User talk:Jakec/Archive 20

Messages from October 23, 2015 to November 26, 2015

User:Impresariofestivals
With respect, it is very blatant. Please have a look at the contributions of this account. Note that the two edits it has made are both to Rewind Festival. Both are time stamped (14:51 and 14:53 yesterday) after the account was warned with uw-coi-username at 14:23. As I noted in the WP:UAA entry, the festival is run by this company. The company's website is at http://www.impresariofestivals.co.uk/. The festival website is at http://www.rewindfestival.com/splash/. Please scroll to the bottom of the latter, and note that it says "&copy;2015 Impresario Festivals PLC. All rights reserved".

The account is a violation of the username policy as an account being unambiguously used to represent a company, per WP:CORPNAME. The account is also in violation of the username policy as an account that implies shared use, per WP:NOSHARE. Since the account was warned, and decided to begin promoting festivals run by itself anyway despite that warning, the blocking of this account is very pro forma.

Thanks for your attention, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Account has been blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed. I acknowledge that you have a point, though I personally prefer to be very conservative with blocks (chasing away good-faith newbies is never a good thing) and tend to only block if they are promoting an entity that is closely related to their username. Other admins may differ, though, and I certainly have no objection to that. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  18:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Meh. The festival belongs to the company. It's closely related. Anyway, have a great weekend. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You too. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  19:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sorber Run
Materialscientist (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cider Run (Bowman Creek)
Materialscientist (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Baker Run, Windfall Run
Jakob, I was sorry to see that the recent DYK talk page issues were introduced into this review of your nomination, where they did not belong. I have no idea which nomination review he's referring to; the only one I posted to involving late nominations is Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Cotton Road, where my comment is self-explanatory, unremarkable, and nothing to do with the original reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Baker Run, Windfall Run
Hello! Your submission of Baker Run, Windfall Run at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Marsh Creek (Bowman Creek)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Boile Run
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hettesheimer Run
Thanks for helping Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Nathan Waller (soldier)
Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates
Hi, Jakob. I usually try not to mess around with user's sandboxes too much. Waiting for you to create articles and for The Anomebot2 to tag them as needing coordinates, however, sometimes leads to an overload of Pennsylvania creeks (runs, etc.) needing coordinates. Would you mind if I sometimes go into sandboxes like User:Jakec/Swale Brook and add coordinates when I'm looking for something useful to do? Deor (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am fine if you want to put coordinates on my drafts in the future. Sorry for the delay, and thanks for asking. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  02:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Politicians
Well, I don't, but that's what my source says. Generally this is just a sign that the Parliamentary Library has no biographical information on the person in question. The Drover's Wife quite often comes along after me and digs up some great stuff in Trove (in fact as you were leaving this message I was getting some basic stuff on Edward Smith Hill). I'm not particularly opposed to removing it if you have a problem with it; basically, if there is stuff to find then it'll disappear in fairly short order anyway, and if there isn't then it's pretty accurate. Frickeg (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Basically, what he said. The Parliamentary Library is normally really thorough and as reliable a source as they come, so for Frickeg's purposes of creating broad coverage in a reasonable timeframe, it's not unreasonable to start with what they have. However, they didn't have Trove when they put all this together, so quite often it is possible to turn up more (I make a particular habit of going after these ones because I like a challenge), and like he said, if I or anyone else can't find anything either then it's not really wrong. But having the article regardless is bloody useful because it allows us complete coverage, and marks these people as topics people like me should go digging into. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing the notability of any of these. I'm only saying that the readers can't be expected to properly verify such a claim based on only that one source; it's quite possibly accurate, but it would be better if it were verifiable. (And, also, it'd be inaccurate if there happened to be a mention in some obscure 19th century newspaper, half-forgotten archive, or paywalled site somewhere). --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  01:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've left it out of the rest of them. :) Frickeg (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  02:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! Though I admit that when I first posted to the VP, I had no idea I was starting an RFC; I was just asking whether or not there already was a plan to have a special logo. --Jakob (talk)   aka Jakec  15:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, ! --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  18:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Branch Tunkhannock Creek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for South Branch Bowman Creek
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK pulled
An article you reviewed for DYK has been pulled due to BLP concerns about the hook. Please see Talk:Main Page if you'd like to suggest an alternate blurb (or argue my decision to pull it was wrong). Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you were right to pull. That was a mistake on my part, and my apologies that I didn't get around to making note of it before it got to the main page. Some of the ALTs look good though. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  03:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, we seemed to get it resolved fairly quickly. By the way, just making clear that the above was not meant to be accusatory. When I pulled a hook a few months ago, I had a good discussion about how I would handle a similar situation in future, and I resolved to notify all potentially interested/involved parties if I ever pulled a hook again. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 11:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Wolf Run (Bowman Creek)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cherry Run (South Branch Bowman Creek)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Beaver Run (Bowman Creek)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for List of tributaries of Bowman Creek
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Fishing Creek
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Little Fishing Creek you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Abel (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Sugar Hollow Creek
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for South Branch Roaring Run
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

barnstar with thanks

 * Thanks for the barnstar! --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  00:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Fishing Creek
The article Little Fishing Creek you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Little Fishing Creek for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Abel (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lake Glory
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Roaring Run (Bowman Creek)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Baker Run
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Windfall Run
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of North Branch Bowman Creek
Hello! Your submission of North Branch Bowman Creek at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Stone Run (Bowman Creek)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for North Branch Bowman Creek
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Swale Brook
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)