User talk:Jeepday/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi Jeepday,

Thanks for helping us out with the article. I am sorry for adding so many links to the articles. I thought that's what made it more credible. Don't wish to spam, just wanted our organisation details to be recorded. Please feel free to correct whatever you think is not right/ looking good in our article. After seeing the work you have done, I really have a lot more respect for Wikipedia.

Thanks a lot once again. Wish you and your family a Happy New Year

Jithin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jithincn (talkcontribs) 03:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your welcome, it is links that are formatted as references that support article content that make the article more credible. The references should mostly be credible sources with editor over site like news papers or printed books. If you have any questions let me know. Jeepday (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Jeepday! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 1,406 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Fred Gibson (motor racing) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martin Gjoka[edit]

Hello there! I see that you have deleted Martin Gjoka. Do you please have the deleted file? I want to see what kind of work has been done on this Albanian musician and on what grounds he was deleted.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 16:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The entire contents of the article is below,other then the cross wiki links there is nothing worth building from, it was deleted WP:CSDA7. Your reference at User:Sulmues/Martin_Gjoka looks like a good start on a fresh work. -

Padre '''Martin Gjoka''' ([[1890]]-[[1940]]) was an [[Albania]]n composer and [[Franciscan]] priest. {{DEFAULTSORT:Gjoka, Martin}} [[Category:1890 births]] [[Category:1940 deaths]] [[Category:Albanian composers]] {{Euro-composer-stub}} {{albania-bio-stub}} [[hu:Martin Gjoka]] [[fi:Martin Gjoka]]

Jeepday (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

130s BC[edit]

  • Thanks. I'm in agreement with you that if a person has the time to write something, they also have the time to write a note about where they got it from; and that empty articles shouldn't be created in the first place. The article wouldn't have been improved if you hadn't nominated it. Over the last couple of years, I've been seeing a change in the attitudes of people who describe themselves as inclusionists. Arguments like "there is no deadline" (translation, "this will magically improve on its own") aren't being made as often anymore. I was surprised to see that people added content, even unsourced content, rather than making the it's-fine-the-way-it-is argument. It's a good sign. Comment by User:Mandsford 13:57, 30 January 2010
We all just keep working to improve and the days of unreferenced content adding are coming to an end. A good thing in my view and consistent with policy as well. Jeepday (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

Matthew_hk tc 03:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD nomination of Zengzhi Li[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zengzhi Li, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zengzhi Li. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Must disagree[edit]

[1] You say this is an edit dispute, it is not. It is a clear case of sneaky vandalism. Verbal has repeatedly inserted misinformation and reverted its removal, which is sneaky vandalism. Clearly not an edit dispute, either Mullis made a statement about human activity in global activity or he did not. He did not. I have watched the video used as the source twice now and read through the text version of the interview (on the right hand side of the video panel), it is patently clear that he does not mention human activity in global warming, Verbal is unable to provide a timestamp from the video to prove me wrong because I am not wrong. Having been told that the information is in fact misinformation, knowingly continuing to insert misinformation/reverting edits that remove this misinformation is as descrived in sneaky vandalism, not an edit dispute. (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deirdre Connelly[edit]

As I was in the process of adding new information to Connelly's bio, which appeared in today's Puerto Rico Daily Sun (, I realized that you'd deleted the article in April of 2008.

Ms. Connelly is perhaps the most prominent Puerto Rican businesswoman in history, having served as President of Lilly USA, currently president for North America for Glaxo Smith Kline, member of the board of Macy's Inc., a member of the President's Commission on White House Fellowships and member of the board of the Puerto Rico Government Development Bank.

I just wanted to check in with you before embarking on her bio. Could you respond to my talk page? Thanks! Pr4ever (talk) 11:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD nomination of Cerro del Quinceo[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cerro del Quinceo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cerro del Quinceo. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RDBury (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Jeepday. I have a concern regarding the article Economy of the Bahamas, and wanted to ask about an edit you made in April, 2008. In revision 205951535, you had removed a section of copyrighted material that had been copied/pasted from I believe that there was additional content which should have been removed, but was not.

The questionable material had been added in revision 203543352 on April 5, 2008, consisting of three sections: "Primary Industries", "Secondary Industries", and "Tertiary Industries", each with various subheadings. Your edit on April 16 removed "Primary Industries", but left the other two sections. The content under "Secondary Industries" appears to have been lifted from The content under "Tertiary Industries" is identical to that of

The only content that doesn't appear to be a blatant copyright violation are the section headings themselves (which make no sense anyway... tourism is not tertiary in the Bahamian economy), and a single sentence at the end of the 1st paragraph under "Manufacturing", the source of which is not apparent.

Since you removed the Primary section, but left the Secondary and Tertiary sections, I wanted to check with you. Had you determined that the latter two were appropriate, or did they just escape your radar at the time?

Thanks! - TampAGS (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They just escaped my notice, you should remove them per your research. Jeepday (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I figured that was probably the case. Thanks again for confirming. Content so removed. - TampAGS (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Betty Parris[edit]

Hi, I am involved with cleaning up one of the articles in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Massachusetts/Salem Witch Trials Task Force: Betty Parris. The article has some serious flaws, some of which will take a little time to fix, because I will have to dig around for some of the info. N2e came in and started reposting CN tags. Initially I asked this N2e to back off, and I did this nicely. N2e chose to start a fight. I am not interested in having a fight with this person. I am interested in cleaning up the article, but this individual is making it less possible. I understand that you are an Admin in one of N2e's citation project groups. In the past when an editor was working on an article and asked nicely for some time to fix it there was no problem with that. Please Help John5Russell3Finley (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • On the surface I am not seeing a problem, I am also not seeing where you have edited the page Betty Parris, but assume it must have been as an IP. The summary by N2e here is correct. The statement "Betty Parris makes one of her earliest appearances..." is original research if the only source is the book listed. Tags should remain until the indicated correction is made. From your description above, and your comments on User talk:N2e it seems like you asking N2e to remove a correctly placed {{citation needed}} tag because you might find a reference someday. The most appropriate action would be for you to discuss it on Talk:Betty Parris where N2e started the conversation. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Jeepday. You have new messages at Goodvac's talk page.
Message added 21:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Goodvac (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can wiki-lawyer it if you like, but there seems little point. Where do you think there is a consensus that further reading or external links do count as references? -- PBS (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First let me say that I only implying that external links that support the article content are references, many do not and those verge on being subject to removal per Wikipedia:External links. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles if an "article has even one reference or external link (that is related to the article content)" is considered to be referenced, (but probably in need of more). {{Primary sources}} which is usually used on articles that have external links to their web pages, where source is considered a reference. Per WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper) "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves", this would seem to apply to web pages (external links). At Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources the quality of sources are discussed.
In summary having looked at thousands of poorly referenced articles, external links are generally poorly formated refrences that support the article (or they should be removed). An example The Baptism of Constantine where an external link is a reliable source that supports the article content and is poorly formatted (and, yes I poorly formatted it, and added {{nofootnotes}} which had changed and brought me to your talk page). Finally per WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper), online (external links) "may in some circumstances be acceptable". JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you and I have a different interpretation of what references are. For example I see nothing in WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper) which could be taken to mean that a link in "External links" could be a reference, and the lead to external sources explicitly in the lead
The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which includes external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources.
I do see how the wording of the guideline Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles supports your interpretation. But I think that is because it is wording in a way that is currently incompatible with the other guidelines. So I suggest that we discuss it there and see what the consensus is in this issue is. -- PBS (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Killed the Prom Queen (2nd nomination)[edit]

