Jump to content

User talk:Jac16888/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Regarding the article Fróði Fríðason Jensen

Hello

I'm new to writing on Wikipedia. I'm currently writing a biography on Fróði Fríðason Jensen, a faroese table tennis player.

First off I received a message saying that the article is not in English and it will be deleted if it has not been translated. Is it possible for you to moderate it, so that the article is posted as a Faroese article, not an English article?

Secondly, it says that there are no references, however, I've added plenty, are these alright?

Thanks for doing an awesome job

best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkipermortensen (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is the English language version of Wikipedia, all articles need to be in English, you can find the the Faroese language version here--Jac16888 Talk 10:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

About ZMAK - Ελληνική Επαγγελματική Πάλη

Hello,

I would like to ask you, why did you delete the article about a Greek Pro Wrestling company? It was also flagged as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I understand that I mentioned the word "promotion" in it, but it was only because it's a term of pro wrestling and every company is also mentioned as a "pro wrestling promotion". There are Wikipedia pages for WWE, Impact Wrestling and many other companies in Europe.

Can we please sort this out and restore the Wikipedia page about ZMAK please? I work at ZMAK and I was granted the permission of my boss, to upload a page about our company.


Thank you in advance. MpizeliRJT (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)MpizeliRJTMpizeliRJT (talk) 21:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted not because of the promotion but because it was promotional - it was advertising, which we do not allow, please see WP:PROMO, and since you are employee of the company you have a clear conflict of interest with the subject so you should not be writing about it anyway. Also this is the English language Wikipedia, for English articles, not articles that are in Greek--Jac16888 Talk 22:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

About ZMAK - Ελληνική Επαγγελματική Πάλη

I see and I understand, thank you for pointing out the mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MpizeliRJT (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

D'oh!

Of course you can't. It's secret! Regards SoWhy 07:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Judith của Flander

Hi, I tagged Judith của Flander with {{not english}}, and noted that it was similar to Judith of Flanders, however, there wasn't an article about her in Vietnamese WP, so would it be possible to move the article to Vietnamese WP?  Seagull123  Φ  17:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Jac16888 is not good in English. His writes run on sentences. Trần Anh Mỹ (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Not English

Thank you. I was basing the A1 on a machine translation that indicated it was too short to be meaningful. On the other hand, User:KrakatoaKatie may have reasonably thought that I couldn't identify the subject because it wasn't in English or in the Roman alphabet. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The translation was without context basically, something about a juggler, A1 was appropriate. Sometimes NOTENGLISH in misintrepeted to mean that none english articles can't be deleted anyway except going untranslated for two weeks --Jac16888 Talk 22:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

European Young Engineers

Hey there! Thanks for your input on the page. You mentioned that the style of the page is too promotional. Could you please advise me, where you have the feeling that it should be changed? I am looking forward to improving the article.

Thanks FrederikSchSp (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

All of it basically, it reads like a brochure not an encyclopedia article, for example on the first line "sharing knowledge, fostering mobility and developing personal and professional skills" - this is needlessly fluffy. The entire article needs an overhaul--Jac16888 Talk 20:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jac16888. Thanks for your feedback. May I ask for more specific advice on the page? I was editing it and you say it is still too far away from being an appropriate article. I am willing to improve it, but could you point out what needs an update? Thank you! FrederikSchSp (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said, all of it. What you have is a brochure, not an encyclopedia article. The opening paragraph is mostly about how great it is, "Objectives" is meaningless fluff, "Benefits for individuals" = why you should join us, the member organisations seems to be a largely student ones of little notability, and your references seem to be all self-published or just showing the group exists, not showing notability--Jac16888 Talk 23:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Czech article

HI Jac16888,

I would like to ask you to restore the deleted wikipedia entry because it was a translation in Czech of the original Recombinant antibodies. Therefore, I was not trying the plagiarize or duplicate but provide the available information to Czech readers as well. Moreover I am the author of Recombinant antibodies. Is there anything I can do to restore the page? For future reference is it a problem to translate a page on wikipedia?

