Well, the user had been creating ALOT of vandalism, so I reverted everything that seemed to be vandalism. Did you revert my revert? - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 5, 2009 @ 17:56
Considering it was my first mistake out of some 100 edits with it, that isn't bad.....ain't good either, so I will keep an eye on it. Take Care....NeutralHomer • Talk • January 5, 2009 @ 18:51
I fail to see how you can reach consensus on a proposed move by discussing on a talk page of an article that does not exist (and never has). JPG-GR (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G8: "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, such as talk pages with no corresponding subject page..." Additionally, I see many user talk pages that link to it and one non-user talk page. JPG-GR (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the contents of the page might be useful (and you'd like them userfied, please let me know), I still feel the discussion of a merger should not be taking place in the "middle of nowhere", especially when the pages that are being merged do not even link to it. JPG-GR (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they do link to it, indirectly through the project talk page, and they did link to it directly until yesterday. Please undelete and take it to MFD if you feel it should be deleted. --NE208:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to determine if this deleted page was about the 1984 TV film adaptation of the Ian McEwan short story. If so, it seems the wrong notability criteria may have been applied (Albums: singles and songs)?
Ksimons (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore the deleted discussion or fork the contents to an undelete discussion. Several valid reasons were given to keep the main article. Coolgamer (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recently set up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Lists of box office number-one films regarding the potential renaming of a series of some 50+ articles, and would like to invite further discussion from a wider audience. Having never done something like this before, I'm not sure if this would be appropriate for WP:RM or better suited to another venue such as WP:RfC. As you seem to be quite involved over at WP:RM, I was hoping you could advse me on how best to proceed. Thanks in advance! PC78 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When someone removed several references from the page, that is "borderline vandalism". I could have issued a warning, but I was being nice. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 8, 2009 @ 22:03
Please show me how it is, because I am not seeing it. If none were removed, then this is OK....but to me it looks like they were. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 8, 2009 @ 22:06
You are continuing to re-add redundant references that already point to the same footnote, which is unnecessary. I recommend you self-revert to the cleaned version. JPG-GR (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So no references are being removed? Right? Cause I am trying to understand this and work with you. My main concern is that no (zero) references are removed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 8, 2009 @ 22:13
I changed the date on the above to get your attention to get that question answered. Nevermind. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 9, 2009 @ 00:30
Archiving are hard. :( Thanks for fixing it. :) I cleaned up the other links that the move broke on the talk page. All the best. sinneed (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for what ever was wrong with my page. I wasn't trying to advertise, I only put it there after it was deleted and never removed it, but its fine and all is good. Will I be able to re-create my page though? Let me konow please, again sorry and Thanks. Juve10 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JPG-GR, I'm just contacting a couple of editors with more specialist knowledge to resolve a discussion at Talk:Nation Radio about naming a broadcast area. I'd be interested in your feedback. Thanks Pondle (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Impact Pro Wrestling NZ
Hi JPG-GR, on 3 December 2008, you deleted the Impact Pro Wrestling NZ page with the reason it is a non-notable promotion. It is in fact the top pro wrestling promotion in New Zealand, holds live shows every month and has a national weekly TV show. I would think these facts would make it a notable promotion. Can you please reinstate the page? I did not create it, but have helped to edit it in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snifter99 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page was deleted as a result of a proposed deletion that went unanswered for five days. The article had no independent sources verifying the subject's notability. 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a couple of questions about your closure of this template for deletion discussion. Firstly you said in your closure that these were "single-use" templates. In the discussion AndrewRT explained how the first template was appropriate for inclusion in the Politics of Jammu and Kashmir article and the Karnataka one would be appropriate in the relevant Politics of Karnataka article as well as their original usage. Even the nominator did not disagree that the content was appropriate for these articles and indeed they are used on many Politics of ... articles for different countries. A look in the subcategories of Category:Election and referendum result templates give multitudes of examples of this.
Secondly I fail to see how there was a consensus for deletion in that discussion or any policy argument to justify overriding such a consensus. I argued that they did not violate the template guidelines and only the nominator disagreed, with another uninvolved editor argeeing with me. Election results are not text which is what the guideline talks about. Therefore I must disagree with your closure of the discussion and would ask that you reconsider or explain otherwise. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those templates were not templates at all - they were filled-in tables that could be used on two articles. Templates exist to be fed data and then input it in a preformatted way, like an infobox. Transcluding a hardcoded table into two articles does not require a template.
