User talk:Jsharpminor/Archive 8

Bowl season categories
Jsharpminor, just an FYI, I've nominated Category:1991-92 NCAA football bowl games and Category:1992-93 NCAA football bowl games, which you recently created, for speedy deletion. These are (now empty) duplicates of Category:1991–92 NCAA football bowl games and Category:1992–93 NCAA football bowl games. Watch out for the hypens vs. endashes in date ranges, game scores, and win–loss records! Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Res ipsa loquitur vs prima facie
Template:Res ipsa loquitur vs prima facie has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. bd2412 T 05:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete's talk page
Jsharpminor, I dispute the fact that I was implicitly told what to delete/not delete on my talk page. What is undisputable is that content deleted by me (as both dealt with and or irrelevant, in my opinion) was reinstated by Urban Villager, and added to in the same absurd trolling manner.

Both of these points are merely breaches of ettiquette however, the more substantive point being repeatedly made by me is that the proper place to discuss content is the articles' talk pages and discussions should be confined to content matters not uninvited personal discussions and infantile accusations. Pincrete (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Jsharpminor, I have tried to turn a new page with Pincrete, but all he wants to do is dispute everything, all the time, never agreeing to anything, constantly attacking every new edit, revert warring, etc. The articles that I edit have a dozen times more reliable references than the average Wikipedia article and yet Pincrete even disputes a line saying 'known for', even though the source does say that Sandra Perović is "known for...", etc. It's just tiring having to deal with this editor non-stop without any hope of reaching some kind of consensus on anything. I'm flexible on a lot of things, but when you're dealing with someone whose goal is not to make these articles more informative about the topic matter but to make Malagurski and his work seem as irrelevant or bad as possible, how should I go about this? How would you work with someone on building a building if that person wants it to crash as fast as possible? This isn't just in regards to Malagurski-related articles, Pincrete follows every edit I make in regards to other articles as well (like Dubravka Lakić, Sandra Perović, etc.) and disputes everything. He's obsessed with me, please help me focus on articles instead of losing time on arguing about every single detail with Pincrete. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Taylor Swift for personal discussion. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. ''When discussion has been hatted and the comments say "Do not modify", you stop modifying. Article talk pages are not forums and are not for social networking. As well, removing talk page comments is not considered vandalism and is appropriate when such comments are not related to improving the article, are social in nature, and are violating talk page guidelines.'' -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're out of line in hatting this discussion, not to even begin to mention deleting it. is hardly irrelevant. Even if it were, you're assuming an authority you just don't have in the situation. I allowed the hatting to stand, because you are correct: there's no need for that line of conversation to proceed any further.
 * Even with that, though, the conversation amounts to two editors discussing whether they can get an image for a Wikipedia article, and why it can or cannot be done. If you'd like to go to 3RR or ANI and ask about whether this is appropriate or not, I'll be happy to follow you there. Otherwise, please stop. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 07:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The two of you were talking about your fandom with Taylor Swift, you were talking about guitars, you were talking about work, you were talking about using computers at work and at school. Oh, and that nothing happens at work sometimes.  Did I miss anything?  None of those things are pertinent to improving the article or about the RfC.  As it says on article talk pages, when WP:NOTAFORUM is breached and the policy violated, comments can and should be deleted.  As it was, I was being nice by just hatting the comments.  You modified them inappropriately and ignored the hat.  That's why the comments were deleted.  You then inappropriately readded them.  Fine.  I rehatted them.  Article talk pages are not a forum and Wikipedia is not a social network.  As a community member, I had every right to do what I did.  The one who needed to stop was you, not me.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  07:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what conversation you were reading, but it's obviously not the one I'm referring to. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 07:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

