User talk:JPG-GR/Archive 13

Template:WikiProject Amiga
Please restore Template:WikiProject Amiga, Template talk:WikiProject Amiga, and Template:Amiga-project. Pnm's TfD nomination which you closed as "delete" was mistaken in that there had been work ongoing to split all these back out into their own templates. They were never exactly merged (details are in computing's talk page archives somewhere) and over time we've found that using parameters of WikiProject Computing was far too confusing for most people (leading to people just not bothering to apply the templates). I have no idea how many trasnsclusions of WikiProject Amiga and Amiga-project we had when you closed the TfD but hopefully those can be fixed as well. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's hardly been any activity on the project page since 2008 when it appears the consolidation happened and I don't see any subsequent discussion, either about editor confusion, or an effort to split it back out. At the time of the TfD nomination, there were zero talk space transclusions, and only one transclusion in project space, which was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amiga itself. --Pnm (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

When the debate continues on my talk page before I even see it, the only appropriate response is... take it to WP:DRV. JPG-GR (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Due to everything I have going on right now off-line, I really do not have the time to argue something so silly as this with Pnm. I would appreciate it if you would restore these templates so that we can work on this at a later date. While the TfD as it stood would not prevent recreation, I've found more often than not that newpage patrollers will mistakenly tag such recreated templates as a CSD G4, and it would be better to avoid that here. If the TfD was taken to DRV with only Pnm's !vote to delete, it would more likely than not be overturned as no-consensus anyway so pushing this off to DRV would also be kinda silly. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC) We all occasionally make mistakes here, myself included, although I generally try to go back and try to fix whatever I've managed to screw up or at least own up to my mistakes when I realise I've made them. I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but my feelings on this is if you are completely unwilling to fix what at this point is still a fairly minor mistake then perhaps going forward you need to avoid closing XfD discussions or maybe even consider giving up the tools. DRV isn't the place for something that you as the admin who closed the TfD should correct. If this were something non-administrative which didn't involve administrative tools (such as if the template had been redirected), then it would be trivial for a non-administrator to revert per WP:BRD etc. However, since this involves the use of administrative tools, specifically the deletion tool, then you as the administrator who used a privileged tool have an obligation to correct such a mistake. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the correct thing to do was to first bring it to the attention of and attempt to discuss the close with the closing admin, which I've attempted to do. As for Pnm's assertion, User:Tinucherian added support for a number of projects to WikiProject Computing, and I've worked on this significantly as well, however that does not mean that the individual projects themselves are "abandoned". The long term plan (which is in the computing archives somewhere) was to have the individual banners replaced where WikiProject Computing is still using parameters. If Pnm would like to do so, he could contact User:Xeno to see about getting this done with User:Xenobot as part of task 5.
 * If your online time is so limited, you probably should've stopped after the first line (which I don't disagree with, for the record) and posted the rest at WP:DRV, as I already mentioned. This page is neither TfDv.2 nor the place where you post because you happened to not be online during the 7 day period. Pnm posted a request for deletion, no one during the seven day period saw fit to weigh in, and the template was deleted. JPG-GR (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it you still chose not to address any of the points I made? DRV is also not XfD round 2 and it still would make no sense to take this there. The TfD nom was mistaken in his assumption and nomination reason, and as you also pointed out there were no other arguments for deletion made in the TfD. The fact that the nomination reason itself was mistaken and no other arguments were made in the TfD makes your close as delete equally problematic, which is something that you as the individual who closed the TfD should be willing to correct. (On a related note, I never even saw a TfD notification for the template itself, which was on my watchlist and how I saw that it had been deleted.)

Template:Eric Darnell
I was just curious why you closed Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 31 as delete when there is 2 keeps and only 1 delete.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * TfD, as well as all deletion discussions, is not a vote. The arguments for delete greatly outweighed those for keep. JPG-GR (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Usprimary templates and "rejection" of nominations
I notice you closed Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 15 as "rejected", because the templates had not been tagged with tfd. It is very time-consuming to add this template to mass nominations, and it brings minimal benefit (users are very unlikely to look at these old templates during the week of their TfD). I'm assuming User:Mhiji (who seems to have gone - only temporarily, I hope), who nominated them, felt the same way. To me, this seems like an odd reason for closing a TfD, especially given the nature of the mass nomination.


