Misplaced Pages

Continue working, but while yes, 'members' passes for deletion as renaming articles is another process, it obviously will not fly, so don't take my 'just policy' support at AfD to heart - it appears it will not get you anywhere, you're not dealing with one editor anymore. Paraphrase is what we try to do. And actually, no, signers who went in the administation is a subset - not the whole set. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)By his own admission, Dear ODear apparently was an alternate account of Is Not A. The latter having been blocked when that came to light, it's just Dear ODear now.

On naming: my two cents are that we should limit the table to: people who either founded/staffed PNAC, people who signed the statement of purposes, and people who signed the Iraq letter. Those are the only criteria that the more reliable/reputable sources use to tie people to the group, and I think we should stick to that. If we stuck to those criteria, the table could be titled "signatories of key PNAC policy statements with ties to the Bush Administration" or some such. Everyone currently in the table signed either the Statement or the Letter, so I think that's all that's needed. Note, however, that Ubikwit is currently trying to expand the scope of the table, using some less-than-stellar sources. I don't think that is helping the case for keeping the table. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's probably a moot point anyway, the AFD discussions seems to be headed for a "delete." Fyddlestix (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Milosevic letter may not be "key", but the Rebuilding America's Defenses certainly was, and the contributors are described as "Participants" on the last page of the doc, etc. They weren't just "signatories", they helped produce the document, and that is an important fact. Some of them also signed other documents, increasing the weight for their inclusion as "members". That report also seems to be the most substantial document they produced, it seems, and generated as much controversy as the Clinton letter. Recall that it is the only document that has its own dedicated section in the main article.

I'm not sure what to think about the "War on Terror" letter, but I've only seen one source tying one administration member to it thus far. I think signing multiple letters speaks in favor of inclusion, but we should defer to secondary sources, I suppose.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 17:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It is debatable who he is the 'alternate account' of since when the ODear account started editing after the is_not_a block it had about 10 edits and had last edited in 2012. The claim that is_not_a was the alternate of a nearly three year dormant account is not, in my opinion, supportable. I have no idea who the original account was but ODear it was not.

On the naming issue as Alanscottwalker noted, the discriminator is 'served in the administration..' not signed a document. So I suggest we try:

• Signers of PNAC policy statements or letters who served in the administration of George W Bush
  Jbh (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That might work, but let's make a new list if we're going to brain storm this here.

If delineating the subset is deemed to be an issue (which I don't see with the current title), then inverting the application of "members" would seem to be more direct, so let me list that again.

• Members of the Bush administration that were associated with/connected to/members of PNAC

In light of my awakening to the import of the aforementioned report--which was not signed by anybody but produced by a large number of participants (who are listed on the last page), six of whom (that I know of) went on to become members of the Bush administration. They all seem to have signed other letters, but since this was a document they participated in producing, it is significant in an additional register.

1. Stephen Cambone
2. Eliot Cohen
3. I. Lewis Libby
4. Abram Shulsky
5. Paul Wolfowitz
6. Dov Zakheim

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

JbH: ::::::::Better, you could make it shorter by striking "policy", and perhaps "or letters" or "PNAC statement and letter signers . . ." But all of you strongly agree then do it, then present it at the AfD (you heard them). Ubikwit just cover that document in the main article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That would work, as none of the six would be lost from the list, but let's ponder that title.

Do you see anything problematic with the sentence-inverted version I suggested?--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean the words "associated with/connected to/members" in a title? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No, those are selections of possible alternatives at that juncture in the title. I meant overall, but of course, if you have separate opinions on the use of those several alternatives, by all means, opine away to your hearts content.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

JbH's has the chronology right, I can see someone arguing that 'no they were not in the admin and signed.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm just to sleep-deprived and can't think straight, but it seems to me that such a reading would amount to a grammatically incorrect reading of the phrasing including "that", which definitely limits the scope (of the subset) in both the above-proposed version and the current version.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 19:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think, 'you are writing for the . . . ' and you should just keep that in mind. I don't have much more time to say anything on this. Good luck! Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

For possible titles how about -

• Signers of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush

or inverted -

• Advisors and members of the George W Bush administration who signed PNAC's documents
  

Jbh (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer the first of those two. I think that it is short and compact, and addresses the issues.

Let's wait for Fyddlestix to weigh in on this.

I'll try and look at the link scenario tomorrow.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 21:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks... I'll ping @Fyddlestix: Jbh (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the first one too, although I would swap "signatories" for "signers." Fyddlestix (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Jbh (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: If you are OK with:

• Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush

would you please make the move. Thanks. Jbh (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, done.

Check this source (entirety of p. 15) in relation to the discussion at my Talk.

The number of figures associated with PNAC that had been members of the Reagan or the first Bush administration and the number that would take up office with the administration of the second President Bush demonstrate that it is not merely a question of employees and budgets. Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty, Stuart Elden, Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2009, p.15]

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Dead horses...

In good faith, I would interpret this not as a threat, but as a suggestion to "stop beating a dead horse". Now I don't think the state of the horse is clear yet (wether at AN/I or in the clip), but interpreting the edit as a threat seems to be a sign of the general lack of good faith in this conflict, and is unlikely to contribute to a constructive resolution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: Thank you for the advice. Yes, good faith is pretty much gone at this point and I really regret that. Like I said here and when I posted, I would not consider it a threat from Collect or anyone whose online track record I was familiar with. ODear on the other is re-activated dormant account that started editing after the blocking of User:Is_not_a an 'alternate' account of an unknown user. I have no clue what is going through their head. I asked them to strike the comment for clarity, they are active now and have not done so. Threats of getting me with rules - fine, no worries. Even the faintest hint of RL from an unknown user I have zero-tolerance because things like that can spin badly out of control without the slightest warning. I have taken enough risks in my life to know that you mitigate the ones you can. I admit I am sensitive to such things. Jbh (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I can understand that, but I'm not sure this approach is mitigating anything. In a pinch, you might ask for clarification in a less public place (like their user page). More heat is not, I think, what we need. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you misinterpreted a joke.

