This is an archive of past discussions with User:DUCKISJAMMMY, for the period of 2013. 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.
I wouldn't have thought so. In any case, I don't think you'd be violating 3RR for reverting infobox stats changes, since you're maintaining established convention. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
List of FC Seoul transfers
Don't Delete - Individual clubs transfer list is also notable. Not notable is just Cloudz679's opinion. I don' understant why do you delet detailed article? Transfer list By nation or Transfer list By club are both informative. As yo u Know I invest much time to write this article. But you want to delete by just your private opinion. private opionion was just 3-4 lines to write 1-2 minites. I really have spectisism on wikipedia. I crated andm improve this article 3 years. But this article can delete by just 2 person's private opinion to write 2 minites. In this manner Who contribute articles on wikepdia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Demba Ba Goals
I don't know why you keep reverting his senior career goals for Chelsea. Am I supposed to put a cite near the appearances and goals or something, because I'm pretty sure my information is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeInChina125 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a quick question I was hoping you could help me with. On which sub type (ex:business, academics etc...) are doctors placed on the People related discussions? Or do they just get placed on the people list?--Cameron11598(Converse)01:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Weird one but cant see how it can be a loan if has been released, think the first article has to be the accurate one. When doing the season articles i noticed he was with Elgin but never saw an official announcement.BletheringScot18:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Livingston did do something similar but they made it clear he would only be released on return from loan. The first source clearly says release, had previous loans but now signed emergency short term deal. That along with the BBC, SKY and other saying released to me comes down to quality of sources. Ive tweeted him as it encourages my curiosity.BletheringScot19:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
On another note BBC are back to form and are fixing errors. There is a new live score fixture option which I've used for match reports and they fix.BletheringScot19:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The three articles you mentioned above were BUNDLED with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in Canada we do this when there is a number of related articles, all of which the nominator (me) thinks should be deleted. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion instead of having 4 separate discussions. So in answer to your question you were purposely directed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in Canada as there is only one discussion for them all. If you read the top of above AfD it says "I am also nominating the following related pages" with them 3 listed. This is standard practise and in answer to the second part of your question were you said "you couldn't vote to delete these as well because you couldn't find the individual entries" you already have as you stated delete all here. You may want to read WP:BUNDLE Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation - Although I can understand the benefits of "bundling", I think how it is currently handled is extremely misleading.
Under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Regular Show in Canada You state "I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:-" but nowhere does it state that these have been "bundled" into that proposal, so that a vote for/against "Canada" is also for/against "Latin America", "Australia" and "Asia Pacific".
Similarly - the average reader of "Latin America" being diverted to "Canada" without any explanation, is likely to have the same response as me - "I'm in the wrong place, where is the deletion discussion I have come to read/comment on".
As I said it's standard practice, here are other examples not by me Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Sittauer & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ara-e Gharb Kermanshah F.C. if you go to Lindsay Elston and click this article's entry you are directed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Sittauer. You say nowhere does it state that these have been bundled into that proposal but it does directly under "I am also nominating the following related pages" (which meanings the same as bundled) the three "Latin America", "Australia" and "Asia Pacific" are listed. That's why everyone stated delete all, I've never seen anyone confused over something being bundled, creating a bundle yes but not the actual bundle itself. You said you couldn't see the benefit of bundling, why have four separate discussions on essentially the same thing or in this case 22 separate discussions. If there was one of the four articles which editors thought was notable they would simply vote Keep such and such and Delete the rest which often happens just not in this particular AfD as all the articles are useless. I've explained as best I can your issue seems to be with BUNDLING as whole as you find it misleading rather then my nomination itself as it was created correctly per the instructions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
NO, I did not say I "couldn't see the benefit of bundling", I specifically stated "I can understand the benefits of "bundling"". Please do not try to misrepresent what I said. I am not accusing you of not following the instructions, but the statement "I am also nominating the following related pages" does not "meanings(sic) the same as bundled". it means you are "also nominating the following pages" - you do not say where; here, there or somewhere else - I assumed they were nominated elsewhere, so went to look for them. Arjayay (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
No point in arguing over semantics (see, understand), I outlined why it's beneficial. Nor was I insinuating you felt I didn't follow instructions. We seem to be starting to go in circles, you just asked above where; here, there, it's in the very same discussion I don't know what you can't comprehend, did you look at the other examples I provided? ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you'll understand it put this way: What I should have said above is "I am also nominating the following related pages" is an indication of bundling and the pages directly below are the ones that have been bundled, the deletion discussion is where all 4 are to be discussed as they are pretty much the same, nobody however went into individual comment as there all non notable so they simply stated delete all. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thanks for catching that I missed to put AFD info on Sara Claire & Esther nom! I notice that you do a LOT of AFD sorting - how on earth do you keep tabs of it all?
