User talk:GregJackP/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Thank you

		Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work on Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews of Military history project articles for the period Jul–Sep 12, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste `{{WPMILHIST Review alerts}}` to your user space

Fabric (Python library)

In August, you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND. This is a slightly ridiculous one: after all the copyvio was removed, only one line remains, but per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. JohnCD (talk) 11:26, 10 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) 00:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Great job improving articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. — Cirt (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs YOUR help!

Articles for creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 2703 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our help desk.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. Plus, reviewing is easy when you use our new semi-automated reviewing script!
Thanks in advance, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs}

Sent on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation at 22:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC). If you do not wish to receive anymore messages from this WikiProject, please remove your username from this page.

triple crown

Your GA nomination of Bryan v. Itasca County

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Bryan v. Itasca County you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Ruby 2010/2013 01:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation newsletter

Delivered 00:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC) by EdwardsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter, please remove your name from the spamlist.

Syria For All

May I suggest that you add Syria For All to the AFD you've started at WP:Articles for deletion/Mohamad Izzat Khatab? Same article creator, same rationale applies. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter

Hi GregJackP, thanks for your great contribution of this article on Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter! I just reviewed the nomination at DYK. Everything looks great, but I recommend tweaking the hook a little bit for grammar. See what you think. Thanks! groupuscule (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that!

I accidentally clicked the Rollback link when looking at my watchlist and next thing I knew, I'd reverted your comment on the AFD for Hannah Jones. Immediately reverted it as soon as I realised what I'd done, but just wanted to apologise to you too. Mabalu (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL, no prob, done the same thing myself (usually when on my cell or tablet). Don't worry about it. GregJackP Boomer! 16:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States v. Lara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lakota (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter

On 26 December 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government was obligated to pay in full any contracts that it had entered into with Indian tribes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

(X! · talk) · @099 · 12:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Noq's talk page.
Message added 11:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

noq (talk) 11:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Natchez Massacre FAC

Hi, thanks for your comments on Natchez Massacre at its FAC page. I've made many changes to the article, so please take another look. Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've now addressed your most recent concerns. Do you have anything else to add at the FAC page? Jsayre64 (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What's your preference, Greg, would you like to see the nom try to finish this up during the current FAC, or would you rather run it through Milhist's A-class process first? (Reply at the FAC, please, if you have a preference.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Take a look at these contributions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.76.220.9 Benkenobi18 (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Amirite Article

Hi Greg Jack,

I saw what you put in the Amirite Article Debate

Only some of the articles I have quoted are Press releases. This one for example is certainly not a paid release: http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/share-opinions-online-amiritenet-amirite/ Makeuseof is a very well known site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MakeUseOf

I don't think the killerstartups article is a paid release since it doesn't mention adversarial on it. Also Amirite's twitter has over 62,000 followers which is significant: https://twitter.com/amiritecom And if you type Amirite.com and Amirite.net into google this brings more than 5 million results. This is significant.

Is there any chance you might re-consider your vote since this is my first article and it would be a shame to have it deleted, especially sinc I really hope it isn't since I'm a big fan of Amirite,

Best Regards,

Philip Craddock1 17:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs)

I've responded at the AfD. GregJackP Boomer! 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

70 Golden Nursery Rhymes AfD

Hi Greg. I suggest to add the related articles The Golden Treasury of Nursery Rhymes, Nursery Rhymes 2 and Tempo Video to the nomination. I can't find any evidence confirming that the subjects are notable. The creator (Annamargarita (talk · contribs)) doesn't bother to answer questions or discuss and AfD seems to be the best place to evaluate the articles properly. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 17:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg

Have an enjoyable New Year!

