User talk:Jac16888/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit on Dr. Wen article

Please stop creating an article about the the scrubs character Dr. Wen, he has appeared in far fewer episodes than the other minor characters with their own articles, and is far less notable. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough on the reasoning for deleting my article. But fair is fair: Kim Briggs has only been in 13 episodes, far less than Dr. Wen, and she has been more of a major guest star like Elliot's boyfriend Sean or J.D.'s girlfriend Danni. I don't think she deserves her own page either by this reasoning.

(I retract my earlier statement about signatures: it was real simple after all. I'm an idiot) But my concern is still valid. Darthdyas (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but firstly, due to policy discussions, its likely an upcoming policy change will result in none of the minor characters having articles. Secondly, Dr. Wen's appearances, are almost always, very minor, he has very little bearing on storylines, or has any recurring importance--Jac16888 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Girard, Kansas (see also [1])

I was wondering what your opinion was on my recent edits to this page. As you can see i've been pretty brutal, mainly because i was pretty shocked at how much of it was copy and pasted from other sources, whole paragraphs came back with exact google matches. I may have been a bit too brutal, when i have time i do intend to re-add some history from the sources, although nowhere as much, since its only a town of 2000ish people, an article similar in size to France didn't seem appropriate--Jac16888 (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your bold and daring work with Girard, Kansas. Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I would have gone at least as far as you did, except I have a tendency not to be bold enough. It doesn't "seem right" to delete whole bits of text, but surely it needed to be chopped from the page: after all, we have standards, and our articles need to follow them — if they don't, something needs to be done — even to the extent of removing the offending text. Look at what I did to the history of Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary: I didn't remove problematic text that was as many letters, but I believe we need to remove problematic text even if it's virtually the entire text. It's good to see the article trimmed down, especially with the prospect of your fixing it further. Great work! Nyttend (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You, thats my first ever barnstar, i never expected that, especially as, when i came across it in the recent changes, i never expected such a major task. I will get back to fixing up the article as soon as i can, although i'm very busy at the moment, life events and everything, so it might be a couple of weeks. I'm wondering if some of the stuff i removed could be written and included in other/new articles, since the sources are very detailed, and talk about the whole county. Will be an interesting learning experience working on history articles, especially since i know nothing about Kansas except that its where Dorothy is from haha--Jac16888 (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

speedy of Breakaway (magazine)

Please see WP:CSD for reasons for speedy. magazine , books, etc. cannot be deleted for lack of notability using A7. Use WP:PROD or afd if your doubt their notability. DGG (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I figured as much, just thought it was worth a try instead of going through afd.--Jac16888 (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Asin's speedy deletion

Asin was one of the prominent bands from the Philippines in the 1970s. See Pinoy_rock#1970s. It even influenced apl.de.ap and has an article in the Tagalog Wikipedia. See tl:Asin (banda). Please remove the tag because they are notable. --Jojit (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding request for administration (see [2])

Do you remember me? You helped me make a request for adminship before, could you help me again? Thanks,--Bobes66 (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mate, i don't want to make you feel bad, but i'd really recommend you don't do it. You've only made 10-20 more edits since your last request, you need way way more, and i'm talking thousands here, as well as experience with WP:CSD, WP:AFD, some vandalism reverting and countless other policies which you need to know if you're going to be an admin, and you haven't had time to learn them yet, i'm still learning now. On top of that you need a lot of experience with dispute resolution. I'm sorry, but if you renominate yourself now, its guaranteed to fail, and believe me, it won't be a nice experience for you. I'd recommend you try in about 6 months. Sorry--Jac16888 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your request for adminship has been deleted, due to it being incorrectly created, and not listed. If you wish to submit yourself again, follow the instructions here, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. However, i strongly advise against it, no offence, but if you are unable to actually nominate yourself, you're not ready to be an administrator you might like to read this and this of which i myself don't know all of, and you should also read Wikipedia:What adminship is not for why its not necessary to be an admin to be a respected member of the community. Remember, being an administrator is not a big deal, and it should not be your ultimate goal on wikipedia.--Jac16888 (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit to The Todd

Why did you revert these perfectly legitimate edits, [4]?--Jac16888 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, with Lupin anti vandal, anything "Scrubs" came up, and I reverted it thinking it was vandalism. Sorry! That was a legitimate edit! Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, keep up the good work.--Jac16888 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