Duffbeerforme and I found that I Killed the Prom Queen charted two albums in Australia, which meets at least one criterion of WP:MUSIC. You might want to take another look at the AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Unreferenced Articles[edit]

Thanks, I will take a look at it soon! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed deletion of Zentropy Partners[edit]

I removed the prod tag you placed on Zentropy Partners, as the article had been prodded in October 2006 and is therefore ineligible for deletion via prod. Please open an AfD. Thanks! —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A previous contributor came by and added 32 references, and expanded on the articles content to show notability! JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other proposed deletions[edit]

I contested the prods you placed on Yujiulü Anagui, Yujiulü Anluochen, Yujiulü Kangti, Yujiulü Tiefa on the grounds that if they duplicate the content of an existing article and might be a plausible search term they should redirect to that article (they are not recently created so do not qualify under A10). I have redirected all four to Rouran Khaganate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A good choice. :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Jeepday. You have new messages at Avicennasis's talk page.
Message added 04:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Eight foot pitch reference -- possible problem with title[edit]

Hello Jeepday, Please take another look at the reference you added to Eight foot pitch. It's very unlikely that the letters of Lord Byron, a famous poet, could be relevant to this musical term. What I would guess is going on is this: Google Books sometimes gets the title of a book completely wrong (for instance, it does this for Frank Hubbard's book Three Centuries of Harpsichord Making). So, please go back to your original source and check the title. Thanks, Opus33 (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you are correct, I removed the reference and left a note at Talk:Eight foot pitch, do you have anything that will work to support the article? Jeepday (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think all is well now -- see the talk page. Thank you for working on sourcing this article. Opus33 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ditto, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stubsensor revival[edit]

Aaah this brings back memories. Would be glad to join although I will begin on September 30/October 1 as real life will be quite busy during all of September. Thanks for the invite and happy editing. :)Calaka (talk) 08:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WOW. :) I never thought I'd see that one back again. Wonderful. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 06:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This pleases me to no end! I closed out 2 sections and the false positive rate sure does leave a lot to be desired; ultimately this was why I stopped doing these runs originally because Stubsensor removed enough cream from the top that the stuff left over was really hard to analyze. After checking out the new run it looks like changing one of the features would help would with the false positives. Specifically I think measuring the length of paragraphs minus lists and markup would be a good metric. Feature selection itself is automatic but once this new feature is being described another older feature that is causing the false positives may need to be removed. If you'd like I'd be willing to help bring the quality up. I rarely check my Wikipedia messages so getting ahold of me via my CPAN address would be the best way: Thanks for braving the code and bringing this back out from the dead! Cheers! Triddle (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes, you may be interested to know that Parse::MediaWikiDump has been depreciated for MediaWiki::DumpFile which has an almost completely backwards compatible API mode and significantly increased processing speed. You can just change the use line from 'use Parse::MediaWikiDump;' to 'use MediaWiki::DumpFile::Compat;' but then you'll be subject to a bug where the file size wraps a 32 bit integer and the progress information is hosed. It's twice as fast or faster at actually parsing the XML though so I find the tradeoff to be worth it. Triddle (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad to have you and you are more then welcome to help any way you want. Most of the hard data work is done by User:Avicennasis. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would disagree about the number of false positives. Each user makes their own decisions on what is a stub, when you worked Page 1, section 3 you decided that 1937 St. Louis Cardinals season was still a stub, I would have destubbed it. I think it is Class "C" per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Assessment#Quality_scale. It is often the case with articles that have lots of tables, it is hard to judge if they still qualify as stubs. We discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stubsensor/20100826#"Foo season" articles to some extent, after you think about, post something there and lets see what happens. As always we are off to a slow start, takes a while to get volunteers. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need old text[edit]

Hey, Jeepday, I am restarting an article that I had earlier asked you to delete, Moorlands Totilas. I don't think the old text was worth much, (I think it contained claims the horse walked on water, LOL) but just in case it has something useful, can you pop it into User:Montanabw/Sandbox 2 for me to sort through? Many thanks. Montanabw(talk) 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Jeepday (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Ah, looks like I already found most of the material, oh well. Take a peek at the new and improved version, feel free to make suggestions if you'd like. The horse has achieved notability almost as quickly as notoriety. Much amusing horse drama recently, the fuss crashed a server at and it sounds like now half the Dutch dressage team riders have stopped talking to the other half. Will probably have to update the article in a month or two when the dust settles, but in the meantime, quite amusing. (You have to understand that crashing the server at a dressage site is about like something crashing the server at an ice dancing site! People magazine has nothing on the dressage crowd! ) LOL! Montanabw(talk) 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Submarine working group[edit]

Dear editor:
Would you like a chance to collaborate with other editors on a working group dedicated to submarines? Based on your contributions to submarine-related articles, we have determined that you probably have a interest in submarines. If you would like to join our working group, visit WP:ONAU. MessageDeliveryBot (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of ONAU at 07:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC).Reply[reply]


I see you want to merge many Asimov's short stories. That would be a great loss since all the plot summaries would have to be removed... --Againme (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response at Talk:The Early Asimov JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aw shucks[edit]

Thanks for the sparkly bit :) --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome, you did a lot of good work on that article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wildhearts Singles for Deletion[edit]

