User talk:JForget/Archives 18

Edit warring at climate change articles

Hi, climate change articles are on probation and I would think that if you lock an article for edit warring as you did today at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change you should make a report of who it was and why on the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation page , regards. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I came here following the same action, but to praise it. Speaking as someone heavily involved in trying to get the abovementioned probation to work, thank you for taking the time to examine the nature of the dispute and act accordingly. We desperately need a few more eyes roaming the topic area, as currently there is a fair bit of unacceptable behaviour slipping through the cracks - many kudos if you choose to answer the call, or even just check in from time to time. Insofar as I am aware, there is no logging requirement except when taking action under the auspices of the probation with continuing consequences, such as topic banning an editor or placing an article under a revert restriction. Off2riorob - could you clarify the above, please? Wherever you think most appropriate - here, User talk:2over0, or Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation - would be fine, though I would request a note at my usertalk if you opt for the last. 2over0 public (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply here as you both have done the same action, imo as the probation is in force an administrator action that is as extreme as this, totally locking an article for edit warring should be reported to the probation page, it is an extreme action likely brought about by actions that do actually violate the probation, the probation has been implemented to prevent this sort of behaviour and to stop edit warring and pages being locked up, if for example, the same editors are involved in both your actions then it is clearly worthy of reporting, although I don't think it is a condition that if you lock an article due to edit warring that you report it to the project page I would suggest that it is clearly worthy of reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report was done, yeah late I know but I might consider setting an expiration or remove it soon - maybe this weekend, where hopefully it would calm down. --JForget 23:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reduced the length already.--JForget 23:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UC4 Article Deletion

Hi JForget, it recently came to my attention that the UC4 Software article was deleted after going through deletion review. It appears the main issue was complying with notability requirements. I wasn't the original creator of the article, but now that the page has been deleted, is the best course of action to start a new article and make it compliant WRT independent secondary sources? Thanks! ParkM (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion requested

I've started a new thread at WP:ANI, about the so called '172 Vandal', who has a long history of vandalizing Canadian political articles/other random pages. Since you have dealt with this person before, I'd greatly appreciate an opinion on how do deal with the said user, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive_IP_Addresses, to prevent further abuse. Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Me Broken

Hello, i was wondering if it was possible to re-activate the page devoted to Picture Me Broken (Band) (or if not possible i would be willing to create another). The reason for deletion originally was marked as lack of notability, however the band has garnered some recent notoriety with winning MTV's Breakout Artist of The Bay Area, being listed as one of pureVolume's Top 20 Unsigned bands of 2009, and currently having the Number 1 song on pureVolume's top song list. Their EP "Dearest (I'm So Sorry)" has also been released to some critical acclaim. Thanks. Lmnrnysb (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Steve_McKeown

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Steve_McKeown. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hi JForget, you state that Steve McKeown is not a notable psychotherapist and not a notable author, but has had two books released that are available at large UK retailers such WHsmith, Amazon, Foyles, blackwells, waterstones, etc, also he is affiliated with the largest gym in the world 'Fitness First' with his book, slimmer mind'. His other book is 'smoke-free mind. please could you undelete.

A+ and gold star for relisting all those old stale AfD's today.

Good job with the relisting, a lot of those were starting to get pretty damn stale. Nefariousski (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you're welcome. --JForget 01:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zaccode

You gave Zaccode (talk · contribs) a one week block. Looking at his edit history (and I reverted another edit of his to Funnelbeak culture and one to an editor's user page where he added the words 'gay porn', and the fact that there are a lot of BLP violations, I'd like to change it to indefinite. Any objections? Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an impression that his account was used or hi-jacked by someone else, because prior to 2010, there are a lot of contributions that are constructive, so it might be the user who has not protected his account, which probably permitted his friend or brother or whether to use his account for bad-faith edits. Therefore, I have not given an indef block considering of the fact he is there for more then two years and the non-vandalism before 2010. Next time, his account will be blocked indefinitely until the explanations of the vandalism of the past week or so or why he let someone used his account. --JForget 18:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I agree. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pedagoogling to to lift the ban?

Hi, Some time ago you deleted the page pedagoogling, you will note that the term is now used far more extensively on the web as well as in the profession (which it has been for some time). Can you reconsider the deletion. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.12.139.221 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would have to go on WP:DRV considering the clear consensus or you can create a more significantly improved entry with the recent updates, increase of usage of the term, etc. Though there isn't necessarily a lot of Ghits return well below 1000 for Pedagoogle while pedagoogling has less then 300 returns. --JForget 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User page lock

Can you add the user page lock as you did to Lincoln_Castle to Ingoldmells and Bolingbroke Castle, which are also target by the same socks. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ingoldmells was protected by another admin, but the socks seem to have stopped so I will not place a semi-protection to Bolingbroke Castle. Lincoln Castle was re-protected again as I see. Sorry for the slow response considering that much of the workweek I don't have time for Wikipedia time.--JForget 23:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musca (window manager)

Can you explain why you relisted this twice? There are 3 delete !votes and no keeps. Pcap ping 01:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, I missed the second vote. --JForget 01:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. By the way, "more then one offense" should probably read "more than one offense" in your talk page yellow box above. Pcap ping 01:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color Psychology

I put in for a review of this deletion on the combined grounds of limited discussion and an impression that the voters didn't really understand the nature of the content. That was not a "hard science" article, or at least, it needn't be. While there's extensive scholarly work on the subject, the cultural connotations mentioned therein have been commonly accepted for so long as to constitute facts that don't exactly require an exhaustive approach to citation, and they're not exclusively "Western" or Anglo-centric as asserted in the discussion.