Hello GregJackP: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hal Zina Bennett Article

I'm trying to create an article on "Hal Zina Bennett," which you edited and rejected. I resubmitted this on Nov 11, 2012. Here's the issue that concerns me. There is another author, Hal Bennett, born same year as me, who is deceased and who researchers get mixed up with me. I'm the author of more than 30 published books and a publishing consultant. When people look for me on Wikipedia, they come across the other Hal Bennett and get the two of us confused. In some cases, this has caused me considerable damage as an author, and in my consulting business. For that reason, it's very important to get something up for me, Hal Zina Bennett. It seems to me that in the article I've submitted, and again edited and resubmitted, my references are at least as complete as the other article (Hal Bennett) that Wikipedia has published. What am I missing here, since the piece I resubmitted was very well documented and appears to have vanished. This is important to me as an author. What do I do to get this fixed?Halbooks (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)Hal Zina Bennett, PhD.

Hi-Prose Tag

Is it ok to remove the prose tag on the article Rebecca Masterton since I have changed it to the right format as per tag's guidance? -- Lubna Rizvi 15:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, generally when you correct a problem that is tagged, such as "prose" or "citation needed", you may remove the tag. There are a couple of exceptions, where you would want to discuss it on the talk page of the article first, but those tend to be obvious. Examples would be a point of view tag, where people tend to get upset quickly. Another example would be any tag in areas where there is a lot of conflict, like the Arab-Israeli conflict, Climate change, etc. As a new editor, you would probably do well to stay out of contentious areas, they can be brutal (I'm experienced, and I have learned to avoid those areas).

As a side note, I'll be happy to help when I can, just drop me a line here. GregJackP Boomer! 15:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I am regretting on editing one article, I will definitely avoid point of view tags. :-)-- Lubna Rizvi 15:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

THNX 4 TRYNG to Help

Thanks for trying

Thanks for trying to help me out, obviously I didn't know what I was doing trying to get something added that should be included in the Wikipedia pages and now have had my contribution deleted. I was trying to add the biggest growing tradition in the Fire Service to Honor 343 FDNY Firefighters who gave their lives on 9/11 to help their fellow man. This is now being held all over the world. I see so many other odd items in Wikipedia I thought it should be included. Chuckcog1 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

~

I recently wrote an article Dax Charles and I requested an image from him to release copyrights for the article. I recieved the email and image back but I need to make sure I uploaded correctly, with all the legal niceties we need. I still have the email with my request and the response if I need to forward it. Not too familiar with commons so any help is appreciated. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really up on donating copyrighted works to WP. You might check with at WP:CP/C with one of the clerks. They'll be able to tell you more than I can. Sorry, GregJackP Boomer! 01:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey

I just noticed you were back (yea, I can be slow to pick up on things sometimes). Hoping that issue from a couple years ago (of which I only have a hazy recall) has been resolved. Hope things are well with you. Guettarda (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm doing OK, though busy IRL. GregJackP Boomer! 12:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to your query

Sorry, not right now, I'll defer to the community discussion and/or the subsequent process at WP:GAR, good luck to you! — Cirt (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke GA Nomination

I disagree with the harshness in which you dismissed my GA Nomination of the Sandra Fluke article. While the article was certainly the subject of much edit waring during the election, it is currently stable. I do not think it deserved a quick fail.Casprings (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is nowhere near stable with the recent (this week) IP vandalism and the ongoing content dispute. It should not have been nominated. You should be aware of this, as it has been discussed with you before. You can, of course ignore this and nominate it again.

Good article means something, and I am not willing to relax the standard. GregJackP Boomer! 05:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it should mean something. My point is that I do not think the past conflict disputes should have caused a quick fail. It was certainly highly debated. That said, if one looks at the edit history, that has latterly stopped. The last one on rather she was a lawyer was months ago with one edit recently when she was actually accepted to the bar. By all means, lets keep standards. However, lets also not quick fail something without good reason. Former content dispute that have died off should not be a reason for a quick fail. That is how I see it, at least. Casprings (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What about these?

On Jan 4, 2013, there was a dispute over whether Rush Limbaugh lost advertisers [1]
On Dec 31, 2012, a section of the article was removed and replaced with a BLP violation [2]
On Dec 1, 2012, ref'ed material removed [3]
On Nov 30, 2012, fact template placed on material (later removed above) [4]
You've already mentioned the content dispute about her status as an attorney, since resolved.