Hi Duck, thanks but I'm afraid I just don't have the time these days for a lot of editing on Wikipedia. I just saw a few errors on some Celtic pages so thought I'd fix them. I might do a few smaller things but won't be able to do a lot. Anyway thanks, see you around. Adam4267 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Season articles
Hi. I know you are trying to back off from the season articles but I was wondering if you think you might be able to do a few of the spl ones. Just going to struggle to do them all over the weekend. BletheringScot10:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
If a player was returned to the parent club after a loan ended and then returned again later that would be a new loan deal and should be listed twice. What do you think?BletheringScot14:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh i know its not an extension, Alloa make it pretty clear he went back to Aberdeen. Same with Paul Dummett if he returns as has played for Newcastle. As for that diff it was nearly two years ago so no chance of remembering.BletheringScot17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Also you haven't seen a source for Jonathan Tiffoney joining Alloa have you? The only thing ive seen is his picture on the front page of their website[1] saying new signing Jonathan Tiffoney but cant see an article backing it up.BletheringScot17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
As he has self-identified as 'Irish' (Eire) by expressing a desire to play for them, I'd say that is the correct flag to use. However, what do RS say? If they say NI then we go with that. GiantSnowman09:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
That's time-consuming :) Perhaps I'll write/rewrite some sort of tool sometime... Maybe. If I do I'll let you know. Thanks again for helping at AfD. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?)01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
If you're using Vector, it's in the box with "Help", "About Wikipedia", "Community Portal" etc. about 10 links below the logo. It does not appear in the dropdown menu. However, I can set it up to do that. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?)17:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Based on your edits to several delsort pages, I gathered that you might creating some sort of script to help in deletion sorting. If you do, please let me know, as I'd be interested in using it to help out. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
DUCKISJAMMY: Is there any way for me to get a list of the most commonly used delsort categories? I'd like to add smaller links that delsort to those categories without having to type the name. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?)21:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Im assuming I've taken it from soccerbase iniitally and not double checked it, and then just added the results each week which have caused the error. Its illogical and incorrect to say that they didn't win so I've corrected it. BletheringScot20:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the basis is for some of the delsorting you did here. It looks like you may have missed the note up at the top that the previous AFD was about a different person of the same name. You may want to re-evaluate some of those and remove it from some of those lists. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I glad you contacted me directly as I can't possibly have all the AfDs on my watchlist however comments like this are not helpful so I ask you retract. Yes, I seen your note at the top of the AfD before I sorted stating it wasn't related to the previous AfD. However he is fitness trainer from Texas who owns his own businesses hence Businesspeople, Health and fitness & Texas. It also states at Scott Crawford#Career he played for a number of soccer/footballl teams : Texas Toros, Dallas Burn, Dallas Sidekicks, and Texas Lightning so that's why it's also sorted under Football & Sportspeople, I'm not seeing the problem here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
He was not notable as a soccer player from what I can see, but you added him to three different deletion lists based just on that. Seems a tad excessive considering you added him to three other deletion lists as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Changed your tuned a bit from saying I think your a little confused to that's excessive, in your opinion he isn't notable as footballer but that doesn't mean I'd shouldn't list a particular delsort that is relevant to the article, so that people who are more familiar with football guidelines can judge it against those guidelines. You said above "He was not notable as a soccer player from what I can see" well given you brought it to AfD you clearly don't think he is notable as Businessperson, should I not sort under that either. I get what your trying to say is it really necessary to delsort under a topic which he is not primarily known as but you have gone about it all the wrong way by first insulting me & then saying he not notable for that. It doesn't look like he passes N:FOOTY, though I haven't checked the teams he played for yet as I wasn't intending to vote but if one of those teams were in WP:FPL there would be grounds for keeping the article so why shouldn't it be listed under Football & Sportspeople given their relevant. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Beeblebrox are you going to strike this given I wasn't confused, nor was it a question. At least then we can agree to disagree that the football/sportspeople delsort was necessary. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Re: Afds
Sorry about that. I did not file that Afd, but noticed that the filer did not follow the usual steps in filing Afds. I was just doing all that, but should have realized that it must have been added in datewise main log, otherwise it could not get listed in the 'India-related Alerts' page, where I saw it.--GDibyendu (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Michael Doughty
Given the issues with nationality - perfectly illustrated in this example - I feel we should always strive to dab by year of birth, so move the British player to 1992, and the Aussie to 1979. We can then create redirects as appropriate, and clarify on the dab page. GiantSnowman17:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
As someone who voted to delete the page on Women Live, it was suggested by a helpful administrator to contact you to request the page be saved so I can amend it in various ways. I’m not sure I’m placing my question in the right place but here goes.
