User talk:JPG-GR/Archive 8

Watch User Rtphokie

Could you watch User: Rtphokie. He recently put up a maintance tag on stations KUZZ, KKBB, and KLLY for the same stuff that you undid for what User: Rtphokie has taken off. Please watch him. I kind of feel like there's nothing wrong with that stuff, having something on a radio site that says airstaff and who holds down the stuff. User: Rtphokie seems like someone who's too perfect.--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't monitor other editors. JPG-GR (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiThanks

Say Thank you to somebody for doing his 'work'? Sure, thank you Sebastian scha. (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're talking about... but you're welcome (?) JPG-GR (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your page moving. Just a little 'thank you' for your work on the backlog. Sebastian scha. (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I find it entertaining that I take a week off and no one steps up to do any of it. Oh well. JPG-GR (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar …

And to think, it was less than a couple of months ago that you were giving me a well-deserved flick on the forehead for not following the naming conventions! Thanks again. Mlaffs (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's always nice to know when those "well-deserved flicks" pay off. ;) JPG-GR (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Second look

After a second look at Talk:Primera_División_de_España#Requested_move, would you mind if I moved the page back? Not a massive deal either way, but anyhow... Thanks! Knepflerle (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, engage brain before keyboard! You didn't move it, you just took the RM template off. Sorry for bothering you, all the best, Knepflerle (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The page was moved by User:C-3PO who made their first edit this morning but has just moved a raft of pages whose discussions were only a couple of days old. Slightly unusual behaviour... might be worth a close eye and a quick word to explain how RM normally works. Knepflerle (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pine Hills, California article

I am not sure how I made an error in listing the request. Can you look at my edit history around the request and give me direct detail as to how I can correct the request? Thank you. Norcalal 06:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have corrected the areas necessary. Please advise if I missed something. Thank you. Norcalal 07:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hey. I see you a lot at Wikipedia:Requested moves, though I don't really do anything there myself, and was quite shocked to see you weren't an admin. I'd like to nominate you for adminship at WP:RFA if you're interested; let me know. Wizardman 19:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As you are, I believe, the third such person to make a similar comment in as many months, I will take the offer under serious consideration. However, it should be noted - I do much more cleanup/"admin"-related stuff than I do actual content writing, so I suspect that may be an issue (I lurk once or twice a week in the WP:RFA realm, and know how that goes...). Give me maybe 48 hours or so to ponder. :) JPG-GR (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. It's been 48 hours and I'm still impressed with your contribs. So how about it? :) Wizardman 16:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not? What could be the harm. A request though - can we not start the official process until Sunday? I'm on vacation next week (which means away from work, not away from home) and I should have a more "regular" availability to answer questions/take a beating. ^_^ JPG-GR (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not a problem. I'll be on sparingly until Sunday myself, so I'll write up the nom, you just get to the questions when you're ready. Wizardman 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Airstaff Schedules and other things

Alright, I am tired of you guys deleting airstaff lineups and past personalities section of radio station pages, ESPECIALLY YOU!. I am fed up with every single time i go and edit something you got to go and take it off. For example, back in August on the WYCD, WDTW-FM, WKQI and KBWF pages i put a past personalities page on it, somethig historical about the stations history of jocks, but do you keep it up, no. I read something on here that said it is fine if it is historical or something like that, But you still take it off. I dont give a damn if wikipedia allows it, it should be up there. As for radio station lineups being on the page, i think they should. it is stupid to not have them on. As i have said many times before. THE DJ'S ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF A RADIO STATION, WHETHER THEY ARE FROM THE PAST OR PRESENT. but you just don't get it do you. Keep these lineups up on wikipedia. i see no reason as to why they can not be on. And don't give me that crap that it is because of promoting a station. IT IS NOT. you are just listing who works at the station. It is no diffrent than listing TV shows on the tv channel pages. and they seem to allow that. Besides if these were up. it would be great for certain people who want to look ata stations past and that also means past DJ's. To top it all off. i saw you deleted the station ratings section on KBWF, for what frickin' reason, what excuse can you come up with now. I have had those up on pages for well over a year, almost two and your, for some reason taking them down! I have had it with you and all the other people taking off stuff, that could be very useful to a radio page. What is the point of having anyone come in and add things to a page, when they are just gonna be deleted by you!

Joemam993(Talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

WP:NOT#DIR. JPG-GR (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My request was complete according to instructions.

The instructions at WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves clearly do not mandate its use. If administrators view it as mandatory, the wording should be changed.

I have used the template per your request however.

--Rogerb67 (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Err, use of {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} that is. Sorry about the tone of my first response; I was a bit miffed because I had tried very hard (and in fact succeeded as far as I can see from the instructions actually presented to first-time requesters) to do this right. Can I move my proposal back down now or is it stuck in "incomplete" limbo for whatever time period? --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is complete now, yes. JPG-GR (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

hello JPG-GR

Please remove my request comment under the Incomplete and Contested Proposals. I am requesting a full move for the List of Canadians of Asian ancestry Article. I have posted my request in the Other Proposals. Sonic99 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

JPG-GR, I want to a post a notice about the Discussion to support or oppose the full move at the top of the List of Canadians of Asian ancestry Article, so every editor can see it. Can you please tell me what I should add at the top of the article? Sonic99 (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no such template. By editing the talkpage, you have already alerted everyone that has the page on their watchlist. Beyond that, there's not much else you can do. JPG-GR (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell me How to report vandalism

Tell me how to report vandalism. I don't like what User: Joemama993 said on my talk page. I'm trying to work with him, but he's not (paticent/misspelled) or something. Need to report him. You can go to my talk page to see what he said for yourself, if you want to report him for that. Just wanted to let you know.--JoeCool950 (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Short of requesting that he not post on your talk page, there's not much official you can do until he starts violating policies. JPG-GR (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Could I put that edit in on WP WPRS for introductions

I was wondering if I could put that edit in then under introductions, so that it would be considered o.k.?--JoeCool950 (talk) 06:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Radio

I do apoligize for the stuff I said about wikipedia and you, I just got mad about what you guys are doing to these pages, because it does take a long time to figure stuff out to put on these pages. In a very strange way it is almost like dectective work, trying to figure out where everything or in this case everyone goes. One thing though that stil don't get is, why are they taking down the stations prievious arbitron ratings. Maybe you could shed some light on this subject as to why they took it off of the WYCD page. Again I am sorry for what I wrote before. I was just pretty upset about this. No hard feelings?

Thanks Again
Joemam993 (Talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

WP:COPYVIO. JPG-GR (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Stations Ratings Question

I got a message from someone who said that if you put the ratigs into prose, it would be accepted. Now i know we can't have a list like it was prievoisly like, but how would you write it into prose.

Would you write it like this

Summer 2008 Phase II Arbitron Rating: #1 (5.2)

Is it okay to write it like that, i really have no idea

Thanks and again I do apoligize for what i said a few days ago
Joemam993 (Talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC).