Best regards

Petra Hadlova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadlova Petra (talk • contribs) 05:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jac16888, there might have been a mistake by Petra, who created the page on enwiki instead of cswiki. Can you please restore the page to her sandbox? Thank you. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hadlova Petra:, I have placed the article in your sandbox (it can be found at User:Hadlova Petra/Rekombinantní protilátky). As Vojtěch says above, this is the wrong Wikipedia to create a Czech version on, you need to go here--Jac16888 Talk 21:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry, that was a silly mistake. Thank you

Have a great day

PH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadlova Petra (talk • contribs) 07:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The_Warning_(Mexican_Band)

First time editor. I've been edited The_Warning_(Mexican_band) since July, and arose this morning to find that almost 100% of my work has been removed, apparently for one vimeo link that was on a banned list. The link in question was the second part of an interview that was created in 2015 as part of a GoFundMe campaign that ended in the same year. The interview itself was purely informational, and did not contain a donation request. It was used as an introduction to the young band who needed money to attend Berklee College of Music for professional training. From what I can tell (still researching) the interview was original hosted on thewarningband.com while the GoFundMe was active, but was moved to Vimeo later. The website thewarningband.com was itself created as a donation to the GoFundMe. If there are no other problems, I can change the direct link to a citation, but I'm unsure what to do at this point to recover my lost work.

Also, yesterday I post an InfoBox banner at the top, noting that the page was under construction. I didn't know about the "In Use" template. So many things to learn...TWwiki-1 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@TWwiki-1: The content was removed on purpose, by me. Not because of the link but because of the content itself. The article as it stood was a combination of blatant promotion and meaningless fluff of the sort you might find on a band website, it was not remotely encyclopedic. I suggest you take a look at WP:FIRST and WP:BAND for how to go about rewriting the article properly, I would also suggest you take a look at WP:COI which I suspect applies to you--Jac16888 Talk 14:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I freely admit to being a fan, and have purchased their CD, but I otherwise have no connection of any kind to the band. I am retired, and creating this wiki is currently a hobby, as a first time wiki editor. The band is very popular with people in my age group, and I'm creating the wiki so we have a better understanding of their history. What you interpret as "fluff" is probably my grandfatherly instincts that are shared by all the older fans. I'm currently researching a period that is very information dense, with many overlapping themes, and I've been using the timeline I created inside the History section as a repository so information can be sorted into chronological order as I discover it. When I have an overall picture, I will then edit it down into paragraphs. In the meantime it still searves a useful purpose. Since I now have some wiki guidelines to go by (WP:promo, WP:Band, etc) I can rearrange the material to better suit the purpose of the wiki.
Also, I have stopped using TWwiki-1 because I created a new account, TWwikiGuy, so I have a common username on Wikipedia and Google and people understand the connection between them. My Google channel will be used solely to create playlists of videos sharing a common theme that I can use as wiki links, but I suspect that falls under a "conflict of interest" protocol, and can be interpreted as fan-oriented and not encyclopedic. I suppose much of what I've done falls under that category because the band's webpage and exisiting fan sites have little information about them, and the primary purpose I had for adding material to the wiki was to provide that information.
I suspect that what I need to do is just remove all my edits and do this work off-line. To do so, however, I need access to the wiki for a few moments. How can this be arranged? TWwiki-1 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

A day to day breakdown of their history, and a list of every time they've ever sung or recorded will never constitute encyclopedic content I'm afraid. If you want to share that kind of information, thats what a fanpage would be for. As for the removed content, that can be found in the history of the article, for example the last version edited by you is here--Jac16888 Talk 16:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. My problem, as I recollect, is that there was no decision tree to follow as a first time editor. A simple "YES-NO, do you know what you're doing" followed by an eventual "What kind of wiki do you want to create? -> WP:BAND" would have helped immensely.73.209.117.6 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:FIRST or WP:WELCOME--Jac16888 Talk 20:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