African hip hop

Was there some sort of discussion regarding your large scale redirections to African Hip Hop?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just good old WP:Bold. The articles i redirected were a mass of red linked bands, (most used to be articles before they were deleted, the deletion logs i checked said they were bands which never achieved anything and were deleted under CSD A7) original research and other unneeded rubbish, most were very small as well. I simply removed the rubbish and copied the rest to african hip hop, the redirected them. It seemed pointless to leave them since they were stubs, and pointless for individual african countries to have stub articles which could easily form one much better article. Go ahead and revert me if you think i was wrong, but if you disagree, I'd really prefer it if we skip straight to the "Discuss" stage and await consensus as it took me a really long time to do it all. If you're fine with it, please tell me, as when i have more free time i intend to take a crack at Europe and Asia. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I undid some of those redirects. I don't see the point why all these articles should be merged into one. Let me say hiphop is nowadays very popular form of music in many African countries. Therefore, it's essential to have country-specific articles on African hiphop. Julius Sahara (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree many of those articles are not well written. You are free to clean them up but do not merge into one article. Julius Sahara (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly free to merge them into one article, just as you are free to revert me. However, one good article is better than 10-15 stubs surely. If you weed out all the dead links and OR, thats all you have, at best. Now, of the three articles you reverted, i can see some merit to Ugandan hip hop, but thats why i transferred it all across to African hip hop. I have to protest against restoring the other two though, heres why. First of all, on the Tanzanian hip hop page, theres the intro paragraph, which i merged, then there are several extremely unencylopedic paragraphs on something called "bongo flava" (example sentence: Bongo Flava makes up its own rules and these guys don't need to copy their brothers in America, but have a sure clear sense of who they are and what sound it is they're making.) followed by some stuff about tanzanian groups, which i also merged. Then we have South africa, a long long list if red links with about 6 legitimate links to south african hip hop artists. This is followed by a block of unref'd poorly written advertisment (example: Currently, South African hip hop is at a very exciting stage as it is begins to acquire its own musical style. In the same breath, individual provinces are developing their own styles of hip hop.) Surely you can see that a single article for africa, with all the crap weeded out is much better than the articles as they were.--Jac16888 (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup

You will find a good summary of the views of opponents of homeopathy at the (admittedly biased) website http://www.homeowatch.org. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea people were so opposed to it, i saw it just being herbal remedies, some people swear by them, others, myself included see them as placebos, and some think they're barmy, whats the big deal. So what exactly is the dispute about, if you don't mind my curiosity, is it that some want it to be more/less critical of homeopathy?--Jac16888 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Both ways (pro and anti). Homeopathy is different than herbal medicine - homeopathic solutions do not contain any of the active ingredient - it is so diluted that there are statistically 0 atoms of the initial substance left in any preparation. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Hmm, I may have to do some reading up on it, guess i knew less about it than i thought. but what is it that people are arguing about on the article?--Jac16888 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Some think it has been scientifically proven effective. Others think it has been reasonably shown to be placebo. Some think we need to be more supportive of it's effacacy. Others think we need to debunk pseudoscience. Full disclosure - I support the debunkers. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article, it seems pretty neutral to me, plus well sourced, can't see why people have a problem with it--Jac16888 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Currently, I don't see a substantial problem. The problem is that the maintence required to keep it in a partially valuable state is outrageous. New accounts show up daily with attempts to add links to weak studies that suppose to show a scientific effect, or link to their own personal theories about water memory to explain the placebo effect. It's the delta that's the problem, not the state. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

????????????????????

who are you??--Goon Noot (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am Jac16888, thats all i'm willing to say here. If this is in regards to the note i left on your page about marking edits as minor, it was because i noticed a significant number of your edits are marked as minor, including ones which do not fit the definition of minor edits i.e. spelling corrections, formatting changes, or the rearranging of text without modifying content, which is considered poor etiquette--Jac16888 (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you know what else is poor etiquette? Not bringing up specific examples.--Goon Noot (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you ask: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], to name a few. However, i was not trying to attack you in anyway with that comment, there is no need for you to be so abrasive, you might want to consider that perhaps i was just trying to help--Jac16888 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal issues

Please note that I forbear to join issue with the continued personal matters that Ms Crisp chooses to join issue with. You may wish to notice his or her contributions history. It appears to be less than constructive. Kind regards. Masalai (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't give a crap about their edit history, or yours for that matter. Your edit summaries were out of line, thats all there is to it--Jac16888 (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Swiss Pipe Band (List of pipe bands)

In the past the bands without article were allowed in the pipe band list article. But at list you should be consistent: if you remove those from Swiss it is fine with me as long as you also remove those from Poland which are in the same case.--OC (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The general rule, is that a band is notable if it has an article, and therefore can go on the list of x bands articles, if you look at some list of bands articles, they are a mass of red-links, where people have added their own bands, which are not remotely notable. I recently cleaned up the list of pipe bands article, removing all items without articles, i must have missed the polish ones, i'll remove them now, along with the swiss ones--Jac16888 (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your fix now. Only the bands having an article remain. That makes sense. Thanks ! --OC (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks so much for the barnstar! First one I've received. It'll always be special to me. :D Enigma ^msg! 03:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hidden Message on Scrubs

Hey, thanks for helping out with that. I would, as you said, have just been bold and done it myself, but for two things - 1. I don't quite know all the markups yet, and 2. being as it IS a page on a popular show, I wanted to get a second opinion, and try to make sure it wasn't going to get people in a twist. Anyway, thanks again! --Umrguy42 (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Jac16888, just a quick note to let you know that I've added the Rollback tool to your account. You might find it helpful to read through the page at Wikipedia:Rollback if you haven't already, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions or there are any problems with it. Remember, most importantly, it's only for edits that obviously need reverting - everything else should have an edit summary attached —αlεx•mullεr 13:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Now to start vandalising.....only joking.--Jac16888 (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Globalization

Can you please tell why American spelling is used in this article. I did not understand. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Honsestly i don't really know. Its standard policy for spelling to all be in the same style in a single article, and no doubt at some point its been decided at some point that the american spelling is the correct form, no doubt because according to the article, the term was first coined by an american--Jac16888 (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire article should be written in either American English or British English. But I agree with you the point you have raised that the term was coined by an American. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is written in american english, which is why i reverted that edit which changed it to british english--Jac16888 (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure?

