User talk:Jeancey/Archive 2

Gaddafi ruling date
Hello, user Jeancey. Please visit this: Talk:Muammar_Gaddafi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.60.158 (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review - one more week
Ok, guys, please address the remaining issues with regards to the article, otherwise I won't be able to give it the GA status. The overlinking needs to be addressed or issue solved. I personally don't think it is overlinked, but you should solve the issue. Please find some more illustrations and address the remaining points with regards to broad coverage. Thanks. JCAla (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

3RR
Hey, thanks for the heads-up. I'm keeping an eye on it. Obviously he's a lot less concerned about breaking rules on this website than I am. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote on the Syrian talk page
I set up a vote on whether to include alqaeda in the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, I don't bother to check who I'm templating
Have a template, have another, choose a big template in the country, a fast template with a big motor, choose a template with a fat university degree and a home dining set. Stuff that, I choose to actually investigate editors edits instead of automatically templating them. Don't template the regulars.

Now I'm sorry that an edit conflict meant that for four seconds Rich's counsel was missing from the page, but perhaps you might have noticed that this was an edit conflict from the disparity between section heading comments or by actually looking at RS/N? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Gavin Webster
I think your addition of the tag was somewhat precipitate and also wrong. Could you remove it please? --John (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can contest it if you think it was incorrectly placed. Just click the contest button on the page and type in your reasoning. Jeancey (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know and I already did that. On what basis did you think the article met CSD A7? --John (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My main reasoning was that the majority of his works listed were themselves not notable enough to have been added to wikipedia, and the two that did have articles, neither mentioned him at all. Its possible he is extremely notable, but as it stands, I decided that as a comic he wasn't. Jeancey (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see. Did you consider searching for sources yourself? --John (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the matter has been decided. Jeancey (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Slavs
Hi,

I do not require consensus to correct obviously erroneous information initially added by IPs. Please consider good faith before reverting users, as per Wikipedia guidelines.

Thanks --Therexbanner (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...
For the heads-up. I'm sure he'll be back. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Re
Hello user Jeancey, again. For your information I strictly follow a majority + reliable sources if you believe my June 7 is unsourced. I don't see anything unsourced here because I already check all the non-Wikipedia sources from all pro-Gaddafi sides and the opposition sides, as well as those neutral parties and the news site, all says that June 7 is his birthday. The reason why they didn't celebrate his 2010 birthday - Gaddafi at the time refuses to state out his birthday, maybe that's because he doesn't really wish to share his birthday, so there are a lot of rumors saying he was born at September 1942, 19 June 1942 and so on blah blah blah. The mysterious birthday are still remain stalemate not until the last year civil war erupts. And as for the BBC News again I have checked, I don't know if at the time you state there as June 1942 but today the BBC says he was born at June 7, 1942. Anything else? Thanks 60.49.60.158 (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of references
That may be so but it would have been better if you replaced the blog reference with a proper reference instead of just removing it alltogether. Also, the source for the number of military defectors killed wasn't a blog. It's part of the opposition site counting all deaths (minus security forces) in Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I have replaced the blog source with a source from DP news. EkoGraf (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Gonna restore the table in the deaths section but gonna remove the various different numbers in the infobox (so there aren't copies) and put only an overall minimum and maximum and direct readers to the deaths section. Better this way, infobox getting too long anyway. In table form we have a nice overview. EkoGraf (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That works for me. I may have been a bit overzealous in cutting down the article. Jeancey (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

my imformation is right,saleh the yemeni former president is no longer president,now is former deputy,hadi is president and saleh regime and government is overthrown,please,so let people stop editing,and putting wrong imformation that he is still president,or i will put protection on the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 04:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC) hadi is sworn already,stop puting wrong information,saleh's reign is over — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 08:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

User:SadSwanSong
I noticed that you edit the Libyan civil war page a lot, and so I would like to tell you that this user is repeatedly vandalizing the libyan civil war page over the past 12 hours, skewing everything towards gaddafi's side. If you could contribute to the talk discussions to sort out what neutral and not, it would be appreciated. Zenithfel (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