Perhaps your exaggerated reaction may give you some empathy about the state of living persons who are targetted by Larouchites and troll armies, and who have had their kids' names etc. put on their articles. Consider what happened to Richard Flacks. Dear0Dear 19:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Consider the matter closed. As I said it was a funny video. Yes, I do understand their plight my opinion on BLPs is pretty strict but I do admit to not wanting to allow Public figures to PR manage their public acts. Anyway glad that's done with. Jbh (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Stephan Schulz: Matter is closed. Jbh (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, - MrX 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Discovery of the neutron

I suspect you did not do proper research before putting this page up for speedy deletion. In any case, we have worked quite long and hard at developing this page from many sources and extensive discussions. Misplaced Pages is the original here. I write mainly because it is a curious problem, however - many external websites are copying wholesale from wikipedia, often without acknowledging this fact, which leads to the problem of citing these external websites that have been copied from wikipedia, etc. But thanks for your diligence! Bdushaw (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: I was very surprised when the whole thing came up matching other sites because it is a great article. Since it showed as a recent new page I did not think to consider that Misplaced Pages might have been the source. Sorry if I caused any problems. Jbh (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The effort may not be without positive contribution in the sense it really raises the question about what to do with external articles that copy from wikipedia. One of the links you found does acknowledge[REDACTED] as the source, the other doesn't. The general question could get tricky to resolve in a happy manner; may just require more work to sort out the provenance of material. Bdushaw (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: I guess it might be possible if enough authors were available or one person wrote a large chunk of the material for them to send a DMCA Takedown Notice to the non-attributing sites. I'm not sure how that works here but I have seen photographers on Commons handle it like that for their pictures. Anyway nice article, no wonder others want it. :) Jbh (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

stub tags

Hallo, Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article like PNK College which already has a specific stub tag - it just wastes the time of other editors. Thanks. PamD 16:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@PamD: Sorry, I missed the Indian university stub tag. I make sure to double check going forward. Jbh (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Jbh (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Verminator04

I have resolved your speedy deletion request for Janetta Rebold Benton by adding the appropriate copyleft statement to the original website. Please remove your request.

@Verminator04: - Please read WP:COPYVIO for more information on Misplaced Pages's policies copying text. An administrator will take a closer look at the page. What you place here must be written in your own words, not copied from another site. I would also recommend that you take a look at our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you for your understanding. Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ Jbh (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: - My edits are in compliance with the Conflict of Interest guidelines, and the appropriate copyleft notice is in place, ensuring compliance with the reuse guidelines. I have also reworded all text, ensuring that the content presented is 'in my own words'. Thanks. Verminator04 (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete article

https://en.wikipedia.org/Beneath_the_Skin_(album) You should have deleted the article. I was forced to recreate it as a blank article to unfollow it which makes no sense of why Misplaced Pages does this. It was already deleted for duplicated of this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Beneath_the_Skin_(Of_Monsters_and_Men_album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@JKruger13: Only administrators can delete articles but thank you for the information and for noting it is a duplicate on the talk page. An admin will follow up on the tag. Also, you can go to Special:Watchlist and choose 'edit your watch list' to un-watch a deleted article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Thanks.

Trouted

You have been trouted for: What is this

@JKruger13: - It is a way to tell an editor they have done something dumb that they really should have known better than to do. See WP:TROUT. Some people do not see the humor in a good trouting but I prefer it to some other ways people can express their displeasure. The template {{troutme}} placed at the top of your talk page makes the little icon you clicked on. Some editors place it there to let others know they do not mind being trouted to remind them of what they should know :) Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

aww okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKruger13 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Empress Of

I have my references posted and i'm posting more as I go along. the article is valid as this is for an up and coming musical artist with growing profile and fanbase. give me a break b.

@Temp144: I removed the BLPPROD becuase it looks like Pitchfork is a RS. Please read WP:MUSICBIO carefully to see criteria for notability. Based on what is in the article and what I have found on a quick search the article likely would not pass AfD. Probably the easiest notability criteria to meet is if they have a song which has charted on a national chart. Jbh (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Johny Seth

This Page Has Provided the references of interviews and biodata. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.58.250 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Elysium ( Dreampop band)

I didn't create that page-I moved it without a space. Wgolf (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wgolf: Thanks for letting me know. I'm using Twinkle to do the CSD notifications. I guess it sees moves as creates, interesting... I will check the history and notify the creator. Jbh (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

All mirrors...

Hi. I've declined your speedy at the Beluga article (and the Coren bot's notice too) because both sites acknowledge that their text comes from Misplaced Pages. Your one even gives the full CC and GFDL bit at the bottom of the page. Mirrors and quotes are often a problem, but the WikiSnap does say at top of page that it's stuff from Misplaced Pages, and a look at the bottom provided the CC licensing. The other one started with ", so I scrolled down to the next " and found '- Misplaced Pages' at the end. On a side note, I've seen one of the current Belugas on the ground, and oh boy, was it big... I'd never heard of them, but thought it looked whale or porpoise like, and was interested when the person I was talking to at the airfield told me it was a Beluga and what it did. Peridon (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peridon: Thanks for the note. New articles with text from Misplaced Pages mirrors have caught me a couple of times now - the cognitive dissonance of new here old there but from here throws me :) I will make sure to click through from the links Earwig's tool kicks out.