Regarding the article Christen Democratische Studenten

Hello,

I'm new on Wikipdia as a writer. I created an account on Wikipdia to contribute to this great encyclopedic platform, to the knowledge we can share, to make it more complete. On the Wikipdia page of (EDS) I noticed the reference to the Belgium student association of CDS. This Flemish association has a page in Dutch but not yet in English. Tonight I tried to contribute by creating this missing English page about the CDS association. But you Jac16888 deleted the page with the argumentation of "A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events". I disagree about this and would like to bring the page back online. The organization exists and plays an important role in Flemish student life and the EDS network so the English page is relevant. In the future I'm willing to work on extension of the content on the page, the history, former members and so on.

I hope to made clear why this page is an contribution to Wikipedia and why I should be back online. I looking forward to your answer.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodewijk333 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The fact that this group exists and people are members is not sufficient to meet our WP:NOTABILITY criteria, there needs to be multiple reliable third party references of which there were none--Jac16888 Talk 22:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jac16888,

Thanks for your reaction and thanks for your critical review. You're correct there were no third party sources citeted. I will provide an improved text that will meet also this criteria.

Yours sincerely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lodewijk333 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do so in your draftspace and submit the article to our article creation system--Jac16888 Talk 17:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Contrague on Gala round in Sa Re Ga Ma Pa L'il Champs 2017

Hello Jac16888, I want to tell that the gala round performences were too important and should not have to be removed. It was not trivial so we also face problems without it. Please don't blank contents. We need the gala round info. Everyone is agreeing to put it back so please agree to it. Thank you. 182.68.11.208 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but yes it is trivial, it is unsourced and unnecessarily detailed. I don't see anybody trying to put it back except for you, and I'm not the only person to have removed it. You're free to start your own Wikia, it would be better suited there--Jac16888 Talk 16:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, many ip 's and some users also want it back so it is not trivial. Thanks. 182.68.11.208 (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Even if that is true, and I don't see that it is, it doesn't make the information not trivial--Jac16888 Talk 21:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Farsi translations

Hello Jac16888. You recently removed language "translation needed" notes from Timeline of Bandar Abbas‎, Timeline of Isfahan‎, Timeline of Kerman‎, and Timeline of Mashhad‎. Each of the articles includes phrases requiring translation from Farsi (e.g. سینما قدس (مشهد) [fa], etc.) Would you mind reverting your edits, or, if you can, translating the non-English phrases? Many thanks. -- M2545 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did, and no I won't. The content you want translating are names, which means that any translation we did would not necessarily be correct without knowing the original meaning, nor is translation of a name particularly necessary anyway. I would suggest you find a sourced 3rd party translation if you want one. Please also take note of the response I gave you when you first added this content, [1], please follow WP:TRANSLATION
Hm. We do know the general meaning of each of the Farsi red links in the articles, per the Google Translate tool. See, for example: سینما_قدس_(مشهد). The Farsi links are included in the English Wikipedia because they exist in the Farsi Wikipedia, and are thus assumed worthy of inclusion, at least as short phrases in English. -- M2545 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Except that this is little more than an approximation and easily incorrect, words having different meanings subject to context. I didn't say they didn't need to be included, rather that there is nothing wrong with them being in another language--Jac16888 Talk 17:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the "translation needed" notes remained until someone with language expertise translates the Farsi into English. -- M2545 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
You're missing my point, if a Wikipedian does it, it would constiture original research because we would be applying our own intreptation, which is why names are not generally translated. Yes, the example you give above is fairly simple and if you want to but "Jerusalam Cinema" after the term you're welcome to do so. But to pick another example, the google translation of "بیمارستان نوریه" is "Sickness nurse". Which obviously is not the intention of the name.--Jac16888 Talk 17:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Jac16888/Archive 24 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Slightlymad 03:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Plese restore Park Jin-Seok

You've used an incorrect speedy deletion criteria. In fact, speedy does not apply. See Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which explains the correct procedure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy does in fact apply, to quote WP:PNT: "Articles that are not in English are still subject to all other forms of speedy deletion should they meet the criteria". It did meet G10 since it was accusing the subject of criminal behaviour with no sources--Jac16888 Talk 16:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