H. Diez
Hi Jsharpminor, I'm very impressed by your clear and accurate intervention. It seems that you did not meet Rhode Island Red for the first time? You seem to know his contortions, his lawyering and his aggressive ways, e.g. to delete complete articles, not to accept german sources, not to accept books that cannot be found in "his" library and so on. Other colleagues have suffered from this earlier, and several potential authors have told me, that they would never dare to participate here because of this kind of incredibly aggressive climate. I am adiminstrator in the german Wikipedia and, believe me, we have the same kind of problematic "colleagues", too. Please give me a hint. What can I do, as I know for shure that writing an accurate article with adequate sources will never be accepted by this guy, who in my eyes is completely unable to work in a collaborative project. Sincerely --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits sumatran rabbit
Hi

Your edits also wiped my cl-span, without changing the article text - in other words you think my time spent on editing it to add that was pointless and meaningless?

So, do you not understand that it states that the locals of Sumatra do not have a name for it because they do not know it exists?

Sumatra is a very big place. The internet is global. At least one Sumatran local knows the rabbits exist. It has been a known species sine 1880.

It's name is "Sumatran Rabbit"

So, if the article is trying to say "No name exists for the rabbit in the Sumatran language as the indigenous population were unaware of its existence", then that would be fine.

Right now, they know it exists & it has a name.

"For the most part local people don't even know that the species exists," doctoral student Jennifer McCarthy with the University of Massachusetts-Amherst told mongabay.com, adding that,"local villagers in some areas may have heard about the species, and a very few might have seen it." 

I have undone it, and re-added your edits. If you are a regular editor on the page, perhaps you can correct the wording? Chaosdruid (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The original wording follows:

Incredibly rare, nocturnal and found only in remote forests, it seems obvious why we know so little about the species. The local people do not have a name for the Sumatran Rabbit simply because they are not aware it even exists.
 * Try the following wording:

Little is known about this species, as it is rare, nocturnal, and found in remote forests. The rabbit is so rare that even most local people have only heard about it.
 * The original wording kind of made it sound insulting, as if the people were too dumb to know about stuff in their own backyard, and we intelligent Wikipedians know all about it. That was what I was trying to correct. My version was of course not perfect, but it wasn't something that could have been taken as an insult.
 * Further, you say that there is a local name for the Sumatran Rabbit, and that it is simply called the Sumatran Rabbit? Then why not just add this information to the page, rather than leaving the page to say that they don't have a name for it? J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 00:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

2042 Winter Olympics listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2042 Winter Olympics. Since you had some involvement with the 2042 Winter Olympics redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tavix | Talk 17:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

2032 Summer Olympics listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2032 Summer Olympics. Since you had some involvement with the 2032 Summer Olympics redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tavix | Talk 04:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cooper's Chicken


A tag has been placed on Cooper's Chicken requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:00, 25 June 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) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Winningest
Appreciate your input at WT:MOS. I wanted to inform you that I reverted your changes to refactor discussion. While I'm positive your intent was to reign in the rather lengthy discussion, it ran the risk of mischaracterizing a person's !vote. Per WP:REFACTOR: "It may be advisable to copy sections of text rather than move them". I think it's better to start a new poll based on the current one's input, and have participants re-affirm their position. I would think it's safe to say there is no consensus for MOS changes specifically on the word winningest, but general changes may still be in order. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks! J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 19:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bassel Khartabils whereabouts/location
Hi! I undid your edit to Bassel Khartabil, since all the latest sources says that he was moved from Adra prison to an unknown location and that his whereabouts is unknown. The article Adra Prison also mention im as a former prisoner there. Please add source to confirm otherwise. DavidIvar (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no reason whatsoever to believe that he is specifically in Adra. I appreciate you fact-checking that. I changed the page to reflect this. Please let me know if the change I made would be acceptable. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 20:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Restored request at AN3
Kudos for assuming good faith on the OP 's part and reformatting their request. My covert motive for originally reverting the poorly formatted request was the fact that the OP had been warned about warring and another admin had also commented, so it seemed like a way to de-escalate and give new user a reprieve on a likely frivolous (if not incomplete) report. In any event, it will run it's course now.—Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
North America1000 21:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
See my comment about performing a centralized merger discussion. North America1000 22:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding dangerous climate change
Yes, we actually have an article with that title. I wanted to PROD it, but I think I might be prodding a hornet's nest if I were to do so. Any assistance? For reference, we don't have articles titled "Reducing crime" or other major policy objectives. It seems like an article that is going to be plagued with POV issues by its very existence. Perhaps something like "Climate change policy" or the like would be better.