WP:COPYVIO. JPG-GR (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

KLHV vs KGCO

I'm not experienced enough on Wikipedia to revert your changes to the KLHV article, however KLHV is still in place in Fort Collins, according to the FCC database; and KGCO is still a station in Red Feather Lakes. See http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?call=KLHV and http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/fmq?call=KGCO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.117.1 (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what happened there (around four months ago), but I've fixed it. JPG-GR (talk) 05:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

list of elements at wt:elements

If you wold still consider working on any of the lists let me know since I wanted to do the table but I lack the will to go do it just by myself. Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Time is in short supply lately, but it's still on my (long) to-do list. JPG-GR (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

re: WP:RM

I am? I thought we only had 5 days up at a time. Thanks for letting me know, I won't do that anymore :) Parsecboy (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

re Li romans d'Alixandre

I noticed that you classified the discussion of the requested move of Li romans d'Alixandre to Roman d'Alexandre as "no consensus". I am not sure that that is entirely accurate. While there is a comment by Srnec about the confusing nature of the topic (and discussion of the French wiki link topic), there are, in fact, no comments specifically against the requested move. The Roman d'Alexandre is a particularly specialized topic that isn't likely to get a lot of wiki visits, but (as I comment in the move request) all the critical works published today on the specific text this article covers (Bernay's compilation/composition) use "Roman d'Alexandre". Must the requested move really be tabled? If the French wikipage fr:Roman d'Alexandre directs in English to the general discussion of the whole of the Alexander Romance problem, do you think an article title like "Roman d'Alexandre (work)" might be used? Or perhaps we might rename the general title "Alexander Romance texts"? - NYArtsnWords (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I interpreted Srnec's comment as somewhat of an oppose, and with no other input I felt "no consensus" was the only choice. I would recommend inquiring at any applicable Wikiprojects for more input. If you can find some, and there is support for your position, there would likely be no issue re-proposing the request and making it happen. JPG-GR (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin template

Here you go. Answer the questions and transclude when you're ready. Wizardman 03:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• deep breath* Here We Go! (plays obscure song in iTunes) JPG-GR (talk) 04:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image in the lead?

Hi, JPG-GR ! I believe that Image:QEQM 100th birthday.jpg would be perfect for this article, since it depicts the only woman who used the title of Queen Mother at the point of her life when she used the title, but many users would rather have a free-image of a woman who was never styled Queen Mother. Is it allowed to use non-free image in the lead? Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please answer my question or tell me who can answer my question? Thank you. Surtsicna (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. JPG-GR (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you once again. Surtsicna (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

I would like to vote on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship, but I dont know have many edits do I have to got to vote. On polish Wiki it's 500 in main spaces, how about en? I've not found this information yet. Could you tell me? Thanks. Andrew₁₈ ^@ 20:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you don't need a specific amount of edits to vote. Best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best wishes for your RFA -- Tinu Cherian - 13:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me tack on my hope for success in your RfA. Good luck! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Db-histmerge

Hi, I've reverted your edit to {{db-histmerge}}. The "{{{category|...}}}" markup is there for a reason: it's used to display the template on pages like Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion without categorizing them in Category:History merge for speedy deletion. Did you have a particular reason for removing it? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm more curious why the template isn't categorizing them in Category:History merge for speedy deletion, as I recall it used to. How else are articles tagged with this supposed to be categorized/found? Surely articles tagged with this template being categorized currently is more important than pages it's used to demonstrate it's display. (See Category:Main pages with misplaced talk page templates for a category/template with the same issue). JPG-GR (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Heck, the documentation even says "This template places the page in Category:History merge for speedy deletion." I have switched it back. It's not perfect, but there's no point in having the template if it doesn't even do it's intended purpose. JPG-GR (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)But it is categorizing them (or rather, it, there being only one article it's currently used on) in the category, unless it's transcluded with the parameter "category=" which disables the categorization. I'm not sure what "issue" you're talking about. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Then what would be the proper syntax to use to put pages tagged with this template in said category? It should be added to the documentation. With the {{cl}} template in place, articles tagged with that template aren't being categorized anywhere. JPG-GR (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Um... yes they are. (And what "{{cl}} template"?) We seem to be talking past each other here, but I'm not sure where the disconnect is. Is the fact that Category:History merge for speedy deletion is a hidden category perhaps confusing you? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing to me? Noooo... if I had known it was one of them. whoops. Apparently, I'm cooking some eggs here. Can I get you anything? :) JPG-GR (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, I'm just glad it's all cleared up now and that that template wasn't really broken after all. :) Anyway, I've added a note to the documentation page to hopefully reduce the confusion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Decolonization of Africa

Hi JPG-GR! I've seen you doing a lot of work at WP:Requested moves—I've been lurking there recently. I noticed that you closed the requested move, Decolonization of Africa→Decolonisation of Africa, as no consensus, and would like to ask why. It may be that I am unfamiliar with the process, but there were 5 people in support of the move and only 1 oppose (with questionable reasoning, no less). How is that construed as no consensus? Many other things get moved with less margin than that. Thanks! Maedin\^talk 06:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, so the number of supporters and opposers is irrelevant. Taking the recent discussion into account with the newer discussion and the sparse amount of supporting evidence, no consensus seemed the only option. JPG-GR (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll accept that, although I disagree that supporting evidence was sparse. Regards, Maedin\^talk 07:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM

Heya, I've re-added the requested move for Bill O'Reilly (commentator) → Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) and removed the old request that brought about a discussion that resulted in a consensus for the move. Sorry I didn't notice the old one at the bottom. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And, I've once again reverted. Re-adding the request at the top is just gonna put it through another (minimum) five-day discussion period. If consensus has been reached, there's nothing to do but wait for it to be moved. JPG-GR (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And, now it's been completed, so it's moot. JPG-GR (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

sandbox 3

Nice work! I am not 100% sure it is worth having the group and period in there since it does not add too much stuff. Also, why don't we merge the two lists so we don't end up doing stuff that the other one already did? Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

For now, hold on with the merging. I'm gonna dump the rest of the data in your table into my generator (hopefully this weekend sometime) and then mine should have all the data collected so far. JPG-GR (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Gibson move request

I guess I'm a little confused. Of the three people commenting two supported the move and the points of the person opposing it were pretty well refuted. What's the problem with making the move? Otto4711 (talk) 05:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

No evidence was provided to support your supposition that the writer was the primary topic. JPG-GR (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My move request (PUB -> Pub (disambiguation)

Is the request OK now? --Rogerb67 (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No. There is still no link to an area for discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah OK I can provide that, although when we had our last discussion and I suggested some modifications to the instructions, you said that "if the instructions are followed, no modifications to a proposal moved to the incomplete section is required"; this appears to mean that statement isn't true when uncontested proposals are moved there. --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

I'm pleased to inform you that the community has seen it fit to entrust you with the tools, and that you are now an administrator. Please read all the material on the administrators' reading list before testing out your new privileges. For instructions, please see the administrators' how-to guide. You may also want to test your new privileges at New admin school. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask me or another experienced administrator. I wish you best of luck in your future endeavors, and hope to see great things from you. bibliomaniac15 20:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. JPG-GR (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And not a day too soon. Congratulations! - I know that you'll do good things with your new tools. I'll miss doing the page move deletions for you though - made a welcome change from deleting A7 bios! Best of luck, Nancy ^talk 08:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