9 billion
You cannot remove information referenced from a reputable site simply based upon your own logic. Who said Iran couldn’t afford to send $9 billion? Are you the Iranian treasury secretary to know that it doesn’t have enough money to send? It may seem like a large sum, but you will be surprised what one will sacrifice for ones great/greatest strategic ally. Please provide more concrete and referenced arguments before removing referenced content.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant logic comparing Iran’s military budget to aid given to a vital ally. Unless you can provide referenced information that says Iran didn’t send the amount- that the report is false- then no one has a right to remove content based upon their own reasoning, because otherwise one is opening up a whole new can of worms.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay then you should mention that 1 billion has been given in the article. However, that itself doesn’t negate the 9 billion, because different numbers have been thrown around and one number does not in any way mean that all other numbers become untrue and discarded. A more appropriate sentence would read something to the effect: “so and so reports that 1 billion has been given by Iran to the Syrian regime, while it has also been reported that Iran has given 9 billion to help the regime withstand….”.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When different sources start throwing around wildly diverging numbers (1 billion or 9 billion is quite the difference), it is usually an indication that the claim is not true. I'm not advocating censorship, but if we're going to include this ridiculous claim, it will clear the way for including virtually anything the rebels and media claim about Syria, whether credible or not. Wikipedia is here to inform readers correctly, not to present them with every single thing that has been claimed about the conflict. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mirza Gul Muhammad
Hello Jeancey. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mirza Gul Muhammad, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the heads up about my user page and the speedy deletion! &mdash; Mirandawalters (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

BBC News
Thanks for the fixes here, but I did want to point out to you that while it's theoretically debatable whether "BBC News" is a publisher or a work, the phrase shouldn't be italicized, meaning for purposes of our template, we have to list it under "publisher" rather than "work". (I mix this up sometimes, too.) I've gone ahead and undone this for now, but let me know if you think I've done so in error. Cheers, and thanks for the help, Khazar2 (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took this up at |the template talk page, and it seems like the consensus is to start putting non-italized organizations in the publisher parameter. I just finished updating the documentation, but would be glad for additional eyes on it if you have any input. Thanks again for pointing me there-- Khazar2 (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Linking to Google Books pages
saw your edits at WW2 and WW1 article. Was thinking you may find the Google tool of interest. Google book tool Coverts bare url into cite book format and makes the \url link into a short proper link. Moxy (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

PROD removal by author
FYI, this is the policy: "If any person (even the author him/herself) objects to the deletion (usually by removing the proposed deletion tag - see full instructions below), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." Thus, this edit was unjustified. Thanks! Logan Talk Contributions 04:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's quite alright. An honest mistake. :) Logan Talk Contributions 04:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: The game is over 2
Hello Jeancey. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on The game is over 2 to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question - WP:CSD does not apply to films. JohnCD (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Foreclosure.com article
This is not for advertisement but strictly to be used as a company wikipedia page like Ebay, Realtytrac, Amazon.com, Techcrunch, Etc. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activedg (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

AstroGuard Article
Hello, What is the reason of having deleted AstroGuard Article? It is a neutral article, speaking about a company with viable and checkable references and sources. Could you explain me? Thank you.Hurricane Center (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Hurricane Center

