User talk:Jschro

Hello Jschro ! Welcome to the English version of Wikipedia
Thanks you for your participation in this project. We hope that you will stay to contribute and that you will find the collaboration enjoyable. I am Worm That Turned, an established editor here.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that started in 2001 and is free for all to use and edit under certain guidelines and principles that all users must try and adhere to. These principles and guidelines are listed below. Click on the link next to the images for more information.
	The five pillars of Wikipedia. The fundamental principles of the project.		Help. How to get help.
	Tutorial. This tutorial is a basic guide to editing.		Your user pages and your sandbox. How to experiment and edit in your user space.
	Mentoring program. Request help in your first steps of editing.		How to start a page. Help on creating your first article.
	Things to avoid. How to avoid common errors and mistakes.		Style Guide. How to write in an acceptable style.
	Main policies of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main policies and guidelines.		Frequently asked questions. Some common questions and their answers.
	Help Desk. Here you can ask other editors for assistance		Quick reference. A handy quick reference guide for editing Wiki.
This is your Talk page where you can recieve messages from other Wikipedians and discuss things with them. At the end of your messages you must put your signature by signing with four~~~~ or by pressing the button in the editor shown here in the picture. Do not sign in the articles themselves as those messages will be deleted.

If you have any questions, let me know Worm^TT · (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I am beating my head against a wall here. I don't know I think my point is not being put forth in a clear enough manner. It seems the majority of people voting at this time don't fully understand the equation and are voting based on a few quick glances of the page. At this point I'm tired of repeating the same information OVER & OVER & OVER again. I really feel defeated now and like I don't care. If editors want to make a mockery of Wikipedia I feel at this point like I should just let them. What do you think? Jschro (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh and the Articles Creator jumping in and whining about how the article was unfairly targeted doesn't help. In the talk page he clearly states that he knows he was walking a very thin line in creating the article in the first place. I don't know I think there is a whole lot of WP:Crystal going on here as he's started to rant about "information" that he is only speculating will be released "very soon" ect. I feel like I'm dealing with a bunch of 13 year oldsJschro (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This conversation clearly shows that you yourself are not ready to tackle this problem maturely. Complaining behind my back purely because you are not getting your own way. That's all this is; you're not satisfied that everyone else's thoughts on the page is different to your own. And you call me a whiner- look in the mirror, mate. Before calling anyone a '13 year old', just review your own conduct and think about what you said. Your thoughts have been taken into consideration- there is no need to make your point any clearer. With your thoughts in mind, people have voted to KEEP the page. Even moderators have discusses their approval of the page, some of which approval is shown on this very page. You're just not getting the point.

It isn't even as if this is a divisive topic- not ONE other person has voted for the deletion. Not ONE other person has spoken unfavourably about the page. You keep saying 'crystal balling', 'crystal balling' but time and time again, people come up with valid responses to your own criticism.

You need to learn, if you want to have a page deleted, that's OK, but OF COURSE the page's creator will bite back and argue its right to be an article. Especially when everybody else feels the same way. You need to accept this criticism and deal with it. We're not doing this to be against you yourself, we just don't think the ideas you are putting out as reasons to delete the page are correct. You have stated that you will continue to put the deletion tag up if it gets refuted time and time again- and you say I'm whining? Please, I didn't need to type ONE character into any discussion of this topic; the result would have been the same. Bbmaniac (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Bbmaniac, I know you're upset here, but please keep in mind WP:BITE - Jschro is a new user and is learning the ropes. Jschro, one thing I must impress upon you is that there are no firm rules, consensus can change. So whilst at one point we may have said that articles on future events were not appropriate for the encyclopedia the general opinion now is that an article is appropriate for future events - as long as they're reliably sourced. What's more, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that it can afford to have information on topics which would not be generally considered encyclopedic. We do draw a line (your pet dog is not going to get on here), but if something meets our fairly basic notability guidelines (or even if it is clear it is going to meet them) we will keep the article.

Can I suggest that you move away from Big Brother? From what I've seen, you're an eloquent writer and could be a great asset to the encyclopedia - meaning you're wasted on Big Brother. No offence meant to Bbmaniac and the other people who enjoy the show, but there are many more traditionally encyclopedic articles which could do with improvement and would benefit from your point of view. I'd be willing to make some suggestions if you like, perhaps we could have a chat about where your areas of interest lie? Worm^TT · (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not upset; as I've said, I don't even have to lift a finger to have this issue solved. The multitude of people saving the page is enough to make me happy. At first, I could tolerate Jschro's views and I have tried to have an actual discucssion about this with him and others, but now he is going around in circles, repeating the same things and demands people listen to his point of view, but shuts down everybody else's. Jschro should steer clear of this article and this subject. People use Wikipedia for different things and Jschro would benefit the community on other topics. On the topic of WP:BITE, I think you need to keep your suggestions about people who edit Big Brother pages to yourself, Worm. It's quite offensive when I'm trying to improve the quality of pages in that field.Bbmaniac (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page Bbmaniac - Worm^TT · (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Big Brother Australia 2012