 * Is there any chance that you will re-list this discussion? (I can understand if you don't, because consensus is unlikely to be established.)
 * Would you close WP:TFD in the same way? There are so many templates nominated (too many to tag manually), and just about every template has a different creator (too many to notify manually).

Thanks, — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Working backward from the last point - (a) I have no opinion on the Weatherbox templates at this time as the TfD is barely 24 hours old and I haven't looked into it, (b) no, I do not intend to relist the Usprimary templates because (c) it doesn't matter if it's time-consuming: we don't go around mass deleting things with no notifications of any form save at XfD. JPG-GR (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that you will not delete anything without tfd having been placed on the template page. When I've come across a bunch of 80 or so unused templates that are sitting around doing no good, I really do not have any intention of spending a good hour adding  to the top of each one. It's just not a productive use of my wiki-editing time. I hope you will be understanding of such practical limitations. Additionally, does notifying a WikiProject count as a notification in your opinion? In many cases this is the only feasible way of getting the message out to interested parties. On that basis, I see your rejection of the Usprimary nomination was fair enough: it appears that Mhiji did not notify the person who was the main creator of the templates, nor a WikiProject. — This, that, and the other (talk)  09:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I'm saying. If you can't take the time to tag the templates, don't waste your time by nom-ing the templates. People watchlist these things. I'd argue that tagging the templates and nom-ing them go hand-in-hand, so if one isn't "a productive use of [your] wiki-editing time," then neither should be. As for notifying the creator/WikiProject, I don't really have a view on that. It's a common courtesy, but I don't go out of my way to see that it was done. If the creator cares about the template that they created, they have it watchlisted... hence the need for the tagging. JPG-GR (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:R from move
I know this might be another one you're tired of hearing about, but I don't fully understand your ruling. Does this mean that editors can still place this Rcat on appropriate redirects? or not? and what effect does this have on several other Rcats that should be added to "redirects from move" when appropriate? (eg Ollie P. Roberts &mdash;   Paine  Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  16:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. There are also uncounted cases where regular cats are added following a move, eg IBBME.
 * Take it as "maintain status quo for now until the software developers change the software." JPG-GR (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! and I see that the Rcats are apparently all being generated as "hidden" cats, now. Good move.  &mdash;   Paine  Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  13:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Alert and request for comment on TfD
Hello! This is a notice to let you know that a past TfD case which you closed has come up for discussion again. If you have the time, please comment on the issue, as the results have been contested and I'm not sure what the protocol normally dictates in these cases. The discussion is at Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 2. Best regards,  Night w   05:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This has now gone to ANI. Sorry to have to involve you.  Night w   08:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Template
Hi, I went to use WPGTMessage today to post an announcement at WikiProject Cornell University, but discovered that you speedily deleted it. Is there any way that you could undelete it or recreate it? It helps us format announcement messages. Thanks! Racepacket (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't speedy it, I closed a TfD on it. Feel free to take it to WP:DRV. JPG-GR (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverting sourced content at List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Fox and List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids
Comments such as these are needlessly uncivil and don't contribute to resolving the disagreement. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Barely uncivil and nothing compared to what was being said by the other side. Tempers do tend to get heated when the other side isn't listening to what is being said. Here's hoping cooler heads prevail. JPG-GR (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Chronological talk archive
Hi,

Cheers for closing the TfD here. I've now updated both template:chronological talk archive and template:talk archive so that existing transclusions can be substituted and deleted. Out of interest, is there any easy way to do that en masse when closing TfDs? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is, I don't know of it/use it. JPG-GR (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you drop it in the holding cell, and I see it, I will have my bot do it. Otherwise, I think there is a mass edit script.  Plastikspork (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