As for the discussion, it was not a vote. Those who wanted to keep the template failed to raise enough of a counter-point to the argument for deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that it is not a vote however deletion policy says "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so. If there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate". In this TFD, no policy argument for deletion was made, and there was no consensus for deletion. Thus I cannot see the basis for your decision to close the discussion as delete.
To address your first point you seem to be saying that no election results are appropriate content for templates and that all of the templates in the subcategories of Category:Election and referendum result templates should be deleted. I am aware that other stuff exists is an argument that can often be misused but in this case this decision overturns the very normal practice of putting the results on a template to make election articles easier to edit without harming the readers experience of the article. I cannot see the policy or guideline basis for that (and obviously disagree with it) and I think that if it is to be taken then it should be on the basis of a wider community discussion advertised on the village pump rather than on a TFD that only got 2 people arguing for deletion. Davewild (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize there were so many templates like that in that category, and yes, my view of policy tells me they should be subst and deleted, but I don't intend to do so. At this point, your best bet is to take it to WP:DRV - I will not stand in the way if a consensus forms to restore the two templates. JPG-GR (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the better question is what was your rationale for blanking it in the first place without an edit summary. Yes, the information could be converted to prose and selectively edited, but blanking with no explanation is unacceptable. JPG-GR (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For an article which is currently start-class, being a future FAC at this point is a longways off. Removing an entire section of information with the edit summary "Added." is misleading at best. JPG-GR (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With no reason, apparently. If you haven't provided a reason yet, then my guess is "no reason exist", because the rationale for including a list you admit would never, ever, ever make it through FAC is pretty weak. So, just want to give you a chance to explain why we need a list that would make it 100% impossible for this article to become featured ever., as opposed to "cleverly" dancing around my statements trying to get around having to explain the value of the list. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily.10:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you pretty much cover all of the Michigan stations for WP:WPRS, I thought I would "loop" you in on this one. I created a page for WHEY in North Muskegon, Michigan. It is Christian Alternative Rock station up there. I did it in my own standard template version, so if you want to update it to the way you have things, that is fine. I have it on my watchlist (like most of the pages I create) so if this is outside of your area, I can watch it too for vandalism, updates, etc. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 27, 2009 @ 01:32
Because there was a page already created on Whey and I thought since that was taken it would prevent me from using WHEY, so I thought I had to use the (FM) version. Thanks for moving it for me :) Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • January 27, 2009 @ 22:53
Hi, where is the template that you've been using to notify people of incomplete move proposals? It doesn't seem to be on WP:RM or the administrator instructions for it.--Aervanath (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey....I have tried to explain the reasoning behind the redirect deletions (-AM redirects are confusing and aren't needed essentially) but it would help if you were to explain it too. User:NE2 has a page ready to remake all the redirects that you have deleted. So, probably time to explain or you will LOTS of work to do...all over again. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:13
If someone who isn't a member of WP:WPRS and who doesn't "know enough about radio station naming" [1] wants to go through the hassle of having a bunch of, IMO, useless redirects recreated, I'm not gonna stand in his/her way. I'm indifferent on the subject, quite frankly. I was merely tidying up around the house and getting rid of some junk laying around. JPG-GR (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and I completely understand, but I don't understand this need for useless redirects. That I will never get. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:31
You might want to explain how this is a good edit - if it's wrong to refer to it as "KOKC-AM", why did you keep that form in the displayed text? --NE200:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard of people "overlooking things". I am pretty sure that is what happened here. I would not go reverting all these against their rules of WP:WPRS. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:23
"Fixing a wikilink" in that matter is both a bad idea - see WP:R2D - and even worse in this case, since someone wishing to find content to fix won't be able to use "what links here" to do it. --NE200:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They will be able to find KOKC just fine with the disambig page at KOKC or KOKC (AM). - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:32
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. An editor wishing to be helpful, and fix any appearances of the "-AM" form in articles, would normally be able to find most by finding what links to the "-AM" forms. But this changing of the redirect to a direct link is having no effect on readers and a negative effect on editors. --NE200:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not waste your time, essentially, telling me how to handle links to radio station articles when you have already admitted you do not know the related naming conventions. JPG-GR (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... I know the naming convention. It's "FOO (AM)". You don't know how redirects are handled on Wikipedia, and need to read WP:R2D. --NE200:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "having no effect on readers" then what is the arguement. Most of the radio station pages are made as it is, so the "negative effect on editors" is probably next to none. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 01:06
It's having a negative effect on editors, for a net negative, and even a net zero effect should be avoided. Please read WP:R2D. --NE201:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not at first. It's my respect for Bearcat which is why I stopped cleaning up after the K's - the point at which I saw his comment. I maintain that these redirects are more harmful than useful, but that's just my opinion. As for the stats for how many hits each KXXX-AM-type page has for January - these are no doubt inflated to a small degree due to the cleanup of the redirects pointing to these wrong callsigns and to a larger degree of my analyzing how bad many of the redirects are. JPG-GR (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JPG, are you going to comment on ANI or fight this (I am kinda doing that right now for ya). If not, I can let my side go and let them have at it. I have plenty of other things I can do right now than fight over useless redirects. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 01:38
I see no reason to fight over something as petty as these redirects. If someone who is unfamiliar with them can't come to understand the negatives that they cause, I don't see the reason to waste spend my time trying to convince them. I'd say continue working on what you do best - article content.