That must have been an impressive sight. Those two tiny looking engines do not look like they could get that thing off of the ground! Jbh (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it was a copy - of Airbus Beluga. I thought the wording looked familiar. It was the earlier article I'd read, and I was sure I had read it here - after seeing the plane. As to the plane, it's weird with that enormous blank 'forehead' and the little (by comparison) 'eyes' and 'nose' down at the bottom. It doesn't have all the seating, loos and floor storage that the airliner version does - cutting a lot of dead weight out, and most of the cargo has a lot of space inside it, so what it is lifting is volume not bulk. Peridon (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of the content of wikiarticles outside Misplaced Pages

Speedy deletion declined: Wetpour

Hello Jbhunley. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wetpour, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional, not eligible for A7. Will PROD instead. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog 17:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

@Amina-daily: - Thank you! Sheikh Muhammad Nura Khalid looks like quite a remarkable fellow. Glad to help out. I will keep him on my watch list and if you need any assistance please feel free to ask. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

@小玉: Thank you for the barnstar! I tagged the article Zion Lee for spedy deletion because it made no credible assertion of importance and was about a person. Please see out general notability guidelines for the criteria for an article on Misplaced Pages. I tagged Zion Lee again after it was recreated because it was a cross name space redirect to Misplaced Pages:Zion Lee, The Misplaced Pages name space is not used for articles. It is for material relating to the Misplaced Pages project. If you have any other questions of would like some help please let me know here. You might also want to read WP:FIRST it talks about how to create your first article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Bundling

Hello! Although we disagree on what the outcome of these AfDs should be, do you not agree we could get better input by bundling the Dethcentrik AfDs?-BusyWikipedian (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

@BusyWikipedian: In this case no. Albums and bands have different notability criteria WP:NALBUMS and WP:BAND. Each of the albums have different sources to be addressed although there is, in my opinion, no way those albums come within a mile of passing WP:NALBUM. One or two reviews, even in RS, does not constitute significant coverage and a couple of the albums do not have even that. Bundling would, as I read it, have them stand or fall as a group. Even if Deathcentrik passes AfD all that means is that the albums are not eligible for db-a7 not that they are notable. Jbh (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying why they cannot be bundled-BusyWikipedian (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

@小玉: Thanks again for the barnstar but there is no need to leave one to leave me a new message you can just reply under your previous comment or add a new section at the bottom for a different question. How to edit talk pages gives a quick introduction.

The most important thing you need to establish for your article subject is notability. Out general notability guidelines set out those criteria and there are special criteria if they are a musician, scholar, athlete etc. The Misplaced Pages Teahouse has a group of volunteers who specialize in helping people get their first article done and explaining all of out policies and guidelines. Cheers Jbh (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I did mean to ping you before making the request

I don't really think you care, just mentioning because I meant to drop you a note first, but then forgot to. Duh. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: No problem, it was not an improper request and I left a note on the Workshop talk page so the Arbs would know it was OK both parties. I hope they at least read the post but I can see a lot of back and forth growing from it on the Workshop page. If there are any particular extracts you think would be of use you might be able to use it in an analysis section or one of the proposal comments. I will not object to that since I wrote it in the context of the case.

I am still amazed at all of the drama that came out of that list!Jbh (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

More than just a ping is necessary to thank you both for conferring. It displays the leadership necessary for retaining editors. @FCAYS talk.. . Buster Seven Talk 15:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

JbH. Your efficiency and concern for responsible notification is commendable. . Buster Seven Talk 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mail

@MONGO: OK. Makes sense to me. Jbh (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's

Hi,

You have recently reviewed a Misplaced Pages article I published and I was hoping you can give me a bit more details about why you have included it in the "considered for deletion" list.

Since your last moderation, I have added more sources, made a few text changes, and I think the article is much better now. Kindly let me know if there is anything else I should change or edit. Comment by Felician89

@Felician89: hi. I nominated the article Monitor_Backlinks for deletion because I feel it does not meet our notability guidelines for companies or our general notability guidelines. In particular blog coverage and funding announcements do not lend a company notability. See WP:ORGIN and WP:CORPDEPTH for more detail on those points. Once the company has some significant, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources a Misplaced Pages article would be appropriate. Jbh (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

trying up load my project landlord article.. please help MuzicFan1981 (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

i don't know why my page have got deleted i just found a photo on the internet that i think is not copyrighted so please come check my page out to see before i upload my article again thank you. my page name is muzicfan1981,

@MuzicFan1981: - Not sure what you are asking. The article you mentioned was not deleted. If you want to post a photo you must have a license for it, a fair use rational or it must be in the public domain. All of these things must be documented per the instructions when you upload. Jbh (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

is a public domain the internet of what if i know the guy who did the photo for the chrome (RAPPER) article i created ? if i know his website can i put that in the picture uploader to pass the copyrights requirements Comment by MusicFan1981 Jbh (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand your question properly, no just because an image is on the Internet it is not public domain. See WP:Copyrights for how to go about getting a proper license or release to use media on Misplaced Pages. If you know the subject of the article you should read out conflict of interest guidelines. Also, please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ doing so will insert your user name and a date/time stamp. This might be some help to you as you get started on Misplaced Pages - How to edit talk pages. Please let me know if I can be of further help. Jbh (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ruth Guler

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of this article, expanded it with four other sources, and nominated it for Did you know. In general, if you see an article that is cited to a dedicated piece in a usually reliable source (in this case an official obituary in the Daily Telegraph, a British broadsheet newspaper generally considered acceptable for BLPs), you should avoid CSD and go to AfD instead (or, even better, improve the article!) Ritchie333 18:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: OK. Will do. I just saw the one liner simply saying she was 'eccentric hotelier' and I guess my cynicism took over. Nice job on improving the article. Jbh (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, every now and again we all get grumpy, angry mastodon defence takes over and we hit the revert / delete buttons. Still, imagine if you'd done this! Ritchie333 19:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Wow! :) Jbh (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Jbhunley

Thanks for filling the references of my recently created articles. You were very fast and efficient. Its so painful that your first and only article, Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush was deleted per consensus at AfD· I'm really sorry about this and I hate to see your article deleted again in the future. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page, if you need help on article creation. Happy editing. Wikic¤l¤gy

@Wikicology: Thank you, glad to be able to do something constructive even if only little things. The article deletion is no real concern. It was a table someone else made that I spun out as part of trying to resolve a content dispute. Lots of drama ensued that led to an Arbcom case being opened over the behavior of one of the other participants in that dispute.