I noticed that you have been nominating articles for singles by The Wildhearts for deletion, most recently Just in Lust and Sick of Drugs. I do not disagree with this action and I don't think the various articles are worthy of hanging around. However I would like to point out that the articles in question were more viable in the past because this band had a lot of non-album B-sides that could only be found on these single releases, so the articles did at least contain useful information on rare tracks (unverified, I admit). But anyway, those songs have since appeared on notable compilation albums that also have articles here at WP. So this is just some background info for you to make note of if you continue to look into the articles about this band's single releases. Sincerely, --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are coming up as part of my work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, where we are working on Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your username[edit]

Is your user name named after the Jeep vehicle? WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everyday is day to drive a jeep hence it is a Jeepday (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So your username is named after the Jeep vehicle with that saying. Why isn't there a picture of a Jeep on your user page? WAYNEOLAJUWON 00:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes a single word can convey more then a picture. What is a Jeepday? Is there a day that is not a Jeepday? Sunshine to snow, and everything in between, those are Jeepdays, sometimes you need a roof (or not) and some times you need Four wheel drive (or not). Jeepday (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you drive a Jeep? WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Polish article quotes 4 sources - movie databases. The English one links the IMDB. The problem is rather with the title (Polish vs English) rather than the article itself.Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there published sources supporting the notability using a better tittle? If so add them and we can move the article to a better name. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Jungle Book of Regulations[edit]

This PROD has been contested by a user on my talk page. Courcelles 09:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I updated improvement tags on the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1936 medal winners[edit]

You're going too far now. You've had your say, out of process and in process, and been shot down at WT:FL? and any concerns you had originally resolved at the FLRC. To go and ignore that FLRC's resolution and again add a maintenance tag to the article is just too much. StrPby (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeepday, while I think your intentions are honourable, adding a maintenance tag where you (personally) think there could be "room for improvement" (surely an epithet one could apply to any article in Wikipedia) is taking the crusade a little far. I had hoped that the work done had formed a useful compromise and ensured we dealt with your concern that List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners‎ didn't meet the featured list criteria. I do not believe your current approach is going to result in anything satisfactory for anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passing review by a couple editors at FL does not exclude an article from continuing to be subject to Wikipedia policy. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true... This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.". The lack of inline citations on the original FL version, the maintaining of formatting from larger works created by other users, the lack of citations on the original works, should give anyone reason challenge if the content of the tables is accurate. It also gives the impression (true or not) that the content of the list was harvested and unverified from other Wikipedia articles to form the body of this featured list. The only thing missing is a link to 1936 Winter Olympics Events: Nordic Combined at the 1936 Winter Olympics, Ice Hockey at the 1936 Winter Olympics as a reference, if you are not familiar with Books LLC check into, it believes everything currently in Wikipedia does not require further validation before reprinting. I can see there is no point in discussing this further so I will let it go. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, well I'm glad you're dropping it now. As a matter of interest, though, I'm still struggling to see what isn't verified now. You're making a point and trying to assert a personal preference. The data in the tables can all be verified by the inline citation now present. I don't see why anyone would challenge the veracity of the list when the Olympic link provides all of the information required to verify the data. As for the Books LLC stuff, fascinating, but highly irrelevant! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have assumed (mistakenly?) that everyone is aware that "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.". Unless I am completely misunderstanding, the list content was taken from sources that are not reliable (i.e. the main articles on Wikipedia) placed in a new article and listed with two reliable sources as references. But the reliable sources where not checked against the content, I keep hearing "the tables can all be verified by the inline citation now present", but I am not hearing that they were verified. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, I've now verified them. Thanks for your concern once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, liberal inline citations with page numbers provided a high confidence that content was actually verified, as well as providing a direct path for more information then is available in article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, but in this case, the majority of the facts are verified by the single search page result, so I think we're there now. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP message[edit]

Is there a reason you deleted the Barnaby River page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: source Barnaby River, read Wikipedia:CSD#G12 for more info. It looks like the source is no longer published at the web site, but the copyright for their original work remains theirs. Let me know if I can be of more help. Jeepday (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ah, I see. I would imagine that at least Nepalese secondary sources would discuss the school, because schools in the US frequently get routine news coverage, and sometimes get features that aren't routine. I didn't find anything on Google News about the school; I suspect that GN doesn't cover Nepalese papers, though WhisperToMe (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would try for local (Nepalese) search engine, or try searching the newspaper archives if they are online. Good Luck. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

prod notice placement on project pages[edit]

I see you're placing prod notices on appropriate project pages, which is a very good idea--I have not usually been doing it myself, and it looks like I should to do so more, though I'm not sure I would do it always. Are you by any chance using some script for this? (the Twinkle script I use does not do it). Only one thing: The notices don't altogether apply except on user talk pages; I can think of several solutions besides writing them manually--one is to edit the notice after it gets placed to remove the inappropriate parts, but the best will be to construct something new for the purpose--I wonder if we might even have something already , somewhere in the maze of Wikipedia templates. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just use standard Firefox browser and paste the prepared message into the project talk page. They are learning to ignore me at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, but most projects will rescue an article if they are still active and have good sources, Kirkby Branch Line could be suggested for DYK or GA. If you really think a project message should be different then the person message (I only put them on projects that claim the article on the talk page), I would just added to the standard Prod templates as an addition below the other prepared message. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You think this is a good idea when potentially any adminstrator could delete any of the obviously notable articles you've been tagging? If you both really want articles to improve then do so yourself, that would be far more constructive. Frankly, threatening wikipedians consistently with deletion warnings and applying such an extreme approach is likely to cause a lot of upset on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First I would say that DGG is anything but a deletionist, so not sure I would include him in a both tagging statement. It does happen the DGG and I are members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, our goal is to add references to articles and help bring them up to to meet WP:V. I know that both DGG and I both start by searching for references, and I would seriously doubt that are more then dozen wikipedians who have improved more distinct article by adding references then either he or I. So your comment "then do so yourself" is a little off base.
Having said that, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Abdel Haye Kira, an article about one of the most wanted underground fighters during the British occupation of Egypt. But fails WP:N and WP:V because no one can find references for it. I look for references, and when I don't find them I tag them for delete, and spread tags liberally because the goal is to get articles referenced and sometimes there are lots of references that I did not find for one reason or another. I should also point out that per WP:V "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.", any Wikipedian admin or not can remove unreferenced content. Per WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.", so if you don't want it deleted for failing WP:N and WP:V add citations. If you really feel strongly about improving articles yourself, I would like to extend an offer to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles where we focus on the oldest reference challenged articles. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, I love to see articles well sourced, particularly using book sources. That's what improving wikipedia's quality is all about. If you are sourcing articles you can find sources for then I apologise. but I would have thought a mountain/hill of the Faroe Islands would have had more sources. As for myself, I am not formally a part of WP Unreferenced articles but I've contributed more to sourcing articles and improving content as anybody else I think. Sometimes though I find the workload too huge to work through lists of articles needing sourcing. Oh and yes I usually think of DGG as a major inclusionist, which is why his agreement that prod every unsourced article regardless of topic approach surprises me..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He is talking about my habit of placing prod notices on project pages, when I don't find sources. Often I don't find the sources because of naming conventions that persons on the project are aware of. A lot of good articles get saved, when projects jump in. Probably 80 or 90% of my prods end up getting deleted in spite of posting to projects, but everyone saved is a good thing. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 13:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Jeepday. You have new messages at Jdrewitt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Thanks for letting me know :) WhisperToMe (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I've just spotted your edit and added some wikilinks to the Gaelic place names. Could you please check them and see if they are consistent with your historical knowledge? Richard Harvey (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no knowledge of the subject other then what I found in the reference. Jeepday (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Message from WikiMembers10[edit]