hahahaha :) Good one :) Okie Dokie, I will got back to article making (which I have been letting slide lately). Just for reference, the KOKC-AM redirect is up for deletion here. Take Care and Have a Good Evening....NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 01:43
Just thought I would give you a heads-up here, looks like the mass of -AM redirects have been restored. Just plain stupid in my opinion. I personally think they should be all renom'd for deletion, but I don't have that time. Just thought you should know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 21:46
Your edits are counterproductive and defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia. Without the program listing and staff lineup the article is empty and meaningless. I put them back up and I'll take it to third party arbitration.TomCat4680 (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in that link says anything about radio programs or staff of a radio station and is therefore not a violation of it. Also every claim has a reference and its against policy to remove information with reliable sources.TomCat4680 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know of the backlog on WP:RM. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 9, 2009 @ 05:56
Another Heads Up
A radio station that was up for deletion was brought to my attention. It needed some serious work, infoboxes were added, as were templates and other history information. The reason this would be in your "ballpark" is it is a Michigan radio station. WMRP-LP, from Mundy Township (near Flint), is the page in question. Since you normally keep an eye on anything radio related in Michigan, I thought I would give you a heads up. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 11, 2009 @ 06:15
Hi, Could you please undelete this page? I see from your log that you're tackling a backlog for cleanup but there is an ongoing high-profile discussion involving loads of wikipolitics going on on that page right now. I don't think you meant to make a wikipolitical statement about the validity of the discussion by deleting the page, so you would probably be the best editor to restore it. Thanks, BanyanTree08:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced information just doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. WP:V directly applies to unsourced information. Please do not re-insert the information. Your re-insertions will be treated as non-WP:V compliant until otherwise well sourced. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find any sources, before you re-remove the information you should (a) get a stronger prescription for your eyeglasses and (b) take a class on how to use Google. Because if you can't find any sources proving that VHS releases exist, you are out of your mind. JPG-GR (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no eye troubles. Yes, I do know how to use Google. When I start searching for sources, and if I cant find any, the information will be removed, period. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems from my talk page (request for help) that this issue is for admins., so I guess I can't really help too much with this one - sorry. But, if there's ever anything else I can do to help - drop me a line, I'm more than happy to lend a hand wherever I can. ;) — Ched (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request to move article New Writings in SF 1 incomplete
On my talk page you mentioned that my request to move the several "New Writings in SF (#)" articles to a single series article was incomplete or contested. I looked and I can't find anything missing and I don't see any contention beyond what was presented and delt with last month. Please let me know what the issue is. Thanks. Padillah (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You removed the request, but it's still supposed to be listed.
