who just wont discuss on the talk page. I cant quite call it vandalism since I suspect its from her PR agency. Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, redundant question, have just been reverted by registered user this time, again with no discussion. So semi-prot wouldnt have helped there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A Barnstar for your work at the BLP noticeboard

• - A barnstar for you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This is long overdue - thank you for your work investigating and correcting articles reported at the BLP noticeboard. Your NPOV contributions and time there is really beneficial. Youreallycan 17:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)}

Thank you YRC! Thank you also for your own work. Without positive guidance from editors like yourself, I doubt I would have been able to do much of anything. Thank you again! JFHJr (㊟) 22:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No mass removals please

Ok, let's talk, what are all these removals? You are in a spree of article destruction now. I don't like mass removals like the ones you are doing. Several people have no clue when they write in Wikipedia but they bring good information. An experienced editor never removes content without full justification and I don't expect that form you. For instance, you removed Elsie from Gjeke Marinaj and Elsie is a rs, so I reverted you. Please be more careful. Mesfushor (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You're free to disagree with my justification, but it was indeed full. Objective reliability of a source, as well as your personal impressions thereof, do not affect the BLPSPS nature of the publication. Let's say XYZ is a reliable journalist. Is XYZ's personal website a reliable source? Maybe. Is it a BLPSPS? Yes. Full stop. You should be more careful careening into user talk pages and characterizing others' behavior. Best of luck to you. You seem to need it. JFHJr (㊟) 19:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

My Video about Wakkanai Japan in 1963.

Wakkanai Air Station Japan 1962 - on You Tube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F16TopGun (talk • contribs) 17:11, 23 June 2012‎ (UTC)

YouTube is not an acceptable BLP source. See WP:RS, WP:BLPSPS. JFHJr (㊟) 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Z.D. Smith

Hey John,

I got the messages regarding ommission of the bio section and then ultimately the proposed deletion of Z.D. Smith from Wikipedia. The bio section ommission I can accept as it probably was too 'insider' or 'biographically' written. I just thought it had some neat info for potential interested parties to stumble upon that cared to know a little more about the people behind any one of our movies they might've checked out and liked. What I'm having trouble wrapping my head around is why it would still need to be deleted even AFTER all that was pulled and left with just the basic headline and filmography box (which is not hard at all to verify through other neutral online sources). While I (yes, I am the guy the page is about) may not be a household name or even a cult-figure by any means, but I have appeared in (and produced) projects that are AVAILABLE world-wide through 'known' distributors and have notably 'known' actors in them. Given the scale that we work on, not many people are aware of it's availability as we don't have a multi-million dollar marketing campaign behind our and my partners and are fighting hard to gain more internet visibility so that more potential 'fans' can stumble across our work (which by the way, as a producer I've put tens of thousands of MY OWN money into). Honestly speaking, the biggest headache for independent artists such as myself who are only attempting to promote themselves and their work to the masses are people with nothing better to do with their time than to step on the toes of others who are actually doing something about chasing their dreams. I don't want to jump to conclusions and say that you are one of those people John, but forgive me for feeling that way as I've dealt with it several times before throughout my journey of life. Before you go submitting anyone else's page for deletion, please consider what I've said regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Matt 'Z.D.' Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedudems (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Mr Smith, Wikipedia has several notability guidelines that apply to all its content, including articles about you and your associates. They are not optional. Your editing patterns indicate your sole purpose is to promote your presence here; nearly every edit I see in your contributions is part of a wider display of self promotion and vanity. It is not alright. Stop writing about yourself here or I will escalate to involve admin. Please also learn to sign your posts with four tildes (~). All the best. JFHJr (㊟) 17:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Bronwyn Wilson

Hey, John, just a heads up that I asked User:GiantSnowman to comment at this AfD. He's kind of an expert on sports notability, something I am absolutely not. Indeed, I think it's brave of you to AfD a sports figure. Anyway, I didn't want you to think I was "undermining" your AfD. Just thought it would be helpful. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem! I'm not usually wedded to my noms. I look forward to any advice, but from all that I could tell, a demonstration sport is not what is envisioned in WP:ATHLETE (cf. "competition"), even if it's at the Olympics. I haven't noticed any similar articles where notability hangs on that point. Thanks as always Bbb23! Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Ou

