Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:18, 2 October 2011

This is Jayjg's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate

Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Misplaced Pages user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Misplaced Pages present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest to you

An article that you have been involved in editing, Falafel ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Veritycheck (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've made any significant edits to that article in years. Anyway, the fact that you dispute the accuracy of one source used for one sentence does not mean the Good Article status will be removed from the article. Jayjg 00:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also of interest to you

Heya,

So I just started the article on the new Jewish international news network, Jewish News One. I thought you might like to check it out, see if improvements could be made, maybe add it to your watchlist, eh? :p Thanks.

And now, the Falafel Song. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice article, interesting topic! Jayjg 00:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you, but I am unfortunately dealing with someone from JN1 who refuses to respond to my messages to him as well as my reverts of his material. If the third time (three of those messages including the welcome template are from the second time) talking to him is ignored that will be enough for COI right? I think that's reasonable. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | 29 Elul 5771 00:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's frustrating. I'll try to keep an eye on the article. Jayjg 01:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

The idiot user guid123 on Talk:David_Irving needed to be restrained. well done. thank you. bloody holocaust deniers. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

On a personal note

Ktiva vehatima tova for 5772! A gut gebensht yor! Debresser (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

PunBB deletion

You recently deleted PunBB for the second time, apparently because WP:Speedy deletion#G4 says you can due to the result of WP:Articles for deletion/PunBB. Considering that the current FluxBB article mentions PunBB, do you think redirecting “PunBB” to “FluxBB” should be acceptable, at least while “FluxBB” is an article? (“FluxBB” was discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/FluxBB but never deleted.) If redirecting is acceptable, how do we do it without having the redirect deleted again?

Since the initial deletion I created the redirect. Very recently I think someone turned it into an article. I would like to re-create the redirect, and if necessary put a note somewhere or modify your deletion criteria so that it does not get deleted again without a bit of warning. I would also undo your unlinking at Comparison of web hosting control panels: I don’t see the benefit in this. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

In my turn, I would like to contest the deletion of the latest version of PunBB article itself. Here are the reasons for it: 1) the software is used by millions of people and thousands of sites around the world, hence deeming it popular; 2) Google search returns a lot of websites when you search “Powered by PunBB” - discussion boards and sites with extensions developed for PunBB. If it wasn't a significant project, then Google would not return as many results; 3) Facebook Developers were using PunBB engine for a long time, therefore it aided in creation and advancement of Facebook as we know it, pretty significant; 4) There is still an article on FluxBB on Wiki that wasn't deleted after a deletion discussion, hence it is only logical that the project that was foundation of FluxBB should be described as well; 5) there are many books in Google Books about PunBB, nearly 119 items are returned, with at least 6 solid books that can be quoted and referenced.

Thank you for your attention, and I hope you will accept the facts named above as sufficient for letting the article about PunBB be in its place, or at least for continuing the deletion discussion, which initially took place as long ago as in February and hence is obviously based on outdated information.

VoiceWithoutFace (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

Please help

Hi,

I made a request to SlimVirgin more than a week ago regarding a problem I created in one of the pages associated with WT:V.  It seems that she is not currently active, and you helped out recently at WP:V, so I'd appreciate it if you would take a look at this problem.  What I need specifically is to have Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls moved back to Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Archive_1 without a redirect, such that I can start the talk page at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)