"lay halva" at halva

Hi,

Re your reversion of my edit (adding the "in English" tag after "lay halva") (your edit summary being "the sentence is the translation, it's along the lines "oy vey"") - is the word "lay" in that sentence the English word "lay" or is it a Banlga word? The intention of the sentence remains unclear because of this ambiguity. A translation of the word "lay" (assuming it's Bangla) would be helpful here, can you translate it please? --Philologia (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not really a word to be translated in this context, as far as I can tell saying lay halva is like saying "Oy Vey" or "Sheesh" or "oh geez"--Jac16888 Talk 20:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The six non-English expressions preceeding "lay halva" in the subsection are accompanied by translations. If you can't translate the word "lay", the tag should be reinstated until someone can. Currently that sentence (lacking a translation) sits very awkwardly in its context.--Philologia (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You're completely missing my point, and the meaning of the phrase is quite obvious and clearly explained--Jac16888 Talk 20:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems you're completely missing my points too. Sorry, but no, the meaning of the phrase is not obvious at all (unless perhaps you speak Bengali). You seem to be ignoring the fact of the six preceeding expressions being literally translated. The tag should be reinstated.--Philologia (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
(Correction: there are 10 non-English phrases in the subsection, only 2 of which lack literal translations. --Philologia (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC))


What is difficult to understand is your objection to the tag. Having the tag there means it's more likely that someone who can provide a literal translation will do so.--Philologia (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you actually read the full sentence? Do you understand that the purpose of translation is to provide meaning, which is given. I'm really struggling to understand your problem here. There is no translation in this context. The literal translation of lays would be "goes" which is obviously not the intention of the phrase. It is an expression of exasperation just as the sentence describes and just like the examples I gave, there is no direct translation for sheesh either. The sentence makes perfectly clear what the meaning of the phrase is, what else do you think a translation would give? --Jac16888 Talk 21:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll tell you what, you're obviously not going to agree with me so why don't you do what you're supposed to do with untranslated content and take it to the folks over at WP:PNT, perhaps one of the prolific editors over there would be able to help--Jac16888 Talk 21:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
(I'll assume that your silly and patronizing initial questions are rhetorical.) For people who've studied linguistics, literal translations, or even attempted literal translations (even of idioms) are always of interest.--Philologia (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you specify which (English) sense of "goes" translates to "lay"?--Philologia (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Clube de Regatas do Flamengo does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I apologise for the rollback, I must have hit rollback on my watchlist by mistake, probably didn't require this template message though you could have just asked about it--Jac16888 Talk 20:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jac16888. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

--[[User:Jac16888|<font color="Blue">Jac</font><font color="Green">16888</font>]] [[User talk:Jac16888|<sup><font color="red">Talk</font></sup>]] : --Jac16888 Talk

to

--[[User:Jac16888|<span style="color: Blue;">Jac</span><span style="color: Green;">16888</span>]] [[User talk:Jac16888|<sup><span style="color: red;">Talk</span></sup>]] : --Jac16888 Talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that, I've fixed it, thanks--Jac16888 Talk 18:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry!

I didn't realize I had done that. Sorry for any inconvenience and thanks for bringing it to my attention. 2600:1700:C590:B30:DA3:9D2B:E7D0:31E6 (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about, but ok--Jac16888 Talk 14:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You left a message on my talk page saying that signatures on edits are not allowed. Did you not? Grammarspellchecker (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did you're right, but you weren't logged in before so I didn't know that was you--Jac16888 Talk 21:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Holiday 100