Hey John, I'm wanting to move the article forward about Kevin Ou, because currently it just resembles a facts sheet. However the edits between myself and you just seem to be sending us around in circles. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but thought I'd save a huge amount of time by discussing it with you. I would value your opinion on how this article can be made more substantial. JP22Wiki (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Alvin Chea - Deletion Nomination

I am new to Wikipedia and was unaware how easy it was to violate one of the many requirements of acceptable content. Alvin Chea has a successful career as a voice over artist apart from his work with Take 6. His voice is the most sampled, and he is the voice behind the iconic Chili's "I want my baby baby back ribs" campaign. He is also a session singer and provides the ambient music that the Fox show Glee is known for.

I'm going to edit the content and resubmit. Please help me by removing your nomination for deletion and leaving me a direct message re: the content I submit if you feel it still violates any rules. I will provide my email if you're willing to help me comply.

Thank you in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.38.77 (talk • contribs)

John, please see this at my Talk page. Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

In advance if you'd look at Aaron Gwyn. Seems like you have more proficiency in matters like this than I do. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Ah, well as you know the AfD discussion is up and running for Aaron Gwyn. Article that is/was started and edited by the subject and was warned about it. You made a note about your deletion vote and I read your note on your user page about what you consider notable. Really can;t find enough secondary coverage to make his article bonafide in terms of what is notable, despite his rallying. Seems that the low citation count you mentioned has little bearing on WP:WRITER? According to someone else. Not sure. You have more proficiency in these matters than I do. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Once more

On Craig Bartholomew, kind of hard to tease out all the self-published stuff that's layered in WP:PEACOCK feathers (as you know via the edit summaries), but the article is up for deletion, per me. Just want to see what other editors think. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Buddy Fletcher

Hi, John, long time. You might want to reconsider your revert at the Fletcher article. For one thing, the text is almost a verbatim paste from the Huffington article. For another, there is redundancy in the text based on that part and another part of the article. That leaves only the philanthropy phrase, which is, as you say, supported by the source, but there is a separate section on philanthropy, so, honestly, I don't see why it's necessary to have the text in the article. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Guidance requested

Greetings. I have gone through the many revisions you did on the Thomas Homer-Dixon page, and, as a new editor, I completely see now why they needed to be changed. I am just getting the hang of this and any help from established Wikipedians is appreciated. I am getting tangled up in the issue of trying to reference and justify statements, and the need for second or third party sources. I was hoping someone like you would come along to give me some needed assistance. I appreciate that most of the essence of the article is still there.

One thing still bothers me, however: the total removal of the selected publications, interviews, etc. I can recognize that this is an area where one needs to be careful, and I think the issue was with the links and references. Again, I thought that Wiki encouraged Wikilinks, and maybe erroneously thought that folks researching the subject would appreciate links to the actual piece of work without having to find it on their own.

I hope the links and references were indeed the issue, and not the lists of works themselves. The person in question has a much longer list of significant publications dating back to 1989. In preparing this article, I used the Wiki examples of persons of similar profession, public image, etc., those being: David Suzuki, Michael Ignatieff, George Monbiot, and such. Please take the time to look at these Wiki entries. You will see that they include fairly extensive lists of publications, awards, positions held, etc. In fairness, I think I should be able to list at least some of the work of Dr. Homer-Dixon. When Wiki is one of the first hits in any search, it has a responsibility to be as informative as possible. In the Washington Wiki conference, 2012, Jimmy Wales and Mary Gardner cautioned Wikipedians to be inclusive rather than exclusive, and kind to new users to encourage a growing and diverse Wiki community... “to increase the size of the umbrella of the world” (Gardiner). I will, then re-do the publications section to make it extremely NPOV...just a list of some of the more prominent works. I hope you will compare it to the pages of similar biographies and make any positive suggestions for improvement.

