This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

• Special:CampusAmbassadorProfile
• Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors ^connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.

Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

-- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 20:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

There is discussion on the composition at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Tiffen UV filter. I think I did what you suggested.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You can close all three noms from that day.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Jujutacular ( talk) 22:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding in the name of the picture taker. I'm still fairly new to FPC and don't know what do in some of these cases. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C) 18:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It's not a big deal, just one more thing that the closer would have to sort out if it's promoted. Jujutacular ( talk) 18:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The development for TAFI has progressed significantly over the last few weeks, and we are prepared to launch the new feature on the main page for Feb 9th at 0:00 UTC. Concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. An example page has been created to show what it would look like. I would like to invite you and several other admins who have recently edited the Main Page to swing by this discussion to help us hammer out the final logistics of integrating the content onto the main page. -- Nick Penguin_{( contribs)} 18:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but at Portal:Geography/Featured picture/14, I had to change the sizing back, as image size was too big for the main portal page and was bleeding into the next column over and overlapping with it. — Cirt ( talk) 20:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm going to have to change back the other ones where you increased the image sizing, unfortunately it is bleeding into the next column and thereby overlapping with other sections. 300px seems to be the most appropriate sizing here. — Cirt ( talk) 20:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess the only other option would be to have a really big huge image size, and just move that whole section on the main portal page down at the bottom where it can have its own horizontal scaling of 100%, let me know what you think about that idea. — Cirt ( talk) 20:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, disregard my above complaints, sorry about all that, feel free to size the images how you feel is best idea — I've made room for big sizing by moving the pictures sect down to the 100% horizontal scaling section. — Cirt ( talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the info! Looks good to me now. Jujutacular ( talk) 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, me too, I agree! Sorry again about all the confusing comments, above, I was just working on it til I came up with the best solution. :) — Cirt ( talk) 21:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey there Juju.....I have nominated List_of_counties_in_West_Virginia for FLC. I noted that you have ALOT of experience with county lists. Florida, looks GREAT. I used that list as a "template" for the WV list. It was in need of some work (no kidding). IF you could please take a look and let me know if you Support, Or want to Comment on the FLC page, I would be very grateful Coal town guy ( talk) 15:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response! I have been busy IRL, but I will take a look at it today. Jujutacular ( talk) 18:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks the look see of the county list. I finally saw what you meant about the 2010 census data in the lead. I did add that. Hope you can support, but I also appreciate your review Coal town guy ( talk) 03:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Good luck with the list and everything. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As a formerly active discussant at WT:FSC, I would like to call your attention to Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#Proposal to revamp FS.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I most likely won't be involved much with FSC in the future, but thank you for the notice. Jujutacular ( talk) 23:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jujutacular,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Florida topographic map-en.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 3, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-03-03. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. Jujutacular ( talk) 18:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey- Of all people who would know, I have hoped, you are it. One of the comments about the WV county luist FLC is "row headers are objectionable since the table is not complex." They also requested a caption for the table. I have checked all of the County lists for the United States. None have a caption. I did indeed look at WP:ACCESS and I have no idea how to imp-lement the caption, much less how to reply to "row headers are objectionable since the table is not complex." I have followed the accepted format for every county list. Can you help? Coal town guy ( talk) 15:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I see it has mostly been worked out. The comment "row headers are objectionable since the table is not complex" -- I think he was saying that we should leave off the headers of each column, but this leaves off absolutely necessary information. Regarding the table caption, I believe the explanation by RexxS is sufficient. Jujutacular ( talk) 18:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Coal town guy ( talk) 18:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jujutacular,