Twitter issue
As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Importance ratings
Just for your information, the importance tags for Africa were based on whether the articles are included as separate articles in the "Africana" encyclopedia. While that source is somewhat controversial in some of its claims, it seemed reasonable to me that if one encyclopedia on Africa included an article, the subjects of those articles would meet the basic definition of "Top" importance, which as per 1.0, who originated such standards, is that they are basically what would be found in an encyclopedia. I first proposed this some time ago on the Africa project talk page, and was given the go-ahead. Having said that, I do not in any way assume that, in cases where a given subject relates to multiple countries within Africa, that the articles would necessarily be of "Top" importance to each country which is relevant to any given article. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and I'm not sure I myself would necessarily disagree with you, except for the point of "current" importance. It can be a bit of a quagmire to try to determine, for instance, how important Cleopatra or the Egyptian dynasties are to modern Egypt. Some would say they are of very little importance; others would say that they are significantly involved in the major Egyptian tourist industry and the development of Egyptian culture to some degree and that makes them important. Honestly, I dunno one way or another. When I did similar tagging for the Christianity project, I can say as a lifelong Christian and actually a major in religion in college, I had never heard of some of those Christians included in the Encyclopedia of Religion, which I am using for a source there. That source indicates in some of those cases that they were leaders of early, but smallish, churches like the Armenian Apostolic Church who were involved in discussions about possible unification with other churches. So they do seem to have played some significant role in, if nothing else, keeping the Armenian Apostolic Church small, which I guess might be important.
 * The "Africana" encyclopedia itself is not the best source I could think of, considering some of its entries are really short and few if any are individually referenced. It does seem to be one of the more highly regarded in that general area though. The full list of articles from it can be found at User:John Carter/Africa articles. Based on that list, I think a lot of people might agree with your opinion, because a lot of those articles are still red links. The similar list at User:John Carter/Religion articles for religion shows the same problems there.
 * The comment about current "national identity"s is a good one, and I would tend to agree with it myself. But that would probably leave a lot of the sometimes really important historical articles about regions of the past left alone, because of their not being particularly relevant to any of the extant countries.
 * Basically, my own thinking, such as it is, might be to error on the side of generosity about whether some of these are of Top or High importance. I have noticed with some of the Christianity and other religion articles I tagged as "Top" importance, some of those which had been, basically, all but ignored for some time are now getting some attention. And it does increase the chances of those articles getting included in release versions in the future.
 * When I finish Africa (ha, ha - I'm only up to "E" so far) I'm going to try to go on to the other, generally smallish encyclopedias on individual countries, of which I think each country has at least one. Most of the articles in those (depending on how big they are, of course) are probably similarly of "High" or "Top" importance to those countries, or they probably wouldn't be included.
 * I do go on, don't I? Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what you're referring to might be more specifically the "immediate attention" tag for indicating those that need work now. There's an "Article alerts" bot out there which can draw attention to articles in active discussion as well, like deletion, moves, RfC, etc. Otherwise, I remember when someone tagged two articles about non-notable BBC presenters as "core" to the Biography project when they were nominated for deletion. I think they were both ultimately deleted. Anyway, that project had specifically limited that assessment grade to the 200 biographies it had, after some lengthy discussion, thought qualified as the top 200 people of history. Let's just say that calling those BBC presenters as important as Jesus, Muhammed, Caesar, etc., didn't go over very well. And trying to keep the importance assessment "current" would maybe cause POV pushing in that area, which is seen once in awhile, and other actions which might make too much time spent on assessment by too many people.
 * What I would like to see is, maybe, some sort of Africa newsletter, like MILHIST has, which might be able to draw attention to, for instance, the new president of a country shortly after his election, or other major current developments, and maybe some contests of sorts for development of articles needing development. That would help draw more attention to those articles which are possibly subject to substantial change, which most articles about historical subjects aren't. Right now, I'm basically doing the Christianity newsletter solo, though, so I don't think I would necessarily be the person to try to do an Africa one as well. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hizb El Watan (Libya)
I have nominated Hizb El Watan (Libya) for deletion because of the duplicity (see Articles for deletion/Hizb El Watan (Libya)) Your opinion on the discussion page would be appreciated, since you have been one of the contributors in the article. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Libya Flag
Please see the talk page on Arab Spring. Thanks. Moester101 (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Syria
Sure, I'll check it out and fix it. Though I intend to keep it below 200k.

Please keep an eye out for this oxycut guy. He is a biased user who overtly sides with the "opposition are terroirists" prose the government is using, and is trying his best to make the article in favor of the syrian goverment, by sneakily taking out sections he sees unfit for the syrian civil war page under the context of the oversize rule of thumb Sopher99 (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Found it: Its the local coordination comiteees, refugees, and the concessions subsections Sopher99 (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to workshop on editing Wikipedia
Dear Jeancey,

We are a team of researchers at the University of Oxford and AU Sharjah, researching the experiences of editors of content about the Arab world on Wikipedia. We are interested in your experiences of editing Wikipedia and are organising two events that we think you would be an excellent contributor to. First, we are hosting an online wiki focus group about contributing to Wikipedia in Arabic and to articles about the Middle East and North Africa. We are interested in what barriers you perceive to exist in Wikipedia, how articles can be made better and generally what can be done to expand and improve Arabic Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles about the Arab world. This discussion will take place on a MediaWiki hosted at our institution and be available in English and Arabic. We will allow users to create their own discussion pages in addition to our discussions. Second, we are hosting face-to-face workshops in Cairo from 21st-22nd October 2012. If you are interested in this we should be able to pay travel and accommodation costs for up to twenty participants. This workshop will cover similar themes to the online discussion but will allow participants to meet one another and benefit from being together.

We will take care of the organization and planning and all you have to do is show up and be ready to discuss. But if you would like to help shape some of the discussion themes in advance, please let us know. We have booked time in the workshops for Wikipedian-led discussions.

More details can be found by expanding our “Frequently Asked Questions” below. We would be delighted to welcome you to either (or both) event. Please let us know (wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk) if you would like the opportunity to participate and we can send you more details. Sincerely,

Mark, Bernie, Ilhem, Ali, Ahmed, and Heather

Dr. Mark Graham, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Ilhem Allagui, Department of Mass Communication, American University of Sharjah; Dr. Ali Frihida, National Engineering School of Tunis; Heather Ford, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Ahmed Medhat, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford;

OIIOxford (talk) 11:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC), tidied 10:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter
Hey. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Armogamer13
While you are correct in your reversions of this user's additions to the Syrian civil war page, I'd like to point out that neither you nor anyone else (except for me) has attempted to contact him on his talkpage, which is the standard course of action in such situations. Please be more mindful of this and try not to WP:BITE newer, less clueful users. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)