The IP that inserted it was caught inserting false information into other articles so I assumed that the edit was vandalism. If you are sure that it is not vandalism I apologize.--Urban Rose 22:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

b. & h. hip hop

[11] Why remove the artists? Do you know them not to be notable? 86.44.30.169 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes i do. A band is not considered notable enough to go on a wikipedia band list unless it has its own article. This does not mean that simply creating an article for every band gives them notability, they still have to demonstrate notability on their articles--Jac16888 (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't assume they aren't notable just because no one has written articles for them. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, but until someone does write an article for them, an article which demonstrates notability, we can't know they are notable, therefore we don't include links to non-existent articles. Plus they look untidy, and if we allow a few, eventually there will be billions of red links all over wikipedia--Jac16888 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors have made a style guideline to deal with this, WP:RED. 86.44.30.169 (talk) 00:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AE case

On your recent AE filing, please state on the AE page if there is another person involved and make a link to the arb case of which he is violating restrictions. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tks, but you seem to not have notified him of the AE thread, this is standard practice. It'd also help your case to provide links, diffs, etc and to state how you feel the arbcom is violated. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jac16888, I am X-posting this from my response to your ill-informed request at the AE page for your consideration: what part of Please notify the user of your report at his or her user talk page do you not understand exactly? I don't mind that you want to bring enforcement down on me since, it's true, I'm not a keen contributor of content, having only rarely done so. I prefer the ruining it for everyone part. But there's some pretty basic etiquette here; failure to notify is reprehensible, devious, shameful and cowardly. Do better next time. Eusebeus (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

replied on the arbcom page--Jac16888 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FSU Hymns

Actually, it looks like 2 of the 3 songs cited are not copyrighted. I cleaned up the article and removed the lyrics to the 3rd song, but I think otherwise it seems OK. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It might not be an important article to you but it is encyclopedic. thank you NawlinWiki for your help--UkrNole 485 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead links in list of musicians

Hi I appreciate the reformatting job you've done, but I've noticed you're also removing the dead links. Although there are no articles for any of those links right now, it is still important to have them because they still belong on their respective lists as notable musicians on particular instruments etc. but also because it makes things easier for editors in the future to know what needs a new article. They could refer to these lists and help fill in the dead links. The best way to address dead links is to have articles for them, not to remove them. Thanks for your help! --Casadesus (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid i have to disagree with you, and i would prefer it if you had discussed this with me rather than blindly restoring them. The only way to know if a musician is notable is if they have an article with sources. By allowing dead-links on these list of musician articles, it allows every music teacher, teenager with a bassoon, or amateur organist to add themselves to the list, and we have no way of knowing if they are in fact notable. If the names i removed had a source showing notability, as is done List of anarchist musicians, but no article then it would be fine to keep them, but leaving a mass of dead links just invites even more. I hate to make an ultimatum, but if you cannot find sources for these dead links, just one each, i will remove them again. This is in line with the Music Wikiprojects list guideline here, and Wikipedia's list style guideline, here. Thanks --Jac16888 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The only way to know if a musician is notable is if they have an article with sources Really? I thought one could google them, or visit a library, or ask a wikiproject, even! If that is too onerous, why don't you stick an unreferenced tag at the top, make it clear on the talk page that all red links are in danger of deletion without cites, and come back in three weeks. If you don't discuss a change when you make it, I'm surprised you're disappointed when you are reverted without prior discussion. Discussion comes after the revert, that's kinda logically how it works. Also please bear in mind the essay at WP:BIAS when you are removing content because of red links. Significant areas are underrepresented in wikipedia, so there are cases where there is even more cause for pause before assuming lack of notability. I don't think you should be deleting content based on your mere assumptions anyhow, you've gotta challenge its right to exist first at least. 86.44.17.45 (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also having followed your links, you're misunderstanding or at least misapplying the list style guideline, and you really shouldn't be falling back on stuff like this: [12] [13] when what I wrote above has probably in the few minutes since been seen and agreed with by more people. :) 86.44.17.45 (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Reverting Vandalism

I tried reverting directly to the last good version. The site said it could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits (or something similar). Are there any other methods? Mattman00000 (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

do you mean you used the Undo button? Thats the only way you could get that message. A true revert involves using the articles history to actually view the last good version, and save that as the correct one--Jac16888 (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Message

Hello, Jac16888. You have new messages at Eusebeus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5