since you commented at the lists's first nomination I thought you might be interested in reviewing it again against the criteria. Regards.-- Tomcat ( 7) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure! I'll be looking at it tonight (UTC-6). Jujutacular ( talk) 23:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Jujutacular ( talk) 02:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for the kind words. I was actually reading the US Counties page and I am very interested in getting other county lists to FL. My understanding is that IF enough of the county lists make FL, then, the Category/Topic would be come featured and that is a very cool thing, to me at least. It will be a labor of love, BUT I am fascinated with the idea of getting county data in the US up to that level Coal town guy ( talk) 13:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A question, take a look here at Honolulu. The same issue also appears in Alaska, as well. Is there a way to NOT have the red links comue up? There are articles for the links in question, HOWEVER, it appears that the table does not like the article type?? Many tanks for taking a peek. Coal town guy ( talk) 14:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I fixed Honolulu... not sure about Alaska though. Take a look. I've also thought about making a featured topic for the counties, but it always sounded like a lot of work :) I'm interested though! Jujutacular ( talk) 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be a TOUGH undertaking, but doable. I am game. Wisconsin, is one I am creating a clickable map for now. Illinois, another, and I am also going back to known FL, and getting them up to the current standard. Hawaii had a citation needed in one of its columns and I got that. I NEED to find a Hawaii person and get a ref for the Etymology. WHERE would one lay down the glove of challenge to get this a featured topic? Coal town guy ( talk) 01:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

We would nominate at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates, criteria is at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. I believe we would also need to get County (United States) to at least a " good article". Jujutacular ( talk) 01:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

IF I recall, we would ALSO need to get all of the county lists to FL, correct? Coal town guy ( talk) 01:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe so. We could also probably recruit additional help at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Jujutacular ( talk) 01:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have yet to be on Wikipedia for 1 year, my firt year will be by mid March. It would be BEYOND cool to get this a featured topic. Question to recruit folks, ask for help, how is that started? I assume I could state what needs to happen at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, and then wait for the laughter to stop and see who comes on board? Coal town guy ( talk) 01:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hah! I don't think you would get laughter. At any rate, laughter would be good. What you don't want is silence :) Jujutacular ( talk) 02:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

A place to organize: User:Jujutacular/U.S. Counties. Not far from halfway! 23/52 articles. Jujutacular ( talk) 02:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions#U.S. counties and county-equivalents, Lists of. Jujutacular ( talk) 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

GROOVY. FYI I made certain Illinois and Wisconsin are WP:DATE compliant. I know of one editor who knows Illinois wwell, but he is not up for a FL st this time. As far as Wisconsin, MAYBE for peer review,more work. The failed FLCs will be HARD. One is I believe Ohio.... Coal town guy ( talk) 02:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The list of "counties" in Alaska, was in need of some work, which I did, however, I think I know of another FL which could help it. I was thinking of Texas as a approach Coal town guy ( talk) 14:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a look, at the Borough vs City and Borough desinations......for the sake of being consistant, shouldnt the nomenclature be the same for all of those? Right now its not. Coal town guy ( talk) 20:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they necessarily should be. Since these are consolidated governments, some aspects of different governments are more important than others. Anchorage, for example, is primarily a city. That's my take at least. Maybe we'll get some feedback when we get to FLC. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

( talk page stalker)Read Title 29 of Alaska Statutes (or any equivalent law found in Alaska) a little more carefully. Alaska treats consolidation and unification as legally distinct situations. Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka and Wrangell are unified boroughs. Haines, Petersburg, Skagway and Yakutat are consolidated boroughs. If one takes the history/lineage involved into consideration, the distinction is significant enough to mention.

The law doesn't make this crystal clear, but it does favor the notion that unified municipalities are regarded more as boroughs than as cities. For instance, the city council is not called the city council, but rather, the assembly (after the borough assembly). I believe the overwhelming references to "consolidated" are a Wikipedia invention, made to fit what is regarded in Alaska as a unified municipality into its standard definition of a consolidated city-county. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 21:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I was able to get all of them linked to correct articles. We will also need to find someone out there with a knowledge of Alaska as far as Origin Coal town guy ( talk) 20:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Or obtain our own knowledge, research! Hah. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

THAT could be cool. Too bad we cant go back in time and take a history test in school, a spended time would be had by all. Oh, I am also helping with Ohio Coal town guy ( talk) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ohio, noted. Jujutacular ( talk) 21:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep this in mind, as I don't know what kind of time I'll have. A lot of the things you mention can be rather easily sourced, but not necessarily by anything which is found on the web. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 21:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-web is perfectly fine! Thanks for your help. Jujutacular ( talk) 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