I mean no disrespect by attempting to overturn you, and at another time would work with/through you rather than "against" you: I just don't have the luxury of time at present. :) Ender78 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'd like to reiterate that I meant no disrespect towards you for going the RfD route rather than working through you. That said, some of the participants in the AfD and subsequent RfD have been sock/meat-puppeting the discussion, and on that basis, I've decided to restore the article over your deletion, but attempt to address the perceived shortcomings. This process will take me some time due to time constraints. Ender78 (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Smocking (who actually proposed deletion in the AFD) created a new entry on color psychology which was only a redirect to Color symbolism and psychology. But I'm not objecting for the incubator option either which would hopefully help the article's cause. --JForget 22:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add the comment about the constestation of the deletion although I did not had the chance to comment on the review since I didn't even went on the site all week long. Anyways my comment was basically amongst those mentionned in the review. --JForget 23:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infraparticle

I implore you to leave infraparticle alone--- it is the best physics article here. It is difficult to have a discussion about such an article, which explains a difficult concept in language so clear that every physicist can understand. Without this article, and others like it, the encyclopedia is in danger of irrelevance. Please note that many mathematical articles (for example, coherent sheaf) are improperly sourced. Please do not challenge them unless you understand the content and know for sure that it is wrong. If it is wrong, someone always comes along who fixed it. In this case, I assure you that the content is extremely valuable.Likebox (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EP32 deletion (see here)

Hello, I see EP32 page has been deleted. I previously wrote something about Wiki's concepts of deletion and that notability cannot really be defined only on the basis of the existence of a third party source. According to Wiki, notability strongly depends on a third party source but I think, old computer emulation software is a special area and real notability is different from the concepts of Wiki's notability. The EP32 and EP128emu pages have already been deleted but I think, it was not the right decision and I really wouldn't be subjective. If a computer is notable, its emulator (if working properly) should be also notable. An old computer of 1980's also can be notable but not so much people deal with it, less with its emulator and nobody writes a reliable third party source. But the lack of that source doesn't really defines the notability of the emulator. I don't know if you understand me... And strange that eg. MESS emulator is notable just because it has a third party source, however it emulates a lot of machines but neither of them is emulated properly while EP32 and EP128Emu emulate Enterprise 128 computer properly but they are not notable. Cannot be anything done about the deleted Wiki articles mentioned? greetings, --Szipucsu (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to plead that case to WP:DRV if you believe that it should have it's own article. Although looking at returns, there are little to no reliable sources on the EP32. More likely scenario is that the content would have to be included in related articles as you have mentionned in the AFD. --JForget 23:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Smith (merchant)

God knows why but you deleted my article on the above. Please can you give me access to it so that I can make a copy of it for my own use. Thanks. Do you burn books for fun too?Rodolph (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copy is at User:Rodolph/Robert Smith (merchant) for your own usage. I'm not doing this for fun, but due to the consensus that the individual is not meeting the notability guidelines for an article inclusion here. --JForget 01:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, very pleased to find that. Sure there was a consensus, but two people and you against one (me). Is that really a quorum ? Seems a bit kangaroo. and needlessly destructive. Notability guidelines seem quite unfair when applied to historic characters, and certainly miss-applied in the case of Robert Smith.Rodolph (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well per the deletion policy two votes (both delete or keep or other options) is sufficient to close a discussion. Actually some are closing discussions with just one vote - like a bunch of those on the February 13 log which were closed in the past couple of hours. While there are an abundance of historical books, references, etc, etc which is sufficient enough to apply the same requirements to the historical figures. Of course some might be more disadvantaged due to a lack of references on them but it's as much the case today for some. So the criterias apply whethever it is from 18th century then today--JForget 02:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, there are Stalinist under-tones in that the say-so of two or even one soi-dissant scholar someone is consigned to oblivion and being from then on a non-person. Where's the live & let live ? Why so much destruction ? Why no benefit of the doubt? After-all Wikipedia is full of text that is awful, dull, & worse. Whereas that piece on Smith was fine, and to make things worse had been imporved since the original person complained. Incroyable !Rodolph (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview?

Would you be interested in doing an interview for the Wikipedia Signpost on behalf of WikiProject Severe Weather? The interview would be featured as the WikiProject report in the March 1st issue of the Signpost. If so, please answer the questions here by February 27-28th. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 02:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might participate but lately, mostly due to work I have contributed a lot less to the project - granted it has being much more quiet then in 2008. --JForget 02:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cfcuk

Hi

I am writing to request an undeletion for the page I entered about the English football fanzine cfcuk. It seem (I think) that I made the initial mistake of saying that the cfcuk fanzine was ‘notable’, not realising that ‘notability’ is an extremely important Wikipedia term.