Why was this deleted?  — Calvin999 23:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You were the only author and you blanked it--Jac16888 Talk 00:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I redirected it because the URLs to Billboard are seasonal and I didn't get to archive them in time. I redirected it so I can work on it more in December when billboard re-opens the links to the Holiday 100 again and expand the article with prose. I didn't ask for it to be deleted. I'm really angry about it. I spent hours going through that table and formatting it, trailing through archives for the past 7 years. You could have at least pinged me so I could have copied it into a sandbox so I had a copy of the table.  — Calvin999 10:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Redirects from articlespace to the userspace are not allowed, WP:R2, blank or redirect either way it was cause for deletion. There is no need to be angry it was nothing personal, I've moved the page to your userspace, User:Calvin999/Holiday 100, you only had to ask--Jac16888 Talk 11:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I have. Thank you. I just didn't see why it was deleted without any kind of process.  — Calvin999 11:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
It was, it fell under two different speedy deletion criteria--Jac16888 Talk 11:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Need help deleting redirect.

The name Fort Gadsden Historical Site is wrong. It should be "historic". The mistake is mine - a typograph8cal error. Anyway, I want to correct this, can’t delete the Fort Gadsden Historic Site redirect, so Ican't rename it back. Sorry to bother you, but your assistence would be appreciated. deisenbe (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Jac16888 Talk 20:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Karl Darlow