Thank you for the offer of help, I may well take you up on it when I get the guts to write in an area I have some knowledge or find something innocuous and engaging from going through new pages. For now gnoming about keeps my busy when I'm otherwise bored and do not want to engage with real life :) Jbh (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com access

Hi Jbhunley,

You should be able to sign in and get full access to Newspapers.com now. HazelAB (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

@HazelAB: Works fine. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm 1Potato2Potato3Potato4. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, WWE 2K (Mobile Game ), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@1Potato2Potato3Potato4: Thank you for catching that. I missed the copyvio. Jbh (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Paula Peters unreferenced?

It looks like you flagged the article on Paula Peters as not containing any references; however it also looks like this problem is now fixed. Does the article's author have the authority to remove the flags?Ssenier (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ssenier: Yes. Once a reliable source is used to support a claim any editor can remove the BLPPROD. Clean up tags can be removed by any editor who does not feel they apply or that the problem has been fixed.

The Paula Peters article needs to be edited to conform to Misplaced Pages standards and seems to be a bit promotional to me but that is only my, rather strict, opinion. Otherwise it is a nice article. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much!Ssenier (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

doriscarnival

Thank you for your comments and advice. I will modify my page to suit your requirments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doriscarnival (talk • contribs) 15:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Doriscarnival: Hi! Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I tagged Carnival Group International Holdings Limited with a speedy delete tag because it contains large amounts of text copy/pasted from another source. This is against Misplaced Pages policy please see WP:COPYRIGHT for more information. Also please do not remove speedy delete tags from articles you have created like you did here and remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Please feel free to contact me here or {{ping}} me from the article talk page in you need assistance. Based on your user name and the title of the article you are editing please read our policies on conflict of interest Cheers. Jbh (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hey, JBH, thanks for helping at the 3O project. Just a couple of words of advice: When you take a request, be sure to remove it from the list (as stated in the last bullet point of "Providing third opinions" on the 3O page), even if you're not going to issue a 3O instantly (but if you're not going to issue one right away do as you did and put a note on the article talk page saying that you're working on it), but in any event remove the listing before you give the 3O. Second, convention has it that we volunteers don't annotate the request list except to indicate if a request has been reinserted after being removed for being stale (with something like "Second request" or somesuch). Both of those are no big deal and just part of the 3O learning curve and, again, we're really glad you've joined the 3O community of volunteers. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Will do. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fallow Season of Hugo Hunter AfD

This article is under construction. Did you not read the template? -MacRùsgail (talk)

@MacRusgail: I could not find significant coverage when I did WP:BEFORE. All I saw were blog entries and and marketing. I do not question the author's notability. If you can show the book meets WP:NBOOK I will withdraw my AfD nomination. Jbh (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If you're such a Smart Alec, why didn't you realise you don't AfD articles while they're under construction. That's the whole point of the template, to stop premature judgement, such as yours.

If you did notice it at all. Rude. -MacRùsgail (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC) p.s. The internet is actually not one of the best places to look for references anyway, since most of the links disappear after a year or two. Hard copy is better, if you can get hold of it. Google is not a research tool, it's a slightly creepy corporation which happens to run a search engine.

I've turned this article into a redirect to the author, and will continue writing it somewhere I can do so without harassment.

In future, note the template.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MacRusgail: I understand your frustration but name calling only reflects poorly on you. If the book passes WP:NBOOK post the Keep argument at AfD, show the sources and I will withdraw the nomination just as I offered before your last comment. I took a closer look at the book because if the first thing an article creator has to say about a book it that it was a $0.99 special at Amazon I want to take a much closer look at its notability. I found a book published by Amazon's self-publishing house, with some blog coverage, some passing mention and sales material. Jbh (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't give a flying whatever about name calling. You nominated an article while an under construction template was on it. The only time that would properly apply if it that was piece of vandalism. You've taken up much of the time I would have actually spent improving the article.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm logging off Misplaced Pages. I've got more important things to do like writing a letter to a debt agency.-MacRùsgail (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC) p.s. The article is now a redirect...

(edit conflict)@MacRusgail: Sorry, I am going to have to revert that redirect. Please note that the AfD notice says. Do not remove this notice and Do not blank the page. You have removed the AfD notice at least twice and now blanked it. Please follow the proper procedures. (Wow! I just looked you up on Xtools. None of this should be new to you.) PS {{under construction}} on an article in Main space is not a bar to AfD it is an informational notice. I am sorry if this upsets you. Jbh (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Aricooperdavis. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Guimiliau Parish close, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. aricooperdavis (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Aricooperdavis: OK. Would you mind saying what you found to be in error? I understand it is possible I missed something and it would help me to understand what it might be so I do not repeat an error. Thank you for your time. Jbh (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, I thought that I'd accidentally reviewed it before I'd finished checking it, so I unreviewed it again - sorry about that! Looking at it, though, it seems to have been poorly translated from French, and doesn't contain enough context. For example the first sentence "The enclos paroissial of Guimiliau" contains two non-english words and doesn't have a full stop, whilst nowhere does the page mention where the "enclos" actually is, or that it's a parish close (apart from the title). It seems like it could do with quite a bit more work, but since that's not a criteria for reviewing AfC submissions, I think I've acted in error. Sorry again! aricooperdavis (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Aricooperdavis: No problem. Mistakes are just part of doing the work - we all make them now and then. When I the note I figured it as likely I had made one as you. Enjoy your weekend. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jbh, you too. aricooperdavis (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ashestoangels

I've removed the PROD on this article and taken it to AFD instead. I think a fuller evaluation of the sources is in order. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 11:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: OK. Works for me. Thanks for the note. Jbh (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Debate on Splashed White in gypsies

This is in relation to: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Splashed_white

I am the IP user who initially brought up the concerns regarding original research, and I've just found the rest of the debate. I just wanted to say thanks for your assistance with helping resolve this. I believe the original research has now been removed, and I am satisfied with how the article is now worded.