Again, thanks for any gentle, constructive guidance you can provide. Jbghewer (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You are a single-purpose account and have an obvious and massive conflict of interest essentially promoting Thomas Homer-Dixon. You should not even be editing the article at all. You've acknowledged your COI and persist in editing. Given the subject matter, I'm not convinced it has anything to do with your being new; see WP:IDHT. Primary cites can't establish a reason for including the content in question, and this is not a WP:RESUME. Further, nobody bases what's acceptable on observations of other articles; there is no such estoppel on Wikipedia because the rules apply equally. See WP:OTHERCRAP. Staying away from the article is probably your best bet on 1) avoiding being a disruptive editor, 2) avoiding your own personal angst over content, and 3) having the article actually meet required standards. Best of luck. JFHJr (㊟) 20:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of primary sources in article on living person

In the article on Martin A. Armstrong, the primary sources I added would, I believe, be considered augmenting sources, which is allowed by the Wikipedia policy on the use of primary sources in an article on a living person. Famspear (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the court documents? If you can leave me a link to the Wikipedia policy you refer to, I'll be happy to revert. Otherwise, if you intend to revert, I hope you'll leave a note on the talk page and/or on WP:BLPN. Just to get a consensus. JFHJr (㊟) 04:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to the court documents. I believe you linked to the Wikipedia policy in your edit summary. Here is the first sentence of the relevant part of the policy:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

However, that sentence is modified by the augmentation rule, found in the very next sentence:

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

See WP:BLPPRIMARY.

In this case, the secondary sources (the news reports such as the New York Times) correctly show that the subject was indicted and convicted. A secondary source is, of course, discussing the information from the primary source, which is (for example) the actual indictment or the actual written jury verdict or the Court's actual written judgment of conviction. In other words, the fact that Martin Armstrong was convicted is documented by the secondary sources already found in the news reports cited in the article. What I did was augment the secondary sources with such things as citations to the docket entries (for example the docket entry for the indictment), with the case number and the name of the court.

The above Wikipedia policy discourages -- to a limited extent -- the use of primary sources. But the policy does not prohibit using primary sources -- even in a bio on a living person.

The policy is best understood (in my view) in the context of the example mentioned in the first sentence of this section of the policy: citations to trial transcripts.

A trial transcript is generally the court reporter's verbatim record of what was said in open court -- primarily the questions posed to witnesses, the answers of the witnesses, various on-the-record discussions between the judge and the attorneys and perhaps a few other people in the court room. The trial transcript could be considered unreliable to the extent that the transcript is not the same as the jury's verdict (which is shown on a specific, separate document in the court's record) and it is not a written court order and is not a court judgment of conviction in the case.

The concern behind the Wikipedia policy is that using mere trial transcripts -- which contain all kinds of statements by all kinds of people other than the judge and jury, statements that may or may not be true (witnesses have been known to lie, of course) -- therefore could lead to misunderstanding by Wikipedia readers who do not understand the difference between, for example, what a witness said in response to a question, and what a judge ruled in judgment of conviction and sentencing.

By contrast, that danger is not found in citing such things as the case number, the name of the court, the date of the indictment (and docket entry number for the indictment), the judgment of conviction, and so on.

If a secondary authority such as a news report says that such and such a person was indicted and later convicted, the use of that secondary authority in Wikipedia is only strengthened -- not weakened -- by the use of citation to the primary source that shows the name of the court, case number, etc. Indeed, the article is strengthened because the reader can not only read the news article, he or she can (if he or she desires to do so) more easily find the very documents on which the news article is based. News reports in the major media rarely provide that kind of detail.

Perhaps the Wikipedia policy could be worded a bit more clearly. But even as it is currently worded, I would argue that the citations I added do fall within the augmentation policy.