May I be the first to present to you the official userbox and congratulate you on your adminship. Congrats! - NeutralHomer • Talk • October 19, 2008 @ 12:31

Congrats! I've been hip-deep in article rescue all week and didn't even know you'd finally accepted a nomination for adminship. I'm only sorry I couldn't have helped push you over 100 Support !votes. - Dravecky (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Thank you! JPG-GR (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Very pleased for you, JPG-GR, congratulations! PeterSymonds (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFA. Best wishes for the future. Sorry that I was unable to attend to your bot request in time. I was busy over the weekend. Nevertheless , dont hesitate to ask me for something what my bot can do next time . -- Tinu Cherian - 07:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WGOE/WFTH

I took 99% of the information from the WGOE page and put it on the WFTH with redirects and edit summaries (like you said). Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 19, 2008 @ 18:26

WYCD

I reverted the airstaff page back to what it was before JoJo995 changed it. I think it's the user who was Joemama993. He blanked his page and I wasn't sure what happen to him. Need to report him for vandalism or something, if he's going to change it. It's reverted back to a prose.--JoeCool950 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Prose

What does it exactly mean by setting something to prose, for example with the arbitron ratings. how would you do it.

like this

Summer 2008 Arbitron Rating: #1 (5.9)

I dont really know and I am trying to figure it out.

No, the airstaff page that User: JoJo995 changed on us, I reverted it back to what Dravecky changed on WYCD that User: JoJo995 changed it to and you undid his edit because Wikipedia is not a directory. I reverted it back to the way User: Dravecky had it to, was all I was trying to say, to better explain, so that you are more aware and don't get suspicious.--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, yes i am Joemama993. The reason why i changed my account was because, I made a big idiot of myself as Joemam993, with calling you and other wikipedians screwed up. I really did not mean it, but i was mad that you guys kept getting rid of the stuff i made for the pages. So after i would ask you or someone else a question and either they would not get back to me or help. So i deceided to change everything. I don't know, what happens now that i do admit i have done the "Sock Puppetry" thing. but i am sorry. and just tryin to make the radio pages better.

Thanks User:JoJo995 (User Talk:JoJo995) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

Firstly, the posting of Arbitron ratings is likely a violation of WP:COPYVIO so converting those to prose is irrelevant. Secondly, you are best to going back to using your original username. you need to pick one username and stick to it. JPG-GR (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

NY Lottery

Thank you for this! Unschool (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No prob. JPG-GR (talk) 23:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Userpages

First off, I switched back to Joemama993 and now I have a question about the userpages. I looked at your page and it has a userbox that has information about you, like your likes and dislikes. How do you get that stuff to put on my page.

Thanks
User:Joemama993 (Talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC).

WP:UBX. JPG-GR (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad I brought to your attention

I'm glad I brought that to your attention. I think User: JoJo995 and User: Joemama993 are the same people, which is clearly vandalism. I thought I'd bring that to your attention and maybe we should watch WYCD, in case he switches it back.--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a different Joe

I wanted to let you know that I'm a different Joe, so that you're not confused. I explained myself better. I reverted the airstaff page back to how it should be and left User: JoJo995 a message. Hopefully you saw that and I left an edit summary, so that you know what I did. Hopefully that helps, so that you don't get confused. I wanted to clairfy myself. I can tell you I won't blank my user page, I know what to do, if I want to change it, which I probably won't, unless I can think of a better Username that isn't being used yet, but did want to clairfy myself that I'm not the same Joe who blanked their userpage, in case you were wondering earlier. Just wanted to make you sure you knew and give you a heads up that the airstaff page was reverted from back and it's not what User: JoJo995 put up. It's worded into a pose, how it should be.--JoeCool950 (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, User: JoJo995 wrote that I'm guessing about the prose. I thought you wrote that. He still doesn't get that.--JoeCool950 (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Just want to let you don't have to worry about me doing any Sockpuppetry. I like the one account that I have. I know what to do, if I want my username changed and know not to move it on my own. I did though read the stuff about Sockpuppetry, just because I was curious. Ignore what I wrote under where it says Prose. I thought that was you responding, when it was User: Joemama993 responding. I'm just glad you reported him. I've read how you guys want the radio pages, and will clearly make sure that they are written that way, just to let you know.--

JoeCool950 (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WLFF and WSYN

Thank you so much. I can fix the rest now.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PR Monster Page Deletion

Seeing as you nominated the pages to be deleted, I'll have to relocate each monster info to the Power Rangers wiki under their separate articles. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever it was, forward my comment to the one responsible. Feel free to help out the PR Wiki in any way you can. I'm working on Grinder right now on the PR Wiki. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the mailman. Moreover, I'm too busy working on my own site to contribute to the PR wiki. Let me know if you need any of the deleted material, though. JPG-GR (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We determine consensus through discussion, not voting.

I started a discussion section entitled "So, do we have consensus?" You closed that discussion with the comment, "We determine consensus through discussion, not voting". I'm confused. If we determine consensus through discussion, why close discussion? I realize the voting does not determine consensus, but it is traditionally a major factor (probably the major factor) in controversial move decisions. When 50 votes are involved, intermixed with comment sections of various length, in can be difficult to get a feel for where consensus lies. So a tally is helpful. In fact, every city move I am aware of in the last few years (either to "name only" or to "disambiguation", such as Cork (city), to pick a non-U.S. example from a while ago) has happened after voting and discussion in which there was still disagreement at the end. Anyway, the point could have been made without closing the discussion. Thanks. --Serge (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting has nothing to do with consensus. A discussion was going on about the consensus itself which is not only a waste of time but a distraction for people who have yet to weigh in. Let's keep the discussion to the proposal at hand and not the discussion itself. JPG-GR (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well that last sentence in particular is very compelling. Good point, and thanks for all your hard work. --Serge (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the last new person to weigh in was the one identified only by IP address from two days ago. The one before that was another day earlier. The latest "vote" (and comment) from today was from a user who already voted (and commented) about a week ago. --Serge (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So? It's kind of hard to have a discussion if people are only allowed to weigh in once. How many times have you commented in the discussion? Please extend the courtesy to discuss openly and freely to all fellow editors. JPG-GR (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who referred to "people who have yet to weigh in" which is what I meant by new persons. And who is not allowing others to weigh in? Certainly not me. But, this proposal has over 50 people who have weighed in already and is the only one (besides the arguably related Boston) in the backlog... So I'm not sure why it remains in the backlog. --Serge (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Because discussion is still ongoing. JPG-GR (talk) 06:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, discussion is still ongoing at Talk:Public house where you just closed the discussion, creating an edit conflict for someone (me) who was in the middle of posting. That proposal was created on 10/18 and closed on 10/23, literally mid-discussion. And the arguments made against that move were blatantly in violation of Wikipedia naming conventions, but they never-the-less prevailed (at least so far). Meanwhile, the U.S. city move poll has been open since 10/17 and still has not been closed, despite the consensus that clearly exists. I am confused about how you make these decisions about where discussions are "still ongoing". Thanks. --Serge (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the two move requests you have mentioned have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that (a) they are move requests (which I monitor) and (b) you are involved in both. Any attempt to compare their duration is comparing apples and oranges.