Although the move request was closed and the article moved, there is controversy over the closing of the move request. The same administrator reopened the request and relisted it on WP:RM. —MichaelZ. 2009-02-20 20:46 z
As the proposal was to move the article to Mogilev, the request is completed. You'd likely have more luck getting more neutral input if you relist it at WP:RM anyway - quite literally no one looks at the backlog section. JPG-GR (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no lack of input; the article was listed for longer than required. WP:RM makes it clear that an article shouldn't be moved without consensus, and the majority of discussers are against the move. But the closing was mishandled because the closing admin ignored this, and moved it anyway. He “relisted” it as a way of washing his hands of the action and avoiding responsibility. There's now discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DrKiernan moving articles against consensus, but it looks like a farce to me, because consensus is being redefined as the minority plus a malleable admin. Sorry to sound bitter, but I don't see any of the guidelines at WP:RM or WP:CON supporting this outcome by a long shot. —MichaelZ. 2009-02-21 01:06 z
I think Saban Records was a separate company from Saban Entertainment as Saban Records started in 1983 and Saban Entertainment started in 1988.[4] Also if Saban Records was part of Saban Entertainment it would have been to sold to Disney with Saban Entertainment. Powergate92Talk03:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While working on KORB's translator section, I noticed the Radio-Locator section was missing. Flipped over to the template history and noticed you commented out the Radio-Locator.com links on the template. Will that portion of the template be coming back or is it gone for good? Just curious as I am not sure if I need to add Radio-Locator linkage for the translators of KORB. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 23, 2009 @ 06:33
Not sure. I rm'd the link because when the link is fed a WXXX-FM station (as opposed to WXXX), the link doesn't work. Someone was "fixing" callsigns by removing the "-FM" suffix, and that's just wrong. Basically, if I can figure some way for the link to subtract the "-FM", I'll add it back. Probably be a couple days before I can actually delve into the coding, though. JPG-GR (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Just shoot me off a little note when it got it up and working again, if you would please. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 18:06
A question about your revision of my additions
Hi JPG, just wondering why you revised the additions I made on 2/20/09, adding designation AM or FM to four radio stations. I'm not angry, just confused. It appears that the list has some stations listed as either FM or AM, while many others do not. What is the Wikipedia editors decree on this? Shouldn't be either/or, and not a haphazard mix? Just my opine. If yo could message me back and clarify, I'd much appreciate it. I'm still 'getting my feet wet' as far as adding/editing articles, so anything you'd like to share is appreciated. Sector001 (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The correct callsigns for those stations were as previously listed - none have the "-FM" suffix, and the "-AM" suffix isn't used on any US station. JPG-GR (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So ok, then....why have I seen FCC documents with the FM or AM designation over the years, and Arbitron / Birch ratings as well? Our station licensing documents in the KRXL studio clearly say KRXL-FM...likewise for KTUF. I worked in radio for over twenty year, at KIRX-KRXL-KTUF by the way. Again, just curious. And that still doesn't explain 1)why you deleted my information regarding formats and ownership of KIRX, KRXL KTUF, and KTRM. SO...I'm reinstating that information, but not the AM/FM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sector001 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since JPG seems to be away, I would ask that you not revert to an incorrect call sign on any page. Wikipedia uses the call signs that the FCC uses. As such, there are no -AM call signs (no matter what Arbitron says) and some stations don't use the -FM portion of the call sign unless noted by their FCC page (again, no matter what Arbitron says or "your station"). I will personally revert any changes to the contrary as vandalism if made. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 20:06
What is your source for the correct callsign information? I've seen the FCC licensing documentation for KRXL and KTUF, and they're listed as KRXL-FM and KTUF-FM. Likewise, Arbitron and Birch (ratings organizations) use those designations. I worked for KIRX-KRXL-KTUF for over twenty years. All I'm asking for is some uniformity on the list. ALSO, your reply still doesn't explain why you deleted my information regarding formats and ownership of KIRX, KRXL KTUF, and KTRM -- unless it was a mass-revision of my additions done for expediency or something -- SO I'm reinstating that information, but not the AM/FM. Would it be a help if I were to go through the list and remove ALL ref. to AM or FM in the call letters of every station? I have the time to do so. Please advise. - Sector001
My sources would be this and this....the official FCC license information from FCC.gov. This is what we go by, not something a station uses or Arbitron. It can be confusing, but this is what we use. Also, please don't remove sections of the discussion. Add a new section below this one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 20:54
Ghost Dance
Just wanted to let you know that I currently have a request up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in regard to an editor that you reverted tonight on the Ghost Dance article. I reported this individual to AIV but I was informed there that the matter was better approached on the other board. The editor making the dubiously sourced edits may have good intentions, but their refusal to provide references when requested, ignoring user warning templates, not providing edit summaries for anything and just continuing to edit is stretching it a bit in my opinion. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're a busy bee and I don't understand your continued concern with reverting my effort for Zachary to reclaim his page. I do believe I listed the request properly. See this:
{{RMinc|Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father}}
This request was listed. How can you claim it was not?