See my enquiry posted yesterday which I paste below:
The Women Live page was recently deleted after a flurry of comments about notability and lack of evidence. I was dismayed by some of the comments and their tone - eg. because the article only had six issues it can’t be notable. I don’t quite get the rigour in that one!! However, another guy made some useful comments which I can’t now find. Is there a way to see the conversation leading to deletion? I have tried to find it.
I would like to reinstate the page when I have carried out the following:
regarding notability - I intend to include a link to the Women’s Library where the archive is housed.
Also, to a Guardian article about the magazine. Presumably these will contribute to the page’s notability?
Also, I intend to list some of the more significant writers published by Women Live - and could link to a few who have Wiki pages. Will this help?
Will it also help if I link to writer’s websites if they are not mentioned on wikipedia??
Could you please indicate whether the suggestions above will improve the article in Wiki terms.
Thanks for your help Duck. Hope you come back, even if its just bits every now and then. Until our cross paths again take care. Murry1975 (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Douglas (cameraman) (2nd nomination)
Done. Hi Crtew, I'm actually retired from Wikipedia but I completed those delsorts for you. You completed step 2 adding the delsort tags but you didn't add the AfD to the delsort page itself step 1, it seems to be a common misconception that if you added the tags it automatically adds it to the delsort page which is not the case, it has to been done manually unless your using the new script by User:Fox Wilson. If your ever in doubt each delsort page lets take Iraq for ex. have their own set of instructions at the top. All the best. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I really have appreciated some of your sorts, especially about news and journalists. I associate you with sorting and bringing these things to my attention, and so it is with some sadness that I hear about your retirement. But all the best wishes to you and thanks for coming out of retirement to save me! Thank you, Crtew (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Even if its only once in a blue moon i hope you pop back every now and again. Im good just glad the end of the season is nigh. Never again.BletheringScot15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have removed the e-mail, while publicly available I don't think we should be advertising it for privacy and spam reasons. I've left the link up though. Hope that's OK. GiantSnowman13:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you think its possible to rescue the transfer section or do you think I'm better hiding it. There has to be loads missing from it. BletheringScot17:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree to be honest but if there isn't any hope of completing it then in a way its better not being there at all, i hate not completing things more than anything. I will leave it just now. I was wondering about that thought i was going to have to attempt to complete it at some point, will be glad to be cut free of the shackles once I've completed all the summaries. Never again, wikis no fun when you cant do what you want to.BletheringScot21:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Whilst I can see where you are coming from regarding his football notability, the guy has a ridiculous amount of press coverage over his move to Man U, in the UK, Europe and in Africa where he is eligible to play for The Gambia.