As for the discussion on Public house, only two editors have been discussing back and forth since the 19th and are no closer to a consensus than before.

As for WP:NC:CITY, the discussion is still ongoing, if for no other reason than that the proposal hasn't been closed with a result yet. JPG-GR (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Insight

Your insight and comments would be welcome on this discussion. Thank You...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 21, 2008 @ 21:13

-AM Deletions

Please add these pages to your deletions you are currently doing...

• KXGN-AM
• WAMM-AM
• WARK-AM
• WAVA-AM
• WCLG-AM
• WCMD-AM
• WCVA-AM
• WEEL-AM
• WFSP-AM
• WFTU-AM
• WHBG-AM
• WINC-AM
• WJLS-AM
• WKCY-AM
• WKCY(AM) (as a goofed up page name)
• WKQW-AM
• WLQM-AM
• WOAY-AM
• WSVG-AM
• WTFX-AM
• WTON-AM
• WYSK-AM

Thank You...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 21:00

Haha, gladly. I'm halfway doing the ones linked from the [[[### AM]] dab pages. If I don't hit all of these that way, I'll grab 'em a little later. First, a little dinner. :) JPG-GR (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! JPG-GR (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks-a-much :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 23, 2008 @ 21:28

Orphaned non-free media (Image:WKFRLogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:WKFRLogo.jpg. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Job!

RockManQ ^(talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For all of your work down at WP:Requested Moves. RockManQ ^(talk) 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo! JPG-GR (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

WETA/WFTU

Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 25, 2008 @ 15:34

Uploading An Image

Hey There, can you do me a favor and possibly upload a logo for KBWF ("95.7 The Wolf") in San Francisco. I have tryed on my computer, but when I go to click on upload image, it won't. I must be doin' something wrong. So if you have time can you please upload the logo and put it on the page.

Thank You!

Joemama993 (Talk), 17:03, October 26, 2008 UTC

List of radio stations in New Jersey

Why did you remove WNJO? I'm not familiar with the technical issues about not being fully licensed, but they are currently broadcasting on 90.3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.136.229 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[1] As soon as "Construction Permit" changes to "Licensed", it can be included in the list. JPG-GR (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper move of Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio

You moved the article to J. M. G. Le Clézio based on just one vote! except the main suggestor Vol de nuit (talk · contribs) and Yobmod (talk · contribs). The discussion for move should have been given more time and you were too hasty. I request you to remove the article to the original because I'm opposing to the move, so there would be no consensus. No consensus is automatically "no move". Regards.--Caspian blue 23:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I based nothing upon "just one vote". I don't base anything on votes, as Wikipedia is not a democracy. JPG-GR (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So what did you base for your move? You close it too hasty.--Caspian blue 00:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposal saw it's five days at WP:RM and only one person commented in the last eight. JPG-GR (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're based on democracy unlike your rationale because you're counting "toll" than the discussion there. That is called self-contradiction. The WP:RM would be reinstated since I'm gonna comment my position.--Caspian blue 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Question, why don't the article have the "move function"? --Caspian blue 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving without reply?

This is why I opposed you on your AFD. I would appreciate if you answer to my question and provide your correct explanation for the improper move. Since the RM is reinstated, I request you to move the article to the original title.--Caspian blue 03:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

And, it has been rearchived. If you don't like the results of the original discussion (which you did not participate in), I recommend creating a new proposal at WP:RM. JPG-GR (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the practical suggestion.--Caspian blue 06:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WOAA images

I don't know what tag to use... I looked and couldn't find what I am looking for... I am the author of the images... they are obsolete... and they won't be used... can you help? DMighton (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done - JPG-GR (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Koriella railway station, Victoria

You deleted Koriella railway station, Victoria as a copyvio, which it was. If you could restore the article and replace the copyvio sentence with the following one (but keep the infobox and categories), I think the article will be fine.

'''Koriella''' is a former railway station in [[Koriella, Victoria|Koriella]], [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]], [[Australia]].

Many thanks. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that would assert the subject's notability to the extent that it would warrant an article. JPG-GR (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding is that all railway stations are considered notable, in the same way that towns or elected politicians at the state/provincial or national level are. -- Eastmain (talk) 06:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That may very well be true (not familiar with that particular area of knowledge), but a former railway station? *shrug* JPG-GR (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

LA Direct Models

Hi. May I ask why you speedy deleted LA Direct Models? Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it was tagged A7, didn't assert its notability, and a previous deletion tends to support both. JPG-GR (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The article had links to two pieces of reliable, substantial, independent coverage, which I believe asserts notability per WP:N. Epbr123 (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the article. Sorry about that. JPG-GR (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hafiz Tasadduque Husain

I feel there is origin to each information in the globe, someone needs to originate about something. The person about whome I have made an entry for origination, is significant as he can be a benchmark for community as a parent as a teacher. I am very much hopefull that other people from that town will pour relevant information, once they see this article on wikipedia. Rest depends on you as you are now the judge of moment.(Abdullahta (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC))

AVIF (ABLe Volunteers International Fund)

AVIF is important as it is a strictly networking and opportunity-providing organisation, strictly 100% donation. We rely on the internet to operate, make no income, totally voluntary. We would appreciate being allowed an entry to aid our reach. Ablevolunteers (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Page was originally deleted over a year ago but I was not informed or I would have contested, is there no notification system for wikipedia ? Ablevolunteers (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You will want to read Wikipedia:Notability before you proceed. JPG-GR (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

:Please Google AVIF for all reliable notability. I quote "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article".
DEA [2]
Photographic notability of volunteers on Flickr [3]
One Climate [4]
Personal notability as Founder Trustee for transparency [5]
LinkedIn profile[6]
Main network on FaceBook [7]
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
Many thanks for your cooperation Ablevolunteers (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Try putting that in the article rather than on my talkpage. JPG-GR (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

raja1020

What was the reason to take down alleged haunted places in ohio i put the hangon template. Did you even read the post I made on the disscotion page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja1020 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It was devoid of encyclopedic content. Try creating an article in your userspace first and then move it to the article space. JPG-GR (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gratitude + 2nd person singular

Thanks for my first barnstar! It's always nice to feel appreciated!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha, well done with the response. :) JPG-GR (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

dafko

Hello, You deleted the entry for "Barrow Area Information Database" under 'blatant copyright infringement' and I wanted to let you know that the page has the content release clause ("I, <NAME> am the author...") on the front page (hidden via CSS) and was wondering if it was OK if I submitted the entry once more? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafko (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Daniel O'Donnell (singer)

Hi,

You've declined the speedy on this page as an "invalid CSD". I don't understand how putting a {{db-move}} on a copy-paste page move is an invalid application of G6. Can you correct this by deleting the page and moving Daniel O'Donnell (Irish singer) to that title? Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Invalid because you didn't specify why it was a CSD G6 - how was one suposed to know it was a copy/paste move? JPG-GR (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I goofed and missed the parameter from the template, but the edit summary was "speedy for incorrect page move" and the history indicates that it sprang fully-formed from one edit. So how's about that move? :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw the history and assumed it was a copy/paste move, but still wasn't sure where the original article is. JPG-GR (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. I'll try to be more careful in pointing out the context in future. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. JPG-GR (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

dafko

Hello, You deleted the entry for "Barrow Area Information Database" under 'blatant copyright infringement' and I wanted to let you know that the page has the content release clause ("I, <NAME> am the author...") on the front page (hidden via CSS) and was wondering if it was OK if I submitted the entry once more? Thanks Dafko (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Artisian

Hello

Please can you explain why you deleted the entry for the band Artisian? It states that "Expired PROD, concern was: No reliable sources, no significant coverage, no releases on a notable label" but this band are still selling albums, still gigging and will be undertaking one tour with Napalm Death and another with Gorgoroth later this month. They have undertaken TV and radio interview both in the UK and in Europe and therefore, i see no reason why this page should have been deleted.