16 February 2009
Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father → Zachary Turner —(Discuss)— current article reads like an ad for a movie, raising WP:NPOV problems --JohnClarknew JohnClarknew (talk) 00:58, 16 :February 2009 (UTC)
Edward Wortley Montagu (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) → Sir Edward Wortley Montagu —(Discuss)— restore natural and customary disambiguation; this was moved to the parenthetical disambiguation by a single editor without discussion. --Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:07,
16 February 2009 (UTC)
Shlom bayit → Shalom bayit —(Discuss)— Request consensus to change article name to the more recognizable and common spelling among English speakers --Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
15 February 2009 etc. etc.
Firstly, it was listed incomplete.... over a week ago. Secondly, the process proceeded normally and was completed with no consensus. So, I'm not sure what all of the code you have dropped on my talkpage is really supposed to mean. JPG-GR (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete? How? If you're right, then why didn't you fix it? That would have been helpful, and in the spirit of cooperation, which is a WP given. The discussion is now on the article's talk page, where you should have begun your objection anyway. JohnClarknew (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't complete RMs for people who don't read and then follow the instructions. My role in life is not to correct other people's mistakes. Be glad that I am kind enough to point them out rather than dismiss the request. And, I have no opinion one way or the other toward your request. JPG-GR (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I note you closed the requested move for Brotherhood (2006 TV series). As you correctly note, there is no consensus for a destination, however the current name is clearly incorrect since the series is still running (I think all contributors agreed on that). I don't want to tread on anyone's toes, how can this be progressed forwards? I'd be happy to support a move to Brotherhood (Showtime TV series) as someone else suggested if the alternative is to leave it where it is. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the title isn't correct - the series started did start in 2006. I'm unfamiliar with the particular naming convention, if any. As for what to do in the meantime... keep discussing it. *shrug* JPG-GR (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please restore this template. I saw that you had deleted it last week but I thought I'd wait to contact you until I was ready to work on it. I'm not sure why it was deleted anyway as I thought I made it clear to CalendarWatcher (TfD) that I'm working on articles and templates in this area. I saw absolutely no reason to reply to CalendarWatcher's comment: "And what specific articles, pray tell, would this go with? The only one I've found was re-creation of a speedy-deleted page, now gone." as I considered that comment to be trollish and uncalled for. The deletion rationale they used was "Article template for a non-existent (as far as i can tell) type of article.". I'm still trying to figure out what they meant by "non-existent type of article" but it doesn't really matter. Thanks. Tothwolf (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, what specific articles, pray tell, would this template go with? The only one I've found was re-creation of a speedy-deleted page, now gone. That's not trollish, that's a request for information which you seem unwilling--or unable?--to provide. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan to put it to use as it is. IIRC it was pretty ugly and needed to be restructured and standardized much like what I've done with {{Infobox IRC network}}. A channel type template to complement the network type template will be useful in articles where channels are discussed (not specifically in an article about a channel, although I believe there are a handful those on Wikipedia). After digging into the history of this template a little I found a small amount of discussion about the article CalendarWatcher mentioned. It sounded like that article was quite a problem but I still don't think the way CalendarWatcher approached me about this template was appropriate, especially since CalendarWatcher doesn't even seem work in the template namespace nor on the IRC-related articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a problem because people then tend to see it as recreated deleted content and then tend to flag it as a speedy delete. This template was deleted outside of process (one nomination and one keep) and I'd like you to restore it so I can get back to work on this stuff. Thanks. Tothwolf (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I felt no need to reply to CalendarWatcher's trollish response. I generally try to stay away from arguments where someone is trying to bait and that is what I did in the TfD. The TfD still diddid not have consensus to delete. Had someone approached me in a civilized manner I'd have been more than willing to explain what I'm working on. For that fact, at the time it should have been pretty clear to CalendarWatcher that I was indeed working on this stuff had they bothered to check my edit history. The comment I left in the TfD itself should have been more than enough for CalendarWatcher too. I did consider recreating a template, but as I said above, I know from past issues that it would likely end up speedy deleted so I'm trying to work with you (the closing admin) so I can get back to work on actually improving content vs spending so much time in these debates/discussions. Tothwolf (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC) (Edited to fix my typo and grammar as I was preoccupied when I wrote this earlier. Tothwolf (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Are you going to restore this template so I can work on it? I've just about finished the two articles I've been rewriting so I'll be at a point sometime this evening where I'll be ready to work on templates again. Tothwolf (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If you don't plan to use it as is, there's no need for it to be restored. Just make a new one. JPG-GR (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)" JPG-GR (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I did consider recreating a template, but as I said above, I know from past issues that it would likely end up speedy deleted so I'm trying to work with you (the closing admin) so I can get back to work on actually improving content vs spending so much time in these debates/discussions." Tothwolf (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that re-quoting your argument which I have already dismissed is gonna convince me, I'm sorry for you. JPG-GR (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You need to state your intentions, otherwise you are causing both of us to waste time. If you won't restore it, I'll take it up with someone else, not a problem. Tothwolf (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template:United States Conference of Mayors Presidents
An IP removes my move proposals, and I can't even object to his actions? Then you won't object if I speedy close his proposal and replace it with my original one? - BillCJ (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you produce a dif of your proposal being removed on the WP:RM page? There's no reason to "speedy close" any discussion - speedy closing someone else's discussion is a lovely way to discredit your own position. JPG-GR (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy closed the request to move Yankee Stadium because there was a move request that was closed on February 11, with the understanding that nothing would be done until the first game. It is completely frivolous to re-open a move request only a couple of weeks later when nothing else has changed. What happened is the request came out of a discussion at Talk:New Yankee Stadium which may not have been familiar with the discussion at Talk:Yankee Stadium. No harm, no foul, but no reason for the request, which is why it was speedy closed. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original request shouldn't have been removed. At this point, it seems like odd to restore it as half the discussion period time has elapsed. Feel free to re-propose.