DRV for Empty section
Hi. I opened a discussion in Deletion review/Log/2011 June 22 for Empty section. I think you are a very good admin and I know it was a difficult close and I am sure you read the discussion thoroughly before closing. I just would have close it differently so I would like to see what the other say. Maybe you are right but since I am not 100% convinced I decided to open the DRV before someone starts removing the tag without waiting. So, please comment! :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries - when closing a TfD like that, I fully expect to wake the next day and see the yellow bar on my watchlist. JPG-GR (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tfd
Hi, After Template:20th century persecutions of the Catholic Church it is better if you remove the Tfd flag from the template, than if I just do it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Women's sports
Erm, you closed the TFD as delete, and didn't delete the page. Please remedy  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  23:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is correct - it had to be orphaned first: . JPG-GR (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Fraunhofer Diffraction Equations
I have twice tried to create a subuser page in which to develop this article. You deleted it first time before I got a chance to put anything in (I had to rush away for my dinner!!). I did put an explanation in the talk page hoping it would be undeleted, but got no reply.

I then created it with a slightly different (corrected) name and added the stuff I've written so far. But now I find it has been converted to a full article, which I certainly did not want as there is much work to be done,and I haven't fully checked the mathematics. I have put a note to that effect on the page, but would really much prefer if it existed as one of my sub-pages, as I don't want anyone to waste their time going through mathematical derivations which are wrong.

I'm not sure who did the conversion.

I don't want to commit a Wiki-sin but what I would really like is to have my sub user-page back. Can you help. Thanks.

The new page is here Epzcaw (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All I can determine from what information you have provided is that you created an article at \Fraunhofer diffraction calculations, which is not a user subpage. It was tagged for speedy deletion after another user corrected it to be properly named in userspace. I merely deleted the oddly named redirect. Beyond that, I do not know what you are requesting. JPG-GR (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm. My intention was certainly to create a sub-user page, not a live page.  Maybe I didn't do this correctly and creasted a live page instead.  So if O try again to create the sub-user page, assume this will be ok.  If successful, I will then seek to have the live page deleted. I hope this will be ok.
 * Thanks

Epzcaw (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

All sorted now. Thanks. Epzcaw (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing a template at TfD
Hi. I see you relisted this. After the initial TfD nomination, I drafted an extensive revision for the template but have been torn as to whether it would be better to incorporate my changes or just create a new template (whether or not the old one gets deleted). I've been wondering about the propriety about editing a template that's been listed for discussion but I couldn't find an applicable guideline. Any advice would be appreciated. Rivertorch (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on past experiences, I'd link to the redesign in your userspace and see where discussion on it goes. A good quarter of the relists I do are kinda a case of "no consensus, but maybe So-And-So's proposal would actually be agreed upon if they'd actually implement it somewhere rather than saying 'we could do this' so people can check it out." JPG-GR (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll do that in the next couple of days. Rivertorch (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for keeping Template:Like
I'm curious as to what your rationale for determining that the result of the discussion was to keep it? Last time I checked, deletion discussions are not merely votes. So please, on what basis did you determine that the discussion actually lead towards a keep conclusion other than tallying up keep entries and delete entries?-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 18:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, a commentary. The proliferation of people on the opposing side of a XfD result accusing the closer of counting votes is ridiculous. It also immediately damages one's credibility, at least with me. The inability to see the other side of an argument is one thing. The accusation that a closer is resorting to counting rather than logic is insulting.
 * My rationale is mostly based on the fact that those arguing for deletion were not very convincing. WP:NOTFACEBOOK states "Wikipedia is not a social network like Twitter or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia." Yes, the template mocks the Facebook style. While WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for keeping the template, the burden of proof (so-to-speak) is on those arguing for deletion, a burden they did not succeed at proving. Far from it. JPG-GR (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 9
Very well, but how am I reasonably expected to tag all 731 templates with tfd? It is simply impractical. The creator of most, if not all, of the templates was aware of the TFD nomination, so I don't see how the watchlist argument applies here. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the burden of those nominating for deletion to tag templates, i.e. make the community aware of the discussion. No one ever said it had to be easy. JPG-GR (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But what means do you suggest for performing such a large tagging? — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm... edit 731 templates? There may be an automated way, but I don't deal much with those. JPG-GR (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern Conference wrestling
I would like to restore the wrestling template for the Southern Conference. I have already created 2 of the articles and I plan on starting the others very soon. This is going to be true for the rest of the NCAA wrestling conference templates. Gerry D (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to restore the template for the Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling Association as well. There are two articles up for that association as well. I support having red links in templates so that others may be inspired to create articles. Almost every single article I have created stemmed from a red link in a nav box at the bottom of a related article. I hope others might follow the same path. Gerry D (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first.. Once these articles exist, I doubt anyone would object to the navboxes being recreated. JPG-GR (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course nobody would object to navboxes being created for articles that already exist, but I think that navboxes with redlinks are valuable to wikipedia and inspire authors and would be authors to write more articles. Surely you don't think that every navbox with red links should be deleted. Do you? Gerry D (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a major difference between a navbox that has some redlinks and a navbox that is predominantly redlinks. JPG-GR (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. But what is the harm in having red links in a navbox at the bottom of an article? Like I said, when I started editing wikipedia I worked from the Protected Areas of Pennsylvania template that was full of red links for Pennsylvania's state parks. I steadily worked to remove create articles for all of the red links. My hope with the wrestling templates is that another editor will do the same type of thing. If not then I will slowly work to create the articles. It's going to take a long time on my own, but I will get it done with or without the templates. Gerry D (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no politician and I'm not one to debate policies or precedents. When it comes to those, your quarrel is elsewhere. JPG-GR (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My interpretation of this is clearly different from yours. There is no need to discuss it any longer. Gerry D (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Simply a friendly greeting


SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I hope you enjoy this cookie as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister   talk  07:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox
Can you please explain to me why Template:San Diego State Aztecs baseball coach navbox was deleted despite overwhelming consensus in support of it? Jweiss11 (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no overwhelming consensus. As people have already said elsewhere, XfD is not a vote, but a discussion. A bunch of people saying "keep" with not much to back up their position is not very convincing. Long standing precedent has been that navboxes are for navigation, not as a guide for article creation. As I stated in my close, if the time comes when these articles are written (which, could've been done during the duration of the TfD, or even now), the navbox can easily be recreated. JPG-GR (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We had a number of editors all in support who didn't feel the need to restate what others had already said. I had plenty to back up my position and a few others were in concurrence with me.  I created one of the linked articles during the TfD, which should have sufficed concerns about a minimum number of links.  Considering those poinsts as well as the unfounded accusations and insults lodged against other editors who concurred with me in this TfD, I'm rather disappointed in your administration of this matter. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As the initial argument was not convincing, many others simply agreeing is no more convincing. Again, XfD is not a vote, and 100 people saying "me too" means little. Two articles is still not enough to warrant a navbox. While any "unfounded accusations and insults" are inappropriate and disappointing, one does not win "brownie points" for their side because they are being attacked. Again, I state my original position - if the need for this navbox is so great, create the other articles for which the navbox should navigate. There is little reason to build side streets in the desert if no one is ever gonna live there. JPG-GR (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, what is the minimum number of articles needed to warrant a navbox? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The cliche answer is "whatever number the community agrees upon." The perhaps preferable answer, at least from my viewpoint, is I'm not entirely sure. Either way, you are missing the point entirely. JPG-GR (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your point and metaphor the about the desert and side-roads entirely, although I happen to disagree with that stance...e.g. how do you expect people to move there without streets to get them there? My follow-up question about minimum numbers was asked in a hope to get at some benchmarks so as to avoid a repeat of this situation. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, a tweak: build the homes before you pave the dirt roads. JPG-GR (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think of the navboxes as a main road off the highway. At first it's just bulldozers and cement trucks...later it's commuters and school buses. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's up with you deleting the template again after I created a fourth reasonable link in the navbox? At the least you could have allowed me to userfy it, so it that I don't have to waste time recreating it yet again. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't just recreate a template after a TfD ends in delete. If you want the template moved to your userspace, I have no problem with that. But, the TfD is too recent to just recreate it. JPG-GR (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the amount of time needed after a TfD for recreation? It seems that per "no prejudice toward recreation if the subjects of the appropriate articles are deemed notable and said articles are created", recreation is now warranted (five non-redirect links), if it wasn't by the time the TfD ended. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I count four, but that's irrelevant. The articles exist now and I've no issue with the navbox existing personally (and never did), but for future reference you pretty much approached this situation in one of the worst ways possible. I'd advise you to continue working on and expanding the subjects referenced in said navbox. JPG-GR (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This entire situation is the result of some absurd, misapplied bureaucracy, which you effectuated. Your advise in this matter carries little weight with me.  I'll continue to determine my own priorities, which, thus far, have led to vast improvements in the quality of college sports topics. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, and a merry piss off to you, too, I suppose lol. JPG-GR (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Football
Template:WikiProject Football has already been converted to allow the Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday task forces to conduct their own importance assessments. Quality assessment is done globally across all football articles and cannot be modified by individual task forces. Thanks. – PeeJay 17:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I took care of it (see my comments on PeeJay's talk page). Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  06:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I expected it to be that easy - they just hadn't updated the documentation for the template yet and when I went wading into the code... I decided I didn't want to go swimming that day. :) JPG-GR (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Backtalk
Hi. When (any) XfD discussion is closed as delete, you can't use WP:XFD as a link on the deletion reason because each listing is transcluded on the main XFD page. So the section link doesn't lead anywhere because it is archived. Just a head's up! Killiondude (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the default text generated when one chooses the delete Tfdlinks template, so I'd suggest looking into making a modification there. JPG-GR (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what templates may or may not do, it's really up to each individual to check what they are doing. Cheers. Killiondude (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm gonna continue status quo like everyone else. Feel free to have the template defaults changed. JPG-GR (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If you go to the page for the individual day, then click on the delete link, it will use the specific day link, rather than the generic one. The problem is when you exit the day page, and use the delete link from the top level page, then it doesn't work so well.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense - thanks for the fyi! JPG-GR (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Cedar Fair 2012 Additions
This template was nominated for deletion and everyone who has commented on the nomination has said for it to be deleted. I do believe you are a admin. so just wanted to let you know that the template should be deleted as you are allowed to delete it.--Dom497 (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source for deletion in dispute
Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source for deletion in dispute, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 13
Hello. I had requested userfication for those templates as subpages of User:Σ/Testing facility/, and would appreciate it if my request would be fulfilled. Any assistance you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you. → Σ  τ  c. 01:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Y Done - JPG-GR (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

