User talk:JForget/Archives 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JForget. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Currency correlation. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 18:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey there! Just a quick note to say "thanks very much" for your support in my recent successful RfA. I'm humbled by the support I received, and will do my best to use the tools with care and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, You recently deleted the List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles organizations. I think that that was a mistake since it included details of characters from the series which are not available elsewhere. The Inuwashi Gunjin for example are in a fact a small group of characters whose entry would be appropriate for the List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters, since they are not a proper organisation but a group of warriors similar in a way to the Turtles. If you will not restore the page, could you make it available so that parts of it like the one above could be included in the List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters? It does not have to be the entire page but only a few selected entries that would be of interest to some fans. Cheers. --Marktreut (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I see you have done alot of work on the mid December 2007 winter storms article. I was thinking about starting a wikiproject for winter storms, and I wonder if you would help me to make it. Thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Juliancolton (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A basic layout It needs more sections, and more other stuff, but for now, just a start. Juliancolton (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. Hink will probobly oppose, though. Juliancolton (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I have done a little more, but it needs guidelines, and I don't know how to format those, so you are welcome to help me with it in my sandbox. :) Juliancolton (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I already have participants! You are welcome to add your name. Juliancolton (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Ok, now that I have a base of support and participants for this, would you look through and make suggestions before I launch the WikiProject? Juliancolton (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a bot is needed. I do already have a template for the winter storms setup, and I agree that we need core articles. Juliancolton (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please help with the template? It dosn't look right when I add the class: {{tl:Winter Storms|class=}} Juliancolton (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not good at templates, so maybe I can get someone from the meteorology projec to help. And a couple things: the project still doesn't seem complete. Any thoughts? And do we need a newsletter? Juliancolton (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! i don't know how that was missed. Juliancolton (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The wikiproject has been changed to WikiProject Non-tropical storms, due to the discussion at the meteorology.

A couple of ideas for the project: First, there has been no response on creating a portal, so I believe we should go and do it, second, should we create a bot to place the project tag on all of the non-tropical storm articls? Juliancolton (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi JForget,

An article you nominated for speedy deletion as a repost, Wael Abbas, has since been un-salted with a new article. I know that fighting junk can be a thankless task, but isn't there a better way to avoid the deletion and salting of legitimate topics?

What worries me is not that people acted out of process, but that people were acting in process and yet the article got deleted. Andjam (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ckimpson (sock puppets: User:Cgkimpson User:CamKimpson User:67.166.58.4) is back and up to old tricks again. Evolauxia (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

I note the comments made about the ferries and the 'wave bat' etc. however I believe they are worthy of inclusion. I would like to draw your attention to the following

• "Sir Cuthbert Quilter, owned of Bawdsey Manor, established a steam-drawn chain ferry between Felixstowe and Bawdsey, known locally as the 'Bridges'. The two ferry boats, commissioned in 1894, were the ‘Lady Quilter’ and the ‘Lady Beatrice’; they operated until 1931. Charlie Brinckley then operated a launch for passengers until the war, with his son Robert (senior). The ferry was closed during the war, and afterwards Maurice Read got the RAF contract. In 1962, Charlie Brinckley (junior) operated the service with Delia. New boats Odd Times (1963), Our Times (1963) and Late Times (1969) were added to the fleet. RAF Bawdsey closed in 1974, and the ferry was operated at summer weekends only. In the 1980s, Late Times was the main ferry. Odd Times was used for fishing during the week, and Our Times was kept as spare. A newer boat Deben Ferry is in service in 2006. " http://www.simplonpc.co.uk/Felixstowe-Ferry.html#anchor150349.
• The Butley Ferry is the smallest licensed ferry in Europe "From Orford you can either walk inland or, subject to availability, take the Butlley Ferry, the smallest licensed ferry in Europe.http://www.walkingbreaks.com/suffolk/coastal_detail.htm.
• The Butley Ferry is also described as "historic" and "important" by the local authorities: http://www.suffolk.smp2.org.uk/issues/Issues.pdf.
• My personal interest in them is their current importance to cyclists ([| regional cycle route 41] and to walkers on the suffolk coastal path http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/paths/suffolkcoastandheaths.html.

