User talk:Ju66l3r/Archive 4

&#32;Archive 4&#32; &#124;&#32; Archive &rarr;

FEATS
Hi, thanks for looking at the new FEATS page. You're absolutely right - it has been composed by an insider, apparently the first one to take the trouble to do so. I have been involved in FEATS since 1988, as a competitor, served on the Steering Committee for many years, was the founder of the FEATS website in its present form and have myself headed up the organisation of three festivals in Bad Homburg. I think, therefore, that I'm well qualified to describe it objectively.

I'm not certain where you find neutrality a problem but guess that it's the opening sentence of 'The Participants'. It is a widely expressed and internationally accepted fact, supported by the opinion of everyone that I've ever spoken to in the field over more than 30 years that amateur dramatics is (and here I quote the introduction of the FEATS 1998 Antwerp programme)  ...very hard work, but [is] also satisfying, rewarding and above all great fun. I therefore posed the rhetorical question of who would dedicate themselves to so much hard work without pay, followed by the answer as demonstrated each year in practice.

The article should, in my opinion, not be too dry but lightly amusing in order to convey to someone who does not know of FEATS the fun aspect of taking part, and I see nothing wrong in this formulation. I doubt that there will be any conflicting points of view, but let's see what happens.

And finally, I'd be grateful if you would point out the improper grammar usage, bearing in mind the European origin. This Brit thought he paid attention at school during English lessons but is still willing to learn.

The existence of this entry has been made aware to the FEATS Steering Committee who will, no doubt, be expressing their opinion to me quite soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muso55 (talk • contribs)


 * The fact that you are a founder/member/invested party makes you entirely unqualified to describe it objectively almost by the very definition of the word. You have provided absolutely no reliable sources to maintain any sense of verifiability, which is one of the 3 main tenets of Wikipedia.  The storybook rhetoric chosen is unencyclopedic and that in itself is the problem.  This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for the attitude of the fun aspects of FEATS.  If this article is to remain, it should be redrafted AND sourced or I'll recommend it for deletion in its current state.  Please also take a look at WP:AUTO to better understand why you shouldn't write about a group that you're a part of for neutrality issues.  ju66l3r 15:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Tags
May I suggest that you check whether the person removing your tag is an admin before you restore it? Especially if you are going to leave them a message about it. --Spartaz 15:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The "dpon.." user is not an administrator. I looked and can not find them at the full list.  Since I had already had the tag removed by a non-adminstrator on the page, I was leary of meatpuppetry and other things.  So, I looked for mikkalai on the list and did not see their name either.  I have gone back and found it this time.  Honest mistake in missing his name when I checked; I also looked at his userpage for this information but he does not carry the admin category which makes it next to impossible to tell what's going on with his level of access.  He could just as easily tell me so, but thanks for your comments.  ju66l3r 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

May I also suggest that you review the WP:CSD. It seems that you are too liberal with db-bio tags. In the case of Tom Denton the artcle clearly had notability claims: 11 books published. I can understand that these books may well be garbage, but this is to be decided by voting, not by a single speedying admin. Anyway, thank you for your efforts to keep useless things off wikipedia. `'mikkanarxi 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks for the advice. I'll make sure it's a total non-assertion of notability that gets speedied and the rest get prodded or AfD nominations when they don't rise to WP:BIO.  ju66l3r 18:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dufus (band)
I was recently told by another admin that I overuse the db-bio tag and to be careful for assertion of notability in the future. No offense to that other admin, but I would like a second opinion. On the Dufus (band) article, you switched my db-bio to a prod. I looked for an assertion of notability but could not find any. There was no mention of notability of the band, it's members, songs, or albums (other than they've recorded 8 of them...and even for those, there was no verifiability or assertion that they were anything more than basement tapedeck recordings). Am I overusing the db-bio or being less than cautious with articles? Thanks for your advice on this matter. ju66l3r 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! The reason why I switched the speedy tag to a prod version is because there was an assertion of notability in the article, even though it doesn't quote sources that can be verified. The prod allows the author or other interested editor five days to produce verifiable sources in order to assert the notability of the band.  It can be deleted after this time if the proof is not forthcoming.  Without knowing your editing history, it is hard to say whether or not you do apply a speedy tag inappropriately.  The best advice right now is for you to read Criteria for speedy deletion and take a look at Category:Speedy deletion templates to examine the range of offically-approved speedy tags that are on offer. Regards, (aeropagitica) 22:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * hey. it's ok, I realise now why you did it. It worked, too, forcing me to 'improve or die' :P. I just thought you were a bit hasty is all.--Macca7174 11:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