I could go on and on, but the article has remained unstable since its creation. It's not as bad as it was, but it is still not stable. The article has a history of instability that has continued up to this week, and as such does not meet the GA criteria. These aren't the first articles I've reviewed, not including the articles I've taken to (and past) GA. The reason it was quick failed was because I looked at the edit history (first), and on seeing what was happening there, went to the talk page. The quick fail wasn't due to the settled disputes from the past--it was the fact that it was continuing, according to the edit history. GregJackP Boomer! 03:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I will give it some time and then try again. Casprings (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

In rescuing the article on Jennifer Horn. It is appreciated. Benkenobi18 (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Indian Law Review, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright issue

I had permission from the owner of the information flagged on the Dominica: Charting a Future for Paradise page for copyright violations. However, I have created a new page for Dominica: Charting a Future for Paradise on its Talk page. If there are no issues with the new page, I'd like the copyright notice removed from the main page and its content replaced with the new page. Do I talk to you about this, or is there someone you can direct me to? Thank you very much. Retrooo —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit summary at Easy Computer Sync

Hi. I saw your edit summary at Easy Computer Sync that said "Restoring speedy deletion tag. As far as I know, once a speedy deletion tag is applied, it may not simply be removed by a non-administrator." Actually, any editor (other than the page creator) may remove a speedy deletion template. When this happens, the editor should make it clear that he is contesting the speedy deletion, either by a comment on the talk page or his edit summary. See WP:CSD. This also came up in a WP:DRV, see here.

Once a CSD has been declined, whether by an admin or an editor, the next step is to go to AFD. (Unless the tag was a G10, G11, or G12; and they were inappropriately declined.) I have no particular interest in the article either way. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the link; I have never read it. It seems from the link that only an editor in good standing may do so. I doubt that a single-purpose account qualifies as an "editor in good standing". :) Kind regards, Unforgettableid (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

AfD/Acts 29 Network

I have expanded the article and it has been relisted. Does it still fail notability guidelines? ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:SealSouthCarolinaSupremeBronze.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SealSouthCarolinaSupremeBronze.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SealSouthCarolinaSupremeBronze.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SealSouthCarolinaSupremeBronze.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 23:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State court (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page.
Message added 06:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 06:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

DataStax

I have added this comment on talk:DataStax. "GregJackP added WP:COI to this article on December 20 (one month ago). I would like to see his reasoning and his current opinion. I am notifying him on his talk page." ... please reply on talk:DataStax. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Adoptive Couple

Hi, popped over to do some copyediting of the article per your ping at Indigenous people's talk page. Looks pretty balanced at the moment, but I'll watchlist for POV in the future. FYI, I don't do a lot with the legal articles on-wiki, but I happen to have RL background in the area (though I prefer this not to be widely known on-wiki because it will just create more drahmahz, probably...), and I've had some RL work dealing with ICWA, I know the statute quite well. I tweaked some of the legal stuff to read a little more accurately (interesting opinion, Kittridge dissent is particularly interesting, as he DID acknowledge applicability of ICWA, but with really interesting caveats about best interest of the child ... I can see why SCOTUS granted cert; this is going to be REALLY fascinating to see which way the court goes). Anyway, it's all good faith and I will be glad to explain any of my edits if needed. FYI, amongst those working with the statute regularly, it is usually called "ICWA" rather than "the ICWA" (though you see both), so I tweaked that throughout. Montanabw^(talk) 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw some of your edits--liked all of what I saw, and appreciate the help. My concern is twofold. First, this issue is really emotional for both sides of the issue, the Capobiancos and their supporters are understandably upset that the child is going back to her biological dad after two years and see ICWA as a racially based statute. Their supporters have been both vocal and adept at slanting the argument in the public view to what they claim is an injustice. On the other side, the tribes see this as a matter of tribal survival, and as being based on tribal citizenship. The history of children being removed from Indian homes is long, and is not that far in the past (and some argue that it is continuing). Second, I'm worried about potential bias on my part. My grandfather was one that was sent to the Haskell Indian School around the turn of the century, and separated from the tribe as a result. I try to make sure that I'm keeping a NPOV on the article, but if you notice anything that might be POV on my part, please let me know.