Hello i found this category its called Category:Upcoming video games scheduled for 2011 and anyway Final Fantasy Agito XIII is on the list but Square Enix has not released an offical release date to this game yet i tried to remove it but i can't i was wondering if you could remove it off this list Thank You.....--WikiMembers10 (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done see edit. You don't remove the game from the category, you take the category off the game's article page. Jeepday (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh i didnt know that well thank you for telling me.--WikiMembers10 (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For attribution purposes, you can't delete this after it's been merged to Molde. I went ahead and installed a redirect in lieu of deletion. ThemFromSpace 17:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point, did not think about that. Jeepday (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock request from User:Plasmic Physics[edit]

There is an unblock request at User talk:Plasmic Physics. I am not sure why the block was made: the reason in the block log is "vandalism", but I can't see any edits that are obviously vandalism, nor can I see any vandalism warnings. Can you look at it? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) Yesterday you blocked User:Plasmic Physics for vandalism. While I find some of his editing to be misguided, and some of his behavior to be disruptive, it is certainly not vandalism. He has not been intentionally damaging Wikipedia content. Also, a block for a week seems a bit harsh for a first offense. Plasmic Physics is now requesting an unblock. Would you mind if I reduce the block to "time served" and unblock him? -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I third this, having declined the AIV report made by Wickey-nl, an editor with less experience and dodgy English-language skills, as PP was clearly discussing his edits and hadn't been warned recently. With three admins weighing in here seriously doubting the block, it is courtesy and only courtesy that it keeping me from unblocking. If you haven't answered within a few hours I will unblock. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a final warning on Dec 2 by DMacks, there are also a multitude of disputes and about meeting WP:V and other content issues. With very little work towards changing the disruptive behavior. On going edits appeared to be inappropriate. I have removed the block, per the requests here. Jeepday (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is always a difficult decision to block a user supposed to act in good faith. The case of Plasmic Physics is a very difficult one. I think he is of good faith but he lacks of common sense and of experience in chemistry. His obstinate behaviour and stubborn attitude are extremely difficult to tackle and exhaust many other contributors attempting to corral him and to canalize his work: this explain why some other contributors are losing their patience and sometimes their calm (and they had very much patience these last months!). Many (if not most) of the edits made by Plasma Physics are disruptive and/or of low added value. His last attempts with new chemical categories made absolutely no sense and the names he often proposed as nomenclature name for inorganic chemical compounds are often irrelevant and misleading for the Wikipedia audience. That is why a block might help. At least now, he starts accepting to discuss with the rest of the community, what was not the case a few months ago, when he most often acted (or reverted) without discussion. However now, the risk is to embark with him on sterile and endless discussion. The problem with a stubborn attitude of one isolate contributor is that the other editors are often faced with a denial of listening and it is extremely difficult to support that. It explains why some users overwhelmed by such a behaviour are losing their patience. It is just my personal opinion as a simple user and as a professional chemist (35 years of experience) realising how the situation evolved since end of November 2010 when I discovered the problem myself. Best regards. Shinkolobwe (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I am concious of the importance of using blocks very carefully and of the fact that Plasmic Physics acts in good faith, I observe he is not aware what he is doing and probably will not be aware in future.--Wickey-nl (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Thanks for blocking for vandalism. I noticed that you only blocked it for 31 hours, the same as its prior block this year, despite rampant vandalism since then. Normally I believe we up the block length in such circumstances, so I was wondering if you might reconsider, and perhaps lengthen it (I believe 3 days would be typical). Thanks. You can reply here, if you wish to reply. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur with all your statements and normally I would have gone for the 3 day block. I choose the 31 hours for a couple reasons
  1. It is an IP and the last block was in March, so maybe the same person or not
  2. It is a school IP in the united states, 31 hours gets through the school day tomorrow
  3. The chances of anyone being at the school on Friday December 24, are very slim.
Jeepday (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the response. Here are my thoughts. 1) It doesn't matter whether or not it is the same person. The vandalism has been way over the top, and worthy of a second block well before this. 2 and 3) Agreed. But that just means that the effect of a three day block would have been the same for this week. The problem, however, is that each succeeding block will (unless you change this to a three day block) be lesser than it should be. So -- the next blocker will fail to block for a week (since your block was not for three days). And the block after that will fail to be for a month (but rather for one week). And so on. Just my thoughts. You can reply here, if you wish to reply. No need to leave a Talkback -- I will watch your page for the moment. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely see your point, though I am sticking with the 31 hours; a longer (3 to 5 day) block does not add anything to this experience for the targeted vandal. If/when another block is needed, the entire block history is displayed so the admin making the block will see the two 31 hour blocks and be able to make a judgment on what the appropriate time might be, if it is new school year, probably a 31 hour block again, if it is two weeks from now probably a one week block, or at least those are the what I would likely do. There is no proscribed need to have a 3 day block before a week, though with IP's we do try to keep it as brief as is likely to be effective. Jeepday (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

However... (Regardless, you did what you thought was best, and for which I thank you.) Murry Crimble, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL, Welcome. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marianus I[edit]

search for Marianus I de Lacon-Serra or also de Lacon-Zori or simply de Lacon - Arborea was a Principalty not a family name and "Thory"/"Zori" in the same case could also simply be intended as his title "Judge" or "Governor", he was a "Governor of Arborea"