LOVE the data. NOW for te biggy, did I miss what the class system means????? I am all up inside texts, I own all of the texts ref's in the WV FL Coal town guy ( talk) 02:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Found a great web source, and I think I can find the book as well. That is Article 10 od AK constitution, lloky here for classes and how they relate to Boroughs also this ISBN  978-0803281493 ( talk) 03:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I can fix the refs, I have the data, BUT the intro needs word and the counties need linking in the list. I have asked the contributor to clarify Coal town guy ( talk) 03:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

MANY thanks for the work there. I am also hitting Wisconsin now....... Coal town guy ( talk) 02:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I will start hitting the refs for Ohio, we have to get rid of Gnealogy links, as well the Britannica refs. We might find, as a cautrion, that the unclaimed territories are a former county and thus a former/renamed county table may need to be added. I started one for Wisconsin.... Coal town guy ( talk) 13:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks. Jujutacular ( talk) 13:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

CAUTION, the origins portion needs an overhaul, I found a primary OH text, and removed the genealogy page ref, it looks like they relied ojn the genealogy page...bad move.........see the ref provided at Google books.....LOTS of work Coal town guy ( talk) 01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is more appropriate for the Infobox in the Scott Allie article in this discussion? You don't need to know anything about Allie; I'm contacting you because you've worked on matters pertaining to photography. I tried contacting lots of editors who work on comics-related articles, but every time I do so, we wind up with the sentiments split down the middle, and no clear consensus. I'm thinking perhaps that people who work on matters dealing with photography might be able to offer viewpoints that yield a consensus. Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 15:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nightscream. It looks like there are a lot of opinions there already, and I don't really have a strong preference between the pictures. I hope you are able to come to a resolution. Jujutacular ( talk) 12:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jujutacular,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Cabiria 1914 poster restored.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 18, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-04-18. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Good photo collection, I'm very new in editing the articles I have less internet facility however every thing seems confusing to me. I'm a Masters student in Bioinformatics. I love to produce more and more articles in regarding to my field and other literature. Pls mail me lbalasubramanyam9@gmail.com Balasubramanyam ( talk) 07:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you sir! Good luck with everything here on Wikipedia! Jujutacular ( talk) 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jujutacular,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Paul Simonon mg 6692 crop.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 30, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-05-30. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 22:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jujutacular,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Mezcala Bridge - Mexico edit1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 22, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-06-22. Thank you for all of your contributions! —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jujutacular, just an FYI, as discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Eliminating_delist_section_.28for_real_this_time.29, the delist and delist&replace nominations will be moved up into the "Current nominations" section. I don't think this should bother your script. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁ _{gala xies} 17:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! I believe you are correct, it shouldn't cause any issues with the script, since it doesn't do delist nominations anyway. Let me know if you see any issues. Jujutacular ( talk) 19:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Very welcome! We'll let you know. Thanks :) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁ _{gala xies} 21:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Simply Spectacular! Mukeshmegnauth ( talk) 19:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Jujutacular ( talk) 09:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jujutacular,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Andersonville Prison.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 19, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-07-19. Thank you for all of your contributions! —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. I made a slight fix. Jujutacular ( talk) 03:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jujutacular!

I found, that your file about Desargues' theorem would fit fine into the introduction of de:Projektive Perspektivität, which is a lemma on an (in german textbooks) a little fuzzy word meaning "nearly the same" as the english Homography, but out of historical reasons going back to the time of Pappos, growing harder with Pascal ... a little fuzzy as I said. Therefore I made your fine picture language-neutral by hand and changed some point names. As I am very OUT of time and older than 13 I know as well as nothing about the copyright-rules, which now apply. So if you find my changes unappropriate, please feel free to change the new file File:Desargues_theorem_language_neutral.svg as you wish.-- KlioKlein ( talk) 21:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC) (Answer me, if you wish on my german talk-page de:Benutzer Diskussion:KleinKlio)

Everything looks good to me! Thank you for letting me know. Cheers. Jujutacular ( talk) 23:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

why did you delete my dark net page? ( talk)

Please feel free to close my account - I will seek the advice of someone who is experienced with Wiki and start again. Best Wishes, Will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.63.130 ( talk) 13:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Will. I can't be sure what account you're referring to, since it seems you're signed out. Let me know if I can be of any help. Cheers. Jujutacular ( talk) 14:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I really don't see how the proposed title is ambiguous. It is commonly used in the English-language media, the club itself uses that name on the English-language section of its own website and no other subject could conceivably lay claim to 1. FC Nürnberg as the title of an article. I really think you should reconsider declining the move. – Pee Jay 19:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

