User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2012/October

Well done!!

	It's Awesome
	Your page blew me away Jonnable123 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

parapsychology

the evaluation section on the parapsychology article was created by a banned user greenuniverse, so you are happy to delete his theory section and claim it is "copyrighted" but keep his "evaluation" section because it concludes parapsychology does not exist. This is dishonest cherry picking. Either it is all copyrighted (yet no evidence has been presented) and deleted or it all stays. explain yourself. Ghosts Ghouls (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of the same puppetmaster as GreenUniverse. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Randstad Holding Logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Randstad Holding Logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I tagged it G7 as the svg is superior.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Change on page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia:_The_City_of_Lost_Heaven

Hi, I'm the user you recently messaged back about a non-reliable source when I edited the page above.

I think you made a mistake on your part. Currently the link to view the game in the Steam Store in the References does not lead to the specific website.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/40990 ----> leads to http://store.steampowered.com/

Reason: the game was removed.

Therefore this message "As of September 7, 2010, the game is available via Steam.[5]" and the reference link should be changed or removed.

If you feel like referencing an Amazon website where it is still being sold as a Steam key, you may reference that here. Amazon still sells Steam keys:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0083K0W8O/

Have a nice day. 67.252.93.243 (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that info.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Phenylethanolamine

I saw that you tagged Phenylethanolamine for speedy deletion. I recognized that it was the name of a chemical compound, so I removed the speedy and added a reference. I also posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry asking for help, so perhaps someone involved with that WikiProject will expand the article.

Even when an article lacks context, it is sometimes possible to add a bit of context with relatively little work. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but without further info, wouldn't WP:NOTDIC apply?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I originally created Phenylethanolamine for a school project that possessed similar intentions as WikiProject Chemistry. I thought that I was creating/altering the page in my sandbox, but I must have created the page. I deleted Phenylethanolamine because the page's progress is being graded; thus, I should be the only one altering the page. The article will be expanded in the coming weeks. Please delete the article so I can work on it in my sandbox. Jschlude2 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Done, please see User:Jschlude2/Phenylethanolamine.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Leandro Taub

Dear Jeff. I saw that you tried to delete the article about Leandro Taub. He is a known writer from Latin America, his books are in many countries. You can see information about he in the web. The editorial is Ediciones B México. I hope if you can reject the deletion. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilantav (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The article was deleted because it was an "A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject"[1]. What is so important or significant about the subject? What verifiable reliable sources do you have to back up that claim? We need specifics (including references and footnotes) for biographies of living persons - "this guy on the internet says he is known" does not qualify. I also tagged it as "uncategorised, dead end and orphan". Articles should be categorized and should have wikilinks to and from other articles.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a minor correction, Jeff, there is no policy that insists that every article should be backlinked to other Wikipedia articles. While desirable, this is very often impossible. Adding categories is something that patrollers can quickly do, also for obvious reasons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, that would be the difference between "should" and "must". I try to be exact with my use of such language, like the authors of IETF RFCs.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

As a modal verb, should also leans towards the imperative. Ought to would be somewhat milder, for example, but even then it is not possible for many articles to be back linked. Personally, I only use the 'orphan' tag when it is pretty obvious that an article could be back linked. WP:CANTDEORPHAN might help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:LINK, part of our Manual of Style Guideline, is the guiding force behind WP:O and WP:DEP, and they all link to each other. I think they all merit the imperative should.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I went through every page you linked to above and the only use of the modal 'should' relevant to this discussion was this one: 'a page generally should not be tagged as an orphan until it has been around for a little while' . De-orphaning an article is relatively easy - even linking a place name or a context that provides a greater explanation of a term would be enough. These are things that a conscientious patroller should do on-the-fly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Tait, again

Any chance you would weigh-in at this ANI? The IP has claimed you are a meatpuppet of mine, apparently because we have agreed. Thanks. Novaseminary (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Libya has now free elections after Gaddafi's dead

Since Gaddafi dead, Libya has not now compulsory voting. --190.233.233.167 (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Surely you have verifiable reliable sources to back up your claim.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

. --190.233.233.167 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC) Is of that I knew by political news in social networks. Is truth. --190.233.233.167 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You are also welcome to post to the Reliable sources Noticeboard.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The obvious sock is now blocked (User:Jackie d. alarcón ). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary roughness

Jeff, I think this edit to Me and Mrs Jones (TV series) was uncalled for, clearly indicating that the show exists and the article is not a hoax. You proposed the article for deletion for lack of sources, even though a link to the show's official site on BBC One was provided. Generally, only BLPs are eligible for deletion through the proposed deletion process for lack of sources; other articles may remain unsourced for years. In this case, sources were blindingly simple to find. This is a case where WP:SOFIXIT comes into play: if the article has addressable issues, fix it rather than suggesting it be deleted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

--

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia with a Speedy Deletion, Help would be appreciated. I have just Realised it is quite hard to "Reference". Thanks.