Here is another one. What's up with Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict? We have some very prolific writers there - the talk page is 370 kB long. The last move request was closed on 26 February, and on 28 February someone has come up with a new idea for a new name? I only wish they had thought of it two days earlier. This one I see no reason for closing, but Yeesh. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no limit for number of proposals within time x. If something is closed with no consensus, it's usually a safe bet to expect another request soon enough. JPG-GR (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Smidley
Please restore that page, pending a more comprehensive resolution of this matter. You seem to have deleted it out of process.(see below note) Before you deleted the user page I removed the speedy deletion tag, as being an inappropriate process fork. The underlying problem is not advertising, edit warring, or COI. People are allowed to post their bios, if they wish, on their own user page. We have a serious editing / BLP problem, that the head of a university is victim of a real-life scandal affecting his job, and that people have chosen to turn his Wikipedia article into a criticism page. He seems to have joined to protect himself. Going after a COI editor who is the likely victim of an on-Wiki smear is probably not the right approach. Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may want to scratch that last request - apparently from his talk page, the editor says he is not in fact the subject of the article but instead a relative. This was brought up on WP:BLP/N, where it is being discussed. Under the circumstances I don't see anything urgent, and there should be time for experienced cool heads to sort all this out. Wikidemon (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making a new rule on my talk page as this is becoming a consistent problem. When someone tells me to do something to a page (such as restore it) but not tell me wtf they are talking about, I'm gonna just ignore them, k? JPG-GR (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to use the tools[5] you may want to be a little more responsive when someone makes a serious request. It was a pretty serious WP:BLP matter with potential real world consequences. It's all taken care of now though.Wikidemon (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I delete a speedy-tagged user page and I'm supposed to know that's the page you're talking about? If the matter was so serious, you probably should've linked to the page in the first place. I don't read minds. JPG-GR (talk) 08:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait wait wait. I delete a page that YOU'VE speedy tagged, and then you want it restored despite not telling me the page. I think you're the one who needs to "take some responsibility". JPG-GR (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I count basically one reason given to delete and one reason given to keep. As both templates had their share of people arguing for both sides, no consensus was the only logical outcome. JPG-GR (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted templates
I noticed that you closed the 3 football templates as delete here. I was just wondering if they are going to be deleted from the player articles or just left as redlinks? King of the NorthEast13:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "new owner" of WOTR (FM) is requesting that the website of the station be removed as it is "not authorized". I have reverted twice as vandalism, but only left one warning, the second time left a note saying they would have to go through Meta. Is that the right course of action or should I have directed them elsewhere? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • March 3, 2009 @ 02:05
Something tells me that a website hosted on Angelfire probably isn't an official site anyway. I'd say let the link go. JPG-GR (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the website that I have always found in Google searches and what not. Thanks for the quick reply. I will remove it in a moment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 3, 2009 @ 02:09
Would it be possible to delete this page? It seems to have been made by another user during another page move and it just a redirect that no one will probably search for. Oh yeah, and thanks for moving the WCMI page to WCMI (AM). - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 4, 2009 @ 00:48
Hi, is it possible to add a section in this template for facility ID. I noticed sometimes the translator has a different facility ID number. Thanks RobDe68 (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WRXZ's Facility ID number is 66138 while it's translator W242AJ's facility ID is 84737.