Chamsysclare Chamsysclare (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

As the prod stated, "No reliable sources, no significant coverage, no releases on a notable label." JPG-GR (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I would have thought - 3 albums on general release on 3 notable labels, Copro, Infernus Rex and Grindethic, all well known on the extreme metal world and touring Europe with 3 of the largest bands in the black metal genre DOES actually constitute - a reliable sources, with significant coverage, and releases on a notable label. who is this guy to remove an active band from this site anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.125.94 (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Move proposal

Hello, I think I fixed the move proposal. Please let me know if you feel it's still incomplete. Thank you. --Lanternix (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No obligation to list at WP:RM

Hi there, you've just removed two move banners as they weren't listed at WP:RM. That page clearly states that there is no obligation to list there (in the intro section). I was planning to gauge the consensus first, then complete the final step of listing at RM. Hence I've undone your edits. The-Pope (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that there is no obligation to log any move proposals at WP:RM. However, {{move}} catalogs all WP:RM move requests in a maintenance category. Long story short - no, you don't have to list proposals at WP:RM, but you do if you're using that template. JPG-GR (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WPGC-AM/WHFS

Please tell you meshed the history of WHFS into the WPGC-AM page before deleting. If you didn't, could you undelete the old WHFS for a moment so I may copy that information and mesh it into the new page myself. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 11, 2008 @ 06:51

• Disaster averted: The WHFS history was moved to WJZ-FM. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 11, 2008 @ 07:46

The only move I made was a speedy request which over a redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 07:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WBTK

Why was WBTK "de-stubbed"? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 12, 2008 @ 06:37

Because it's not a stub. JPG-GR (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I view all articles as stubs, all can be added to. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 12, 2008 @ 06:40

Then you should probably read WP:STUB. JPG-GR (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I said I view all articles as stubs, I didn't say they are all stubs. I understand what a stub is, I just expanded the definition a little. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 12, 2008 @ 06:43

Your "view" of what a stub is is irrelevant versus what articles are stubs and get tagged with {{stub}} tags. JPG-GR (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a whole "thing" about stubs. I asked why, you said, I told you about my "view of stubs" (which I understand the "correct" definition of stubs) and that was it. No need to start a whole thing and tell me my views are "irrelevant". OK? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 12, 2008 @ 06:50

No need to keep replying then, hmm? JPG-GR (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUSW

Your input would be appericated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 13, 2008 @ 02:05

Invalid CSD

Can you tell me why the CSD for Gangster Two Six is invalid? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion ongoing

I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Discussion ongoing that I'd like your response to. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WAVO

WAVO (AM) should not redirect to WHVN. The two stations simulcast for years and do not simulcast now. I fixed it.

I had a scare. Somewhere I got the idea that WAVO was another station's article. Anyway, I fixed the problem.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Betacommand

You have a point, it could, but I meant it as a question. I think Beta is using his on interpretation of the rule cloud what Mike Godwin has said about image galleries. Even A Man In Black backed off his mass deletions and you remember how many people that upset. You have a point and I will be sure to phrase my questions better, but it was meant as a question not to "point with a stick". - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 23, 2008 @ 03:23

?

I did not see anything wrong on my comment with this diff that you liked. Before commenting something to me, please check first. Besides, you missed a lot of personal attacks from the other. i don't know why you're doing this. Are you checking on my contributions?--Caspian blue 15:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Then, perhaps you should re-read WP:NPA. That comment is completely unwarranted and has nothing to do with content - you are attacking the contributor, even if you're trying to do it in a way that you hope no one notices. JPG-GR (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I reconfirm your judgment in your above comment after your previous absurd RM. Why don't you acknowledge WP:NPA before completely unwarranted lecturing? Several people said to Tenmei with the similar comment as me[8] and it is not what you think is. That is a simple fact. Please do not make a false WP:POINT. The person made a hoax report on me that I "hijacked the RFC" and he still makes various personal attacks on the page, but you picked up the fact that you want to falsely accuse of. Besides, falsely accusing others constitutes harassment. Please get over the RFA.--Caspian blue 21:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Barring the fact that I cannot comprehend half of your comment (RM = WP:RM?), your comment was still a comment on an editor, rather than on their contributions. I'd recommend that you stick to editing the encyclopedia. JPG-GR (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't understand your point and accusation at all. My comment has nothing to do with your narrowed definition. Please re-read WP:NPA and stick to five pillars of Wikipedia. --Caspian blue 21:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it's impolite to edit your comments after they've been replied to - it has the potential for more confusion in the future. Secondly, if you don't see your comment as being a violation of WP:NPA, perhaps you should stop recommending others read it before you re-read it. Finally, to which RfA are you referring? Regardless, you've already blown what was a simple recommendation way out of proportion, so I consider this subject closed. JPG-GR (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Move request of TS Michelangelo and TS Raffaello

About these page moves I requested... I had misplaced them under the wrong heading on the requested moves page; I should have placed them under "uncontroversial proposals", but got confused due to the fact no (other) proposals were listed in that section. As far as I can see these is no possible controversy attached to the move proposals. Therefore, would it be possible to retroactively move them under uncontroversial, or do we have to go though all the moves because of my oversight? Thanks in advance. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as no one has opposed them so far, that should be ok. JPG-GR (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. — Kjet (talk · contribs) 10:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A7 Deletion

Please send me a copy of the deleted page or it's text.

Additionally, please kindly explain to us why you have felt it necessary to delete the Bought Record Page.

Bought Records looked to Sparrow Records page as an example of how to do a page correctly. It was very similiar yet it was deleted. Kindly explain.

