User talk:Jasynnash2/Archive5 - July 2008

Of course it's Cap[edit]

I hate citations in plot summaries, because it's so obvious, so where should it be placed? Exclusive: Gale Anne Hurd Talks Hulk, NO CAPTAIN AMERICA and The Punisher! Are we going to doubt that Tony Stark is Iron Man in the film? The movie is set in a shared universe and it is Cap, everyone knows that. In this case, we need proof it's not him. Alientraveller (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about what you like or dislike (or what I like or dislike). It is easily enough to place it in the references section or something. Personally, I don't think most of the articles we maintain need to have such extensive plot summaries but, that is beside the point. I suppose it really comes down to interpretation. Not having seen the link you provided I went on the dialogue and such in the film (an maybe a bit of OR) with thinking that the serum was something perhaps based on the original but, not the original. Either way it shouldn't break the project so I'm not gotta fuss about it anymore. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation COOKIE MONSTER[edit]

thanks

so leave it.[edit]

That wasn't specifically at you. There's a ridiculous amount of fighting about that, mostly from stupid fanboys who insist that they can predict hollywood writers' minds, and who can't read. I'm trying to make it clear that what's on the tank should stay. Go look into the history, you'll see you're not the only one who edited like that. That said, although in the comics they called it the SSS and the Vita Ray treatment, it seems they're going to more tightly tie the two together, as well as go for something retro/campy instead of stupid. The 'Super Soldier Serum' sounds dopey, but calling it the Vita Ray Serum, a serum that does a lot, but even more after being activated fully by the rays, makes more sense as selling the 1940's angle to the public. Unfortunately, such a 'horrific violation of the canon' isn't perceived by a lot of IPs and new editors that think they're correcting the writers and other editors. It seems to be stable now, so I'm not worrying about it, but no, that edit summary was not aimed at you alone. ThuranX (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response and the clarification. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LSE Russian Business Society[edit]

Dear Patrol,

the following page LSE Russian Business Society, has in my view been wronly accused of advertising. This page is purely informative, it doesn't say anything about how bad or good this society is, only what is has done to this date, and its brief known history.

I would appreciate if you removed the tag and speedy deletion.

Yours,

F.perkon —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.perkon (talk • contribs) 12:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issue on the article's talkpage as the more appropriate place to have the discussion and in "compliance" with the instructions in the tag. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wax bombs[edit]

jasynash2 could you please help me expand the wax bomb page. It's my first page I've completely created and I really don't want it to die, or go away to join another article, the chemical reaction is very interesting and I can't seem to find it noted anywhere else. I would really appreciate it. since I noticed all those tabs you added to it SquierTheAspie (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

's[edit]

FYI, wiki style, Lynn Truss, the OED and Fowlers all state that only plurals loose the post-apostrophe s when creating the possessive. Thus the correct possessive if Spears is Spears's, as can be found on her wiki page. Thanks MrMarmite (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. What's brought that little gem out? Oh and because it's early in the morning for me I think you meant "lose" not "loose" :o) Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pushkin House[edit]

Please could you explain why you have questioned the notability of Pushkin House? This is the foremost instiute of Russian Literature in the world and an important part of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Also what exactly i youur probelm with the style, and in what way does it need changing?Harrypotter (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the building notable? Is the article about the building or about that part of the Academy which occupies the building? Is it a notable building just because it bears his name? Or does the building have another claim to notability? These issues and the lack of reliable 3rd party references to show why the building is notable (or why this part of the school is notable separate from the whole) are the reasons for the notability tag. The cleanup tag and the wikify tag are about these issues and the formatting of the page (no sections makes it hard to read for me and I'm thinking for others as well). Please understand the placement of the tags are not a personal slight against you or even against the school/building. Even now I'm trying to find things to help address the tags. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. As the institute is also known by the name of the building, I have inserted the word eponymous. I have also put the ten departments in as structure.I do not know whether this fits your personal requirements, but I would suggest that if you have any remaining issues you attend to them yourself.Of course I don't take the addition of the tags as a personal slight - you don't even know me - but I do feel they are misplaced and could be construed as officious behaviour with all the impersonality that implies.Harrypotter (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about my "personal requirements" it is about the policies and guidelines. I'm not sure which parts of my "other issues" you feel I can address but, I'll do my best. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have some changes which I will review presently. However you have re-introduced the notability issue. I am finding it hard to understand your problem here. Since making the remarks above, I have also added the literary reference from Alexander Blok. I put in the term eponymous, which you have removed. In fact the name has followed the institute around, and has not been restricted to a single collection of bricks and mortar. Please explain in what way you question what is the premier institute of Russian literature as being notable. I am starting to find it hard to maintain a view of your behaviour being in good faith, and would willing be exposed to any real reasons you might have for this continued behaviour, even if currently I cannot imagine what they might be. ThanksHarrypotter (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons are simple. Trying to improve the wikipedia project. The notability issue still stands for the same reasons I spoke of before. We need to explain (preferably in the introduction section) what makes this notable (considering it isn't the only place called Pushkin House and not even the top hit at google making it absolutely as obvious as possible is essential). I tried to fix the copyviolation problems as part of cleaning up the article and have attempted to wikify it but, we still need to find some better references from reliable 3rd parties on the subject as well to support the article. Really this discussion should be happening at the article talkpage. And with that in mind I'm going to copy it there. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk[edit]

