User talk:Jeandré du Toit/archive/2010

Solar system.
Regarding your edit to this article,do you mean that somebody e-mailed OTRS to demand that this trivial change was made? I have thought that OTRS is for more serious matters! Ruslik_ Zero 09:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply.

+44 (disambiguation).
I'm not that concerned about its deletion, but puzzled as to why it was copyright infringement. Quiensabe (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-02-07t11:04z

Family tree of the Babylonian gods.
In Family tree of the Babylonian gods, what does the 42 mean? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The number of other children. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-04-19t10:51z

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Miranda scarp.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Miranda scarp.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Contested. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-05-03t12:16z

You are now a reviewer.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.  MBisanz  talk 02:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom Cruise ref.
Re


 * I'm curious as to why you removed a reference as a 404 reference when it contained a link to the internet archive of the same article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-06-20t13:03z
 * Well, I wouldn't characterize Parade as a tabloid, but I would be amenable to having both cites. I think that covers what happens if the Parade site removes it and also bolster support for the comments. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

!Deletion of Anushka Wirasinha.
Re


 * I noticed that you may be the editor who initiated a delete for author Anushka Wirasinha based on an argument of "vanity". Please note that she has stated her qualification as "CSS Harvard" and has not called it a degree so this is an untrue statement/edit. Also wikipedia states:
 * "Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms—this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article."


 * We feel that the statement was created through malice and is not credible. It is completely untrue and unfairly discredits the author. We urge wikipedia editors to please look into the content and its credibility so that innocent persons are not hurt by mere malice posted by those who wish to just be nasty.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-06-28t22:07z


 * wrongful change of article
 * If your words were changed why didn't you do anything about it at the time? Whoever changed it, it was there for almost a month and has now trickled into Google. This is really unacceptable as untrue statements are there online for this author making her out to be a liar and ruining her credibility. If you stated the Sigmaxi statement as well, it is very clear online that she is a member as she has contributed to their newsletter. only members can. Did you see the list of Universities using her books as part of their courses or her work at the library of congress. You definitely cannot be from Sri Lanka as she is well known there as "Sri Lanka's prolific author". Her books are endorsed by the government of Sri Lanka and her publications published by Prentice Hall was India Times bestsellers. The ticket was created through malice and it should have not been kept if you didn't write it. Is there a way to delete the ticket as it is appearing on google?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 22:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * your edit
 * We looked at the changes you are talking about but we are referring to your statement where you accuse the author of "vanity", "boasting", "boosting self persona" by misrepresenting her qualifications. You have spread an untruth that is leading to the damage of the author's credibility when the author NEVER, misrepresented her qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-06-29t12:42z


 * I don't know about the other user but I edited out the untruths in the statement as it was a clear case of malice. The statement lacked credibility and pointed to an absurd accusation of vanity that didn't exist as the author never stated the nonsense the statement implied.
 * The original article however did little to show anything of the authors notability. very few irrelevant links and some stuff like some of her works were translated in to Singhalese is not quite correct. While I agree that a better page that brings out the notability of this author needs to be established and am doing a page now with the help of Shimeru and JohnCD, I wanted to get to the bottom of the untrue statement spreader so that this author is not discredited and accused of untruthful accusations.
 * I see that the ticket has been sent in a different language or someone has posted it on an VBulletin and it has loads of links coming on google under author name. See one link below:
 * http://www.rss.raw2an.com/wikipedia/143487-wikipedia-articles-for-deletion-anushka-wirasinha.html


 * what is the vBulletin and how do you request removal of a ticket?
 * Thank you for your help in trying to sort this matter out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-06-30t09:41z


 * Muthuwella's replies.