Mark Evans Publicity Coordinator Bought Records, LLC [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msevans7 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete move request

Could you explain how the William H. Dieterich (senator) move request is incomplete? -Rrius (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If the problem was "create a place to discuss", the real problem was that I initially plugged the article names into the template backwards. That meant the (discuss) link pointed to the redirect instead of the real article talk. I have now corrected that. If that was the problem, can you move it back to the "Other proposals" list, please? -Rrius (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and will do. JPG-GR (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi there,

Can you please help delete the following copyrighted images:

• Image:Matipus Indians.jpg
• Image:Kalapalo Indians.jpg
• Image:Xingu people.jpg ‎
• Image:Índios Yawalapitis.jpg
• Image:Kuarup Xingu.jpg
• Image:Kamayura.jpg
• Image:Trumai.jpg

Thankyou. --Amazonien (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, if you complete the speedy templates. JPG-GR (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify for me

I tagged the image for speedy deletion under CSD 16 but you rightly pointed out that it needs to be tagged for 7 days first. But tagged with what? Have I used the correct tag now? — Realist² 23:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that appears to be the correct one. JPG-GR (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, I'm just confused now. What is the point of CSD 16 then? If the tag I've just used will delete it in 7 days time anyway, why would I then need to add a CSD 16? The rule seems to be, tag the article, and wait 7 days for it to be deleted. I don't understand the benefit of CSD 16 since your not allowed to use it until 7 days after the other tag (by which point it will be deleted anyway). Sorry, I'm really getting into images at the moment, since it is a legal system of it's own almost, I'm just trying to understand. — Realist² 23:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert - I just know that the I6 tag puts it in a category which isn't time-dependent, so the phrasing of it implies that it's not appropriate until the 7 day period has passed. Perhaps in events of extreme image backlog? *shrug* JPG-GR (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's no biggy, just interested to know, for the fruits of my own knowledge. :-) — Realist² 00:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:ADpilot.JPG

Concerning your non-deletion of this image, what is "NFUR presnt" supposed to mean. I wasn't claiming there was no rationale. The rationale is generic and doesn't concern itself with the specific image or article. That is a clear violation of policy. "intended to represent the nature of the show" and "important to show the characters" are not sufficient as they give no indication as to why the text of the article cannot adequately present this information. Jay32183 (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It's no worse than a few hundred I've seen. Re-tag it if you like. JPG-GR (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of bad ones out there. I'm trying to tag them slowly as to not overwhelm admins or make a particular user feel targeted. Jay32183 (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation

Hi JPG-GR, isn't the norm for a term that could have multiple meanings to point the term to the disambiguation page? I'm refering to the WCAR page which you have pointed back to the radio station. If I'm mising something, please explain. Thanks Oboler (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC).

Primary usage trumps multiple meanings. Either way, you changed it so that WCAR redirected to a dab page rather than was one and then dab'd WCAR (the radio station) with an incorrect disambiguator. I just restored everything. JPG-GR (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Weymouth page move discussion

Hi. You recently closed a discussion, a request to reverse a move that had been made without discussion, as no consensus. I find that worrying, as it would seem to encourage editors to make potentially controversial moves without discussion, as the move would thus be more likely to stick. Kanguole (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No consensus is no consensus, regardless of the greater picture. JPG-GR (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:BannerShell

Hi! You deleted Template:BannerShell but I notice there is still a lot of documentation which refers to this template. If it is depreciated perhaps you (or the person who requested deletion) could update all the documentation? Thanks, MSGJ 19:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance implies otherwise. If you have some specifics, let me know. JPG-GR (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Move request

I guess I listed this move request in the wrong place. Can you please help me out and place it in the correct section for Uncontested moves? Thanks in advance. — 21:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for Wikipedia:RM#Uncontroversial proposals. JPG-GR (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey

When you're closing things at TfD or elsewhere, make sure that if you delete the template, to delete its talk page as well, since it's now unnecessary. Keep up the good work. Wizardman 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it I missed a couple? JPG-GR (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, back on the 15th. I got them though, it's no big deal. Wizardman 21:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I usually get them (as far as I know), but if I'm the middle of multiples (multi-tab browsing = win), some do get missed. :-/ JPG-GR (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ultramagnetic MC's move

Hi JPG-GR! First off, my apologies. I'm not familiar with the guide lines on moving pages. Second, if I did do something wrong there, could you point it out? I thought my proposal wasn't controversial, and any arguments raised were swiftly put aside with proof. The following is the discussion:

• Ultramagnetic MCs → Ultramagnetic MC's — There is supposed to be a apostrophe between MC and the letter "s": MC's, not MCs — Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Contested - Since the article is entirely unreferenced, it's hard to say in this case, but standard English does not require an apostrophe. --DAJF (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

http://images.google.nl/images?hl=nl&q=ultramagnetic+mc%27s&gbv=2 --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from google.nl; the rules for apostrophes are different in Dutch. Sam⁵ (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Haha! It is still the same album cover. But alright, I suppose I should come up with some sources:

• http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/ultramagneticmcs/
• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=ULTRAMAGNETIC%7CMC\\'S&sql=11:a9fixqe5ldae~T0 --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 23:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• I support the move, as the sources mentioned above justify the move. And plus that's how it is usually written on their album covers. — Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• I support this ungrammatical move. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• It is not ungrammatical. Sometimes an apostrophe is okay, especially when the thing being made plural is an initialism or ends in a numeral (e.g., Old 97's). -Rrius (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that DAJF and SamSamSamSam were both proven wrong: the group's name is Ultramagnetic MC's per RollingStone.com and AllMusic.com and every single album cover ([9]). It has nothing to do with Dutch language rules or the Dutch version of Google.

I hope the move can be finally put trough, without the regular Wikipedia bureaucracy. I don't care much for the group, but I do care about correct Wiki article titles! Kind regards, --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It has twice been proven now that this is not an uncontroversial move. It's going to have to go through the five-day process as outlined at WP:RM. JPG-GR (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, JPG-GR, explain what is "controversial" about this move. I don't see anything controversial, and by the sources that I've produced, it is proven that the name is written with an apostroph, and no other way. Should DAJF and Sam x 5 return to the topic proclaim they are convinced? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 18:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that people disagree with your proposal makes it quite clear that it is controversial, no matter who's side may or may not be right. JPG-GR (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay... But what about WP:DEMOCRACY? Aren't arguments weighed against each other, not votes? And the two Wikipedians who did disagree, I came up with evidence for my proposal, would that still make it "controversial"? So if I understand you correctly, if I would go ask DAJF and Sam x 5 to take another look at the discussion and they just might reconsider, everything would be okay, and uncontroversial? Man, moving a page is a lot of work!

And just to make things clear: I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just point to what's right. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 20:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know - I didn't read the discussion, as discussion isn't supposed to happen on the WP:RM page itself - regular contributors to an article do not read random other pages if they are not notified to contribute, which is why the move can only be called controversial when there's a disagreement until the proper procedure is done to see what the general editing public has to say. JPG-GR (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Evac-cybertron.jpg

I gave a completely valid justification. Why did you delete it? Mathewignash (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The large watermark on the image clearly shows that the image is replaceable. JPG-GR (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get one without a watermark. Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:speedy deletion tagging of One Story the movie

If you check the target article and the AfD, you will see that the author of the article has requested that it be deleted, and all other users participating are in favor of deletion. That is why I tagged the redirects for speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

In the future, it is best if you actually point out where the creator of an article specifies that they want something directed. JPG-GR (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you check my deleted contribs, you will see that I did just that when I CSD'ed the target article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure 'nuff - must've missed it. Sorry. JPG-GR (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, when you become perfect, let me know how you did it so I can follow suit... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OPEN Forum entry deletion

I'm new to creating pages on Wikipedia. How can I request that OPEN Forum (www.openforum.com) be added to Wikipedia? I tried to add it myself and started with copy from a press release and began to edit off of that, but the entry was deleted before I would complete it. Can you help me with this? After the page is live, I can direct other contributors to the entry to edit. Thanks for your help.