RECNET
Hey JPG, long time, no speak. I messaged User:Bearcat about this, since this is his area of expertise, but he hasn't responded, so I am bringing this to your attention. It looks like RECNET is back offline and will be until November 20, 2011. The following message appears when you search for anything via the cdbs.recnet.net website:

Due to the REC facility move, the following services are temporarily not available:

Broadcast Query (FMQ) LPFM Channel Search Encroachment Scoreboard ASPEN Media Ownership FMFIND

We are estimating that these services will return on or before November 20, 2011.

We apologize for the interruption at this time.

For the most current information regarding our facility move:

REC Home Page - http://home.recnet.com REC on Facebook - http://facebook.com/recnet

RECNET links are used for all Canadian radio stations (TV stations too, I think) in place of Radio-Locator links and also since they don't have links to specific stations as we do with the FCC. Not sure how you want to handle this, but if you are taking suggestions, I would consider having the RecnetCanada hidden (from inside the template code, not each individual page), so that the code remains on the pages, but is out of sight until the RECNET move is complete. I will keep an eye on the site and let you and Bearcat know when they go back online. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 16:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Did as I did before. JPG-GR (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! That's why I came to you.  I figured if anyone could work the code magic, it was you.  I will keep you and Bearcat informed as to when RECNET is back online.  Though, I think it might be time to look for another site for Canadian listings, since RECNET seems to be down more and more lately. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 22:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like they are back online a day early. You can unhide the RECNET links. :)  Thanks!  If we don't speak between now and then...Happy Thanksgiving! -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. JPG-GR (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank ya, Sir. Appreciate your help on this one.  I'll let you know if (more like when) RECNET goes offline again.  Take Care. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 05:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)