WCLK's Facility ID number is 11675 while it's translator W275BK's facility ID is 143866.
KINY's Facility ID number is 823 while it's translator K280DX's facility ID is 821, K279AF is 82616, K280ED is 777, K284AM is 137761 and K278AC is 824.
Those were just the first few that came up in the "what links here" tab, I'm thinking they all pretty much have a different Facility ID numbers. RobDe68 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be such a pain about this. While the deletion log did have a link to TfD, the link did not take me to the "2008 December 25" subpage, so I had difficulty finding the discussion until you pointed me there. The discussion link is helpful because it leads me to the nominator. Thanks, --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo - the included link is automatically included as part of the WP:TFD process. You may want to start a discussion to have it improved (though, I'm not sure where would be best, other than perhaps the talkpage of WP:TFD to get you started). JPG-GR (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need An Opinion (2)
A couple days ago, WMDM-FM switched it's calls from WYRX to WMDM-FM. For a short time, the FCC's website said WMDM-FM....it now says WMDM. 100000watts.com (which I can provide a screenshot if necessary) says WMDM-FM. I am confused as to which it should be called. We went back and forth on it and settled with WMDM-FM, but is that right? - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 10, 2009 @ 04:50
Well, it has already been moved to WMDM-FM by another admin, but when I seen the FCC page change, I wasn't sure what to do. So, I guess we leave it at WMDM-FM for now? - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 10, 2009 @ 05:09
Hi - I just noticed that you instigated the move from Joshua A. Norton to Emperor Norton. Well done! I was the originating author of that article WAY back when, and remember getting shot down in a heated argument by a number of people (including Larry Sanger) over wanting to use the term "Emperor". It's nice to see that a mere seven years later, sanity finally prevailed. Regards Manning (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of WP:IINFO says "no monster lists", because none of the examples match. More importantly, just because something is judged not notable enough for its own article doesn't mean it doesn't get to be included anywhere. You're vision of policy is extremely narrow (and inaccurate). JPG-GR (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summaries. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.
You say they are "clearly inappropriate" and I disagree. I told you to discuss at WT:TOKU in the first place and you declined, deciding to discuss here. Now, you say "here is too private" but what I hear is "I have no reasoning to back up my position." JPG-GR (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, this page seems just as visible to me as any other AND it's also linked to from that discussion page. "I have no reasoning to back up my position." JPG-GR (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JPG-GR has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as JPG-GR's Day! For being an excellent user who is dedicated to the English Wikipedia, enjoy being the star of the day, dear JPG-GR!
Hi, I've never requested that a page be moved before, so I was wondering if you could help me out here. You have removed my request from the requested moves page, so am I meant to re-add it now (but more "complete")? I'm not sure why it was incomplete, as it is a very uncontroversial page move. The article has been at New Moon (novel) without issue for years, as no other article exists about a novel with the same name, but a new user unnecessarily moved it earlier today. The only reason I can't move it back is that a redirect is blocking my way. Help? Thank you. Andrea (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposal is uncontroversial, you should have placed it in the Uncontroversial section. As you placed it in the Other Proposals section, you need to follow the steps outlined on the WP:RM page. JPG-GR (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've allowed a duplicate of 2 images to be used on Wikipedia. The uploader first placed this File:RichardMourdock.pdf (which you refused to delete) and then this:
As per correspondence copied below, MBisanz informs me that you recently deleted the tKatKa wiki page. Can you kindly give reasons as to why you thought this necessary? As the representative for their record label I am keen to have this page available. Is there a way to re-instate the page with the previous content so that I might be able to update it and make acceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 100m (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the log it was you who deleted this on 27 March 2009 citing that it lacks 3rd party coverage. This is incorrect, I can provide many independent 3rd party press articles if need be. Can you kindly reinstate the article? Many Thanks. 100m (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the same article, last week the log stated that you deleted the page on 27 March 2009. MBisanz tells me that the page he deleted was a redirect to a page you had deleted and was therefore non-functional, I don't see how as I do not believe there was a redirect. I'm not sure what is going on here but surely either you or Mbisanz are in a position to restore the article no? Kindly advise.100m (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have discussed further with MBisanz, he recommended listing it for deletion review. Thanks, and please see here for more info:
An editor has asked for a deletion review of TKatKa. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 100m (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Can you kindly tell me how to tag an image file in a bad PDF format or which is a duplicate of another file? I see so many here. That is much appreciated. All I know are the speedy delete tags. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JPG, was just over at WP:RM (had to add a request) and it seems there is a pretty good backlog (couple days worth) over there. Just wanted to give you the heads up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 7, 2009 @ 04:07