MySpace - Popular Culture
Hey have a quick question, not going to mean like most people when you delete an addition. I was wondering why my entry was deleted, they do have songs and on the eleventyseven page it even talks about their myspace song. I don't know how I would reference a song. Add a clip of the song onto the page? Add their MySpace page which is stated not to put on. Help me out here! thanks. DJREJECTED 22:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest a review of the album/song on an independent source like a music magazine. ju66l3r 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Proper sourcing
Hi! Sorry, I thought my way of sourcing is enough—for the editors, of course. It definitely wasn't as obscure as other edits after mine. :) Is the linked site, discog.com also problematic BTW? I tried to find some source about when this track was released, and this was the first I found. Thanks: chery 06:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked into discog.com and found that it's a wiki similar to this site. That means that users could potentially edit it to say whatever they like...making it potentially unreliable.  I would use an independent magazine article that mentions the song, for example in a review of the album.  That would remove any doubts for proper sourcing of the article in the future.  ju66l3r 16:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why
Remove content from the Tom McCahill article? Any {personal attack removed} (including you) can edit articles, but removing valid content will only target you for vandalsim.152.163.100.202 20:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We are writing an encyclopedia here, not an indiscriminate list of facts about someone. You, on the other hand, have threatened me with vandalism and personally attacked me with your obscenity.  Please contribute to the process of building an encyclopedia.  Thanks.  ju66l3r 01:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing content from an article is supposedly agianst the rules. I gladly vandalized you as I said I would if you kept screwing around with these articles. I still think your an {personal attack removed} Kaltenborn


 * No. Removing content is not against the rules.  You need to better read the rules linked on your user talk page.  If you continue to remain uncivil and intentionally vandalize pages, then you will find yourself quickly banned.  Please improve the site and stop damaging the pages of others.  ju66l3r 14:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On Tom McCahill
I removed the description of the red-headed stepson. Now lets leave it like it is, there being no clear reason to remove anything further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by randazzo56 (talk • contribs)


 * I have removed a bit more unencyclopedic content and re-added the sourcing and style request tags because the entire article needs to be fitted to the guidelines for style and many spelling and grammar errors need fixing. The fact that it remains unsourced is also of concern.  There must be some information on this man's life if he is so notable to warrant an article.  ju66l3r 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Prentiss Oakley
I see you reverted my article on Oakley to Bonnie and Clyde. I see Oakley as significant because he fired the shots that Killed Clyde and probably Bonnie as well. Why revert it? randazzo56


 * I did not revert that article. I redirected it to the full Bonnie and Clyde article.  That article has a far better description of Oakley's involvement and sources provided for how Oakley dealt with his role in the ambush.  Since it's more descriptive, more sourced, and a full article, I redirected attention to that article, because it provides more and better information than what you have provided on a separate page.  If you think Oakley, by himself, is notable and important rather than solely the role he played in the story of Bonnie and Clyde, then you're going to have to improve the article.  I didn't see that happening, so I gave anyone searching for information on Oakley a better source.  ju66l3r 01:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Ju66l3r, I think it's great and all that you spend time editing and cleaning up pages, but I think it would be nice if instead of simply making a change/deletion/note and leaving, Leave someting on the discussion page as to why you made a specific deletion, or what should be changed to a new page. I posted a new article that you flagged. Now, if you were concerned with the general improvement of Wikipedia, running around flagging articles dosen't necessarily help anybody, it would be nice if you at least left a comment on what should be changed so that it actually gets improved, instead of just leaving the page to sit around incomplete.