Finally, on the SCOTUS appeal, I'm interested to see what they do, and how the briefs on the merits and the oral arguments go. I'm especially interested in how they view the "Existing Indian Family" exception and whether they will apply the Indian canon or not. I know that Justice Scalia has commented on how difficult Holyfield was, and hopefully what the Choctaw Tribal Court did in that case will help (the tribal court stated that it was in the best interest of the child to remain with the Holyfields, but put in conditions that the child had to be exposed to tribal cultural events and extended family members in the tribe). Again, thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 22:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help. I happen to be whiter than an Osmond Family Reunion, so even though I'm mostly pro-ICWA (with exceptions) at least I don't have a biological stake in it. (smile) I'll keep an eye on you for POV (grin). But yes, failure to comply with ICWA is an ongoing problem, look up the stuff that is happening in South Dakota. It's a mess there. But on the other hand, this is not the first case where I've seen ICWA almost blindly applied. IMHO, Montana goes overboard the other way see this case. Though in adoptive couple the failure to notify the father and tribe was a huge whoops and the birth mom's clear intent to thwart ICWA is right in line with Holyfield, where the parents also deliberately tried to duck the tribe. Frankly, they deserve a smackdown just for that (if they had done it right legally at the right time, the father might have voluntarily relinquished, but here we are close to fraud.) It is probably time to revisit Holyfield, though there probably is an element of "be careful what you ask for, you might get it" in taking this case up - sometimes bad facts make bad law. BTW, where can I find Scalia's remarks? (FWIW you might find this older case interesting Montana's first application of ICWA after Holyfield) Montanabw^(talk) 23:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

See Adam Liptak, Case Pits Adoptive Parents Against Tribal Rights, N.Y. Times, Dec. 24, 2012 (citing Charlie Rose, An Hour with Justice Antonin Scalia, The Charlie Rose Show, Nov. 27, 2012). The first is print, the second is video. GregJackP Boomer! 23:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Manish Sharma (Panasonic) should not be mentioned as Non-notable Corporate Bureaucrat

As seconded by User: Demiurge1000- "not unambiguously non-notable - head of a major conglomorate's Indian subsidiary, and endlessly interviewed by Indian media".

I made this page Manish Sharma (businessman) on Manish Sharma who is the current Managing Director, Panasonic India. There are certain issues with the page, the biggest one being that Manish Sharma is being termed as a Non-notable Corporate Bureaucrat. In my opinion this is not correct. I understand that we need to provide proper facts/references to support it and here they are:

I would start with a statement from The Economic Times (Category-A Business newspaper in India) here, "Japan's largest consumer electronics company, Panasonic has for the first time ever appointed an Indian to head its flagship consumer durables business in the country. Manish Sharma (41), erstwhile head for sales and marketing of Panasonic India, has been promoted as its managing director from April."

Here is the link of the same: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-06/news/31127441_1_panasonic-india-daizo-ito-durables-market

His name has appeared in other major newspapers and magazines in India. Here are the links:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-03-06/news/31127441_1_panasonic-india-daizo-ito-durables-market
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/brandline/article3707404.ece
http://www.4psbusinessandmarketing.com/07102010/storyd.asp?sid=4042&pageno=1
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/marketing/article3516096.ece?homepage=true&ref=wl_home

Apart from these, he has received various awards, one of the most recent one being, the National Conservation Energy Awards 2012 held in December on behalf of Panasonic.

Also, the page isn't an Orphan page now as it was earlier as it is linked to three different articles.