I see you partially completed the process for nominating Big Brother Australia 2012 as an Article for Deletion. However, the process was not completed properly, and has therefore been reverted. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi I thought I followed the steps properly. Could you provide me with information on where I when wrong?Jschro (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You didn't create the deletion-debate page, and you didn't place the template properly on the AFD log page. See WP:AFDHOW. As a sidenote, having reviewed the page in question, it's doubtful that the page would be deleted, as it certainly meets WP:GNG. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully I've done this right now.Jschro (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry that we have to agree to disagree but I have declined your G11 tag of this article as it is not what we would call spam or purely advertisement. Now, although I have the final say on how your G11 tag goes, I do not have the final say in whether or not the article is deleted. This is up to the community as is only right and proper. Please continue to discuss this with them on the AfD page. Or alternatively, if you wish to discuss your speedy deletion tag further with me, please message me on my talk page and we can discuss it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 06:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Jschro, thank you for logging in, I now realise it was you who wrote that and I can talk to you about it. To be honest, I am glad it was you and not some random. Firstly, do not just imply that I am acting emotionally. I wouldn't act emotionally on this topic at all, there is no reason to considering emotions wouldn't make a difference anyway. You are trying to find ways that somehow belittles my opinion on the topic and you seem to be reverting to pure personal attacks to try to provoke a response or a change of heart I have on this topic. It's quite immature, Jschro, and if you want this discussion to be a two way street, you need to act more professionally. I have rebutted your message on the deletion talk page to discuss this matter further if you care to take a read. But here, I will rebut what you said on my own talk page. Firstly, you state Big Brother Australia 'won't make it to air for close to a year'. Now, apparently, this is your reasoning for the article to be deleted, correct? Maybe not the only reason, but I will assume it is the biggest reason considering you mentioned it first in your message. Well, in that case, having the article up does not necessarily break any Wikipedia rules as I and others have stated on numerous occasions. Having an article up about an event which is far off is OK as long as the article has verifiable information in it, is not flooded with rumours and has community support. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will repeat that the page DOES NOT have any rumours on it and the page DOES have verifiable information. I will look at it from your perspective. You feel the page does not have enough information to warrant its existence. I personally think it does. Perceptions are different for everyone, hence why I think your deletion tag idea was a VALID one. Can you see the situation here? The main problem with the page is not the information itself, but the amount of it. You know that, you have mentioned it before. Now, taking into consideration the fact the page does not technically break any Wikipedia regulations, but its contents are divisive, it is only fair to leave it up to the community to vote for whether the page should stay which, due to your deletion tag, is what is happening. Let me remind you that I am not the only person arguing for its survival, however I am the most spoken person. I too have been a fan of Big Brother internationally for the best part of the show's 12 year history. But the fact YOU are a big fan does not give you any more authority over the page than anyone else. In the same regard, I do not have any more authority over the page than you do, which is why IF the page is deleted, I will accept the outcome. The same goes for you having to accept the outcome of the page's survival if a Keep vote goes ahead. That's the reason it is hard to discuss things with you. You seem to be taking a 'my way or the highway' approach to the matter. I can't stress to you how much this decision is NOT affecting me. Your reasoning to have the page deleted is obviously due to your own personal opinions, which is fine and legal, but it all comes down to what the community wants in that regard.

To the article itself, and no I do not think it should be merged. Having two articles that are of OPTIMUM quality is more efficient and can be achieved easily. I myself will be concentrating my efforts on cleaning up the main page when the year is through. Or maybe that could be your job? Instead of worrying about the Big Brother Australia 2012, which I believe should be up now in order to grow and provide information to people who clearly want it, you could help with other matters. I have seriously considered your point of view, but I feel you won't understand that until I change my own point of view to suit yours, which just won't be happening.Bbmaniac (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've edited your request for an uninvolved admin to review the discussion. You can't just get an uninvolved admin to review a portion of a discussion as this is unfair and bias. Bbmaniac (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't be editing your request for an uninvolved admin to review the discussion as I have been informed any uninvolved admin will not simply review a portion of the discussion anyway. But in future, I would expect you not to threaten me as you did on my talk page. You don't owe me any respect more than I owe you, but as a newer user, I expect for you to remember that it won't look good on you if you are just hounding me to get a response, which is what you are clearly doing. Also, I see that some of the people who have voted to delete the page, you have then asked them to get other people on board. This is against the rules as per WP:AFDFORMAT which states; Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons).. Any person who votes must be a person to that point uninvolved in the deletion discussion who reads the article at their own merit. I will be keeping a close eye on anyone who votes from here on in and if I find that their vote is a little bit shifty, I will be taking it up with an admin. Bbmaniac (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Editing

Hi Jschro. Just replying to your note on my page. Firstly, I'd like to explain that as part of AfD, an uninvolved administrator will review the entire discussion, weigh up the arguments and assess what the community consensus is. There is no need to request uninvolved review part way through the discussion. Also, I'd like to dispel the idea that administrators have authority over the small section. They're just the same as every other editor, with a couple of extra tools that allow them to do things like block users or delete pages.

However, you're right, per WP:TPO, Bbmaniac shouldn't have edited your message. I haven't seen him edit other comments so I wouldn't worry too much about that. Having said that, no one is on 24 hours per day - so we have things called Watchlists. You may want to have a look at Help:Watchlist, which explains how you can use them. I'm currently watching about 700 articles and pages but I know many people who are watching in excess of 2000. It would allow you to see any changes that happen while you're not around. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)