The use of citations to names of cases (e.g., United States v. Jones), docket entry numbers, docket entry dates, case numbers, names of courts, etc., is extensive in Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive work on this article, by the way. Famspear (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Point taken re: augmenting sources. Of course, when cases are notable or even noteworthy and relevant enough per WP:WEIGHT, they have a place as a source. And thank you also for your time and attention to the article. Hopefully, we'll establish a consensus for inclusion or reduction of certain other content and sources. BTW I've posted again at WP:BLPN, so if you feel like commenting there again in addition to talk, that'd serve in building the consensus that's so badly needed. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion, re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey Revell

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed that one. I enjoyed seeing how all that turned out. It must have been of supreme annoyance to you, but it looked moderately entertaining. After seeing her shout out for me personally, I googled the article name and her handle and (surprise!) they're buddies on MySpace. According to her linkedin, she has a specialty in marketing and a passion for helping artists grow. Imagine that! She "provides legal services and management advice for businesses, artists, entertainers, and software engineers." Attorney at law at large. What a nincompoop. Anyway, thank you for fighting the good fight. The right results came about. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 15:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Good research. It was interesting--an unsourced autobiography that nobody had questioned for over 6 years. The subject was unusually magnanimous in conversation--often folks fight tooth and nail over ownership of their bios, so I respected his humility, and hope he makes it. The aggressive tack of his friend was unfortunate. Thanks and cheers, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong

If you'd just take 5 minutes of your valuable time to read what I put on that side and look at all the references (newspaper articles, court documents that are public, etc.) you wouldn't just hit the delete button and remove everything as it represents the facts. For me there is only one rationale reason to put this one sided view back on Wiki: YOU have a conflict of interest here else I would love to hear your rationale. But I would not be surprised to never hear from you to be frank... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77TellTheTruth88 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at what you've added. My changes to and removals from your additions were fully and adequately explained in the edit summaries; I almost always leave them. They were also explained (and asked for) in the article talk page. The reasons given were grounded in various Wikipedia policies, not the least of which is the policy on living persons' biographies. My edits seem to be supported by consensus, which is what matters.

I very clearly explained why it seems you might have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. Your textual contributions and file uploads reflect what might be a personal connection with the subject or an associated group. I, on the other hand, have no connection whatsoever. Rather, this article came to my attention because of a post at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. I've opened a new post there, and I have opened and maintained discussions at the talk page, regarding article content as well as tendentious and pernicious edits there by you and a few others. I hope you'll consider contributing to consensus on the talk page or at BLPN after having checked on applicable guidelines, including those on reliable sources, due weight, and original research (for saying things that sources themselves don't actually say). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Kumar Ketkar

Dear JFHJr, the recently added book name on this article really belongs to Kumar Ketkar. I have seen the book. I agree that the material is not sourced. Thanks. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the book belongs to Kumar Ketkar. The question is not whether the book truly exists; your having seen it doesn't mean much. Rather, its existence must be demonstrated to be encyclopedically noteworthy (worth the WP:WEIGHT of inclusion at all) through citation to reliable third party sources. If it is a book that has received no mention by reliable sources, it should be omitted. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

David Marchick

Thanks for your note.[16] I basically wrote the article chronologically and was surprised at each turn. He seems to have a fairly rock solid life, not too many turns, at least as far as those that have made it into print. Going from attending a White house dinner to publically calling his government work an extremely boring subject was an interesting development as was his dot com entry into the private sector. His seeing Dubai's side in the Dubai Ports World controversy, then Dhabi spending US$1.35 billion in connection with his getting hired into The Carlyle Group was interesting as well. I didn't find much on his early life (no birthdate, elementary, junior high, high school, or college experience info) and the references previously brought forward were not the best, so I can see raising an issue as to whether a biography topic was viable. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Re: Robert W. Harrell, Jr BLP Noticeboard

JFHJr, thanks for taking the time to check this out and confirm that this was not a reliable source for a BLP page. As for the separate issue you mentioned there, I added to the BLP Noticeboard post some details to better explain my edits and why I believe them to be justified.