Incidentally, I believe you mentioned you were genuinely interested in the topic, so I thought you might be interested in some information I've uncovered. I asked the Gypsy Vanner Society for clarification with regard to 'blagdon' and the general summary of their reply was that it was a phenotype that could include (but not necessarily limited to) patterns which were genetically sabino or draft-type sabino. They explicitly stated the former is present in the breed. Draft-type sabino can't be tested for, so is unknown, however this is present all through the clydesdale breed, which was heavily used as foundation stock for the gypsy breed, so it's plausible that it is also present. Because of the definition of blagdon as just a phenotype, it can't be ruled out that it also includes some very weird looking SW1 horses. Unlikely, especially considering the lack of normal looking SW1 gypsies, but not impossible, so to have the article phrased as it currently is is suitable.

I'm not planning on adding this to any article, since personal communications aren't exactly verifiable resources, but I thought you might find it interesting since you expressed an interest. Thanks again for your help.

14.2.119.6 (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and I am glad the article text came out in a way that works for you. Doing the research for that was fascinating. I wonder if breeders will start to take advantage of the cheap fast whole genome sequencing becoming available. Cheers. Jbh (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It will be really interesting to watch the results of this field as genetic testing becomes more prevalent. Speaking of which, W20 is looking like the main culprit behind the "four socks and blaze" version of blagdon. Some gypsies have tested positive for it, as have a large group of other horses from a very diverse group of breeds, all of whom appear to share this phenotype. It would appear W20 is very prevalent. Some more info if you're curious:

http://practicalhorsegenetics.com.au/index.php?test=w20

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23659293

Jack Watsan

Hi jbh, please suggest what I should do. should I change the template? About the links, I shall read more and place it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J A Srivathsan (talk • contribs) 05:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Hi jbh, please suggest what I should do. should I change the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J A Srivathsan (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@J A Srivathsan: I am not sure what template you mean. As far as the {{db-band}} speedy deletion template goes it was originally placed by Everymorning who I just pinged. Maybe they can explain their thinking on placing it. My thought is you might want to read our general notability guidelines, notability criteria for bands/musicians and our policies on reliable sources to get an idea of what is required to be considered notable for Misplaced Pages.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for coming to my talk page to ask questions rather than continuing to remove the speedy tag. Please let me know if I can be of help. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~ that will cause your name and the date to be inserted. Jbh (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Thank you so much. I shall chat with Everymorning about this matter. Thanks once again.J A Srivathsan (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Dinesh Vaghela

Hi,

Please help me in getting rid of the issues with the page Dinesh Vaghela

Also, when searched on Google, the page does not appear on the first page of the search.

PLEASE HELP!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirvaghela (talk • contribs) 07:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kabirvaghela. I see you have put quite a bit of work into the article. I have taken a closer look at it and I see two major problems. The first is that much of the text is taken directly from articles found on the web. This is not allowed here because of WP:COPYRIGHT issues. This can be solved restating the material in your own words and I can try to help some with that.

The second issue is more of a problem. I am unsure whether the subject of the article passed our general notability guidelines for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. I will look through the sources in the article but you have put in a lot of things like books he has written or published that are not really appropriate at first glance. Clearing those out will take some time. I will ask another editor who is more experienced in Indian topics than I to take a look and ask for their opinion since I am not familiar with Indian politics and what notable coverage is.

You can help a lot with this by finding articles from independent, third party reliable sources which talk about him. This means sources that are not written or published by him, his party, his campaign or anyone related to him. Please understand that it is almost certain that the article will be much shorter than it is now and if notability can not be established there will be an Articles for Deletion discussion opened to discuss the notability of the subject.

I will do what I can with the article. As to the Google search results that is not something Misplaced Pages has any control over and is based on Google's search algorithm. Cheers. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and date automatically. Jbh (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Added diff of help request for reference. Jbh (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kabirvaghela: I have re-written the article based on the sources and text available to address the copyright issue and to remove material not supported by sources. While looking into the subject I could not find any really significant coverage. I tried using both 'Vaghela' and alternate spelling 'Waghela'. As it stands it is likely I will need to nominate the article at WP:AFD. If you can find some sources in the next couple of days maybe that can be avoided. Please see notability for politicians and general notability guidelines for our criteria for articles. Also please see reliable sources for the types of sources needed. Please note that the sources must be independent of him and his party. We need things like newspaper articles that talk about him in a significant way. Mere mentions of his name or minor quotes do not contribute to notability. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for your guidance. ~~~~

@Kabirvaghela: You are quite welcome. Please feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Also, the 'nowiki' and 'code' tags are just how I got the four ~ to display without the software inserting my signature in their place. When you sign just use the four ~ at the end. Here is a quick primer on talk pages you might find helpful: How to edit talk pages Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:oh! thank you once again. i'm a new user, please bare with me :D--Kabir Vaghela (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Kabir Vaghela, the way to improve the article is not to turn it into a unsourced hagiography. Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS. --NeilN 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kabirvaghela: Based on the lack of better sources in the rewrite I have decided to nominate the article for AfD. The subject does not meet our notability criteria for politicians or our general notability criteria.If the article is deleted at AfD then when/if the subject wins a notable election or gets more substantial coverage in reliable sources the article can be recreated based on the new material. Jbh 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool new signature! --NeilN 18:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Jbh 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley:How do i stop the article from getting deleted?

should i restore the article to the date that you edited it? --Kabir Vaghela (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What you need to do is find some high quality sources like national newspapers that discuss the subject in depth not simply mention his name in passing or relate a small quote. I have given you links to the notability criteria several times and the relevant criteria are mentioned in my nomination at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Vaghela.

When I did the re-write I simply used the material that was present in the article and removed the copyright violations and presented it per WP:NPOV. I searched for more sources, also using an alternate spelling, and found nothing of note which I could use to improve the article. While the article's wording was more in line with our policies in the version I wrote is still did not pass out notability guidelines. You should present your arguments for keeping the article at the AfD discussion. You can continue to improve the article while the discussion goes on. Cheers. Jbh 19:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete Bonny Norton?