 * Reply. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-02t12:19z

[deleted copy of other page's thread] justification for deletion should be after evaluation of TRUE comments and factual comments. The email claims untruthful statements and amounts to libel. It is damaging author credibility when author did not state untrue qualifications. Surely you are not saying that anyone can use an untruth to get a credible article deleted. There are other user comments that counteract this malicious statement. I really doubt that anyone would go by an untruth to nominate a deletion. It is ok is deletion was for lack of info or lack of notability as the earlier article didn't have much but deleting an article based on untruth is not acceptable. Also vanity can't be used as a deletion criteria if you want to discredit the article and assume it was vanity. Also the fact that they removed your quotes and posted on a site and the site links to another fake site sort of explains the mindframe of the person emailing the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 2010-07-02t13:50:56z


 * Reply. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-02t15:46z

RS: Twitter, and reporting death of actress Patricia Neal.
Re


 * Appreciate your stance on reliable sources and footnotes. However, we pride ourselves on reporting accurate information for the island on which we live, and do not casually make reports without confirming from separate sources. Hence, why we waited until the afternoon, when the first report came from one of our "microreporters" this morning. Upon confirmation from notable members of the Vineyard theater community (2 at Vineyard Playhouse), we posted the update. Decided to have a go at editing Wikipedia while we were at it. Very interesting to watch how this plays out. Certainly, a tweet should not by itself be considered ultimately reliable. But, as stated, our careful curation of local events, coupled with a personal network of trusted sources, are nearly flawless. Please review the nature of our Twitter account.


 * Sadly, the traditional local media here are slow to report on anything. It is one reason we do what we do - we are trying to improve reliability and availability of local information in a geographic location that is historically slow to adopt and notoriously unreliable.


 * Unfortunately, we see no metadata category in which to annotate our sources - which are personal, word-of-mouth, but extremely reliable as we see it. Such is the potential of new/local media, albeit prone to just as much error as traditional media. Will be adding more footnotes once local papers update their sites (which we have also confirmed is in progress). ASK472k (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-08-09t00:02z


 * Thanks Jeandré. Certainly, at issue here is the incompatibility of two separate platform-based models: one that embraces real-time delivery of information, and one that is apparently governed by a more obscure code of conduct. How to reconcile this? In time, perhaps some social media sources, verified by whichever arbitrary credentials, may be recognized as reliable sources. It is understandable that we are not "there" yet. But why prevent information, added by us in good faith, from being seen? We feel the Wikipedia community should try to embrace a more real-time dissemination of information, even if it is at the expense of misinformation from time to time. And certainly there must be better ways of handling such things. In other Wikipedia articles, we have seen colored boxes alerting the reader to the potential inaccuracy or untrustworthiness of the content. Why couldn't something like that have happened here? At the very least, some sort of "awaiting confirmation" visual cue? We still vouch for the information we edited in the article, and as you shall see, when the "traditional" sources finally get around to updating their web outposts, our contributions will be confirmed. But removing our "good faith" efforts so as to be effectively invisible to the public seems to be at odds with the "good faith" and "be bold" spirit in which we made those changes. Is there no room at all on Wikipedia for personally discovered and researched information? Or must information be queued in limbo until certain arbitrary conditions are met?


 * There is more that we'd like to add, but don't wish to do so publicly at this time. Is there another way we can converse more privately, in which we could reveal more about the interesting challenges we faced during this unique event? Just in the interest of discourse and illumination. We ultimately don't care what Wikipedia says tonight or tomorrow - obviously, eventually, the article will be updated to reflect the truth per your particular standards. We still remain accountable for our Twitter account, our platform of choice. But perhaps the Wikipedia community has much to gain in engaging in the conversation we're trying to stimulate - that some information - information that may often come straight from the "horse's mouth" so to speak - must be allowed to be readily available, rather than curated away by those that are much further removed from the actual facts. The superficial democracy implied by Wikipedia seems to be, in reality, more oligarchical in nature.


 * (Of course, the story continued to evolve as we prepared this - does http://moviemikes.com/2010/08/patricia-neal-oscar-winning-actress-dies-at-age-84/ make any difference? ASK472k (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-08-09t10:09z

Good edit.
This was the obvious thing to do and I regret that I didn't think of it. The reason it was good was not primarily because it was unsourced — it is clearly undisputed, and in such cases it's better to look for a source — but because of WP:MOSBEGIN and WP:TOPIC. A reader who doesn't know that the Nehru-Gandhi family and wonders why that family is mentioned in the lead section can easily look it up. &mdash; Sebastian 17:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Email campaign.
That was my fault, sorry; apparently my refusal to delete the article on OTRS made its way into blogland, provoking the resulting shitstorm. Ironholds (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-08-16t20:59z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-08-16t21:23z