Cunibertus (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I searched using your suggestions and am not finding anything (other then which supports the article. There is nothing I feel comfortable adding to the article as a WP:RS. If you have something you feel good about adding to Marianus I of Arborea as reference, by all means do so and remove the prod. Jeepday (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed the problem, using a reprinted (online PDF from 2001) old book (from 1838). I don't know if there is a more valuable recent source available, but this should be okay for now: it is a scholarly source. Srnec (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works for me, thank you both. I wish more prods ended this way. Jeepday (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why was I given that message? I didn't make it; I only made one minor edit. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought you might have an interest. Jeepday (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lol Oh, well in that case I found references for the four movies listed, all IMDb except one, and a thread about people who experienced it. That doesn't really make it notable still but. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You going to take the prod off or let it ride and see what happens? Jeepday (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm actually gonna take it off now because I erased all the unsourced stuff. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks a bit different now. Daniel Christensen (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good, you could probably take off the {{Refimprove}} and just use {{fact}} if there is anything left you think needs a references (if any). There are only a couple of magazine articles about the movies in print that mention Megasound, so not likely much more reference will get added. Jeepday (talk) 22:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


another editor made a comment about some of your work on my talk p, and I responded there. You might or might not be watching, so I think it's fair to tell you. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was not watching thanks Jeepday (talk) 11:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need opinions on photos[edit]

Hi. A disagreement has arisen over which of two photos would be better as the main Infobox image for the Ben Templesmith article. Can you participate in this discussion? Thanks, and Happy Holidays. :-) Nightscream (talk)

Proposed deletion of Moelfre (hill)[edit]

It's mentioned in several secondary sources (I added material that refers to two). I believe it meets WP:N. Please do not delete it. (I was unable to find any other deletion notices, other than at WT:WikiProject British and Irish hills). —hike395 (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did good improving the article. I beleive you have addressed the notability of the subject, I will not be pursuing deletion of the article. The only place the prod needs to be addressed is on the article, which you have done very nicely. I also posted prod notices at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales, User talk:The Illusion & User talk:Droll, but there is no need to address those.Jeepday (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've declined the PROD at The Man They Could Not Hang (book) based on sources added since the tagging. No objections with this being taken to AfD, I'm not saying it's clearly beyond deletion, simply saying that the presented sources make it non-automatic enough that that's the proper venue. All the best, and thanks for your work on reducing the backlog of unreferenced articles! --je deckertalk 23:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Someone made a good faith the effort, and you felt it was at least border line, good enough for me. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inappropriate PROD[edit]

Hi Jeepday,

In my opinion, your PROD of the Movable singularity article was not appropriate. This is a perfectly reasonable stub article on a notable topic, and I cannot imagine how you would conclude that deletion of this article would be non-controversial. If you wish to argue that an article should be deleted because of unverified content, please use the standard AfD procedure unless the subject of the article is clearly not notable. Jim.belk (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability is not the only criteria for {{PROD}}, nor did I make any claim of failure to pass notability in the prod [2]. As per the process anyone is welcome to remove the prod. The article has since been reviewed by several editors, and references added by User:CBM so my assessment of it's verifiability was clearly incorrect. If a unreferenced stub is reasonably is directly tied to ones own comfort in the subject mater, which is why citations and references are critical. No everyone is fully versed in every subject, so WP:V requires references so that those who are not subject mater experts can be confident of the articles content. If you have any other specific reasons why you think the prod was inappropriate I would be happy to discuss them. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My objection is to the use of PRODs to handle this sort of thing. Because a PROD automatically deletes the relevant article after seven days, Wikipedia policy is that PRODs should only be used to handle articles whose deletion would be non-controversial. Any article for which the deletion ought to be discussed and a consensus reached should go to WP:AFD instead. I realize that you propose deletion of a lot of articles as part of your work with WP:URA, but you should endeavor to use the standard AfD process instead of a PROD whenever you think there is any chance that an article is salvageable. Jim.belk (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This example is simply a mater my undervaluing the accuracy of the article. If I think the article is salvageable, I would not prod it or take it to AfD. I truly believed at the time, that none of the content was correct, I expected a few people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to look at the article, think to themselves "Yep I wonder how that stayed on Wikipedia this long" and let the prod expire. The nature of my work at WP:URA means I checking articles that I am not on expert on, which is why I spread prod notices so widely. Trying to bring the article to the attention of those who can prove me wrong. All to often, I find that prods are left and the articles are deleted, which is the type of articles that are appropriate for prod, as they don't need to be on AfD. Jeepday (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right, then. Thanks for your responses and for your work with the unreferenced articles project. I hope you can understand why members of WP:MATH tend to be defensive about mathematics articles. Jim.belk (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


For your civility and patience - something not found much in afd territory (ie [3] - the general attitude found there is more typical i find - ignore anything you dont like and take a snap at anyone when the opportunity arises - ) - the problem is one who might have had his fingers on a ref [4] considers the development of the adolphus channel article the better option at this stage - please have a good 2010! SatuSuro 12:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Abdul Majid Zabuli for deletion[edit]

The article Abdul Majid Zabuli is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majid Zabuli until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. David in DC (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for reviewing the vandalism report I made. I accept your opinion but I am still very concerned about of reverts and deletes done to a myriad of articles by that particular user. Not just within one specific disputed article. However I have another question since I am not sure if this qualifies or not as vandalism and how to approach it. What can the actions of removing in purpose the {{WikiProject Dacia}} from very relevant articles, as here and here be classified as? How can I report such behavior effectively to protect the project? Thanks again and best regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those look like questions to discuss on the project talk pages, hopefully with involvement of the changing editor. Jeepday (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The changing editors are not interested in the project, only to impose their views on the articles within the project scope. I constructively invited them already to it, based on their edits, before the actions happen. They seem in a vendetta with the project. So what can I do? I will start a conversation on the project talk anyway. Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WikiProject Dacia and other relevant projects were repeatedly removed by the same user again. The article, though very controversial, is named Dacian script which is very relevant to the WikiProject Dacia. The article and the talk page are under an incredible edit war and I am asking for your help in assessing this escalating situation and potentially locking the article. Thanks so much! --Codrin.B (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for stopping the madness. Some of the people there accuse you of being Anti-Phrygian, whatever that may be ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Saw your note, but TBH, having explained the problem and pointed out the material twice (she rolled back my first edit of her talk page where I explained the relevant policies, BTW), and given that Richard Arthur Norton has done the same and we have both met with an unwillingness to follow policy instead of opinion, coupled with blatant admission that the material she is changing is largely uncited or contradicts legal government documents, I would ask that keep an eye on her contribs. I will bet that she will likely revert the articles to her version again, and as I said to RAN, I don't wish to get into an edit war over it. MSJapan (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