The page consisted of a brief history about the cfcuk football fanzine and a review of whom it has interviewed, its ‘standing’ amongst the Chelsea support by way of personalities visiting the matchday stall from where it is sold (prior to and after Chelsea home matches) and also some information concerning the ‘special editions’ that have been published and also its relevance to both the club itself and the supporters.

Whilst I understand that I cannot ask why fanzines from other football clubs are allowed to stay within the Wikipedia website and the cfcuk one isn’t, I must say that I feel it is, nevertheless, somewhat unfair considering I feel that all the reasons that were cited for the deletion were answered with reasonable sources and explanations quoted each time.

I hope that, after reading this, you will reconsider your decision and reinstate the afore mentioned and now deleted cfcuk page.

Thank you

Blueblagger

Just noting this has already been listed at DRV. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block of HomerHomerHomerHomer

Could you disable talk page editing? He seems to be vandalizing this talk. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cfcuk

Hi

I am writing to ask whether you would be able to give me access to the cfcuk fanzine page that you deleted in order that I can refer to it for my own use.

Thank you

Blueblagger 17:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs)

Bihar's Scientist Couple

I do feel bad for whatever happened to this article. Still I must thank you for the role that you are playing for maintaining the standard of Wiki. I just feel I should have been given a deadline to put up my arguments. The deletion was very swift. By the time I got prepared to defend with a few reliable third party references such as a few newspaper articles on the subject, it was already deleted. I feel slightly demotivated as a new contributor.

I would still like to take the whole thing to a logical end. As per the editors I may modify the title, review the text and of course support the statements with third party references or it may be split into two articles for both the persons separately. Looking forward to your valuable comments. arunbandana 09:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs)

Oroborus (window manager)

I think you could just close that AfD instead of relisting. The only editor that voted keep was blocked indef for meatpuppetry, and he provided no real evidence of WP:N only "give them a chance" arguments. See also Wikipedia:ANI#User:Mclaudt. Thanks, Pcap ping 17:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just deleted the article. Six more days passed after the re-list and no additional comment made after that meaning no one is attempting to rescue the article. --JForget 22:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Children's Theatre Page

Hello, JForget! I hope this finds you well. I have been doing a report on Boston Children's Theatre and was shocked to find they do not have a Wikipedia page. I began to create one myself, only to find there was a previous article, but it had been deleted by you.

After researching other children's theatres on Wikipedia, I do not feel it is a matter of notability that caused the article to be deleted ("Boston Children's Theatre" returns over 533,000 hits on google) but a lack of proper references or third-party view.

I do not wish to make these mistakes. Therefore I am requesting that the deleted material either be sent to me that I may avoid the same pitfalls, or be reinstated that I may reedit it for references and worthy material/grammer/etc.

Due to the importance of BCT, I will be creating an entry for it. It is simply us to you if I have access to the issues the article faced previously.

Thank you for your time. I await your response! -Melanie Mell42 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)mell42 mell42 13:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Turkmens

A spam link has been added on related article. It is in the list of MWiki spam on Turkish Wikipedia. Regards--CnkALTDS (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance please

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alina Balaican.

First, could you please userify the article, with its history, to User:Geo Swan/review/Alina Balaican -b?

Second, if you read the whole {{afd}} you will have seen that I suggested the article should be transformed into something like Romanian dancers in Canada. In my user space I have been working on User:Geo Swan/Romanian dancers in Canada. It is not finished yet. I found the topic is more complicated than it seems at first.

There are references that claim Canadian immigration officials were failing to check the dancers' age credentials, and that under-age teenage girls were being issued visas.
There are references that claim Canadian immigration officials were requiring applicants to prove their dance skills, live and in person.
There are references that show that, although the practice of issuing visas to dancers was stopped following the Alina Balaican case rising to prominence, the practice wasn't stopped.
There are references that support that Canadian officials have, at times, used their authority to block the issuing of visas, violating the spirit of the then current regulations. The Loredana Silion case being a case in point. At that period of time immigration officials were supposed to issue visas to qualified dancers. Over 80 percent of the visa applicants that year were turned down, as she was, because their Romanian experience as topless dancers wasn't recognized as qualifying them for nude dancing in Canada.

Bearing in mind I haven't had time to complete the article, I'd appreciate your comments on User:Geo Swan/Romanian dancers in Canada, and when and how it would appropriate to introduce it to article space.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cfcuk

Thank you for sign-posting the deleted article

Request for userfication or undeletion of List of works with the equal transit-time fallacy

Please make the last version of this article available. Thanks. Mr swordfish (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the no-immediate response, as stated at the top of the talk page. Anyways someone quickly userfied it at User:Mr swordfish/List of works with the equal transit-time fallacy (although you might already be aware) --JForget 22:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion please...

You closed Waterboarding in the 21st century. ...Geo Swan (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, I found a dup in someone else's user space. Geo Swan (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've added User:Geo Swan/Waterboarding in the 21st century in case. --JForget 22:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]