 * There's another one? A blog post last night caused the OTRS baptism of fire; oh dear. Ironholds (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Signpost: Arbitration report.
There are some people who prefer "Arbitration Report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation" (used since the beginning), "Arbitration Report: Tricky & Lengthy Dispute Resolution" (a title I created about a fortnight ago), or the "Arbitration Report: Arbitration Report" titling. One user (an arbitrator), who incidentally wanted the [ latter] of these three titles, feels his concerns are being ignored. As you also expressed a concern about one of the matters that he had an issue with, I think your attention and participation is invited at this discussion (which he created). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-19t10:44z

AfD nomination of I Killed the Prom Queen.
An article that you have been involved in editing, I Killed the Prom Queen, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jeepday (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete it. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-21t13:53z


 * You might want to take a second look; they have two charted albums in AUS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Still delete. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-22t21:29z


 * Keep band and 1 album, delete the rest. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-24t20:45z

Your allegation [of plagiarism of article about plagiarism in law against plagiarism.]
Re


 * You allege that a user plagiarized content. Was the edit you object to this one or this one? Can you identify the unattributed source? LeadSongDog come howl!  18:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-25t18:19z
 * Bizarre. Of course, this makes an interesting comparison to this too. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fundraiser translations: af (Afrikaans).
Hello Jeandré,

Would you be able to assist us on the af.wikis with translations between us and the local communities for the upcoming fundraiser? Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-26t21:52z


 * [Afrikaans translation and fundraising] So it's time for some translating. Could you have a look at our translation requests on meta? While we need it all translated, the Jimmy letter in particular needs done soon. Thanks for your time! Keegan, Wikimedia Fundraiser 2010 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Initial translation of appeal into Afrikaans:, , . -- Jeandré, 2010-11-13t09:46z


 * [Fundraiser Update] I want to thank you for your help translating the Africaans Jimmy Appeal, we have a few more translations to go... The 2010 Fundraiser is live and has greatly benefited from all the contributions from our translators. Throughout the fundraiser there will continue to be a need for help with translating and localizing messages. Currently, the core messages need to be updated, as there have been recent additions to the request. You can find all translation requests at the translation hub on meta and you can follow the progress of the fundraiser in real time by tracking the fundraiser statistics. Also if you haven't already, you can subscribe to the translators-l mailing list for all new requests and major changes. Many thanks for your help in truly making this a global fundraiser that you can edit. -- Klyman (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Initial translation, request for proofreading. -- Jeandré, 2010-11-30t20:01z


 * [Translation update] I want to thank you for your help translating throughout this year's fundraiser. The fundraiser has greatly benefited from all your contributions. Currently, the Kartika, Liliaroja, Abbas and Joan Gomà appeals need to be translated, as we are running appeals from editors. You can find all translation requests at the translation hub on meta and you can follow the progress of the fundraiser in real time by tracking the fundraiser statistics. It is important to check the Core Messages as many languages still need updating. Also if you haven't already, you can subscribe to the translators-l mailing list for all new requests and major changes. Many thanks for your help in truly making this a global fundraiser that you can edit. -- Klyman (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage.
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-21t04:26z

1912 book donation.
Re


 * I don't own a scanner, but I'm sure I'll be able to make a plan. Just give me the contact details of the owner. -- Nic Roets (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 2010092710003992 -- Jeandré, 2010-09-29t10:21z

Anushka Wirasinha AfD.
You may remember this article which was deleted at AfD in June. A new, fuller version has been prepared and, being asked for advice, I have decided that the best thing to do is to post it and relist at AfD for the community's opinion. I am notifying everyone who was involved before: your views are welcome at Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha (2nd nomination). Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Questions. -- Jeandré, 2010-11-22t04:43z

Doringbaai coords?
Coords request. -- Jeandré, 2010-12-06t13:57z


 * NJR ZA's replies.


 * Found it, no source tho. -- Jeandré, 2010-12-06t18:43z