She has not edited since, so it is hard to say what will happen next. Hopefully if she returns (questionable) she will work towards solution on the talk page. I have pointed her toward Wikipedia:Edit warring, you can bring it to my attention if you see violations of the policy. Jeepday (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Jeepday. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dacia.
Message added 16:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I started this conversation per your suggestion Codrin.B (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of referencing is not a criteria for deletion. Notability can be. It took me twenty minutes to find three RS and more will be added within the next week or so. I note also that a google book search turns up hundreds of likely sources. It is pretty obvious that an article on the music of an historic region is notable. Perhaps you should have thought of looking for sources in Spanish before rushing to nominate for deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related response at [5], JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pittsburgh WP10 party[edit]

Hey! This is just a friendly reminder about the Wikipedia 10th anniversary celebration in Pittsburgh tomorrow. The meeting time has been moved up to 4:00 so that we can gather before the game starts and stake out places, and it may be a good idea to get there even sooner, if you can. Pittsburgh bars are likely to be a little crazy and very crowded. See you there!--ragesoss (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Odd, I found this in about 3 seconds: ISBN 1155218272

The Nigerian Mark is mentioned in a book Marks. Click through. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no article Nigerian Mark nor has it been deleted. I still have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Click through what? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


He's requesting unblock and seems to me to be appropriately penitent. Any thoughts? Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Use your best judgment. He "will not do it again" if you don't unblock him either. 20+ edits over a year, all of which are vandalism. he expresses no desire to improve Wikipedia, only an assurance he will stop vandalizing. Do you think he is a canidate for Mentorship and if so would you be willing to take him on? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm too busy to mentor anyone, but I will ask him further questions, like what he might be interested in editing. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pittsburgh meetup: Sunday, 13 February[edit]

In case you're free, the next Pittsburgh Wikipedia meetup is this Sunday. Hope you can make it!--ragesoss (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeepday, I found two sources per WP:V for the article New Music Canada, Vol. 1. Sources per WP:V are very hard to come by since the CBC is one of two (maybe three) national broadcasters in Canada? I can't remember if Canwest Global (now Shaw Media) operates a French division in Quebec (the wikipedia articles are unassessed and may not be up-to-date per CRTC decisons/regulations). You stated non-notability per WP:N; I am stating notability per WP:CORP and WP:BROADCAST here [6]. I hope this is enough to satisfy WP:URA. Please answer here as I am somewhat new at defending articles for deletion.

The Canadian music project is newly subscribed to the Article alerts. All articles under the category Canadian music should have the {{WikiProject Canada|music=yes}} project banner on the discussion page. I've added many of the articles to our project concentrating on musicians and music groups. All Canadian music discographies, albums, songs, magazines, venues, festivals, have not yet been assigned to our project. Per discussions above (I don't know how you inform the relevant projects of your prods), can you add {{WikiProject Canada|music=yes}} to articles concerning Canadian music? And please, the music=yes parameter is paramount [7]. I don't know if this is too much to ask? Thanks very much. Argolin (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for the improvements, your additions satisify WP:V, but I am not sure have addressed WP:N your arguments for Notability all seem focused on the company, the article is about an album, so you need support for the notability of the album per WP:MUSIC, hard to find sources generally means it will fail WP:N.
  • Defending article deletions by prod, are relatively simple, addressing the concerns by adding references and removing the prod is sufficient. It would be appropriate to remove the prod with your first edit that added the references. I am not going to pursue it, but you may want to address the notability of the albulm as opposed to the company or record label, or consider merging the article into CBC Records.
I have no problems with prodding articles, now that the Canadian music project has subscribed to Article alerts. It may be a lot to ask, but could you add {{WikiProject Canada|music=yes}} to the article's discussion page (see above)? Argolin (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand what your asking, the template {{WikiProject Canada|class=stub|importance=low|music=yes}} is on Talk:New Music Canada, Vol. 1. As for other articles I may or may not ever see another article that should be in that category. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, I added it last year. Wasn't sure if you do the unreferenced music articles and may come across more. Our music project has more than one cat (about 300ish?) lol. I've started adding references to the 2006 articles within the Canadain music project. Thanks for your time. If you need anything from me, let me know. Argolin (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will probably be able to stay ahead of me then, If any jumps out at me as belonging to you I will do my best to point you towards them. Jeepday (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You asked me to comment here about the lack of a policy that every article has to have some source listed.

There are only a few written policies that relate to including sources: WP:V and WP:BLP directly, and the notability policy indirectly. WP:V only requires sources for direct quotes and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Other material must be verifiable, but WP:V does not require that sources have to actually be provided. I'm thinking of non-biographical articles where WP:BLP doesn't apply, so we can skip the special requirements for biographies. WP:N directly says, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation."

There is also the question of practice – looking over all the unreferenced articles, the idea that every article would have to have a source doesn't agree with our actual practice very well. Our actual practice is that if an article has non-controversial information about a clearly notable topic, we allow it to exist without references.

Everyone agrees that it would be nice if, eventually, we have at least one good general reference on each article. I'm fully behind that and I add references when I can. But this is a maintenance issue for each article, just like being orphaned or not being categorized. This is why I would describe the goal as an aspiration rather than a requirement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I think everyone can agree that inline citations are not and never will be required for EVERYTHING "This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question". There is no policy that identifies any type of article (stub, list, etc) or content that does not require references of some kind. The actual words on WP:V change occasionally about BIO and other articles, but it comes down to references are required or the content should be removed, the only difference being that BIO is more strictly applied. The first sentence of WP:V is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.", the only way to do that is with references. I will grant you that "Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source" implies that for content that is easily verifiable direct references/citations are not required, though unless you are already familiar with the topic the only way to know that is to search or to have the references on the article.
The reality being, that we have LOTS of content that should be referenced but is not, is probably OK, and was entered by knowledgeable editors in good faith, without awareness of our current verifiability expectations (new editors, or old edits). I am not suggesting that we hold non-bio articles to the wholesale deletion practices that are occurring on those articles, just saying that the same expectation of verifiability applies across all main space content. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I am saying is that WP:V does not describe articles as needing references. WP:V describes certain types of statements within articles that need references: quotations, challenged material, and material likely to be challenged. It's true that nothing is said about stubs or lists, because the same principle holds for all articles: there's no policy that requires any non-biographical article to list references unless it contains claims that are quotations, challenged, or likely to be challenged. All that is required, in general, is the theoretical verifiability of the material. This is a very weak requirement, sure, and we hope that every article will eventually surpass it. But the actual requirement that at least one source has to be given is only made for biographical articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LOL, neither does any policy describe content not needing references. You and I are about in the same place. It is just a matter of prospective. The overall trend is continually towards higher reference requirements being enforced, taking the more stringent prospective you increase the likelihood, that you will influence editors to include references, thereby making it less likely that the content will be deleted in the future. We both know what the reality is today, and I am sure you are aware of the trend. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Tahash Timeline[edit]