There is already voiced opposition to the move at Talk:1. FC Nuremberg#Name, and I did find use of the name "1. FC Nuremberg" in media. This is why I felt that there is at least some ambiguity, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports), in this instance. I would suggest listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Ping me, and I'll close the discussion after the 7 day discussion period if no other admin does. Hope this helps! Cheers. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The only actual opposition to the move (from User:Number 57) is nearly six years old, and is no longer valid since the club now exclusively uses the German form of its name even in the English-language section of its official website, as I pointed out. But OK, if you insist, I'll list the request at WP:RM. – Pee Jay 21:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jujutacular thanks for the feedback on my sandbox page re notability. I've included more sources now and would value your opinion on whether you think I've fixed the issue. MurrayMunch ( talk) 13:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It is looking much better. I would say that it is now borderline in demonstrating notability. One of the issues with these types of articles is that the sources often only mention the subject (Artificial Solutions) in passing, rather than discussing it in detail. If you know of any third party sources writing at length specifically about Artificial Solutions, that would be good to add. Jujutacular ( talk) 18:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jujutacular, I have mailed the permission details on permissions-en@wikimedia.org 7 days ago and also written on (talk) talk page of Diannaa and on my talk page also Ron Gates | Talk and i requested Ayaan Chawla also to email on permissions-en@wikimedia.org if he can so please check, and restore the photo and if there is still problem in anything please revert back.

Regards

Ron Gates —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ron, please see Diannaa's response: [1]. Thanks. Jujutacular ( talk) 22:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you for all the work on keeping Wikipedia clean. I usually just edit, removing the promotion from company articles, which usually saves them, so rarely have them deleted anyway. However, regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin Dev Duggal, it was quite a surprise that both of the articles went away, before much of a consensus was reached. Only one editor explicitly stated that both articles should be deleted. Not sure why one editor defines a consensus? It was not totally clear from the AfD that it applied to both articles. One other editor voted to keep, and one delete, but those two were not clear if they meant one or both articles. I proposed my compromise of keeping one neutral article on the company (which seemed to have survived the demise of its flamboyant founder). That seemed the consensus, so I did quite a bit of work on the Nivio article rewording into neutral tone and adding quite a few citations. It ended up bearing little resemblance to the one created by the editor with presumed conflict of interest. I would not have spent that much time trying to rescue it if there was a clear consensus emerging. Any chance we could revive the Nivio article and perhaps do another discussion that explicitly concerns that one, as it stood with all the citations and neutral tone? Or move into my user area so all that work is not lost. Alas, I did not have time to put into my user area before the trigger was pulled, although the discussion had been opened for about four weeks. The log seems to show the company had already been restored once back in 2009, but perhaps standards were not as tight back then? See Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archives/June 2009 Thanks for any suggestions, such as if a WP:deletion review is in order, etc. W Nowicki ( talk) 19:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I didn't look closely enough at this. I have amended the closure as no consensus and default to keep the Nivio article. Jujutacular ( talk) 13:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Good work, thanks, the nivio article is back! I know it is debatable if breadth of independent coverage can make up to depth to show notability, but at least this article seems the right tone now. If nothing else some more coverage might come in before the next proposed deletion. Now the duplicate photo File:Sachin Dev Duggal @ the World Economic Forum 2010.jpg still should go but probably not worth fighting that battle. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you please delete User:Yids2010, User:Flat Out, User:100loves and User:Flat Out (with all entirely user pages, talk pages and contributions), I was heartbroken because I'd correction but users undid it. I think users are blind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.176.157 ( talk) 04:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot delete user pages or talk pages simply because they undid your edits. If you could provide links to the specific edits that were undid, I can evaluate the merit of the edits. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed that on the 20th of August you deleted the page ANts P2P. I have been administrator of this project since 2004 and I believe the reasons for deletions are questionable. In particular you claim:

"I don't see how it's possible for the article to pass WP:NSOFT." This software was a pioneering step in anonymous p2p and it has been around for over 10 years. During this timespan it has been downloaded over 600.000 times as you can verify on sourceforge statistics for the project. It has been covered by thousands of pages and articles on the web as you can verify via a simple search for "ANts p2p" on google.