Possibly I hadn't explained this very well yet, the articles were initially incidental to route 41 that I was creating at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterIto (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the ferries page (still not perfect I am sure but hopefully good enough). I have rolled the Harwich Harbour Ferry page into this general page and will delete the Harwich Harbour Ferry assuming the new article is reinstated. Note that you mis-spelt my user name. The article in question is here Ferries: —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterIto (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and cleanup on the Ferries article. I have read your comment a few times and still don't understand what you are suggesting that I do next. I agree that 'Ferries in Suffolk' is an appropriate name. Do I just post it as a new article, or post it and include a deletion review tag, or list it on some deletion review list somewhere? can you advice me as a newbie of the approach you would like me to use and what would be simplest? PeterIto (talk) 09:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have posted the article as 'Local Ferries in Suffolk' and am linking the ferries into the appropriate other articles. This does create a question about the Harwich Harbour Ferry (which connects Suffolk with Essex) but is correct for all the others which relate only to Suffolk, and makes a useful distinction from the international ferries operating from Harwich International Port to Holland etc. It might be best to keep the Harwich Harbour Ferry as a separate article as well as mentioning it is this article, so that one can be linked to Transport in Essex as well. Personally I want to give this a break now, it has taken enough time and I certainly don't want to be finding all the ferries in Essex, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire! Thanks PeterIto (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite! You have actually redirected Harwich Harbour Ferry article to 'Harwich_Harbour_Ferry#Harwich_Harbour_Ferty' which doesn't work, your typing seems a little dodgy :) .... however, I want to keep he Harwich Harbour Ferry article as it needs to be categorised differently and I have actually stripped most of the content out of the HHF section of the Suffolk Ferries articles and clearly linked it out to the main HHF article. Could you reinstate that HHF article and remove the broken indirect? thanks PeterIto (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting my page. I just requested protection and then noticed you had done it while I was making my request. I have no freaking idea why all those IP's started vandalizing my page (earlier today an editor vandalized my page in the exact same way, and that was odd because it was the users only edit that was not helpful). TJ Spyke 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem for the semi.--JForget 01:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you protect my talk page too? Now the IPs are going after that. TJ Spyke 01:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, you did it right before. Damn you are fast. :) TJ Spyke 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! Tied! :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was the first person to vandalise wikipedia in 2008, and I can prove it because looking at the logs it was the first reversion! 81.152.63.2 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I vandalised 2008 at 0:00 and it was the first vandalism and reversion made on that hour. 81.152.63.2 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is still 2007 where I live, and I have 5 more hours to go. NHRHS2010 Happy Holidays 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I am english and since wikipedia runs on UTC, It is officially the first vandalism, I timed that so carefully ;). 81.152.63.2 (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Australia is well into 2008 before the UK, so there have been likely vandalism edits well before yours in the new year if we take account the Asian and Oceania time zones. --JForget 00:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but you don't understand, wikipedia wasn't set to 2008 then, wikipedia runs on british times, as I was saying it runs on UTC, so those edits were stilled classed as 2007. 86.147.70.107 (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good thing to be a vandal, ever. TJ Spyke 23:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You learn something new everyday... [1] Icestorm815 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Sadly, I have 2 years of editing experiemce. I retired my username today. I'm currently planning on tyaking a hiatus and returning under a new name. Distant from the old. My old name was: User: Technogreek43.

No problem. I would be good to see you back for more Wiki contribs. --JForget 02:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not alert you to my new name. Thank you. Tech43 was my failure. 2008, will be my sucess. 98.161.53.217 (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

TJ Spyke 23:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You are in Ottawa, of that I am sure, but are you in the city, or the suburbs? Dreamafter ^⇔ 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ah, that makes sense. I myself am in Orleans, Ottawa. Dreamafter ^⇔ 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For answering all the questions and being so kind here! Dreamafter ⇔ 02:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and it is a little close for comfort, eh? Dreamafter ^⇔ 02:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll second the barnstar. Happy 2008 to you as well! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JetLover for that.--JForget 18:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please block this user? It was an account test. Dreamafter ^⇔ 18:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't seemed to have been logged in or created looking at the logs of this username.--JForget 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Check here. I created this account for a test. Dreamafter ^⇔ 18:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep it has been blocked now.--JForget 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! You are quite fast! Dreamafter ^⇔ 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please move this page to the mainspace? Dreamafter ^⇔ 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the thing is that it has all of the current verifiable information, and as an admin, you can move a page to a page that still has information on it, so I would appreciate it if you could move the page for me. Dreamafter ^⇔ 19:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

. . .can be fixed like this --> [2]. I tweaked that one and the one on JW's page. Thought you might want to know in case there are any more. R. Baley (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 46 support, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thanks for supporting me!

-Djsasso (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks also for your New Year's greetings! Acalamari 02:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem and thanks for that card as well Acalamari.--JForget 19:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, JForget, thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which closed successfully with 47 supports, 3 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I am glad that the community thinks it can trust me with these tools; I will try and use my new mop and bucket (or vacuum cleaner!) carefully. I would like to personally thank you for being willing to support me, I will continue contributing to the main space as you wish. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that my wikiproject is off the ground, do you think a non-tropical storms portal would be needed? Juliancolton (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wondering how you came to this conclusion [3] the keeps seemed very weak and not based at all in policy. Ridernyc (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you made the right decision the first time around. A lack of citation is no justification for resorting to Wikipedia's final and most extreme action when it comes to dealing with below-par articles. As much as some users would like it to be, no article begins existence as FA quality material and not every article is not notable simply because they don't like what they read. I'm seeing a lot of that these days. The problem is, if somebody knows their way around guidelines and policy they can almost certainly have an article removed if they wish. This case is a good example; an article having been removed for lack of referencing. We could tack that to 80 percent of Wikipedia's pages. But if we killed them all, we'd be left with a perfect encylopedia, which nobody would ever use. It doesn't help that almost every user who frequents AfD nomination holds a deletionist perspective. But this article should have been given time to be referenced.