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you use AWB[edit]

I noticed your comment about finally finding an article with a reference. I was curious if you use AWB or not. If you do I could give you some code that would look through the list of articles for the ones with an inline citation. It might speed things up a little. -- (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't use AWB, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Unreferenced bot request[edit]

I put in a bot request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VeblenBot 7 regarding the unreferenced template. You may be interested in following that. I will be online sporadically the next couple days, but I will try to post there at least one time a day. I'll be back by Sunday. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Jeepday. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 16:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Many of the other Wikipedias take a very casual attitude to referencing if the subject is well-known in their region. . There may be good references even when they don't include them. The reason I checked further on this one was that the itWP also had articles for some of their albums, and some of their individual performers. That's not proof--they could all have been fan cruft, but it warrants further checking, and I found a surprising amount. I added one key ref. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks always happy to have have a prod rescued. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C.R. Cooke[edit]

Hi, on 17 Aug 2010, you moved the obituary of C.R. Cooke from the article to the discussion page ( I would like to move it back to the article page, as the stub article left is not very informative, but I wanted to talk to you about the points you made. I believe that I can address the points you raised by i) making it clear in a footnote that the content has been licensed by the author for reuse under CC-BY-SA and GFD, and ii) saying that it was 1st printed in the "The (London) Times" (I would note, however, that the name of the newspaper is actually "The Times" - all the other papers of a similar name are called something else (e.g. The New York Times, The Irish Times, The Times of India, etc.,)). I am sure that the author meets the requirements of WP:RS being very familiar with the subject and the views presented appear balanced and fair. In addition the fact that it was published by an international newspaper of good standing further suggests that WP:RS has been satisfied. Indeed no-one has ever raised any questions with the reliability of the content of this obituary. Please let me know if you're satisfied with this. I'm not experienced in the authoring of Wikipedia pages, so am happy to receive your input. Nick Nick Pointon (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointonn (talkcontribs) 08:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are three primary issues with moving the content back into the article
  1. Unfortunately your assurance that the content has been licensed in not sufficient. The owner (Marjorie Pointon) would need to follow the steps at WP:IOWN
  2. Copy and Paste of content from one source to Wikipedia is a conflict WP:NOTMIRROR (#3). As an example the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is in the public domain, clearly encyclopedic, but not appropriate for copy and paste inclusion in an article.
  3. An Obituary is a Tertiary source Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources, so regardless of the authors familiarity with the subject (see also WP:COI) it just barely qualifies as an acceptable reference (let alone full inclusion as it is not referenced).
What i would suggest is that you write new content for the article, using secondary sources (books) as reference. There is a multitude of content availabe (see Google books).
If I can be of any assistance please let me know. My page User:Jeepday/Cite is a good place to start learning about how to use references in articles. Jeepday (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Jeepday. You have new messages at WhiteWriter's talk page.
Message added 17:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]


Thank you for your kind comment at the VeblenBot BRFA. I appreciate it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your bot action should be approved. While I personally would prefer that the tags be on those articles, you are correct there is sufficient reason to remove them pending a different approach to place them on those particular articles (Manual or otherwise). JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PROD has been removed, looks like you're going to have to AfD it. Certainly fails WP:CRIN. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I tend to let good faith corrections alone, you are welcome to take it to AfD, seems like you are more familiar with WP:CRIN. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

Hello dear,Please check article and references,internal links thoroughly,and give your fair opinion that what can you help in this regard.Thanks.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a look and left comments on Talk:Ehsan Sehgal. I am curious, how did you choose to ask me to review your article? Jeepday (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opinion to opinion[edit]

Please take look at my talk page,there is reply to your review.Thanks Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neo-pagan as literary term[edit]

Yours were among the last two edits to Neo-Pagan (literature). If you wouldn't mind explaining your comment on Talk:Neo-Pagan (literature), I'm trying to determine exactly what references got 10K hits, and where. Thanks! — HipLibrarianship talk 20:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 DoneJeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Nice to meet both of you at the Wiknic. I had never had a personal encounter with a Wikipedia editor before. I'll definitely be attending more events. Lou Sander (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Pittsburgh
An invitation to join us!

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Pittsburgh, a WikiProject dedicated to developing and improving articles about the City of Pittsburgh and the surrounding Western Pennsylvania area. Please see the Pittsburgh WikiProject page for more information. See yinz there!

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it legitimate?[edit]

Hello Jeepday,you are expertise and familiar about wikipedia policies,therefore once again I am asking your opinion how to deal new created issue about subject's article,while article already has been discussed on talk page,after discussing editors reached the consensus,by contributing User:Nolelover, User:Brianhe,and by you,(User:Jeepday).And then dicussion was closed. Now subject's article has five tags on mainspacename,is it legitimate? and is it not voilating consensus policy.I hope you will not ignore to review all this agian and will leave advice to me on my talk page.Thanks. God bless you. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The tags are legitimate, WP:COI and WP:NPOV are strong core issues, that need to be addressed. Try and consider the tags and comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Sehgal as ways to improve the article. First step is take the Articles for deletion {AfD) by Biker Biker seriously, remove any content and references from the article that are supported only by the questioned self published works. I believe that there are sufficient independent references to keep the article from being deleted, once you remove the questionable stuff, if the remaining content survives AfD the article will probably not be suggested for deletion again. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you sir,Nolelover is helping to solve the issue. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your were curious[edit]

Dear Sir,once you asked me,

"I am curious,how did you choose to ask me to review your article.?"

When I was advised to ask help from editor WP:Pakistan,then I saw during search your talk

page,where this quote touched me,

" I may disagree with what you have to say

but I shall defend,to the death,your right

to say it." Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

According to that,

you have done and shown it.

Article discussion result is keep.