I appreciate your comments and am always open to advice on how to improve my edits. Thanks, EricJ1995 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Jay Westerveld merger

I saw your comment at Talk:Jay Westerveld#Notability questions, merger proposal. To get neutral third party comments on a merge, I would suggest an WP:RFC ... from my limited experience, the majority of users on that talk page have strong personal biases either for or against the subject (accusations have been thrown repeatedly from both groups claiming the other as representing one side or another from a prior legal issue), which complicates any attempts to find consensus on anything related to the article.

I have no strong opinion either way. I think he has credible claims to importance; but I agree that the sources are borderline leaning towards lacking for supporting notability, so can clearly see the logic of a merge proposal. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

Linda Riordan

Hey. I've taken a look at this article as it seems to have been the subject of some controversial removal of content and tried to ensure some balance. Looks like the comments the user - who may be the subject of the article - is objecting to were added on 2012-10-20 as the story was emerging and the full details weren't yet in the public domain. I'd appreciate some more sets of eyes on the article just to check - I've explained the rough thrust of my edits on the talk. Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edits look great to me. I had to step away, and when I returned to review the relationship bit first, I got an edit conflict! >_< I saw the subject said she was now married to the guy; couldn't find a source and am glad to see it gone. Thanks also for the help on tone and neutral wording. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Jussychoulex

Dear friend, I need your help. Two days ago, I nominated the following page for deletion [[17]] but still, not a single person commented on discussion. Did I correctly nominate the page? or something else. Please suggest me Jussychoulex (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you completed the three nomination steps. Eventually, another editor will comment. It might take a week or more. If nobody comments, that page might be soft deleted, which is practically the same result as delete. JFHJr (㊟) 13:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

thank you sir for your help. Please see the page, nominated and write your valuable comments. Regards Jussychoulex (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw it, but I didn't look at the article or its history. I hope you'll allow the discussion to take its own course, and not approach editors to participate in this way. I'm afraid other editors might construe your message here as WP:VOTESTACKING, especially since I often vote to delete. That said, I'll be happy to have a deeper look at the article and its issues. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 14:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear friend, I visited a Page on wikepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ishita_Sharma). Please see that the discussion result is DELETE, then why this page is appearing. Please clear to me. Regards Jussychoulex (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jeremiah MacKay

Regarding your edit summary, That was a discussion between Bbb23 and myself, no need for formalities yet. Thank you. Mlpearc Phone (Powwow) 23:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Jussychoulex

Jussychoulex has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Pema Ram afd argument

Thank you for your contribution there. I've decided to lean towards a weak keep, but I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments on the Delete side. I hope we continue to meet on academic AfDs, since I very much respect and appreciate the way your present a case. (we were editing at the same time, so I didn't get to reply at the moment). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Responded to your message on the AfD talk page. Btw -- I changed my vote on Pema Ram to weak delete because of your and Ray's arguments. Thanks for pointing me to the AfD! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also for the edit to the 6-4 page. I haven't ever moved that sandbox to article space because there's one prominent editor who strongly objects to putting any but his opinion of the chord on WP, and I decided that I have enough conflict in RL that I don't want to get angry here. But maybe someday I'll feel like wading into it; it's an important music theory topic that we do not have in the encyclopedia yet. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, JFHJr. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing BLP issue you've previously weighted in on

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey, I greatly appreciate your past efforts to clean up improper edits to Bobby Harrell's BLP page that dealt with unreliable sources and "controversy." Because of your previous intervention and statements left on the Bobby Harrell talk page, you seem best equipped to address this.

Amigao has been citing the same unreliable sources that resulted in Carolina cotton being issued a "Final Warning" by you and another editor, Kuru.  While the original user has ceased posting altogether, Amigao has continued and quickly reverts any removal of these unreliable posts despite clearly stated reasons. Amigao has already received a couple warnings (in reference to other pages) about this kind of activity on his talk page.