Big Paul99 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's some help. The consensus is that IMDb is not to be trusted, since the info on it is user-generated. Neither of the articles you have created has any verifiable reliable source. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0447282/resume even spells out "IMDb is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this page, which have been supplied by a third party and have not been screened or verified." I have added more help to your user talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I do appreciate that, I am on Acting Careers. IMDB isn't completely invalid, I would say IMDB would be the only help I can get from an Actor. If you could please stop rather than sitting back and putting Speedy Deletions on my page and help me, That would help the both of us and Wikipedia. Some Actors are really difficult to find a Good solid reference. inappropriate isnt the word for it. Big Paul99 (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Then they're not notable enough to have articles on English Wikipedia. The standard is at WP:NACTORS. And for the living ones, the references also have to satisfy WP:BLP.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe we can find at least one thing, But I don't usually back down. I keep doing it. I have found one Reliable source on CNN "Actress' role of a lifetime: Being a mentor" for Elizabeth Kemp, Is that alright? Can I take the Speedy Deletion down. I think I will work on people from now on that have References, Haha. Big Paul99 (talk) 01:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is alright. Bravo. I have taken down two of the tags on her article. It still needs sections, though. OTOH, your article says she's 61 and CNN's says she was 54 on February 13, 2012.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more Reliable than CNN, Haha. Let's go with Wikipedia, I'll soon find her Date of birth. Are you willing to remove Harry Van Gorkum's speedy deletion. I pinned up Two different References from VH1 and Hollywood Celebritys. Thanks Big Paul99 (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

How exactly does his article meet WP:NACTORS?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Jagjit Singh

Hi Jeff,

Can you please state your reasons for removing my link to a article and video interview with Jagjit singh?

(Kiran Rama (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

Sure, the link was not to a reliable source, and you have been spamming links to that website.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain your knowledge of a reliable source?Why is this not a reliable source? I don't think you know as much about Jagjit Singh as you think you do.

(Kiran Rama (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

It's a blog.[2] Please read WP:USERG.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This website has a strict editorial policy which a number of established writers see here http://www.desiblitz.com/desiblitz-team your policy WP:USERG reads -Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Which means this link should not be stopped by you as all writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiran Rama (talk • contribs) 01:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeff G. asked me to comment about this since I again removed the link. If you look at DESIblitz's About page, you can see that they actively recruit writers and photographers. That is not the hallmark of a reliable source--RS's recruit writers through interviews or agents. While DESIblitz does seem to have an editorial team, there is no evidence that they have a "reputation for fact-checking" as required by WP:RS. It essentially seems to be a blog collective. As such, the site doesn't meet WP:RS.

However, even if it did meet WP:RS (if you, Kiran Rama, insist, we can take the matter to the reliable sources noticeboard for more opinions), you can't just add a source to the end of a reference list--we only list references for things that are actually cited in the text. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

We do have verifiable reliable sources, the Guardian Newspaper for one http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/india-women, fourth paragraph we have been quoted and used as a reliable, independent source (Kiran Rama (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC))

You trust The Guardian?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like this matter to be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard as this online magazine does recruit writers and photographers but where you get the idea that this is done with out a interview or selection process is beyond me? if there was no record of fact checking would desiblitz have been picked up and quoted as source by The Guardian -http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/04/india-women a paper that is well know for its correct use of facts and reliable sources? If the way I added the link was incorrect then that can be changed but the way Jeff dismissed the link altogether was wrong and needs to be investigated!(Kiran Rama (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)).

Please feel free to post there.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Jeff I trust the Guardian way more than I trust your judgement so lets just cut the sarcastic remarks and get a move on with doing your job! (Kiran Rama (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)).

My job here is that of a volunteer. I relied on the judgement of Qwyrxian (talk · contribs), a volunteer Administrator and Master Editor (or Illustrious Looshpah) here with >43,000 edits.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Kiran Rima, in order to open a discussion at RSN, I need to know what information you want to use that source to support. RSN doesn't allow generic conversations on whether or not a source is valid, because the answer generally depends on what the source is being used for. Could you propose some sort of edit that you want that source to support? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is already open at Wikipedia:RSN#Jagjit_Singh_article.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No one agreed with you before that discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134#Jagjit_Singh_article.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject:Articles for Creation October - November 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 22, 2012 – November 21, 2012.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

EdwardsBot (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Declined Speedy deletion

Just so you know, I declined your A7 speedy deletion request on Humse Hai Liife...it was right on the edge, but, for me, appearing in a full season of a national television show is sufficient to pass A7. However, AfD may well be appropriate, as I don't think that's quite enough to pass WP:ACTOR. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think you meant Himansh Kohli and WP:NACTOR or WP:ACTORS.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Arkhipovich Scriabin

Although the article's a mess, he's clearly dead so not eligible for BLPPROD! PamD 11:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

But how can we be sure he's dead without a good ref?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Hi i am new in wikipedia can u halp me in references or sources. I am from Montenegro i m not god in english,Reč is mye town you will halp me a lot thank you. REÇ (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Exactly where did you get the information you put in article Reč?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Himansh Kohli

1)No This page should not be deleted as its about an Indian actor who acts in television and is about to even do films. References too have been provided and article is in good condition at present.

2)this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil_Kumar_Pathela needs to be blocked for ruining the article with his personal name - see this version- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Himansh_Kohli&diff=519344631&oldid=519163252Greatwords1 (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

1. How exactly does that article meet WP:NACTORS?   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

2. That user should no longer be a problem.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Juliana Hatfield (album)

Hello Jeff G., and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Juliana Hatfield (album), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)