Therefore, Manish Sharma by no means necessary can be categorized as a Non-notable Corporate Bureaucrat.I request you to please help me correct this issue. Please respond. Urgent. Gadgetsgigs (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As you've already been informed, you need to make your argument at the AFD discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 12:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NLT

NLT does not define a legal threat as a threat to employ litigation. The only sentence that even uses that word says this: "Rather than threatening to employ litigation, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures." That's not a definition. It's a suggestion that if someone is going to employ litigation, DR is better. What is does say is this "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion" because "It severely inhibits free editing of pages" and "It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community." In this case, that certainly was applicable.--v/r - T P 15:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree from several standpoints. First, it is not morally or ethically correct to discourage someone from reporting what he believes to be a criminal offense to law enforcement authorities. Second, it may very well be a criminal violation in and of itself to discourage someone from reporting an offense. Third, it would be terrible press for the project to have that splattered over the news that Wikipedia wanted to prevent the reporting of a possible crime, especially in this case, where the crime allegedly involves minors and sexual matters. Finally, taking it in context, nowhere in the policy does it speak about criminal actions, it speaks of litigation. It is a question of balance. Which is more important, the editing of articles, or crime? That is not to say that I agreed with the way he went about it, but I don't think that we should, nor do I think the WP:NLT policy requires, us to take action to prevent someone from reporting what they believe to be a crime to authorities. As a hypothetical, what if a female editor is raped by a male editor at Wikimania or another WP sponsored event. Are we saying that she can't pursue criminal charges because it inhibits editing? That's not morally nor ethically sound. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Greg - no where does it speak of litigation. It speaks of "legal action" which is broadly defined and consensus has supported that law enforcement is included in legal action. WP:NLT is not meant to discourage anyone from taking legal action. If you read the policy, it is very clear that NLT is about ensuring that the legal process is followed using appropriate channels. Like actually contacting law enforcement. Being blocked from Wikipedia is not a deterrent to contacting law enforcement. It is an execution of the rights of a private organization. In your situation, such victim is highly encouraged to contact law enforcement. She shouldn't, however, use Wikipedia to pursue it. Let's add a twist to your scenario: she's lying. What then? She refuses to go to law enforcement, knowing her story doesn't hold water, and instead uses Wikipedia to defame the male editor. That is why the legal process needs to be followed. Wikipedia is not part of that legal process.--v/r - T P 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, GregJackP. You have new messages at The Bushranger's talk page.
Message added 06:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey GregJackP - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Numbered Treaties

Could you look over the large additions to this article and see if they are appropriate. There has already been some re-adding of deleted material going on. Rmhermen (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and they look accurate, abet unsourced. If I get some time, I'll try and dig up some refs for them. I'm not really as up on Canadian First Nation issues and law as I am on U.S. tribal issues and law, but I'll give it a shot. GregJackP Boomer! 00:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I took out the bare URL refs, replacing several with cites to RS instead of Youtube/etc links. I also found a couple of books that supported the additions. Let me know if there's any other way I can help. GregJackP Boomer! 00:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of wit

	The Shorter-is-Better award
	In recognition of your fine contribution to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

prat Arbcom

I was going over your ArbCom report draft on Prat, and overall I think that you did a great job. I just want to suggest that you add Coral Consortium to it. Prat restored that article, even though it was deleted as a copyright violation. JDDJS (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi GregJack, you included some examples in that case of Prat restoring articles deleted via prod. But anyone can decline a prod or request one be restored. If he restored a BLPprod without referencing the article that would be different. Can I suggest that you strike those parts of your evidence, as currently they read as you criticising him for editing within policy. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It is explained in my response to Sarek in the same statement. Plus, it doesn't appear as if it would matter. GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I read your reply to Sarek, but that seemed to blur the boundaries between the prods which you now accept were correctly restored and the contentious restores such as the copyvio one. As to why it matters, well firstly we should be trying to minimise conflict with each other - including at ANI and ArbCom. Only complaining about things that are wrong is one way to do that. Secondly there is the practical issue that any successful RFC or desysop needs to avoid degenerating into WP:PITCHFORKS - not least because that alone can be a reason to oppose it or decline an Arb case (at least one Arb mentioned pitchforks when they declined this case). Chucking in all sorts of diffs including ones that are actually legit is a classic symptom of a pitchforks scenario, almost as bad as skipping those steps that are designed to give people a chance to resolve matters amicably, - especially if people don't quietly strike out evidence that has been rebutted. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, I've heard that WP:WIKILAWYERING was to be discouraged, but I've seen more and more of it since I returned. Prat basically told the Wiki community to bugger off, I'll do what I want because I'm an Admin, and therefore I know better than any of the community does. AN/I was overwhelming in condemning that attitude, and rightfully so. So, instead of a community sanction banning him from using the undelete button, we end up with: An AN/I that accomplished nothing, an ArbCom decision based on a technicality that he has not been to RfC/U, an RfC/U process that can realistically accomplish nothing, and then we'll be back to ArbCom, where there will be limits on the lengths of the briefs that the parties may present to the court, and rules on what the witnesses may say, or face sanctions for contempt. Nah, no problems with the process here.