I've added a reference to an encyclopedia article on Bonny Norton (Higgins, 2011), plus a number of external links, but it's still suggested that it be deleted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espensj (talk • contribs) 22:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Espensj: Sorry, I misread the cite as something she had written as opposed to something written about. The article is paywalled and I made a bad assumption. I removed the BLPPROD. Jbh 22:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

AFD

Hi JBH, I did not make any recent changes to Sugar Mountain Farm nor did I remove the AFD tag. I would like to request a week to work on putting together the citations on notability that CorporateM asked for. Pubwvj (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It is OK to continue to improve the article and present sources while the AfD is ongoing. AfD generally lasts at least seven days so you should have time. Please carefully read WP:N, WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Please note that AfD is not a vote (That is why comments there are called !votes) rather arguments are based on Misplaced Pages policies. One good, policy based, !vote should 'win' over a dozen !votes that are not based on policy. It is best when you comment at AfD to cite the particular part of the guidelines the article meets and what you feel makes it meet them.

I nominated the article because the back and forth was getting tiresome and while I initially felt the notability was a bit questionable I really respect CorporateM's opinion on this type of thing, so that tipped me from meh to delete. Jbh 15:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pubwvj: In case I have not mentioned it I really appreciate and respect the way you have backed off direct editing of the article since I got involved. Jbh 15:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, JBH. I appreciate your help with understanding the Wiki process and with improving the article. I am not a Wiki expert. I'm a farmer. I know a lot about rotational grazing, growing pasture, growing pigs on pasture, naturally raising animals, USDA regulations, building a USDA/State inspected butcher shop, concrete, boar taint, selective breeding and what we do. I'm barely skimming the surface of learning about Wiki. My understanding of Wiki is low. What I have added to the article in the past was based on what I thought I was being told by previous editors to do. I appreciate the feedback. The terminology and abbreviations are a bit overwhelming. Thank you for the references to read which you listed above. It will take me some time to assimilate them. Pubwvj (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pubwvj: Yes, Misplaced Pages can be arcane. What all of those links boil down to is several independent, third party, reliable sources that talk about the subject in detail are needed to demonstrate notability. Sources that do not exert strong editorial control, self published sources, those that make only passing mentions or brief quotes and those that do not discuss the subject in depth do not count towards notability although some may be useful for supporting part of the article.

If you have any questions about the guidelines or sources you think might demonstrate notability feel free to ask me. I will be happy to give my opinion but please understand that my opinion counts no more or less than any other editor and others quite possibly will disagree. Cheers. Jbh 16:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sugar Mountain Farm AfD

JB, I am curious why articles like this one Valentine Richmond History Center which has clearly been edited by COI editors associated with the museum and doesn't yet have a single reliable source independent of the topic cited in the article (since its creation in 2006) gets a free pass on COI and GNG yet we are more than willing to do almost anything to suppress content like Sugar Mountain Farm? Just curious! --Mike Cline (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: Because of how Misplaced Pages is organized often no one will notice a problem at an article until someone either directly calls an editor's attention to the matter, as you have done, or the issue spills over onto one of our internal noticeboards. I took a quick look at the article, since everything was, as you said, cited to their web page I also took a brief look for material on the web. I found two local articles on the Valentine itself The Valentine Richmond History Center, Reopening This Weekend: Richmond History Center Now Just 'The Valentine' and one on a current exhibit there Beard Wars: Civil War Generals and their Bewhiskered Modern-Day Counterparts which can be used to improve the article.

Regarding COI the obvious COI editor, ValentineRHC, has not edited since 2012. If you have concerns about the others you can bring the issue up at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. With respect to 'suppressing content' at Sugar Mountain Farm I would disagree with that characterization. There are a lot of passing mentions but no real in depth coverage that speaks to notability. Possibly more will be found but it is my experience that when a COI editor has been working on an article for a long time, particularly against an opposing editor as in this case, they will have already put in the best sources they can find along with all of the other questionable ones.

I hope I was able to address your concerns, at least to an extent, if you have any other questions or concerns please ask. Jbh 19:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

JB thanks. I indeed realize things slip through the cracks. But even the local sources you listed may support content, but do they rise to the level of GNG. Using the same logic that CorporateM used to remove most content sources from the Sugar Mountain Farm article (the owner of the farm obviously contributed to those sources therefore they aren't reliable was the logic he used) I strongly suspect that this museum's PR function contributed to the pieces you cited. It's really the double standard we tolerate and perpetuate with our "Blood in the water" COI approach that I am railing against, not you in particular. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Cline: That I do understand. My personal views are kind of deletionist and I would support the equivalent of BLPPROD for everything. I think the reason managed COI articles get 'picked on' is the more editors whose attention are drawn to an article the bigger chance someone will notice it does not meet our standards. While one that is just created and left alone only needs to get through New Page Patrol and no one will ever notice it. Cheers. Jbh 22:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

HI Jbhunley

stop correcting my stuff, its the correct stuff so stop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewpich (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Matthewpich: I tagged Selena Gomez (singer and actress) for speedy deletion because all the article consists of is "Selena Gomez is a singer and actress. She is really awesome. She was born on 7/22/92" this is not sufficient for a Misplaced Pages article. Please read our guide to writing your first article and check out the Misplaced Pages Tea House for information on what is needed to write an article which meets Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Please let me know if I can be of help. Cheers. PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and date automatically. Jbh 02:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Mgfrid about Misha Frid] Article

Sorry, it's not autobiography. I write about Misha Frid from his account (we are friends) and we write an article including references and information from other sources (our autobiography is only on his official website) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgfrid (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mgfrid: Welcome to Misplaced Pages I understand that our policies can be confusing at first. Please see our policies on conflict of interest. Also it is not permitted to use another editors account see our User name policy for details. Please sign up for your own account before you continue editing and note on the article talk page and the new accounts talk page that you have changed accounts and that you previously edited under the Mgfrid account. This allows for proper copyright attribution and prevents you from running afoul our policy about using multiple accounts. If you have any questions or need assistance please feel free to contact me on my talk page or you can ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Jbh 02:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

PS. Please remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and date automatically. Jbh 02:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pings

