Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 16:13, 17 October 2011 (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 14d) to User talk:Jayjg/Archive 38.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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).

I didn't see reliable secondary references in the "new" article - can you point them out? Jayjg 00:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As I understand, this discussion addresses two different issues: 1) if the project is significant enough to be featured on Misplaced Pages; and 2) if there are any reliable sources at hand. I hope you would agree that in case of the first issue, the project is worth being featured on Misplaced Pages (without any redirects) as it is used by many in the world. Concerning the second issue, we must admit that all articles on Misplaced Pages undergo constant improvement; however, PunBB article does not have a chance to be improved as it is getting deleted for the second time already. If there were an article to improve, I would be more than willing to include references to the published books I've found about PunBB and other discussion boards. Here is an example of at least two printed books:

Potts, Kevin. Web Design and Marketing Solutions for Business Websites. New York: Apress, 2007. Print. pp. 232-233

Bradburne, Alan. Practical Rails Social Networking Sites. Berkeley, CA: Apress, 2007. Print. pp. 117

I would highly appreciate your guidance and any input on how to make the article better, but I believe the decision to delete the article should be reconsidered.

VoiceWithoutFace (talk), 8:03, 04 October 2011 (UTC).

OK, that's a good start. Do they say anything significant about PunBB, or do they just mention it in passing? Jayjg 18:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, can you give me any comment on creating and keeping the redirect, or should I find somewhere else to discuss this? Are you saying you’re against it because FluxBB doesn’t seem to have much in the way of secondary sources, or was that just about re-creating it as an article? Vadmium (talk, contribs) 04:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

I have no issue with creating and keeping the redirect. The only problem was that people kept turning it into an article again. Jayjg 18:43, 10 October 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)

I will try to take a look in the next couple of days. Jayjg 01:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I just checked, and a search shows:

Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Polls (redirect from Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First sentence/Archive 1)

Can you take a look at this?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Jayjg 18:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Whew, thanks!  Unscintillating (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Drug in Me Is You

Hey. Just thought it would interest you to know that The Drug in Me Is You, the album by Falling In Reverse, has reached GA status in less than two months after it was created and deleted like 40 times lol It's really a good article now, thought you'd enjoy seeing that. Cheers, GroundZ3R0 002 05:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct information

I was correcting false information. With your last edit, it is still there. "Pardos" and "blacks" do not constitute the "great majority" of poorer Brazilians since (the way it sounds is like as if 90% or more of the poorest Brazilians were either "pardo" or "black"). According to the official data I posted, which you removed, "whites" comprise about 36% of the poorest (that's why I posted it there), which is roughly 40%. "Pardos" and "blacks" comprise the "majority" of the poorest but not the "great majority". It was plain wrong to say that "blacks" comprise the majority, but this information has been already corrected.

As for Michael Löwy, it is deplorable that he uses such an expression as "half caste". I've never seen it used in Brazil, and it certainly is not. Not even census categories like "pardo" are used, they are rather imposed by the government. Much less a deplorable expression as "half caste". And still we have to accept the way he describes a large portion of the Brazilian population, don't we?Grenzer22 (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Genzer22, I appreciate that you're trying to put what you believe to be true or correct into articles, but have you reviewed WP:NOR? It says that you can't invent your own arguments to counter what reliable sources have said - that includes even material that is sourced, if the sources themselves aren't on the topic of the article. Jayjg 15:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok!Grenzer22 (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Drought Conditions

Hi Jayjg - some time ago you closed this AfD, and I was unsure of what the process would be if I thought the article should be re-created. I don't think you closed incorrectly, so I'm not sure DRV would be the venue, but a re-created page would be liable to G4. The issue is that it's literally the only West Wing episode we don't have an article on and the lack of attempts to delete the others suggests consensus to have them - and that the AfD commenters didn't indicate whether they believed this should be precedent to go after the other articles. What needs to be done here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You can certainly go to DRV with this argument. If the reviewers there find it compelling (which they well may), then the article can be recreated. Your argument will be more compelling if you provide some reliable secondary sources that discuss this episode. Jayjg 02:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)