Cheers -- Xeurb 16:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * When new pages are coming in on the order of 10-20 a minute, it's hard enough to keep up with the serious vandalism that hopes to establish itself on the site. I feel the tags are pretty descriptive as to what the issue is.  In fact, the most recent edits by User:68.255.48.228 on the article that you started get at exactly what caused me to flag it as an advertisement.  There are guidelines for both style and notability requirements that are linked directly in the tags.  If you read those guidelines and still don't see the problems with your article, then you're always more than welcome to come to my talk page and I can revisit a page that I've left tags upon.  For example, while the NPOV/advert issues are much better resolved (the advert tag could probably be removed without issue now), the notability is not really addressed.  There are few independent and reliable sources on the page to establish what little notability there is for a help organization as a school builder.  I will often leave discussion when I am marking something that is not as obvious as the problems I found with your article.  Of course, obvious to me is not necessarily obvious to everyone, but in the course of my time on Wikipedia, I've had few problems establishing that my obvious fits most editors' definition.  ju66l3r 17:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

XBRL
As far as I understand, you have deleted the page about XBRL projects in the world. This is a non-for-profit approach, using the capacity of wikipedia. We have no problems to use other wiki approach, but I can not understand your problem with our initiative. Please see my mail to the XBRL community below.

Please confirm me where is the problem, in order to take the appropriate course of action.

Regards

Ignacio Boixo Committee of European Banking Supervisors XBRL Network Coordination

-- Dear XBRL Project Manager,

Now that XBRL is gaining an increased profile around the world, there is a greater need for the XBRL community to disseminate as much material as possible on real projects that have been implemented, or that are in progress, around the world.

You will no doubt be aware that a number of different jurisdictions having much more information that the posted on their websites; there are number of suggestions to facilitate this process.

Firstly, most of the project details are gathered using a fixed form. It is preferable a more open and friendly mechanism for the variety of projects around the world.

Secondly, as this process with fixed form requires the use of an intermediary, it removes the project leader from the project details and there is no clear mechanism that allows the project details be easily updated by the project leader.

Thirdly, for people interested in XBRL projects, the necessity to search a multitude of web sites is counter-intuitive.

In general, the process does not take advantage of the more recent web-based information dissemination mechanisms.

Against that background, I would like you, as an XBRL project manager, to consider posting some relevant information on your project in wikipedia. The main goal is to create a catalog or repository of projects by country / region / supply chain, but also industry, academic or other projects and developments are welcomed.

Working in wikipedia is extremely simple. Please enter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBRL_Projects and then click in [edit], type your English text and press [save page]. As wikipedia is a multilingual, you can also include information in the equivalent page in your idiom. Please find some useful details here: http://fis.unab.edu.co/docentes/ecarrill/publico/xbrl_en/xbrl_projetcs_wiki.doc

By doing so you will be using a free format, will have full control over material, with easy and timely access for updating. This will result in this very useful information being easily accessible, in a flexible and easily followed format, by the growing number of people interested in XBRL.

There is already some XBRL project-related material available in wikipedia and I would urge you to share the details of your projects in this forum.

This is also a very good exercise when you consider fulfilling the project template located in the official http://www.xbrl.org/ProjectDetails website

We have try the Google search approach with limited success, and also the relatively little that exists in the official website is neither enough ample nor updated for our purposes, perhaps by the limitations of using fixed forms.

Between XBRL Spain and the University of Bucaramanga (Colombia) we have prepared such page in wikipedia to maintain a worldwide repository of XBRL projects. We are ready to help XBRL Project Managers wishing to put relevant information in wikipedia upon request. We are ready to watch that there are not acts of vandalism or problems in an open space like wikipedia and to take the opportune measures so that everything runs in a spirit of cooperation.