You will probably want to read WP:NOTABLE. JPG-GR (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Hi. With regard to the requested move at Talk:Security belt of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. You closed the discussion as "No consensus and Stale". But there's no consensus for the present title as well, as many people opposed it. Could you please advise what can be done to further contest the title and maybe get more third party people involved in resolution of the dispute over the title? Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No consensus defaults to no move, so there's nothing immediate to do. You can try opening a Request for Comment - though those have varying amounts of success in the area of article naming.

Just because the discussion was marked closed doesn't mean the discussion can't (or even shouldn't) continue. Eventually, it's possible that a consensus will develop. At that point, re-list at WP:RM and hope for the best. JPG-GR (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But can I place a tag to indicate that the title is disputed? Grandmaster (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If such a tag exists, sure. JPG-GR (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Thank you for doing that. MegX (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. JPG-GR (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

List of The Biggest Loser Contestants

I've noticed this page has been deleted - is there a way I can retrieve the original content of the page as I put a lot of hours into compiling the information. To me the information also represented on individual articles was a variation and compilation of lists to allow comparison between various seasons and national variations. This can not be achieved through separate articles. I'm disappointed that the article has been removed and I wasn't able to contribute to discussion but would at least like to have a copy of the article content for my own records. Peter (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you like it in wiki-format or HTML-format? JPG-GR (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You removed a template without looking at it's (in my opinion valid) context.

I put a {{move|NewName}} template in <noinclude> tags on a talk page, the purpose being to visually demonstrate to a user the template used in requesting a move (which I have since proposed). You deleted it before he could even see it (yes I know it's in history, but you left no indication on the page as to the removal creating confusion) - please examine context before deleting. - ^olucid^eer 23:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting a template in <noinclude> tags does not have the effect you have implied it should. Moreover, doing so improperly categorized the page. JPG-GR (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my error in that case. I was assuming that based on this that the <noinclude> tags could be used to prevent category inclusion. For example: many people have created user namespace boxes which include the user in a category (for example "This user is a deletionist/inclusionist" etc.). One can place such a userbox on your userpage and preclude your categorisation with <noinclude> tags. So it easy to assume that this would work for any template in any namespace. Obviously it doesn't, and I thank you for highlighting this for me as I would have done this in future had you not. I can not find this noted in documentation though. - ^olucid^eer 19:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.222.39 (talk)

Pri-Med, can we discuss protection put on it?

Hi, I noticed that my entry, Pri-Med, was recently protected because it had been created so many times. I have been working on the entry for a while and even with the "hangon" message, it continues to get deleted. Therefore I posted it several times to continue the conversion with the admin I was working with to get the submission right. Is there any way the page could come back? Or could you give me guidance on how to fix it. I have revised copy that I'd like to put up; maybe you could check it out for me? It is posted on my user page. Thanks. Elisa17 (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend discussing that with the admin you were working with. If they want to unsalt it, I'd have no problem with it. JPG-GR (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Jones

Hi, I wonder if you could restore Emperor Jones. I have found a good source to establish notability (see The Austin Chronicle). Thanks Tassedethe (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done - JPG-GR (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion: Te Waka Wind Farm

Hi, can you please explain why you deleted Te Waka Wind Farm? It is annotated "Wikipedia:CSD#G11 blatant advertising". The article is part of a series on the Electricity sector in New Zealand energy industry. See the List of power stations in New Zealand and Wind power in New Zealand. Articles on other power stations are accepted as valid for Wikipedia (see Category:Power stations by country). Why do you consider this particular wind farm should be classified as advertising, while all those others are not? --Pakaraki (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the article. JPG-GR (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the article. It would help me to understand why the article was deleted in the first place. Was there something in the article that was inappropriate? Or was something missing that needed to be there? I support the Wikipedia principles on advertising, but don't see how this article would be advertising. (I have no personal involvement in this project, or with the companies developing it.) --Pakaraki (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to ask whomever tagged it for speedy. When I came across it, it seemed an appropriate call - but then again the speedy request in the first place can shade that view. JPG-GR (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David^WS _(contribs) 19:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jean Deleage

Hi - I noticed you deleted the article on Jean Deleage. I was not involved with the original authoring or editing of the page but have been working on related articles and wanted to see if you could restore the original text in my user space for improvement as he is the founder of three notable venture capital firms over the last four decades. Thanks |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't much content. Here are the reference links, though: [10] and [11]. JPG-GR (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

CSD Henry A. Sojor

Hi. It's possible there was an error in the tagging of this CSD. However, this article has been introduced and deleted several times, as: Henry A. Sojor, Henry a sojor and others. If you view the history, and the user's talk page, you'll notice this user was just blocked 2 days ago for introducing multiple copies of this article. Best regards, and sorry about the incorrect CSD tag. --OliverTwisted 06:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

G4 applies to articles that are recreated after being deleted via a deletion discussion. As no discussion was linked or readily apparently, the speedy request is invalid. JPG-GR (talk) 07:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

List of European countries

Greetings,

There is an WP:EW on at this article, of which I am in one side of. The issue is that the original state of the article was changed by User:Rownon. After reverting with explanation and further clarification in the talk page and additional information in the article, several undo/reversions have occurred. I would like to discuss the disputed issue in a civilised manner, but it seems that some personal attacks have been levied against me. Also, accusations against me and my neutral WP:POV have damaged my reputation as an editor. While I don't agree with the reasoning behind User:Rownon's edits, I am not against having a discussion about it, but I feel as though I have presented a legitimate case against User:Rownon's edits and User:Rownon has not made a good faith effort to explain his argument to retain the initial edit. I am obviously protective of the article's content, but I am also open to modification if discussion proves my information incorrect.