thanks for that removal. It's no good having a signature in the infoboxes. Iggy (Swan) 20:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

~~~ is how you can put the date in without the signature part--Jac16888 Talk 20:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Arvind Kumar (academic)

Thanks for undoing my botched page move. However, Arvind Kumar (academic) still seems to exist in the namespace, so how can I move my Userspace draft to the article space? Please help. Thanks a lot. Amuk (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Leoncillo Leonardi

Dear Jac16888 could you please help me to tell me how wikipedia work? I made a very good article on Leoncillo (I have created the page) and suddenly another user Justlettersandnumbers contest me everything I wrote. Adding some information that I am not sure about and I have a degree in art and spent many years studying Leoncillo. He also threatened me to close my account. Could you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allyally26 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Allyally26:, @Justlettersandnumbers:. Ally I can see that Justlettersandnumbers has tried several times to explain the issues with the content you are adding but you don't seem to be listening. In a nutshell, stop adding copyrighted content and stop trying to promote Leonardi which you have outright said you are doing. Content needs to be written from a neutral point of view, in your own words--Jac16888 Talk 17:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

Edit

https://th.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9C%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%89%E0%B9%83%E0%B8%8A%E0%B9%89:22sep/%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lt.Col.Thita_Manitkul

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thita_Manitkul


English? Sry85 deleted her Thai Wikipedia And Using the Wrong English Version intentionally.How can the person who is not neutrality in politic be writing Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.171.97.171 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.171.97.171 (talk)

I'm sorry I don't understand what you're asking me--Jac16888 Talk 23:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A potential good idea

I have requested a filter on requested filters to track down edits which have been made to include accidental signatures which you have found and removed probably most of them. With this new filter, others can find them quicker instead of the sigs remaining there for a few days.

I haven't had any comments on this yet, but thinking of this edit filter would help. Iggy (Swan) 20:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There already is one I believe--Jac16888 Talk 23:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I can't seem to find it among all the listed filters out there. Iggy (Swan) 00:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

教えてください。

どうしてCookieのMoonlightをリダイレクトにしたのか?教えてください。--Meloonsoda (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The Ottoman-Portuguese War

I would like to thank you for the support on the mess I unintentionally did in that article. Is it possible to return that page to its original name? Before I started editting, its name was "Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts". SirPortuga (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Make a request at WP:RM, they will be able to help you there--Jac16888 Talk 17:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Jac16888 I see there is no article named "The Ottoman-Portuguese conflict" in Wikipedia. Can't I just move the page to that original name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirPortuga (talk • contribs) 18:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You could except your last moves caused dozens of pages to need fixing which is why I suggested asking there--Jac16888 Talk 18:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand; but my biggest mistake was that instead of moving to a new "Article" name I moved to a "user". I tried to fix that mistake but just made matters worse. If I pay careful attention to that, and just move the page to a new title (Ottoman-Portuguese conflict), everything shall be alright then, isn't that right?SirPortuga (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Listen Man Noah's Notes needs an article on wiki okay.

I hate when people say my drafts aren't ready to be articles! I want to make a Noah's Notes article! If you keep on putting it to draft I'm blocking you. Galefuun (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps they say that because they're not ready to be articles. Don't restore it until it has some actual content and sources or I will lock that title from being created. You also might want to look up WP:BLOCK by the way, something you can't do (but I can)--Jac16888 Talk 19:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well If I CAN'T PUBLISH THE ARTICLEf don't a professional like you finish the job and complete the draft. Noah's Notes is a REAL manga and not some crazy fanfiction. I would like fir someone to maie an article about it. Flxsh zeraora (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well if I CAN'T PUBLISH THE DRAFT why can't a professional like you finish it. Noah's Notes is a REAL manga and not some crazy fanfiction. I would like someone to volunteer and get it ready to be an article. Flxsh zeraora (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say you can't publish it, I said turn it into a proper article first, one which has references and establishes actual notability. Then it might be worth keeping. Read the instructions at WP:FIRST for starters, and consider going through WP:AFC. Also, is there a reason you're using two accounts without declaring it? Which one would you like me to block for you?--Jac16888 Talk 20:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Fellow-servant rule

Hi Jac16888, I was planning to start an entry on this subject and I see something was there. It says it was deleted because it related to a page that was deleted. Can you tell me what the page was dependent on and if it was an article on the above subject what was there? Thank you. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It was a redirect to Fellow servant rule, which is now a redirect to Common employment, but neither of those pages existed to back then--Jac16888 Talk 18:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Great! Thanks. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gloriana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Sullivan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of J-Square