The Spanish XBRL Jurisdiction is looking for such information, to be disseminated in LatinAmerica after our translation to Spanish. Our business case is that we are preparing (now with urgency) a world-wide catalogue of XBRL projects, fulfilling a commitment to make a e-learning pilot course for selected stock exchange supervision staff in Latin America (governmental collaboration agreements). We will already take care to go to the website of each project and to make a Spanish translation of the relevant information. Evidently, although our deliverable is an XBRL catalogue in Spanish, with the projects that we do not know, little we could do.

Should you have any questions, please contact us. Your sincerely

Ignacio Boixo XBRL Spain Manager

Mario Martinez XBRL Projects Repository -- Iboixo 00:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed some personal/sensitive information from your comments. Wikipedia's pages are frequently used by spam/spiders to collect such information.  I will respond on your user talk page with my comments and suggestions.  ju66l3r 01:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry i didn't know you couldn't delete messages.Asteroidz R not planetz 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's no problem and there is no official policy against it. It is just suggested that you don't for the reasons I gave.  A warning or two is not a big issue and helps you and other editors in understanding your editing history.  ju66l3r 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sesame Street
Apologies. Going through the edit history, it appeared that the last 6 or 7 contributions were either pointless blanking (vandalism), obvious faux info (vandalism) and other nonsense. I didn't realize your edit was in there as well. —scarecroe 00:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to XBRL Page Links
Can you please help? Recently, I posted two links: one to a Hitachi-sponsored blog about XBRL and the other to a Hitachi-authored white paper on the role of XBRL for the enterprise. They were deleted as spam.

We were not trying to generate spam, but to provide additional information about XBRL that we have not found elsewhere. The blog is meant to be an ongoing vendor-neutral blog of commentary and discussion about XBRL that invites a broad array of updated opinions and thoughts from people who represent the spectrum of thinking; in fact, there is a desire to include opinions that are diverse and even contrary to Hitachi's in order to improve the dialog re: XBRL. The white paper -- aside from being written by Hitachi -- is also vendor-neutral and represents the first (that we have found) notations about the role of XBRL throughout the enterprise (rather than only in finance.)

I am not trying to break protocol or gain special favor, but believe these pieces enhance the knowledge about XBRL and improve the discussion. Can you give me some guidance as to why these were deleted and -- if possible -- if they could be re-inserted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartmcfaul (talk • contribs)


 * I will discuss this on your user talk page for your benefit to reference from later. ju66l3r 01:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

NISIO ISIN
I'm changing back your changes to my NISIO ISIN article. If you read the article, you would see that this is his official capitalization for his pen-name. I'd appreciate if you don't change it again. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linlinchan (talk • contribs)


 * Your changes did not affect the actual article title. Beyond that, I can find little verifiability as to the content of this article.  ju66l3r 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Go to the francesca mold discussion board instead!
Thats where I've been waiting for my replys!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldstann (talk • contribs)

Personal attacks?
My "francesca mold" article gets deleted because it has no refrences and yet the opalinida article gets to stay on yet it has no refrences? And the best thing you can come up with is to say that it was a personal attack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goldstann (talk • contribs).

