User talk:Jongleur100/Archive5

Friendly word......
Hi Jongleur100, I just noticed this..yes it clearly does need a cleanup and is a new user. Some of it might have potential, but some more discussion might help rather than just reverting and moving on. There is a concern about the fall off in new users and some concern we might not be being nice enough, raised here. Anyway, I am just posting this in the hope that we can keep some newbies and make the place a bit more welcoming :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're quite right. I hadn't noticed (s)he was a newbie. I'll try to do better in future.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

194.164.246.170 and wizardlinks.ws
Hello and thank you for repeating my reversions to Welsh American and Welsh people. I just wanted to let you know that I've reverted a few similar additions today  , with similar plausible but inaccurate edit summaries. All are on my watch list but if you can deal with them faster or more effectively, all the better. I've left a welcome message for 194.164.246.170, who claims to be a bot. Certes (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm watching.  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

MV Balmoral
Yes, but I verified with witnesses, compared with known pictures, as well as the official timetable. That is the correct ship. (Look at the full resolution version) --Gregory J Kingsley (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Self verification is not acceptable in Wikipedia, and the subject of an image must be large enough to be easily identifiable by anyone. The policy guide says under 'Image choice and placement' : 'Poor quality images (too dark, blurry, etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used.' I accept that it probably is the Balmoral, but even at full resolution it's not obvious, and the picture adds nothing to the article.

Please see WP:IMAGE  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 08:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that sharing a photo of the ship away from home and underway in the middle of the Irish Sea might have been something the same people who are interested in that article might find value in. Looks like I wasted at least 30 minutes on the research/upload, then! Any more edit reversions for this new user? --Gregory J Kingsley (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you appear to have taken this personally. Reversions are part and parcel of Wikipedia and there isn't an editor alive who has not had some of their entries reverted at some time. I actually apologised for doing so and provided you with a full explanation why it was done.


 * Surely you can see that you if you had to check the timetable to make sure that it was the Balmoral it proves my point that she wasn't easily identifiable, and therefore unsuitable for a Wikipedia image.


 * When I was a fairly new editor I spent days writing an article. It was torn to shreds by another editor and I was naturally upset, thinking that I had wasted my time. I seriously considered quitting Wikipedia altogether. It was only later that I realised that not only was she correct, but that it had been a valuable learning experience for me, and I'm glad I decided to stick around.


 * I hope you will see your half hour 'wasted' research in the same light. If you haven't already seen it there is a full editors guide here which gives guidance on what is, and what is not, acceptable on Wikipedia. If you need more help please don't hesitate to contact me.. Regards,  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk

John Dankworth-RAM
Thank you for including him back. I agree he should be on the list. As you can see, I am trying to clean up the article and move "less known" alumni to List of Royal Academy of Music people. It is just not possible to include every single alumni on the main article. I'd appreciate your comments regarding the recent changes and the alumni lists (Talk:Royal Academy of Music). Cheers --Karljoos (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought it was a serious omission. I'm not too sure there should be a list on the main page at all, but if there has to be one I'm glad that it is you who are making the selections and not me. Good luck!  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 14:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Help please
Would you please take a look at Thomas de Klerk

The only editor to place content is THDKLERK. The photograph is a self portrait. It is completely unreferenced. I cannot find any notability via Google. The article seems to be a candidate for speedy deletion, but I've never done this and am not sure that I can do so with an autobiography. Thanks  ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No admin action needed - not quite G11 or A7. I'm AfD'ing it. Tim Song (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦  talk 17:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)