Additionally, while I do not speculate on any kind of direct connection, I do feel this is worth noting.  The "controversy" section Amigao continually reposts (though, after being corrected several times, he is no longer using the word "controversy") stems from a political complaint that was filed by the same organization that Carolina cotton self admittedly worked for and who operated the self-published blogs (scpolicycouncil.org and thenerve.org) that Carolina cotton would improperly cite as reliable sources. Given the frivolous nature of this "complaint," the political attack undertones of this "controversy" section and the fact that multiple editors have deemed this political group as an unreliable source, at a minimum it seems that this section should be excluded from a BLP page until a resolution has been reached on this issue by a more authoritative source. 

I greatly appreciate any attention that you can give this issue.  Thanks EricJ1995 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Rhetorical question: what source in particular is so unreliable in this diff that you repeatedly remove the whole section? The answer is, of course, that the 5 cites to 4 different mainstream news sources are good support for the content in question. If you disagree (and apparently you do), please do so in a dispute resolution forum such as WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, or WP:EWN after having a nice long read at WP:IRS and/or WP:BLP. And if you suspect another user is actually a WP:SOCK, post at WP:SPI. However, I, like Cullen, am totally unwilling to referee, host, or even keep up with your gripe. Free advice: you are both edit warring, and Amigao should have asked for help dealing with your WP:TE. More free advice: if you decide to escalate further, expect WP:BOOMERANG, and do not make claims that an editor "has been citing the same unreliable sources" when in reality he hasn't done so since March 1, 2013 (you removed the last citations to scpolicycouncil and thenerve 4 days later and they have not reappeared). Claims like that make it extremely difficult to WP:AGF with you. Perhaps you should stop watching the Harrell page. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 15:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steven M. Greer

Hi JFH, you are a good editor and you have made some good edits and contributions to this article. However, I've re-added the info you deleted regarding the Alpha Omega society. This was discussed on the talk page and the consensus [18] was to include it and that the three sources that were cited were sufficient. If you disagree please discuss it on the talk page and gain consensus before removing it again. Thanks for your help with the article. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving me a note. Sorry I missed the outcome of that discussion. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 15:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I look forward to working together to improve the article :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Allan Savory

Greetings. You removed a citation for the following sentence:

"Though initially met with intense opposition, Savory’s approach to the problem of desertification is gaining acceptance within the scientific mainstream." This is a distillation from “Greener Pastures” by John Thackara. Seed. June 3, 2010. Here is an excerpt:

"Although Savory describes some of his insights as common sense, he has spent 50 years battling to make the scientific case for his approach. For most of this half-century, he has had to contend with intense opposition from mainstream range science researchers “proving” it does not work.

But after decades of rejecting the idea that increased livestock could reverse desertification, a growing number scientists now accept that the results claimed by Savory are supported by rigorous data, and that they therefore deserve to drive land use, agriculture, and development policy.

Savory’s acceptance by the mainstream is part of a profound shift in scientific thinking. He is no longer alone in realizing that transfers of energy and nutrients are innate to the growing understanding of ecosystem ecology, that has emerged from biological studies of plants, animals, terrestrial, aquatic, and marine ecosystems."

You removed the source with the comment"http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/Greener_Pastures does not support any of "Savory’s approach to the problem of desertification is gaining acceptance within the scientific mainstream".

Would you have a problem with me restoring the citation? Danny Sprinkle (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I now see the passage that referred to. Thanks. I'll be happy to revert myself. JFHJr (㊟) 23:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind indulgence, but, if I might beg further, and time permitting, kindly give a closer look to what you might imagine my other objections might be. Danny Sprinkle (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussions and Holistic Management

Hi, saw your strike of Redddbaron's vote, I was wondering if the user was also editing the articles and participating at deletion as 68.12.189.106 (talk · contribs), you might like to know that the recently deleted Holistic management has been recreated by the above user, I haven't given it much of a look-in but would say that the sections Holistic_management#The_holistic_management_framework and Holistic_management#The_four_principles definitely need to go as they read like they are straight out of a "Holistic Management" brochure. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Mini-RfC