Theodora Goss
I'd read a couple of her stories in "year's best" anthologies and really liked them. When I found In the Forest of Forgetting at my local library I snatched it up and read the whole thing in a couple days. I usually look up authors I don't know much about on WP, and when I found no article here I decided to start one. Thanks for adding to it; I don't have a lot of time to expand articles lately, so I'm glad there's someone else working on it. Brendan Moody 01:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Now
Why the hell do you people keep deleting my page? I am not a vandal, and all I ask is for you to leave my page alone. I know that it is a worthwhile page, and only because a few people on a power trip said not to keep the article, it's being deleted ? The previous message on my talk page said I could repost the article as long as I added a hangon tag and a (new) discussion on why the article shouldnt be deleted. I was just about to add that until YOU deleted my page. The page wasnt even on for 5 MINUTES!!! Give me a chance. ShadowBoxer 23:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no way of knowing what a deleted talk page said. I didn't delete your page, an administrator did after I asked for it to be removed because I saw that it had previously failed AfD.  You should use the Deletion Review pages since consensus had this page deleted the very first time.  Every subsequent recreation is going to get flagged as a db-repost by someone new who reads the deletion log of the article.  Other than that, you should also read WP:OWN to understand that it is not "your" page that's being deleted and that by creating content you are at the mercy of everyone's opinions on that content.  ju66l3r 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush
I was sitting there, staring at that article completely puzzled when you redirected it. How is it even possible that that page was created? I am under the impression that a duplicate title cannot exist. It was just all very confusing... Dina 15:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I posted the information on WP:AN/I. Essentially the creator used the greek character lower-case omega with character code:  %CE%BF instead of "o" in George.  Wicked new form of page creation vandalism if you ask me.  ju66l3r 15:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh! I thought there must be some way the title was different, but I could not see it. Thanks for letting me know.  Another thing to keep an eye on...Dina 15:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I missed it at first too but the coding also screws up the page creation history logging which tipped me off this time. The easiest way to tell the difference is to look directly at the URL.  Every title has to be unique otherwise the URL redirections would fail.  That's where "George" was shown as "Ge%CE%BFrge".  ju66l3r 15:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Any Ideas?
You seem to know a lot about wikipedia, can you tell me how to put Corporal Arthur Reginald Green under G as the site has put him under C Post suggestions on Corporal Arthur Reginald Green or User:SaJoLa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.25.46 (talk • contribs)


 * I'll see what you mean and try to help you out. ju66l3r 16:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:WP:AIV blocked user reported
Hi Ju66l3r,

No worries. Block logs aren't something that everyone thinks to check anyway. Just remember that AIV is for immediate blocks, and usually for recent, blatant vandalism, and you'll be fine. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 21:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Controversial
Sorry :-S Thanks for fixing it. -- Renesis (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of AL Farik Mahmoud Shokry
I have removed the prod tag from AL Farik Mahmoud Shokry, which you proposed for deletion, because I feel that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still feel the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Hits Criteria
I read your deletion criteria at Shukri; I think that citing Google hits is a dangerous precedent to be following, since the WP guidelines do not specify that notability be established by online sources. I think that g-hits are a tool for demonstrating notability, but an absence on Google (etc,) is not cause for deletion.

Clearly this was a weak article, but we are finding credible sources under other spellings. Under the assumption of good faith why should we doubt that the Cairo museum is a valid source of information? I realize that some things aren't easily verifiable, but this isn't a murder trial.

Cheers!

--Kevin Murray 03:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Per your response. Yes, you have pointed out a dilemma. Under the assumption of good faith we expose ourselves to hoaxes etc. But we have to be reasonable within the context of the subject. If we reasonably believe that the man was the leader of the Egyptian military, then we reasonably believe that he would be the subject of an exhibit as described. Now we have to trust the veracity of the contributing editor. What if I cite Time Magazine August 15, 1937 page 57? How would you know whether that's true?

Please don't think that I'm naive, but we need to use good judgment and sometimes follow our collective intuition. Should we err on the side of inclusion or exclusion? Which has the greater risk? The former encourages knowledge transfer the latter builds credibility.

Thanks for your thoughts.

--Kevin Murray 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Xfanz
I removed the speedy tag - article is not undispitubably an ad, and is in AFD: Articles for deletion/Xfanz, let's let that play out. For what it's worth, I think I'm going to go argue delete there. :-). AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, after I read the AfD discussion, it appeared that the senior editor "doth protest too much" and the article doesn't appear to be an unbiased portrayal of the site (omg, web 2.0? really!?  Wow!).  So I figured we could nip it in the bud instead of a 400 word essay in response to every delete comment.  ju66l3r 22:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben Pfeiffer
This article really should be taken the afd route; it doesn't meet speedy criteria. --Scimitar 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My replacement of the db-bio tag was purely procedural and not my personal preference. The creating author deleted it in the process of adding the hangon tag.  ju66l3r 20:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough--Scimitar 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ALBD
Check the author's contribs. There are numerous identical copies under different titles. Fan-1967 18:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, I think I got them all. Thanks.  ju66l3r 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)