Hi Jac, I recently proposed deletion of Jerome "J-Square" Jones. You reverted, saying "not how you prod". I read all the documentation of it, and I thought this was what I'm supposed to do, I'm sorry. I still believe that it fails to meet WP:Notability, WP:NPOV, &c. I would appreciate guidance on how to correctly do this, or if it could be handed over to an admin. Thank you, Moshe Schorr (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion on if the page should be deleted, but you didn't use PROD correctly, if you look at what you did, you added the template that goes on the creators talk page, not the actual Prod templace. You need to use {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}}--Jac16888 Talk 12:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Platnium Starr Editor

Hi, I am currently trying to understand the extensive modifications that were applied on that author (Rene Kalisky): -I would like to thank you for your concern, as no additions/modifications had been applied for quite a long time. -As you probably noticed, I guess you could apprehend the fact that a lot of material was added just across the past 48h -I am one of the only contributors, as that author is quite frankly neglected (to say the least, with regards to its impact) in a way that is precisely defining the course of his career. -As such, the "forewords", are of extreme relevance since they reflect the opinion of one of the only individuals (former head of the Comedie Francaise, which as you know for sure, is the cornerstone of whatever matters in french theater or culture) thoroughly explaining just after the author died, why and how his work had been apprehended and how it defined the works' reception within the french audience. I am not sure why it had been perceived by you (or another editor) as "biased' or "promotional"? For a contemporary author, one can only rely on such statements (this was the full blown interview of Antoine Vitez in a newspaper: being an interview, it is exactly the opposite of a biased 'praise' of the author's work. It is precisely what would define in the best way such work as the wiki audience is then able to agree or disagree with the person being interviewed. Moreover it was my intent to add further data in the same section to illustrate the hostility that the author faced before and after his death. It is the very best way to define such an author. These days they are all self promoting themselves on TV or Social media. What defines this author is that he boycotted the mass media already across the 70's. For obvious reasons Wikipedia might be the sole way for culture to escape being 'zapped' as video-clips or On-Broadway adaptations. We are not apprehending Shakespeare, centuries after his work had been released, nor Kafka, after his death. As a contemporary author, he had to work for a living (, precisely unlike Kafka, which deserves dedicated and extensive explanations, as it is quite unprecedented for a non-best-seller writer who never went on tv. I intended to publish the author's interview but I am now quite concerned given the haste with which weeks of work have been whipped out in a few minutes-and it was work-in-progress, needless to say) An 'encyclopedia style' addressing a young Philip Roth or Norman Mailer cannot fit in such standards: they would precisely become either truly promotional or rather destructive. I studied this authors work for the past 30 years. The biographical information is essential to understand the scope of interests, the nature of the works' reception and understand the 'fairness' of the critics reception. As an intense and delighted Wikipedia user, I cannot explain the discrepancy between such a fast and extensive editing on carefully crafted subjects and the scrutiny that (does not) apply to endless contemporary self promoted "artists" which are at best laughable (for many french authors, their wiki page is akin their LinkedIn or Facebook profile: and sorry not editing, which is questioning whatever matters for wiki's credibility. We are a team of 5 accomplished scholars (not including myself of course!) working on this project and what was erased was meant to be edited by a native English speaker. Sorry for the length and the many mistakes but I had to write this on my workplace and am far from being a native speaker. I would very much appreciate you reconsidering the removals you made the past 48hrs, provided that they will be edited and further edited across the next 72 hours by dedicated and unbiased scholars Have a great day, thanks for keeping this encyclopedia working. AK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham kafka (talk • contribs) 07:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The content you added to the article was written much like you might find in a eulogy, a paid for article or indeed a social media page, it seemed to be written with the clear intent of saying "this was a great person, look at all the great things he did". I would suggest you find articles about similar subjects to get an idea of the tone the article should be written in, as I said in my summary not all of the content I removed was bad, the issue was the way in which it was written. You need to present an article in a way that is completely WP:NEUTRAL, nobody reading it should be able to say one way or the other how the writer feels about the subject. As for the foreword full of quotes from people about how "Kalisky will remain unclassifiable and unique", that is simply not encyclopedic content, you would never find that in a paper encyclopedia so it doesn't belong here.

Thanks for your response. We are nevertheless concerned about the neutrality of your intervention as the aforementioned statement you just made: 1-does not take into account the rather long explanations we tried to put forward. 2-you are addressing the neutrality topic, suggesting in an assertive way that we just declare "look at all the great things he did" (!) in a way that does not take into account, and we do not mean to be patronizing, what is currently accepted as being exactly the opposite when referring to an author or within the scope of literature at least: we shall invite you to reread the comments we made and understand that contemporary or living authors cannot be addressed the same way as Socrates or Corneille. Given, precisely, the very risk of being partial for such a recent work, various interviews were indeed presented and more to come. It is indeed very clearly raising the issue of the author's uniqueness. It has nothing to do with him being flagged as «will remain unclassifiable and unique". This is not what was written not even suggested. But if literature is indeed part of your field of expertise, you shall adhere to the fact that indeed, most author qualify for these adjectives. That is the very essence of such