2nd deletion
you just deleted a page that was discussed at an RfD and closed as Keep. are you not aware of that? or were you aware and just chose to do it anyhow, without notice or explanation. i am not sure about the policy involved here, maybe u r fundamentally right in something here, but it seems discourteous to proceed as it appears you did. doncram (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I realized i wasn't saying. It was the redirect at wt:LAHCM, which i have just recreated, now directing to a different place (to a new Task force that was just created today). doncram (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you've undone some edits of mine (admittedly a series of really bad ones for which I apologize)on a discussion page for a now non-existent user. I contacted this user regarding an ongoing matter on a seperate page (going back to 2008) and was told by him/her to delete the page, as they deleted their talkpage and intended to leave this site. Since the talkpage itself is closed they had assumed the discussion page was as well. I believe this is a privacy issue, but as I am not a member I struggled to add the correct tag. This is the page [[9]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.172.57 (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've just deleted this template, following a discussion which I found here. I've just checked the deleted history, and confirmed that the nomination did not follow the correct procedures, as the template was not tagged that it was undergoing a deletion debate. This meant that users like myself who have it on our watchlist were unable to comment.
Without going into the rights and wrongs of the template, I believe that the template should be deprecated, not deleted.
When I upload an image/logo for a radio station article, I add all the information I can find. Source, website, linkage, other information...pretty much whatever I can find. Earlier today another user removed that information and added an almost identical FUR (using FurMe) to the logo. (See here). I reverted to the version with the information and sources, but I am not sure which is right. Hence, why I was asking for a second opinion on this. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 17:40
I would recommend combining the two. While yours has the additional source information (a plus), it does appear to be lacking the "purpose of use". When it comes to FURs, the more info - the better. JPG-GR (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I put a purpose on there. (I always add "infobox" in the "used for" field). Hmmmm :S I am not sure how to combine the two, so if you would like to take a crack at it, please feel free. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 9, 2009 @ 18:13
I moved the page back as a result of project wishes. Neither party showed evidence of the correct name. Too many names have been used for the event. If you would like to discuss this further, I'm open.--WillC07:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm sorry I moved the page back first and then started the discussion. My head just said move back and I didn't even think you were an admin. 4 am where I am at. I must not be thinking clearly, well who am I kidding, I don't think clearly ever. But then again, I'm sorry, I'm going at this all the wrong way.--WillC08:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article to the requested move location. Any further moves should be done following discussion on the appropriate talkpage. JPG-GR (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the user who requested has caused edits wars and has become unreasonable. Plus has given no proof besides that is what they refer to it as, when WWE have referred to it as WrestleMania 25, WrestleMania: The 25th anniversary, etc.--WillC08:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-page move request
Thanks for your message on my Talk page. I am unsure what action is required of me. It is not the Talk:Patricianship page that I want moved: that page has a table with the list of moves that I am requesting. Hence it would make no sense to place a Move template at the top there. And since discussion has already run its course there, likewise for a Discussion template. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you walk me through the steps required? (If you show me how to do it for a couple of the move requests, I can figure out how to do the rest.) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. As the user who initially welcomed me to Wikipedia, in January, you are my closest ally here. I have AFD'd apollarium, since this term has recently been deleted from Wiktionary - here. I'm not sure about how to AFD terms in Wikipedia, could you please show me? --Jackclubs (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nom says 6=9. Now, you're telling me 5=9? Why do we have so many of these in the first place? Feel free to redirect it. JPG-GR (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know how your removal of the colons I added on the above article's "television series" section was a grammar correction. Could you explain this? Thanks! —Mythdont/c06:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While working with User:Mlaffs and creating missing station articles, I created one you might want to keep on your watchlist...WAWB-LP from West Branch, Michigan. It is pretty bare bones at the moment. If you have more information, please feel free to add it to the page. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 06:16
I assume it was a mistake because it is not a mainspace page. Based on the reason you gave for your deletion, it was a mainspace page, so I assume that you deleted it by mistake. -- IRP☎20:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a canned deletion selection - it was a cross-namespace redirect, from template to user. Alternatively, I created the redirect, so G7 would also work. JPG-GR (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...indefinite period of time
Hope to see you back on Wikipedia soon. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 28, 2009 @ 17:08