The point of including everything was to show a pattern of behavior that is unacceptable. He has lost the community's trust. He needs to either turn in the bit or be desysoped. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That rather sounds like you consider his restoring of prods to be part of a pattern of unacceptable behaviour. That wouldn't be the first time that a controversial editor got off the hook because their opponents added legit edits to the contentious ones, I can remember one particular RFC where almost the first diff in the "evidence" was that the editor had declined prods, sometimes one or two a day. At least one of the editors in that case was genuinely surprised that criticising someone for such legit edits turned the RFC into an unproductive confrontation between deletionists and inclusionists. It isn't wikilawyering to defend uncontentious editing, and I haven't disputed the other things that you've said about him. I'm merely pointing out that extending the case against him to include the restoring of prodded articles is part of the reason why the case failed. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the wikilawyering comment wasn't directed at you WSC - I was speaking more of ArbCom. Sorry for any misunderstanding. GregJackP Boomer! 00:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: What to be done with Tristan noir

Regarding this post: You appeared to have misread my initial post and Nyttend's proposal. Neither of us was ever under a TBAN: there was a strict IBAN on us, and Tristan was using this to go around abusively editing a large number of articles in a particular field, thus creating a de facto TBAN on me. However, the discussion has now turned to whether a TBAN or an IBAN should be imposed on Tristan, and I took your comment as indicating that you favour a TBAN over an IBAN: was I correct? (Thank you for your input, by the way: this problem has been on my back since September now, and it's finally getting fixed!) elvenscout742 (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Horn

For the allegation to be notable and not violate NPOV - it has to be proven. As of yet, the allegation is unproven. I've also removed the statement that the allegation is 'unfounded'. This is also NPOV. If the allegation is proven to be true, then by all means. Until then we shouldn't be reporting scurrillous allegations.

"Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

The material is verified. It's not notable unless it's been proven.

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've replied on your page, where most of the points of this thread are located, but to summarize, there were multiple reliable third-party sources - you were operating off the false premise that it "has to be proven." The material has been restored to the article. GregJackP Boomer! 14:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

And I've reverted. :) Like I said, it's still not meeting NPOV, espeically not when you have the statement immediately after that it's 'rubbish'. If it's 'rubbish' then it shouldn't be in her bio here. Isn't it in the best interest of the wikipedia to only include information which is true? If it's not proven to be true, then it shouldn't be here. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You need to learn about NPOV. It does not mean that there has to be balancing statements, it means we present it in a neutral manner, reporting what reliable sources have said.

Horn admitted in two of the references that the IRS did have a lien, and that they tried to work the matter out with the IRS. From the beginning, truth was not an issue, as the subject admitted to the lien. GregJackP Boomer! 12:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification please...

Clarification please -- is it your position that prizes, medals, awards, and other forms of recognition either confer total notability or zero notability?

Is it your position that a prize, medal, award, or other form of recognition, can never confer a meaningful notability, that while insufficient by itself to measure up to our notability criteria, is able, when combined with other factors conferring notability, to help substantiate an individual's notability?