Thanks for your fair opinion and for all you help in this regard. Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am glad everything worked out. Jeepday (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Network computing#Redirect or merge?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Network computing#Redirect or merge?. Trevj (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Little Comet/Mini Comet article[edit]

Greetings! I'm contacting you about the Little Comet/Mini Comet article you proposed for (and was subsequently was) deletion. I wanted to let you know that I completely missed out on that discussion dating back a number of months ago. I've just recently recreated the article here under the appropriate name Mini-Comet. As of the moment, I have two park map images that confirm the ride's existence as well as a single reference to a book. My obvious aim is to find more references to meet better standards. I wanted to let you know what I did since you had deleted the other article.

Regards! --Son (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works for me, You can use the maps as reference for the location moves. You need more secondary sources to help fend off WP:N concerns if challenged. Also change your langague from "Current" to "as of (some date)" to make the article more stable and accurate over time. If I can be of any assistance let me know. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool! Feel free to make any contributions as you see fit! --Son (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied to you[edit]

At Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/Pittsburgh#WP:Wikipedia_Loves_Libraries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like you're making good progress with library contacts. Can you create the Wikipedia:Meetup/Monroeville page ASAP? (The details can be preliminary, and please feel free to adapt from your Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/Pittsburgh#Monroeville_Library.) We're going to turn on the centralnotice for this quite soon.--Pharos (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I was going to cancel it today. I don't have the free time to finish up the details and there are no other active participants Jeepday (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, there will be participants in a couple of hours when the notice goes up. This might even be the only Pittsburgh-area one if Piotr's plans don't gel, which they haven't yet. Maybe you should create a joint Pittsburgh-area page or something, and figure things out.--Pharos (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I will let it ride for a couple days and see what happens. I created Wikipedia:Meetup/Monroeville as a temp redirect. Jeepday (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May you have time.[edit]

Hi,Jeepday,long ago,again your help is needed.Please take a look at article Pir-e-Kamil and my talk page and talk page of User:LadyofShalott and give your fair and bold opinion according to exact concept of the wiki polices and guidelines.I hope you will spare a bit time to review it.Thanks a lot.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The book does not appear to meet WP:BK, given the lack of available sources, the only chance it has is #5 "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.". As Umaira Ahmad says "She is best known for authoring the book Pir-e-Kamil ". So as Pir-e-Kamil is not notable by it's self and the authors most notable book is a non-notable book, it fails #5. I am considering it a given that significant reference do not exist in other languages as there have been several conversation on the topic. Jeepday (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Sorry, but that's is really incredible. The user decided to change "African American" with "black". Now, please don't tell me that new user are not aware that define an African American "black" is an insult.
When the editor changed first all "spokesperson" and "spokeswoman" in "spokesman" I advised him, on his talkpage to have a look to the manual of stile. The editor in question decided to ignore my suggestion and the following day replaced all "spokesperson" and "spokeswoman" with "spokesman" to the point to break the link to the "simple English" article.
Seeing that a message on his talkpage didn't work and thinking that having to wad through the all MoS I asked him in the summary "(Undid revision 456047502 by Klegein (talk) please, read the talk page and here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender-neutral_language)" with a nice simple active link, so he didn't have to bother to search for it. He chose ignore that too.
And now you are warning me for edit warring??? Because he is a "new user"? He is registered since 2008 and his almost only contribution to Wikipedia has been remove "spokesperson" and "spokeswoman" from the spokesperson article and almost every of its other contributions has been deleted by other editors. The article is called "Spokesperson", in the talkpage there is the result of a poll that obviously the editor in question decided to ignore, so there was no point for me to write there as well. Even someone that hat never seen Wikipedia in his life would think that if the article is called "spokesperson" maybe is not a good idea to remove the word "spokesperson" from the article. Right?

I'm sorry, is really this way to deal with issues that make people decide to leave Wikipedia. Just choose the easiest way out for admin. If it's sensible or even logic doesn't count. --Dia^ (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC) (I post the answer on my talkpage too. You can answer me, if you want, where you prefer)Reply[reply]

I see an editor with 20 edits and an editor with 2600 edits. The editor with 20 edits has 3 entries on his talk page, all of which are subsisted templates, from the editor with 2600 edits. There is room to judge all of Klegein's edits as good faith. Try spending as much effort discussing the issue with them as you did with me. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just speechless for such a superficial answer, but seen as you seems to work, that shouldn't surprise me. But here you are, it does. I always try to think good about people. Just a little unasked for advice from me: in your future try to look just a little tiny bit behind the plain numbers and you will see where the real issue is. If I were to follow your advice at least 50% of all the vandals in Wikipedia would be free and welcome to carry on. --Dia^ (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just to let you know, I've extended this user's block to indefinite as a vandalism only account... Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked user[edit]

I see you blocked User talk:Sensei Ali Tabatabaei after uploading numerous images but failing to provide any necessary information and ignoring repeated polite notices. Is it now appropriate to delete all the images or just wait out the usual seven days? ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You will still need to follow the normal delete process. I only gave a 24 hour block, hopefully the person will comeback and address the issues on the files. Though looking at them gives the impression they are taken from a copyrighted published work. Jeepday (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Request file restore[edit]

Please restore File:ANTFarmCast.jpg. Commons version is a copyright violation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Jeepday (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'm always suspicious of commons versions of fair-use images, most I've found are copyright violations. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

go ahead and merge[edit]

merge that RLSS lifesaving thingy, looks like no-one minds.Nankai (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone is welcome to do the merge at RLSS. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative[edit]

Hi Jeepday,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Reply[reply]

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Jeepday,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.


Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K303 23:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the note; edit waring on "self-styled" vs "prominent" [8] looks like a content dispute to me. Drop me a note if my presence is required at the discussion. Jeepday (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have you actually read the last paragraph added in the diff you linked to? Try scrolling all the way down, and tell me if you honestly don't think that paragraph is a BLP violation? 2 lines of K303 23:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article List of Jewish deportees from Norway during World War II has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This huge list is just a summary of raw data, a plain database which falls under WP:NOTPLOT (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Yikrazuul (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrator intervention against vandalism[edit]

I had reported (talk · contribs) which you removed calling it as content dispute. How is removal of "citation needed", other maintenance tags and references content dispute? Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4 §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You did not point out any edits specific to vandalism, those the I looked at [9] appeared to be valid edits. Additionally by the time I checked your report it had been 3 hours since you posted it and 6 hours since any activity by the IP. Given an edit history window of just over an hour, blocking is not indicated in any case. Jeepday (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well no problem. Will post another report if the editor comes back with nuisance. I don't expect them to learn so quickly with warnings. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Jeepday. You have new messages at Jay-Sebastos's talk page.
Message added 12:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 12:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]