I've grown bitterly accustomed to how deeply mired in bureaucracy and policy Wikipedia has become, which is probably the reason I rarely ever contribute anymore. Too many haughty administrators and editors backed by policy and quasi-official instruction creep telling me and my colleagues what we want to read about. To me, this reeks of manipulation and a compulsive desire by certain users to control Wikipedia's evolution. The information regarding the Arklay Research Facility does not appear in the main article which it now redirects to. Technically, this is now innacurate, makes Wikipedia's editors look lazy and provides nothing to users who wish to learn about one of the Resident Evil franchise's foremost settings. I just felt this needed to be said. Next time, please stick with your initial commonsense decision and don't let these deletionist bureaucrats railroad your decisions anymore. They are the antithesis of everything Wikipedia sets out to achieve. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you offering DRV, but it's pointless. The "real" editors, as I like to call them, are generally preoccupied with articles. Only Deletionists frequent the behind-the-curtains politics of Wikipedia. The only "real" editors you'll get contributing their opinions are those with AfD'd articles on their Watchlists. It would ultimately be the same result; us arguing our point, and them citing policy. Policy always wins regardless of common sense. Not to mention the fact that my name usually implies somewhat of a bias, which would almost ensure a negative result should I submit DRV. I should also add that the original research claim was unfounded. Having played all but the most recent game in the series, I'm positive that it's all true and could have been verified through the memos and diaries found by the characters during gameplay. Next time, be sure to request that they cite the original research sections first, as I'm fairly sure most of those people at the AfD have probably never even played Resident Evil let alone be capable of backing up the accusation of OR. Anybody who would accuse the Spencer Mansion of not being a notable subject within the series has clearly never picked up a video game controller in their lives and, if that's the case, shouldn't be submitting or involving themselves in the AfD in the first place. Next time they want to walk blindly through a minefield and hope for a lucky break, lay some mines to balance it out. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 23:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It's too big to be merged. All of the smaller articles have already been deleted or merged themselves. The former would be the only logical option. As I stated with Raccoon Police Department article you mentioned, I would be willing to add the references, although I have very little time these days and I'm currently working on another article, List of Dynasty Warriors characters, which I began preemptive referencing of in anticipation of a AfD nomination. That's going to take me awhile, so it would be some time before I could get to this. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 01:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. I'll reference it when I can. It's good to come across a helpful administrator every now and then. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 01:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem and congrats for being a sysop as well Jayron. --JForget 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have 100,000 edits and don't want to be an admin !! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to look like a copycat, but I was already coming here to offer you a cookie before I saw the one right above this. Thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page. Doczilla (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure no problem and thanks for the cookie.--JForget 18:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Recently, this article went through an AFD nomination. Within less than a day, it was closed by a non-admin. I noticed this because I received a message on my talk page explaining how the article was being "stalked" by another user, who nominated it for deletion. The poster of the message mentioned to that I should "vote" "keep" on the AFD. So, after seeing it, I sent a message to the user about canvassing and how en.wikipedia hates voting. So.... my question is this, should this be taken any further? Should the AFD be re-opened, is a block necessary, or is the warning enough, etc. I'd be interested in hearing your input on the issue. Happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The user was understanding with the message, so a block is far from needed. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the NCDC is updated to August 31 now so an update will likely happen this week with the official number, if you haven't already updated it. After that it will be cleanup for GA nomination. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Juliancolton/Active

This is as a preliminary to a deletion review: please state why you closed the AFD when no solid arguments have been made to KEEP... if you actually read the references they have supplied they are all trivial or paid advertising. Company still doesn't meet : WP:CORP. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am rather surprised at the rapidity with which this page was deleted - I was not given any time to comment on the last note or even to add more information to the page as I requested. I added my comments to the discussion on Friday evening and by Monday the article had been deleted. I am a new wikipedia user and I am trying to make a real contribution. I have heard the comment from other users that the "wikipedians" are arrogant and prone to making decisions without looking into it fully and the treatment of this article supports that view. I also find some of the comments of the other reviewers bordering on the offensive. I understood the intention to be informed debate rather than mudslinging.

Has anybody from the Wireless communication community commented on the article? Can I invite them to? Do we merely accept the views of the people who search new articles for the pleasure of reviewing them (and it seems having them deleted) without any knowledge of the subject matter?

My first use of Wikipedia as an editor has left a rather bitter taste. If you want people other than the "established" contributors or the initiated to become part of the contributing community you will have to treat them better than this. If not you will find the articles become more and more introverted and lacking in the proper broad view of a real encyclopedia.

John Zimiti (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mind explaining this one [4] even the keeps said merge. Please start adding rationals when you close AFDs. Ridernyc (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)