Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JYolkowski (talk | contribs) at 14:28, 17 June 2012 (→Removed block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive1 | /Archive2

Nomination for deletion of Template:Non-free with permission

Template:Non-free with permission has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IDGov

Template:IDGov has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

When I created this template it was for Idaho government images, and someone hijacked it for Indonesia, so I don't care about the outcome (-: JYolkowski // talk 01:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Peer review for Pope John Paul II

Hi James, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in doing a peer review, or if you had any comments on the article -- Marek.69 06:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't edit here regularly anymore, but if I have time in the next little while I'll have a look and see if I have any comments. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 01:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear JYolkowski,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Misplaced Pages administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 03:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

removing BLPPRODs

Please do not remove BLPPRODs from articles about living people, as you may have done here, without the addition of a reliable source, doing so is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Thanks! --joe decker 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't me. JYolkowski // talk 03:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh heck, I totally screwed that up then. My apologies. --joe decker 03:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth J. Woolcott

Just wanted to ask you about the Kenneth J. Woolcott article. The article may not be G11, and I apologize for picking the wrong CSD. I do think that it cannot stay on Misplaced Pages the way it is. It is too unencyclopedic. It talks as if it were a sales pitch or as if you knew the person, using opinions ("His love for basketball led him to become a minor owner in the Seattle Sonics Basketball team."). I agree, as the owner of a minor team, he may be notable, but I believe that the article is not very encyclopedic the way it is. I am asking you if the article should be deleted on it's notability, or should the nonfactual information be deleted? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 00:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article doesn't seem to meet the speedy deletion criteria (the only other possibility is A7, but the first paragraph seems to assert sufficient significance). It may be suitable for proposed deletion, however. Listing it on prod will also give it a few days so that if someone does want to fix the unencylopedicness (wow, a new word!) of the article, they can do so. If you do have the inclination to remove all of the non-encyclopedic stuff, go ahead. JYolkowski // talk 01:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Removing the non-encyclopedic stuff. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability credibly asserted

You removed the speedy deletion template from Cailyn Huston with the summary: article credibly indicates significance of person. I'd like to ask how? A hack blogger and a "community organizer" for a project designed and conceived by someone else (she is not mentioned in any of the news coverage of the project). Where is the "credible assertion of notability"? I guess I'll be taking this one to AFD. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 16:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

At the time that you tagged the article, I would have agreed with you. However, the original author has added several citations to the article that that now credibly indicates that she played an important role in something important. AFD is probably a better place for this, as this is the sort of article that should require discussion to determine its eventual fate. JYolkowski // talk 21:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing Onion the Dog over from CZ

Thank you for bringing Orion the Dog over from CZ. I sure do appreciate reading NPOV articles which is what I strove to write. I am sure the article I posted to CZ will be deleted so perhaps it will survive here. You can guess who I am... :-) Quill and Pen (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Hi Mary! (-: JYolkowski // talk 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Heads up concerning Facebook and Lexus Project

I reverted this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Onion_the_dog&diff=497485123&oldid=497483814 as I found more information about the Lexus Project via their Facebook page. While this is not a reference for the article, the Facebook page does give organizational information which maybe useful for later research. I am advising you of this rollback so you know why I did what I did. Thanks! Quill and Pen (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin assistance requested

Please review the edits I made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Onion_the_dog&diff=497487539&oldid=497486485 I do believe adding this information has done WP a favor as in the page history someone is claiming the information provided is inaccurate. We now have to sources concerning the Lexus Project. I do believe in this case the addition of the Facebook exlink provides more information about the groups as it contains organizational information while the group's website was not as detailed. Thanks! Quill and Pen (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Onion the dog. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 03:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed block

I see that you lifted an indefinite block that I placed on NearMiss1208. I am distinctly surprised that you not only did not consult me before reversing my decision, but did not even inform me that you had done so. I can only assume that, since you reversed an administrative action without consulting the administrator who had performed it, that you thought the action was seriously inappropriate. If that is so, then is it not important for the administrator who has made a serious mistake to be informed of the fact, quite apart from the general courtesy of letting me know that you had reversed my action? Is it your usual practice to undo other administrators' actions without telling them, or was this an exception? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am still disgusted at how this new user who was trying to make contributions in good faith was treated. I was far too angry to leave a sensible message last night, but it was apparent that you spent no time using your own good judgement to evaluate whether she should be blocked, so it wasn't worth spending my time notifying you. If you had spent any time evaluating the user's behaviour before blocking her, you would have noticed that she was trying to add content to the article in good faith; however, one of the links or the other that she was trying to use as a reference was tweaking various automated or semi-automated processes. You'll notice in the edit history that every revert of her was done through an automated or semi-automated process; these users spent no time at all evaluating the edit. Had they done so, they would have noticed that she was not trying to spam at all; she was perhaps quoting excessively from the page she was referring to, but she was not trying to solicit donations or anything like that; the money had been collected months ago and the EP already released. You, as an administrator, should actually spend time evaluating the situation before chasing away new users trying to contribute to the encyclopedia. Your next two actions were to tag the article as {{db-band}} that has been around for six years and links to the band's albums that have articles, and notify the creator who hasn't edited in five years, so if the same amount of evaluation went into the block as did those two actions, that would evidence that you hadn't thought much about that one either. If I were you, I would avoid throwing stones while you're living in a glass house. JYolkowski // talk 14:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)