 * Seems to be at AfD already, making a PROD redundant. I tend to agree with the rationale provided for deletion, but I don't see what further help you are looking for here. Huon (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just went ahead and listed the AfD myself, because that's what I meant rather than PROD anyway. Sorry I didn't remove the tag. I figure that I'll just bite the bullet on this one and see what happens. I'm frankly expecting my inbox to explode with hate mail because there are just some topics on the Wiki that do that. Climate change is one; religion is another. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 21:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, if you agree, would you be so kind as to vote in concurrence? Thanks! J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 21:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote, and a pile-on "per nom" will carry little weight. I may take a closer look within the week. Huon (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Mr. Magoo (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your signature question on ANEW
Basically, it's a form of WP:IAR. If the editor in question isn't disruptive, or changing their signature constantly, no one minds too much. --Neil N  talk to me 14:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

message for J#m
J#m,

Yes I made fun of Jim Vitti but this guy's page reads like a lousy resume. If every guy who ever published a book or an article had a Wikipedia page your site would turn into Facebook. Besides who introduces themselves as "award-winning author"? Not even William Faulkner ever did that. I really love Wikipedia and have donated to it which is why I wish pages like Jim Vitti's would be forever banished to personal websites I never have to visit.
 * I agree, the article is terrible. However, vandalizing it further isn't the way to fix it. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 00:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Fort Hamilton Parkway and Fort Hamilton Parkway (disambiguation)
I did give a reason why I redirected one article to the other. Both are about the same street and have almost the exact same information. Only difference is one has a lot of unsourced information that should not be there. As such, I will return it to the redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.77.186 (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But Fort Hamilton Parkway (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page, not an article. Therefore, there are now zero articles about the road. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"Unexplained removal" in List of Playboy Playmates of 1995
The removal is explained, so how about at least a null edit with an edit summary that indicates some adherence to BLP, perhaps with a comment where you join the talk page discussion? Given BLP, a self-revert might be best instead? --Ronz (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs)
 * Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you?
Two reverts of improper blanking in one day is hardly an edit warring violation. If you can't tell the difference between an SPA who's been vandalizing a small set of articles for two weeks, using multiple accounts, and editors trying to clean up after them, you shouldn't post to the noticeboards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * shows a dispute in progress. For that reason, it was wrong of me to come in and perform the first revert I performed. I was made aware of the dispute by Ronz, and I corrected myself appropriately. The process is, Bold, revert, discuss. It isn't revert and comment, unrevert and comment, rerevert and comment, unrevert and comment, rerevert and comment, unrevert and comment, rerevert and comment. Once it becomes apparent that there is a dispute, you should follow proper dispute resolution processes. By the time you've made your second revert, you're on thin ice. 3RR is not a right, it is a bright line; in other words, 2 reverts is usually wrong, 3 reverts probably is, but 4 is inexcusable almost regardless of your reasons. You're basically appealing to WP:NOT3RR which says that "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language" isn't vandalism; but the other editors are stating that they are "removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." The material is clearly contentious at this point. It may be proved to be valuable and worth being kept. But in the meantime, you ought to have been pursuing the matter through the proper channels. Reverting partial blanking of a page isn't that. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 04:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Spare me your poorly informed and superficial blather. Reciting tired wikibromides while washing your hands of responsibility while impeding editors who are attempting to deal with a bad faith user hiding behind multiple accounts just makes you a speed bump on the information wikihighway. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.   (talk) 06:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is your idea of WP:CIVIL, then you shouldn't wonder why administrators aren't particularly kind to you. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 18:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your remarks at User talk:Chichilambda
I have to tell you I don't think your helping this user actually helped anything at all.