To be honest i haven't been editing a lot of football articles of late. Still doing the odd bit but no where near as much. Still the same old issues though, nothing changes.BletheringScot17:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Will likely pick back up again after christmas, got a few musical pages I'm trying to improve first. Better not starting what you cant finish, realised that more of late.BletheringScot17:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
But thinking about it, that was my main and only account. It might be different if it's an alternate account that you created and you have access to your main account. Might be worth asking at WP:VPT. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh sorry i made a mistake on intermilan page i was going to edit it then i guess delete something am not sure any way i made it all wrong sorry about that i am new to wikipedia and i am not even sure if that's the way i send a massage to someone because i dont know a way to contact another user , sorry for bothering you .— Preceding unsigned comment added by MHoY (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
List of Airdrie United F.C. players
Hi, I've deleted it, still got a number of others (Bradford City, Bradford Park Avenue, Accies) that I need to complete before taking on any more unfortunately. GiantSnowman15:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello DUCKISJAMMMY, I would like to ask for your help regarding my first wikipedia page, it sounds like it is about to be deleted, can I ask how can I make it more effective and will not be deleted? I believe the page I created is not that bad. thank you and Merry Christmas! Markimatix (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello DUCKISJAMMMY, my apology on what I have done. I never intended to send it to you but it is supposed to be for JNW. I will now do necessary things to fix problems regarding my page I created. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markimatix (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Nabil Bentaleb
You have sourced his height from "goal.com" Can you present evidence that this is an acceptable source for biographical info? What is wiki's stance on this? I would have thought only official websites of clubs would count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.5.113 (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Eric Hennig
Hello! I saw you made some edits to the page "Eric Hennig". I've made some edits myself and wanted to see if you agreed with my findings that the actor is notable? I'm new to this and still learning. Any information would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!!Runner247 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Mea Culpa
I would like to apologize for attempting to delete my request for deletion of John J. Coughlin's entry. Each time I did it, you reverted it so quickly that I thought my edits were not registering. Only when I referenced the history log and read the instructions did I realize I could not delete my request. Anyhow, I wanted to let you know that it was not my intention to engage in an editing duel! Rather, it was a consequence of my neophyte Wikipedia ways. Sincerely,LuzanneOtte (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)LuzanneOtte
Thank you for your note on my Talk page. Before reading it, I attempted to post a note to your page with a mea culpa for engaging in an inadvertent deletion duel. When I realized that I was misinformed as to what constitutes a conflict-of-interest, I sought to undo what I did to avoid what is likely to be an embarrassing nomination. Thank you for the information about how to withdraw. As you can tell, I continue to learn the procedure and the appropriate forums for various tasks. I consulted the Wikipedia pages on how long it takes to make it decision about deletion. It stated it is usually about a week. Do you have any recommendations on how to expedite the process? Thank you,LuzanneOtte (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Substantive Achievements vis-a-vis Notoriety
Thank you for the response regarding my question about what constitutes substantive achievements/contributions in a field. I had looked up the information on what constitutes notoriety for various fields, so I have that information. In a discussion regarding the deletion of entry, John J. Coughlin, an editor stated that the page could be made better by providing more substantive achievements/contributions. Objectively, it seems that the entry meets the notoriety prong for the fields to which he is attached. As such, I thought I might be unfamiliar with a more detailed template on what constitutes substantive achievements/contributions. Based on your response and my research, I do not think that I have overlooked any such template. I am going to see if I can find an entry on someone with a similar scope of interests to glean insight from the entry. Thank you for your assistance. I am sure it is annoying to deal with Wikipedia neophytes! LuzanneOtte (talk) 22:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
You are correct that I was referring to the first post on the John J. Coughlin deletion discussion. I found several references that help to highlight that Coughlin's work has made a significant impact on his field. Most recently, I added footnote 14 from Oxford Journal of Law and Religion in which Robert Ombres describes Coughlin's work as, "pioneering." The review from arguably the premiere law and religion journal in the world makes a far better case for the unique nature of his work than I can. I do not want to abuse deletion discussion rules, but if you think it would be helpful for me to introduce, perhaps I should point it out in there. If the entry does not get deleted, I will tag it for contributions from experts on the subject to get assistance on contextualizing the content. It is Coughlin's specialized expertise that makes him notable, but the interdisciplinary niche also makes it more challenging to focus. Thanks again! LuzanneOtte (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