Thanks for your comments on the Lisa Lavie AfD. I'm asking various editors for constructive comments or explanations on my talk page: User talk:RCraig09#Questions. Thanks, from RCraig09 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

AllMusic bios as a good indicator of notability

Hi again, pursuant to your comment at the AfD for a band called Beheaded, which I believe is ironic (Allmusic being on this side of stellar), I'm a bit confused as to whether it's really an independent, reliable source. At this recent AfD (linked here), see Sparklism's comment at the end, where it appears people believe that an AllMusic bio is the Holy Grail of musical notability. In my comments (and perusal of the site) I came to understand that anyone could send any CD, demo, etc. in, get it logged and "garner" an AllMusic bio. Although there is some slight editorial intevention, it appears that the bios are written based on press releases the site receives. Your thoughts? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts. AllMusic is not WP:RS material. It is barely not bullshit. JFHJr (㊟) 04:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

...And that Clubroot AfD went the wrong way. He's not notable. You're right. JFHJr (㊟) 16:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was almost sure of that, AllMusic seemed to me like "you send us your stuff, we'll publish something about you". And as for the AfD, there seems to be a small club of editors who try and save any music-related article, no matter how crap non-notable the group or artist is, honestly a couple of reviews and a gig listing and you get WP:MUSIC rammed down your throat. Well, I had the same problems nominating a couple of video games (in development) for deletion, people got really shitty/shirty.

Well, at least if we can keep some of the most blatant puffery, self-promotion and other outrageous BLP violations out of WP, then I guess that'll have to do. Thanks for the feedback. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

JFHJr just loves to bring down that notability ax. Anonymity is such a heady drug isn't it? Self-serving Fop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.79.58 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I need your help :)!

Can you please show me how to add reliable sources to my article? I have no idea how to do it! thank you for helping me! Anna Karolina Heinrich (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for responding to the AfD query from BwilsonCVA on my talk page. I'd been away from Wikipedia for a few days and hadn't had a chance to get to it, but you covered the relevant points perfectly. I'm always happy for people to help out like that, it's appreciated. ~ mazca ^talk 11:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. As you participated in the related deletion discussion, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Vanilla DeVille you might be interested in. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Hello. I noticed that you have taken to parsing through various articles I have written and nominating them for deletion, despite their long-standing existence and - in one case - the prior resolution of the issue via the AfD process. I cannot help but wonder why you have chosen to invest so much time and energy into this task. As a mere casual editor, I find this type of behavior to be petty and unwelcoming - I certainly am less likely to try to help the Wikipedia project if people like you are just going to jump all over everything I do and grave-dig articles I wrote many months ago. If I just don't understand the system, then I apologize. But if you are specifically targeting my articles, I surely think there is a better use of your time. Best. Adamc714 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for an editor to create a string of articles about subjects that they have WP:COI with, few or none being notable, so the fact that several of your articles related the same school have been nominated by JFHJ is not a big deal by itself. Toddst1 (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The line between a COI and just knowing about something is hazy at best. I want to assume good faith, but when someone goes digging through your whole contribution history and essentially targets you for additional scrutiny that is evidence of bad faith. I understand that people who are really in to Wikipedia want to create a sprawling bureaucracy that they can wield to maintain the status quo of power - and that's totally cool with me - but there's no need to start acting like the IRS. I'm trying to be nice here, but that's hard when I feel like I'm being targeted. I don't have time to master all of nuance of all of the insane rules in place here, so it's frustrating when articles that haven't caused any problems all of sudden get dug up and turned into controversies. I just don't understand the motivation. Adamc714 (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Insights

Hi, I was wondering if you had any insights into the books and publications list at David Gorski. It seems a bit over the top to me, maybe a Selected Papers section would be better?Any thoughts? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Street