field as opposed to “real estate” legends or innovation in computer LCD screens. Nor anybody would take such a statement for "granted" in the era where (I hope you checked since our last message) people DO use Wikipedia as a self-promoting tool in a way that is outrageous and/or funny at best. You are raising the need of an "encyclopedic content": these additions were made by experienced and trained scholars of French literature that are familiar with this NICHE (contemporary French theater; you need to take this into account) : Britannica and Universalis are precisely using such scholars to address these topics. Achieving "neutrality" for Kalisky as for Justin Bieber or the author of Harry Potter is very challenging. This author was not seeking fame and did not compromise, it is a fact that you will find for Kafka or for Schnitzler (at least for the unpublished work of the latter). Hence using the same algorithms for subjects that do not belong to the same solar systems is concerning. You are putting Wikipedia at risk of becoming less informative that a 3mn google search. Moreover, I would suggest given the public disclosure of your statements, that you could remain less assertive and rather make suggestions as whatever subject we address, subjectivity will never be avoided unless you are dealing with patent infringements (and even). So, as I am sure you do not mean to be "offensive" let us just suggest you to use a tone less subjected to such perception. We are saying this as we apprehended Wikipedia as being an unmatchable instrument until recently. But we all know that we shall fight for its very existence. Have a look to other authors or recent self-proclaimed “artists”: their very existence/persistence on Wikipedia should be your priority and concern. Kalisky does not need Wikipedia, rather the opposite. But people in the mass media or in politics are using Wiki in a way that, after being "censored" in such a way we remain baffled, to say the least. We are here attempting to put forward authors who were published (alive and working) in Gallimard NRF, the French equivalent of the Library of America. Together with a press launching hard core attacks. These paradoxes make that subject interesting. Not whether he should be praised or the opposite. Let us try to craft our study for Wikipedia. Kalisky had nothing on wiki, we tried to fix that anomaly. Again, having said this, we are kindly asking you to reinstate the previous content in order to further work on it and achieve the wiki standards within hours. We will work hard for it. We do not mean to be rude and can only imagine how hard your task must be. Have a great day nevertheless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham kafka (talk • contribs) 19:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As I have said, the only neutrality issue here is yours, if you can read the content you added and see it as neutral, then you clearly do not understand the concept. Nothing you have said here addresses this. Again as I have said, I have not told you not to add to the article, you are free to do so, provided you do so within the rules and policies of Wikpedia. To look at an article you have yourself mentioned, Socrates, you will note that the article does not contain "eulogy style" quotes like "Who will find this prophetic word ever again? ", nor does it contain phrases such as "One could speculate.." like you may find in a promotional biography, or end with yet further quotes about his greateness. Put simply, I will not be restoring that content. You are welcome to edit the article properly, or to seek other opinions but you will not find one that supports the content you want to add--Jac16888 Talk 20:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern regarding our work. We might not have outlined enough what we meant about Neutrality: the 'praise' that you might have identified has the following characteristics: 1-stems from the a former Comedie Francaise administrator, which puts him at a level comparable to the minister of culture or its US equivalent 2-it is within a clearly quoted interview that was referenced 3-Socrates is irrelevant in the sense that he did not rely on social media to survive and gain popularity 4-Kalisky is as said contemporary to Roth or Gary. Within Roth's page we can find the following quote (that is by the way fully appropriate in the sense that its neutrality is warranted by the fact that Springsteen has followers and non-followers. And it is an interview likely to be more 'biased' than the one of the Comedie francaise administrator who is precisely appointed for being neutral: 

   Among the admirers of Roth's work is the singer songwriter, fellow New Jersey native, and acclaimed celebrant of the state's culture, Bruce Springsteen. Roth read the musician's autobiography Born to Run and Springsteen read Roth's American Pastoral, I Married A Communist, and The Human Stain. Springsteen said of Roth's work: "I'll tell you, those three recent books by Philip Roth just knocked me on my ass... To be in his sixties making work that is so strong, so full of revelations about love and emotional pain, that's the way to live your artistic life. Sustain, sustain, sustain."[42]

5-Having said that, do you understand our point? Is "just knocked me on my ass..." a neutral assessment from your perspective? This would help us to craft additional work that match your expectations.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham kafka (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This issue is not the praise, it is the way you're framing it. To try and clarify, you can put "X said Y was great", but you're surrounding it with promotional phrasing and "weasel words" that make it promotional. You brought up Socrates I just used it as an example, and I fail to see how Kalisky can have relied on social media when he died 20+ years before it became a thing. Just because similar promotional content can be found in another article does not make it acceptable, this is how that paragraph should be written:

Singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen, another native of New Jersey, is a well known fan of Roth, speaking about Roth's books "American Pastoral", "I Married A Communist", and "The Human Stain", Springsteen said: To be in his sixties making work that is so strong, so full of revelations about love and emotional pain, that's the way to live your artistic life<ref>Reference</ref>

I.e. without all the guff. Do you understand the difference? The exact same facts are stated, as is the quoted praise but without promotional tone around it that belongs in a fluff piece not an encyclopedia--Jac16888 Talk 15:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jac16888/Archive_24&oldid=1145712025"