Btw, I was aware that you were the one doing the 'mediation' there (kudos for that, and I agree now that it's indeed the best solution, not just a solid compromise). I thought about updating my initial response to your posting with an according clarification, but then forgot to. user:Everyme 12:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm glad we've managed to come to an understanding. Thank you for being so kind about the whole thing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't exactly being kind, calling e.g. Alientraveller's reasoning 'ludicrous'. Anyway, glad as well that it worked out. user:Everyme 12:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Churbuck article hold[edit]

Feel free to delete -- opened the stub erroneously and shouldn't in self-promo David Churbuck (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you sure you have the right person. I'm not sure what article you are speaking of. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've worked out which article you were referring to. I'm not sure if you are just "giving me permission" to delete the article or asking for the article to be deleted. If the former than there isn't really anything I'm gonna do but, if the latter you need to blank the article or place a {{db-author}} on it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Themis music[edit]

Hello Jasynnash2 Themis music. Hopefully maintaining the thread in your thinking, I have re-written this page and am asking for your input. cheers Mobrien9279 (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HUH?[edit]

Where did I write that Tony Stark dated Vicki Vale? ThuranX (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't. It was in the edit you reverted recently (here). Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even pay attention once i've read far enough in to know it doesn't belong, lol. ThuranX (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Todd Meagher[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message, I've replied at my talkpage. --Beloved Freak 13:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Confederation Lake Water Aerodrome[edit]

Regarding your edit to Confederation Lake Water Aerodrome: Template:WAS is a valid citation. It is citing the Canada Flight Supplement's section on water aerodromes. The article was not citing a Wikipedia article, but a manual which has a Wikipedia article. Additionally, you tagged the article as needing clean-up; it does not need clean-up, it needs expansion. You also forgot to date the templates you added to the page. I corrected these for you.

Please remember these tips in the future. :) vıd ıoman 03:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepless Nights (Patty Loveless album)[edit]

The article has been expanded greatly since your participation in the AfD. You might want to check it out now, as I've withdrawn my !vote. Ten Pound ~~Hammer~~ Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 05:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haukur Tómasson notability[edit]

Hi Jasynnash2. Thanks for flagging the Haukur Tómasson article with a question about notability. The article was in need of some proper referencing and a bit more justification for its existence.

I've done some work on it to address these issues, linked to the nl page about him (which is more extensive), and added several references, etc. I think the international recognition that he has achieved in prizes such as the Nordic Council Music Prize is evidence of his notability. What do you think now about the possibility of removing the notability tag?

Cheers - Hebrides (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty I'm not sure what constitutes reliable 3rd party sourcing in this case but, I've got no problem removing the tag as at least the article no longer contains the circular reference. I'll pop over and remove the notability tag now. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Laszlo AfD[edit]

Please note that the "SPA" in question is an IP and therefore may be used by multiple people (maybe a tag to show that would be appropriate) the edits in 2004 were very likely not from the same person. I don't mean any disrespect to you or to the person at the end of the IP but, the tag is factually accurate based on the records I can access. Unless you have further information please don't remove it again. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. You are simply adding SPA tags to every user who disagrees with you in the AfD in an attempt to discount their recommendation to keep the article. DollyD (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Let me assure you that this is not the case and that it is merely coincidence that these SPAs disagree with me. BTW, I'll gladly change my mind on the whole thing once they discuss the merits and/or flaws of the article from a policy perspective and we as a project show the person to be notable and verifiable in accordance with said policies. If you truly believe that my behaviour is inappropriate I not only ask but, encourage you to address said behaviour by making a Request to Comment, or similar. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-heterosexuals article rewritten[edit]

Hi, I've rewritten Non-heterosexuals and would appreciate you revisiting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-heterosexuals to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you! Banjeboi 13:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTOC[edit]

Hey Jasynnash22, to answer your query, this tag instructs the page renderer to not generate a table of contents for the article. Didn't think it was necessary in this case as it's not too long. --Kaini (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'll try to remember that and use it constructively myself in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G.T. Narayana Rao[edit]

Thanks, Jasynnash2, for your comments and advice. I will follow the guidelines. I am building the article with GTN's early life, science writing, critique of his work, etc. This may take another 10 days, progressively. Thanks, again.
H.Jayadeva (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a subpage[edit]

Hi, Jasynnash2, sorry to be asking this question. I had seen something about creating asubpage. I see m to have lost my way there. Couldyou please tell me how create a subpage, so I can move the text on my User page there. Thanks. H.Jayadeva (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by saying I don't think moving the text currently on your userpage makes much sense (the article already exists in mainspace and should be edited there - the text on your userpage at present should probably be deleted/blanked instead). However; in the spirit of cooperation I think you can find the relevant info on how to create subpages using the help stuff (I can't remember exactly how to do it to be honest). Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be exceedingly unbitey![edit]