As I noted in the discussion our policies do make allowances for exceptions -- where an individual′s notability is established by just a single event. However, those are exceptions, and almost all our biographical articles are about individuals whose notability was established considering multiple factors.

The other factor, in Dixon's case, is that he had a $50 million vessel named to honor his heroism. In 2009, the year he died Skip Bowen, then the USCG's Master Chief, lobbied heavily for the individual vessels in this class to be named after Coast Guard heroes. Bowen went on record that the recent deaths of heroes who had not received enough recognition was the trigger for his initiative. Bowen's lobbying succeeded. Being the namesake for this vessel is, itself, a potent factor for notability. Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not my position. My main point is that the Coast Guard Medal was not a "civilian" award, but a military award, and a fairly common one at that. It is not awarded to civilians at all, only to members of the military. It is very unlikely that any award of the Coast Guard Medal, or the Soldier's Medal, or the Airman's Medal, or the Navy and Marine Corps Medal would be sufficiently notable in and of itself, but it is possible. The naming of the cutter is based on WP:BLP1E, and the notability, if any, of the ship is not inherited by Dixon. GregJackP Boomer! 19:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability Issues

Since I've published over 30 books with mainstream publishers, with over 1 million books in print, have been quoted by other authors, and have ghostwritten or co-authored at least 30 other books published by mainstream publishers, have been reviewed in Wall Street Journal and New York Times and at least a dozen newspapers around the country. How "notable" do you have to get? The other Hal Bennett in Wikipedia doesn't have half as many publications.

Part of my concern is that my literary agent, I, clients (I do editorial work for publishers) and readers who see Wiki's other Hal Bennett writeup and are confused. I've even gotten rejections from publishers because they confused me with the other Hal Bennett--who is deceased, by the way.

What more does Wiki need to know about me? All the books are cited as to publisher. Halbooks (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Hal Zina Bennett

Hi. The problem is that the article that you are trying to create doesn't have any references to outside sources, they are all to books that you wrote. For notability, you need to cite to reliable, secondary sources that are verifiable and independent of the subject of the article. Cites to the WSJ and NYT would work, as would cites to other books, journals, book reviews, etc. Note that with very limited exceptions, blogs, social media, and the like are not considered reliable. I have included links to the applicable policies to help, and you may also want to look at the Teahouse where there are experienced editors who volunteer to help new Wikipedia editors.

You also need to be aware of the policy on conflict of interest - someone may bring it up, but it should not be a problem since you are using Article for Creations (AfC) to check your work. Also be aware that under autobiography, there may also be some internal criticism, but AfC should handle that too.

I hope that this answers your questions--let me know if I can clarify it further. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go!?

Hi, we've never interacted, but I was taking a look around the law side of Wikipedia and noticed that you've been pretty helpful. Really sad you're retiring! Can anything be done to dissuade you? II | (t - c) 05:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Hello! Your submission of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of United States v. John (1978)

The article United States v. John (1978) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:United States v. John (1978) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: United States v. Lara

This is a note to let the main editors of United States v. Lara know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 10, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 10, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

United States v. Lara was a 2004 United States Supreme Court case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. In the 1880s, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, divesting tribes of criminal jurisdiction in regards to several felony crimes. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Duro v. Reina that an Indian tribe did not have the authority to criminally try an Indian who was not a member of that tribe. The following year, Congress passed a law that stated that Indian tribes, due to their inherent sovereignty, had the authority to try non-member Indians for crimes committed within the tribe's territorial jurisdiction. The defendant, Billy Jo Lara, was charged for acts that were criminal offenses under both the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe's laws and the federal United States Code. Lara pleaded guilty to the tribal charges, but claimed double jeopardy against the federal charges. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns, and therefore separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

On 20 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is only the second case on the Indian Child Welfare Act taken on by the United States Supreme Court? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Articles for creation Needs You!

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 March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

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 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:100

Sorry to see you're gone, but just a note that I added your view to Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians participated in a miscellaneous matter. Legoktm (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

[purge-1] Information may not be current due to caching. Click here to purge this page's server cache.

[1]