 * Their username is a blatant violation of WP:ORGNAME, which you failed to advise them of at all. They are now blocked from using that name.


 * Userfying a page without being asked is generally a waste of time. When someone comes onto Wikipedia to promote an organization they are involved with, they want it in article space where people will see it. Doing a copy-and-paste userfication breaks proper attribution and is just creating more junk pages that will not be attended to. I have therefore deleted that page.


 * You advised them to look into the "new article incubator" without providing a link. This is possibly because there is no such thing, although we did used to have the WP:INCUBATOR, it was replaced by the Draft namespace years ago.

Hope that clarifies these matters for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,.
 * I saw the username, and so I realized that they were probably a SPA, but I guess I missed the part where that's actually a policy violation.
 * Re: userfying without being asked: Good to know.
 * I intentionally didn't provide the link to the incubator. Apparently that was a mistake on my part, because had I looked for it, I would have found that it is deprecated. I did, however, give them a link to WP:Your first article.
 * I had thought of attempting to make my post to Chichilambda into a template, because it might seem a little less template-y. Looking at it now, however, I realize that the first comment on their page was in fact the template designed for new users who create less-than-ideal first pages.
 * Thanks for your advice. Next time I run into this situation, I will deal with it in a much different manner. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 19:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit war continues.
Hi. I have the ip address in this discussion. My computer changes ip address every time it is turned on and off. As recommended I created a user account. . What do you think about this subject ? I waited for the discussion. Despite this, he still insists on this. I came to you, because you were interested in this topic. what do you suggest i do ? Thanks ArslanYabgu (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Descriptive notation listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Descriptive notation. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Descriptive notation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Obama Approval.jpg


The file File:Obama Approval.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Uploaded in JPG format, and superseded by File:Gallup Poll-Approval Rating-Barack Obama.svg"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Ruby Corp. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruby Corp. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ruby Corp. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You Are the GOAT
Thank you for warning me, I'm sorry for the first edit i did to the book thing i was testing i didn't mean to save , I was new to the whole thing.

Youssef Ahmed Mo (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC) 

Let's talk about your edit history. Let's start with the wikispace:

This is obvious vandalism; also, you Wikified the link to Arjen to link to The Guy in the blue shirt (illustrator).
 * Go the Fuck to Sleep.
 * Before: Go the Fuck to Sleep is a book written by American author Adam Mansbach and illustrated by Ricardo Cortés.
 * Your edit: Go the Fuck to Sleep is a magazine written by Dutch author Stan Browney and illustrated by Arjen.

Reverted. Reverted, re-reverted, edit war brewing. Reverted. Reverted. You didn't spell "transportation" right.
 * Oriental rat flea - You're in a slow-rolling edit war over whether the flea was collected in Egypt or Sudan. I personally don't give two shakes of an Oriental rat flea's ass where it was collected; however, this isn't how you're supposed to handle edit conflicts. Never engage in edit warring.
 * Dichagyris melanuroides - Bad grammar: changed full-stops to commas for no reason, leaving a sentence reading "Adults are on wing in July, There is one generation per year." Didn't uncapitalize the second sentence.
 * Piotr Stokowiec - changed "5 March 2018" to "5th March 2018." Sentence read "On the 5th of March 2018 he became Lechia Gdańsk manager." In addition to messing with the date format for no apparent reason, your brilliant sentence doesn't work grammatically.
 * Tricycle
 * Before: In the West, adult-sized tricycles are used primarily for recreation, shopping, and exercise.
 * Your edit: In the West, adult-sized tricycles are used primarily for recreation, shopping, transportaion and exercise. (difference bolded)

Reverted

... In looking at all the above, I suppose I can actually assume good faith. You've made one vandalism edit, and a few edits that aren't stellar... but I suppose I can assume good faith on your part.

Welcome to Wikipedia. May your future edits be much more helpful and less reverted. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 16:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)