I don't think you added the 4 tildes when you resigned, or did you? It only works if you do that, if it even works then. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Yes, it was only a couple of seconds between edits so I deleted the old sig and resigned. Thank you for checking though, I have been caught by that mistake before. Jbh 12:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case

The arbitration case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thank you. It is extremely unlikely I will participate beyond the comment I made in the RfAr. Jbh 18:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Submit an article in Misplaced Pages

Hi Thanks for editing and guiding me with regards to Misplaced Pages pages , wanted to understand when can i submit a page to Misplaced Pages or how to publish an article in Misplaced Pages Avi130988 (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)Avi130988

@Avi130988: The article you are writing now is live on Misplaced Pages it is published the instant you create the article in Main space. That is why you see people working on it at the same time as you are. A lot of new editors use Misplaced Pages Articles for Creation to get input on their article and have it formally reviewed by an experienced editor before it is published to Main space. I hope this answers your question, if I did not or you need something else please let me know. Cheers. Jbh 19:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

16-line format sample messages

Thank you for including some sample messages in the talk page. I'm a Ham operator, not military, so am just now learning the format.

I moved your samples into a table, and added a voice (ACP-125) version. Can you proof this to make sure I got everything in the right format line? I'm pretty sure I blew a couple of them. Peter K. Sheerin 22:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Peter K. Sheerin: Wow! The article looks great. You have done a lot with it since I first looked at it. I would be glad go over the table. It might take me a day or so. I need to take a look at the standards documents to be sure of line numbering/naming since I either write out messages from memory/templates or have a terminal that spits them out. Although on first glance I see a couple of things. It should be made clearer in the 126/127/127-sup format is the TO and INFO lines are one call sign/RI per line. For instance:

TO: XXX9YYY AAA
XXX9ZZZ AAA
XXX7WWW BBB
INFO: YYY6UUU BBB
PPP6GGG AAA
TTT6HHH CCCC

Rather than:

TO: XXX9YYY AAA, XXX9ZZZ AAA, XXX7WWW BBB
INFO: YYY6UUU BBB, PPP6GGG AAA, TTT6HHH CCCC

That seems to just be a formatting issue with how long my example texts are though. In the examples I gave there is no group count because that is generally only specified in CODRESS messages but the line is there. The from line also generally has a routing indicator, I probably just forgot it in the example. Something I am not sure if is in the standard or not is the classification line is also used to specify SERVICE (Operator to operator) message types as well as classification. In that case it would read CLASSIFICATION SVC rather than CLASSIFICATION. On line 4 the ZRN UUU is a security warning which is an example of an HI/OP SIG. It was put in automatically when I made the example and can be removed if you like.

The standards vary some between agencies and services. For instance the US State Department is a little different from US Military (US State Dept - ACP-127 FORMAT LINES). The samples I gave is what my terminal spits out and is how US Army and Army MARS format things. I am also an amateur radio operator and volunteer with Navy MARS, our format is slightly different, mainly in routing indicator and DTG. Some formats use the Julian Day Number in the header as well.

One comment, off the top, is you might want to reconsider some of the listed documents, they do not really have anything to do with the message format itself. For instance, if I remember correctly, FM 11-490-7 is the document which creates and tasks MARS but it has none of our operating procedures. Many, if mot most of the documents listed seem to be like that.

I think it would be very interesting to go through some of the old documents to see how the standard changed over time and how it varies in implementation. Great job! Please let me know if I can help in any other way. I will get back to you on the table soon. Jbh 23:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@PetesGuide: Looks like i pinged the wrong account. Also see notes on article talk page. Jbh 01:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Thanks for the compliments! I wanted to get this format documented before too many more people forget proper message exchange procedures, like the folks who thought ICS-213 was suitable as a radio message form. ;-) I populated the references with every manual I thought might be relevant, and will whittle them out as I keep working on the article. Yeah; formatting plain text in table cells is un-fun. I need to add some HTML line breaks in there. Already know of the State Dept. manual, but am loathe to try to decode its cryptic content.

DE K6WEB
Peter K. Sheerin 21:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Youch! I am fearfully amazed at some ARES/RACES organizations training and capabilities. The ICS does not really consider formal, digital message traffic and Amateur Operators kind of need to make do when dealing with served agencies who are more used to filling out 'While You Were Out' message forms than documenting their message traffic. Of course the hams should be converting everything to RADIOGRAM format before sending but many of the examples I have seen just use the ICS 213 blank in FLMSG. There is no uniformity of training and procedures across jurisdictions. That is one of the main reasons I prefer to work with MARS, there is at least a base line of training and expertise.

I wrote a quick extract of a couple of lines from DOS on the talk page . If something like that would help you please let me know. PS Just FYI your call sign might give out more personal information than you intend ie QSL. If it does you can have WP:OVERSIGHT remove it from public view. Jbh 00:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Faculty of Chemistry of Lodz University of Technology

I'm sorry for my incorrect revert of this article. I did not see a decision placed on top. On plwiki I'm used to place/found it at the bottom of AfD. I don't understand also the erasing all information with a redirection without first merging. Well, I see the specifics of enwiki. Regards, Chrumps (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Chrumps: No problem. Yes, on enwiki AfD close summaries are placed at the top. The history is still available for later use such as adding some information to the main article or if the topic later becomes notable. In general we do not have articles on University Faculties/Departments/Colleges unless they are notable in and of themselves as institutions. Anyway, enjoy editing on enwiki, I am sure it is going to be different than dewiki but I am sure you will catch on fast. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need any assistance. Cheers. Jbh 22:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Colors

Hi, I ask some opinion by your part on these discussions: Template talk:Union, Progress and Democracy/meta/color and Template talk:People's Party (Spain)/meta/color, because the user Impru20 doesn't want to change the color, even when I give references that states what is the real color used by these parties. He says that he want to discuss that, but he doesn't realised about the references. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sfs90 and Impru20: As requested I took a look at the discussion on the above two articles. Again, like the prior discussion, I see little difference between the colors. In my opinion any time the color is referenced it should be the same as in the party's published style guide. However, as Impru20 mentioned on Template talk:Union, Progress and Democracy/meta/color there are sometimes technical issues which require another close colour to be used. In that case proper display of the graphic is more important than adhering slavishly to the style guide so long as it looks right.