Hi JFHJr, we went back and forth on a few other pages that I've edited and am now coming to you as someone who knows Wikipedia and what to do when a page appears to be non-noteworthy (notability) but just stays up. I put the Notability tag on the page, do I leave it at that? Will others be alerted to this? The page is Daniel Street. Cheers, --Ddragovic (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have set up a discussion page for the deletion Daniel Street (2nd nomination and am trying to put it up on the Articles for Deletion but on that page I can only get the 2010 discussion up without having a new discussion initiated. Can you help? --Ddragovic (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

David Marchick

Hey JFHJr, in case you're watching this page, I'd like to ask for your participation in a discussion about the David Marchick article. Since the article survived the AfD back in October of 2012, there have been a large number of edits made to the article by User:Uzma Gamal. In many cases, though, I'm afraid I don't think the additions are appropriate for Wikipedia in terms detail and tone. I've posted a more detailed explanation of my issues over at Talk:David Marchick, and if you have time to take a look and weigh in, I'd appreciate it. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

2014 – 2018

Nomination of David Pearce (philosopher) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Pearce (philosopher) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pearce (philosopher) (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjmulder (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Dorji family

Hi JFHKr, you wrote that "The powerful Dorji family does not have independent roots in legendary monks or historical figures. In fact, the Dorji family was not among the elite families, but became prominent through their ties to the Wangchuck family and to the British Empire." Could you be more elaborate? Aren't the Dorji family members of Bhutanese Aristocracy, thus making them members of Bhutan's elite families? According to Christopher Buyers' Royal Ark (http://www.royalark.net/Bhutan/bhutan2.htm) they were descended from the powerful Dungkar Choji family and thus Kazi Ugyen Dorjo was a relative of the first King Ugyen Wangchuk. Could you please tell me whether they were members of the aristocracy or not? And why do you say that the "Dorji's were not among the elite families?" Thanks in advance Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Cowell (talk • contribs) 07:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Good job on Health in Bhutan. Delibzr (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Matthew VanDyke edits

Dear JFHJr - thank you for previously contributing to the discussion regarding the Matthew VanDyke page. As you may know, this page is currently subject to an editing dispute on both the Talk Page and the BLPN. In order to help resolve the dispute, please can you kindly confirm if your support for or objection to the debated edits has been fairly summarised in the table on the Talk Page? If your position has not been fairly summarised then I apologise and invite you to correct it (or let me know and I can do this for you). Thank you. - Slugfilm (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Martin A. Armstrong

An article that you have been involved in editing—Martin A. Armstrong—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Ratel (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Location map Thrumshingla National Park

Template:Location map Thrumshingla National Park has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

2023

Help on edits to the IdeaPad page

Hi. I work for Lenovo, the manufacturer of IdeaPad. The current IdeaPad page has about 30+ sections and sub-sections about individual products. A lot of the information is out-dated, incomplete, etc. I was hoping to replace it with a single product table, similar to what is currently on the ThinkPad page. I've been following up for months and got plenty of support from impartial editors (I think), but the page still has 30+ sections on individual products. I was wondering if you would be willing to take a look and see if you agree RE slimming it down? Let me know if there is any way I can be more helpful. Best regards. StuartGill (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No. JFHJr (㊟) 06:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Canvas concern

You may want to be cautious about making comments like this one. "You agree with me and so you should come vote" dances at least perilously close to a WP:CANVASS attempt. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it does not. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 17:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Re: MOS, overlinking report

Hi JFHJr, your rationale for closing [19] is all proper, and reporting at BLP wasn't a great option. It should be apparent that the article is protected, and is beyond my ability to be bold and revert, otherwise I would. I thought it was a prominent enough bio to merit bringing to someone's attention. Otherwise such edits have a way of amassing over time, until it's not worth the effort wading through and fixing. Thank you, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it's beyond your ability to make the edits you seek on the deceased Pope's article. In that case, the article talk page is your best forum. You might consider titling a new discussion section there as "WP:MOS edit request" with essentially the same content as your submission at BLPN. This subject is well-followed enough for someone there to take interest, unless your concern is simply unable to gain any WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 20:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)