Can you please moderate the discussion? Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to give my 2c. My reason for editing is simple. With this very reliable source (CIA World Fact Book, there's more if you need it) it declares that there is no long form name of the country Ireland. I edited to say none as per facts with a footnote saying the term Republic of Ireland was a description and was not recognized as a name (again per all the facts). But theeuro reverted all changes with pretty much no discussion as if he/she owned the article. The euro's edit is factually incorrect and the editor has given no good reason why the page should mislead readers with wrong information other than saying 'it was there before' as a reason.Rownon (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rownon's 2c is not worth much since it is formed of mostly lies and half-truths. My citation is from the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland. Rownon's is from the United States CIA. Given that this issue pertains to Ireland, it stands to reason that my citation has more pertinence to the discussion. Rownon did edit the article. However, after reverting it, I provided an argument for the reason why I thought it should not be the way Rownon edited it. Rownon did not discuss anything and instead attacked me in both the edit summary of the article itself and the discussion page, rather than provide an argument for the reason he edited the article. That Rownon continually accuses me of owning the article and Rownon claims to be factually correct while providing one citation, while the edit I provided has four citations proves that Rownon is not acting in good faith. While Rownon claims that I have not 'given [a] good reason' for my reversion, it is wholly untrue as evidenced by the article's talk page. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 02:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What am I? The randomly selected admin to take a look? JPG-GR (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I'll take my request for impartial admin mediation elsewhere. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 02:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A Favor

Could you please delete the redirect page WAMM AM? Someone mistakenly moved radio station page WAMM to WAMM AM (since has been reverted and moved back to where it belongs) but the redirect remains. If you could, I would appreciate it. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 19, 2008 @ 02:08

Improper Page Move

Hi there, I noticed that you are an administrator at WP:Request move. I need some help on how to deal with a page move that I consider controversial, but that was made without observing the proper protocols. The page is Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE (which until two days ago was named Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore). The page is a sub-article of the FA Kingdom of Mysore, which is currently in FAR. I tried to revert the page move, and simultaneously start a discussion on the talk page, but but the two primary authors of the article, user:Dineshkannambadi and user:Sarvagnya, reverted both my move and the evidence (for controversy) that I tried to adduce on the talk page (see page history and talk page history). Since I subscribe to 1RR, I did not revert the reverts. All this, however, led another editor, user:Docku, to take the issue to AN/I. Please see my first post in the AN/I discussion for a summary of the page move. Please also read my posts on Talk:Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE about the matter. Neither author has responded to those posts, nor have they responded to my post about the issue in the FAR itself. See my last post (Fowler&fowler post 12 at the bottom of the discussion). In my view the page name should be reverted to its previous page name and then a proper move should be requested and concurrent discussion conducted. Please advise me on how to proceed. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

When all else fails, propose as such at WP:RM (being sure to follow the procedure as listed). A greater community consensus usually solves things like this. JPG-GR (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently all else is failing. The two primary authors have been completely unresponsive on the article talk page. So, how should I proceed at WP:RM? Should I first simply move (using the "move" tab up top) the page name back to its previous name, and then request their move to Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE and create a section for discussion? Or, should I request a move to the previous page name? The latter, of course, puts me at a great disadvantage, since the perpetrators of the first move only needed to press a button to wreak their damage, whereas I face the prospects of wading through much discussion to even begin to undo it. I should add that my main interest is in the "mother article," Kingdom of Mysore, which is in WP:FAR, not in this article.

Can't you, as a presiding admin at RM, simply revert the page name back to its previous name, and request the primary authors to observe the proper protocol? I've seen other admins do the same on many occasions on other Wikipedia pages. (Please see the article talk page for the controversy.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD tells me you should move it back and then follow the WP:RM procedure. JPG-GR (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Have done so now. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

WXPT/WUPF

Is it possible to a history merge with these 2 pages? Really both have some edit history although WXPT is the older article for the same station. Thanks. RobDe68 (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was a real b!@$%, but  Done - JPG-GR (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia talk:CactusWriter's Awards, you will be blocked from editing. 68.34.4.143 (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. JPG-GR (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that really takes a practice. Merry Christmas! 68.34.4.143 (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

State-By-State Templates on ANI

I replied to your posts. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 22, 2008 @ 07:09

.476

I've been keeping those so I can just paste to any new page on the same subject without having to search. I can it, if that'll take it off your list. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 20:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:Main pages with misplaced talk page templates

I cleaned up what you requested. If there's something I missed, feel free to clean it up. --Son (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, if that's okay...

Dravecky (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas

Neutralhomer is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!

Joemama993 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Indian states move

Thanks for messaging me, but the templatised message was most unuseful and unhelpful. It does not mention why it was incomplete. So here goes:

1. Step 1: Add move template to talk page Enter {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page ---- Done here: Diff
2. Step 2: Create a place for discussion: {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} ---- Done here: Diff
3. Step 3: Add the request to the "Other proposals" list on this page {{subst:RMlink|PageName|reason for move}} ---- Done here: Diff
4. 4: On Talk:Page B, add {{multimove|Page E|Talk:Page A}} to the top. ---- Done here: diff

So, as far as I know, I have done it correctly. Could you please be more specific as to what is incomplete? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You did not follow step 3 correctly, as you did not utilize the proper template as noted - there is no link to an area for discussion. JPG-GR (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've fixed it now, but how did the issue happen? =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, you did not utilize the proper template as noted. JPG-GR (talk) 16:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Conversion (law)

Do be careful when you're restoring pages! You got the wrong version on Conversion (law). :) Wikidea 18:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored the proper version. It is you that caused the original ordeal with that cut/paste move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me...

but Editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Nickelodeon/Newsletter/Template was not meant to have "Editing" at the front. Can you please give me the source code somehow? Thanks! -phobia don't be afraid to drop a line! 23:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored and moved it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Nickelodeon/Newsletter/Template. JPG-GR (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee one

Please tell me why that is incomplete? If you are referring to step 3, then that is only a suggestion as long as it is clear on the page where the discussion is taking place. I'm moving it back to controversial. Simply south not SS, sorry 20:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The request you followed links to a section that does not exist, ergo there is no section for discussion, ergo the proposal is incomplete. JPG-GR (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism tag removal?

You deleted the "cherry-picking" tag without explanation, while one editor is locked out due to the ... erm... "intensity" of concern over the article. I am restoring the flag. While I am sure you have excellent reason for pulling it, I think that due to the contentious nature of the article, it would be better to have an edit summary. I see, the template has been deleted. I will note that on the talk page. I read your note as "deleted template", then on reverting note saw that it was "rm" on the deleted template. Sorry. *blush*sinneed (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. JPG-GR (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Vote templates

You deleted these pages citing as the result of a delete discussion. Where is that discussion? There is no deletion log that shows these were deleted before either. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_12#Template:Keep - JPG-GR (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Just guessing here, but shouldn't the ones at Category:Polling templates be deleted as well - at least the non-userfied ones, all of the ones under "T"? And ultimately, the category itself deleted since it will then only be populated with 1 user's own vote templates? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to WP:TFD. JPG-GR (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Histmerge on mm'-type filter

Can I please ask you to reconsider your decline to merge this artilce here. Saying they were edited in parallel is a bit of a stretch. There is only one edit that overlaps, consisting of a single letter - not even a whole word. The article was only ever created as a placeholder to stop links in other articles getting deleted, the real article was built in my userspace. The placeholder stub is 288 words and a simple copy of a piece of another article at that. The new article is 1800 words of new material.

There is only one edit in the history of the pasted material that overlaps, and that is the creation of the page in userspace. If you were to merge in all edits except for that first one there would not be a difficulty would there? SpinningSpark 04:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - JPG-GR (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoh! that was quick. Thanks. SpinningSpark 04:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WPPJ

I answered your comment here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 31, 2008 @ 04:20

re RM zero sum

Hi, I was a bit late getting the article talkpage items done, but I think I had done all 3 steps of the RM. I'd be glad to take whichever step I missed if I had in faact skipped one. Best regards. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no link pointing to the area of discussion in the proposal at WP:RM. JPG-GR (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)