TL;DR If we are stating the color used by the party we say what their style guide says ie the template should reflect the style guide. If we are creating graphics a consistent look (cf perceptual changes because of nearby colours) is more important. I am unfamiliar with how party colours are handled on Misplaced Pages in general so this is simply my off the cuff opinion. If there is some customary practice I an unfamiliar with please let me know. Jbh 15:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's the problem, that no one had a "customary practice", it looks that someone created the templates and the colors only by personal feelings. I don't look any similarity between the colors of UPyD and PSOE (as Impru20 said), and Impru20 is complaining only because he created a lot of maps, graphics and things related, that if we change the color of the party, he had to change all of them. In this case, if he's too compromised with all the Wiki project, he would have the time to correct all that. In the same way, I don't look any reference by Impru20 that sustains his possition; he doesn't gave any reference that says the UPyD color is the one that was used in the template since some time ago. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm complaining, among other things, because you are not even caring to discuss the issue before going on to push your edits forwards, which really annoys me. How much does it cost you to TALK? You have had several warnings by several users in the past because of your edit warring behaviour, and far from changing, you still keep maintaing the same behaviour.

Now, on the issue itself: Sfs90, you before put forward some arguments to defend changing to a given color; now you want to change them to other different shades of those colors! So, before, you defended the logo colors; now you want to use the colors set in the manuals of style (something which, by the way, most parties don't even have). Do you realize I'm at the behest of a user who is constantly changing opinion and goes on to change colors using different arguments each time? How many times do you suggest I should change maps, charts and the such? Everytime you feel like to change the colors? Furthermore, the current colors are fine, and most of them are so established so as to keep armony within charts, graphics and maps. What's the necessity of changing the color templates, just because you feel like it, and disestablishing the entire consistency of colors in the charts? I'm really bothered of the little consideration you have for the work of others, that you don't even care to discuss with them.

Customary practice, usually, is to use the color shade that best fits for Misplaced Pages uses, rather than use the same exact shade the party uses (as long as the color is similar to the one used by either the party or the media). That is so because parties frequently don't keep using the same shade of a given color and keep changing it, within the range of different shades of their corporative colors. So, instead keeping constantly changing party colors (unless a given party changes from blue to red, to say an example), the color shade that best fits for Misplaced Pages purposes are frequently used. Sometimes that color may coincide with the exact shade used by the party, sometimes don't. Just check Christian Democratic Union of Germany, Syriza, Democratic Party of Japan, Labour Party (United Kingdom), Conservative Party (United Kingdom), Social Democratic Party of Austria, Forza Italia (2013), Socialist Party (France), Socialist Party (Portugal), Freedom Party of Austria, etc. Impru20 (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Impru20: You know what's the difference? That the templates or the color that is written in the infobox doesn't have any references about the color. In the case of UPyD and Citizens (not PP, i'll concede you that they could use different shades) I give very reliable sources (the graphics identity manual used by them), and I don't see any about that in the parties you mention as examples. You see? If they have or don't any manual that states their colors, that's not my fault. In the case of UPyD and Citizens, they have one and states clearly the color. The precission is a thing that we should consider here in Misplaced Pages, and if we have references that support that, we could apply it. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have to support the position of least disruption here. If the colours on the charts are not obviously visually wrong then keep them. The only time I fee we must stick to a party's MOS is when we explicitly state what colour they use ie if we were to say X party uses #ABABAB in an place a reader would see whether or not we are actually using #ACABAB in our graphics. There is no reason to go changing pre-existing and consistent graphics unless they are visually problematic nor do I see a problem with making a clean break, keeping the old graphics as is and moving forward with the MOS colour in the future so long as at this point you select one colour and stick with it moving on. Jbh 16:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sfs90: In the case of Citizens, you will see that I accepted your change without serious discussion. The only issue arising then was that the source was unclear on the color that they were using, but was solved by using the hex provided by the party (also because differences were minimal and weren't noticeable to the naked eye, either).

You just told it. "if we have references that support that, we could apply it". We "could", but we are not forced to.

Anyway, I may concede on changing colors of small parties that have strict manual of styles and whose colors do not damage consistency, specially because changes are not difficult (there are few charts were UPyD color should be changed in order to accomplish this, for instance). I'll have to make further tests on UPyD, but I could concede on changing it. But, definitely, changing the color of major parties, such as PP, which don't even clings on to the same color shades, would require serious discussion and consensus because it would mean serious and major changes in consistency in charts between the different election articles and the such.

However, next time you are to do something like this, if you see that the edit is disputed go and discuss the issue before trying to push your disputed edit forward. I tell you because you have these issues with many people, not just with me, and someday you may end up reported by someone who hasn't the patience I or others have. Impru20 (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Harassment

Will you kindly blank off and leave me alone? I'm sick of you stalking me round Misplaced Pages. You wasted a whole evening of mine recently with your gauche nonsense.

Your behaviour is a kind of abuse masquerading as some kind of house cleaning. If this continues I shall be placing an official complaint against you.

Especially when an article is UNDER CONSTRUCTION. Plenty of other things I'd like to say to you, but I'm sure people say them to you offline if you behave like this.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@MacRusgail: I have done nothing to harass you, if you feel I have please open a complaint and present evidence of this. An article that has had no editing since its creation on 23 April is not under construction. Based on your history I see you are an experienced editor who should know our policies on reliable sources and notability. As before please simply show how the article passes WP:NBOOK, any sourcing would be better than the complete lack of sources in the article now.

If you have gotten to the point in your Misplaced Pages career where being asked to comply with the policies and guidelines that we all must has become so stressful as to cause you to make these outbursts rather than fixing the indicated problems I strongly suggest you take a few months Wikibreak, regain some perspective, recharge and come back and continue your valuable contributions to the project. Jbh 15:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)