Re this, I noticed this was the user's second ever AfD contrib. Looks like a really promising newbie... for that reason, can I humbly suggest you revert yourself at the AfD and leave a really nice, gentle message at the user's talk page, just below mine? :-) I love promising newbies - let's nurture this 'un. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did try to word it nicer but, my original version seemed wishy washy. I did try to keep it neutral through. I'll have a look around and see what I can do to fix it (welcome him/her if they haven't been already etc). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards Coaches[edit]

I found some references for Edwards Coaches, including a newspaper story about how the company has become the first Welsh company to win the UK Coach of the Year title, and added the new references to the article. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwards Coaches. --Eastmain (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Horse (whisky)[edit]

I'm replying to your message bout White Horse (whisky). None of the references that I posted are behind a paywall, so you ought to be able to view tem, unless your employer, school or ISP has blocked them. The most important of them is http://www.beveragedaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=72893-diageo-whisky-uk from Beverage Daily, which states: "Another Diageo brand, White Horse, won blended whisky of the year." This seems a pretty good argument in favor of notability. I think that the article is now a neutral and NPOV description of the whisky's atttributes. --Eastmain (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have firewall problems sometimes (apparently Tobacco or Alchohol are no-no words around here). I agree an award win would confirm notability and such but, that wasn't what the tag I placed was about. Could we perhaps include that award in the article and use the reference you provided as an inline citation? I'm not sure on the language thing but, don't really have anything constructive in mind to improve the tone so will take your word for it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry spoke to soon. I see the line about the award is already in the article. Please ignore that bit of my response. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt annexes Puerto Rico Lighthouses[edit]

Hi. :) Thanks for following up with your concerns about this article at the copyright problems board. I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that in terms of copyright it's okay because it is a US Federal Government document and is public domain and also because Roosevelt died in 1919. Works are copyrighted until 70 years after the author's death, so even if it were a not a federal document, it would be public domain because of that. I'm glad you brought it up anyway, though, as I've now put it at Wikisource and marked it for deletion. It was tagged in December and did nothing since then, so if you had not come across it, it might have been sitting there waiting for a very long time! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Joe Sernio[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry, maybe I'm just thick, but I don't see anything unusual that sticks out. Of course, I also know literally nothing about this subject. Can you elaborate a little? Thanks, J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically in the edit history of Joe Sernio... I'm not fully sure how to word the whole thing but, user:Anthonythorn does alot of editing to Joe Sernio (and adds Sernio to various other articles), than an IP address takes over and does the same stuff, than a different IP address does the same thing, etc. Then there is the convenient creation of the Current magazine article which goes to support the Joe Sernio article. I'm basically asking for your opinion on whether you think some or all these people may be the same user whose single purpose seems to be to promote Joe Sernio. And once you formed your opinion if it is that some or all of them may be the same that you help me figure the proper way to deal with it in accordance with the policies and guidelines of the project. Jasynnash2 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IDK a lot about sockpuppets (except extremely obvious ones). A WHOIS shows that all the 71.250.x.x IPs are registered to the same ISP, so they are probably a result of DHCP moving the same person around. 69.125.80.91 (talk · contribs) is on a different ISP, but it could be the same person editing from a friends house, a school, or whatever. I obviously can't tell with Anthonythorn (talk · contribs). In any case, I don't think it is a major problem because they are not vandalizing, meatpuppeting, or anything like that. From what I can see, all they are doing is trying to add info about this guy. But again, that's just me.

With regard to the Currents magazine, I would wait and see what happens with your PROD. If it is contested, take it to AFD. Your PROD rationale is, IMHO, a fairly good assessment of the article.

As far as the Sernio article goes, I am not sure if he is notable or not. If he is, it is probably not a big deal that those people are adding links to him in those articles. I'm sorry, I'm probably not the best person to ask about this. I usually deal with vandalism and obvious riffraff. You should ask on User talk:Keeper76. A lot of people with more experience with these types of things watch that page, and you will probably better help there than I am able to give you. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All help and advice is appreciated. Is the WHOIS thing available for everyone? If so how do I do it? I'll keep half an eye on the situation and continue to try an encourage the user(s) to improve the article and/or discuss improvements with the rest of us. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey[edit]

I can't get wht you mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farooqarahim (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puts us in the same boat because I have no idea what the above statement is actually about. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sernio[edit]

Im trying to fix this and not get it deleted, but it seems i am having a lot of trouble. We have been editing as we were told. Is there any more advice you can help us with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.187.106 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed the policies and guidelines yet? You need to show coverage of the subject of a non-trivial nature from multiple reliable 3rd party sources. You need to make sure that the information is readable and understandable. You should make sure not to clutter the article with the exact same references, etc. All stuff that has previously been mentioned. You should also discuss the merits and/or flaws of the article and it's subject in accordance with the policies and guidelines of the project at the AfD discussion. You should also find away to contribute constructively on other issues and/or articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]