Furthermore, a search on google scholar for "ANtsP2P" returns over 50 academic articles that mention the software. Such as

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=H2VuBddvMLAC&oi=fnd&pg=PT41&dq=%22ants+p2p%22&ots=2HZM3quuHl&sig=m3KsPFWWMaGR3gePHv-90OaHQ3I http://www.tml.tkk.fi/Publications/C/18/saarinen.pdf

This contradicts your claim "There's just not enough written about it in WP:RS". I would like to kindly ask you to reconsider your decision and undo the deletion.

Regards,

Roberto Rossi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.2 ( talk) 23:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Roberto, " proposed deletions" can be contested by simply removing the "prod" template. Based on your note here, I have reversed the deletion and reinstated the article. If anyone still believes that the article should be deleted, they can take it to " articles for deletion". There it would be discussed by other editors. Keep in mind that notability is determined " if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mere mentions of the software in books does not constitute significant coverage. Jujutacular ( talk) 23:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Please note that unfortunately I am not myself a Wikipedia contributor. The page was created by other people and I simply tried long time ago to include some information on the functioning of the software. I now included a couple of academic articles that discuss the software. There used to be significant coverage of the software on the web from 2004 to 2008, but this is of course now substantially reduced, since the project is slowly becoming obsolete. In any case, of course I am not the best person to judge notability of ANts. I just felt it was appropriate to bring the above references to your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.4.2 ( talk) 00:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous... I need to find a loophole around this nonsense. All I want to do is just have a picture on my user page, and that's it. But then it gets deleted for not being "free" enough? You have to admit, that's kind of stupid.

But since you're the one who deleted it, is there some other way I could reupload the image onto Wikipedia? Perhaps I could give it a copyrighted license owned by the original uploader of the picture?

I'm just trying to put a picture on my user page, and that's turning out to be a lot more difficult than it should be. -- Matthew ( talk) 13:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no loophole. The non-commercial license simply is not compatible with our goals here at Wikipedia. I would suggest browsing through the millions of files already available on Commons for a suitable picture for your user page. Jujutacular ( talk) 14:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you remove the Block on SyTrueInc and put it on hold. We are going to put up a number of external links, research, and journal articles with Innovative Healthcare IT projects on our platform. We plan to offer those papers for review to our community of users. Thanks SyTrueInc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.231.235 ( talk) 05:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Wikipedia usernames should also represent a single person, not an organization. If you would like to work on Wikipedia in other matters, please log in and follow the instructions on your talk page in order to change your username. Jujutacular ( talk) 13:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.191.48 ( talk) 14:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jujutacular, thanks actually, for deleting one of the six files I requested to be deleted at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_August_16. Could you please delete the others I submitted that day? I think their backlog is backlogged. They all say "Tintin cover". Thanks. —Prhartcom (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done You can simply tag these as {{ Orfud}} for future cases. Cheers :) Jujutacular ( talk) 00:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You da man. And thanks for the tip, I will. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You closed an AFD because there was an 'LA Times blog interview, yet the article, Deon Swiggs, has nothing from the LA Times in it, blog or otherwise. Did you close the wrong article? The article sucked, a puff piece written by a friend, but it's not the worst offender on Wikipedia, so I'm not requesting a change. But, still, I don't see anything credited to the LA Times in the article. Can you explain? --( AfadsBad ( talk) 04:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

It is not currently in the article, but was discussed at the AFD: [2]. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Is someone going to add it? As is, the article is a recent graduate's resume sourced to his own web site. Reading policy, it seems this is a bad thing, unsourced BLPs on Wikipedia. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 04:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

I can't say. You may do so. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Not interested, just feeling my way around which policies matter on Wikipedia. And which don't mean a thing. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 04:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

WP:BLP mainly serves to make sure that we protect people from unsourced negative statements. This article does need work, but there is currently no worries about that sort of material. In evaluating the AFD, I could see that there was some direction each way on whether the subject meets our guidelines on notability. It was clear that there was no firm consensus. In these situations our default is to keep the article so that it may be expanded and improved to a point that it is a more clear keep, or perhaps deleted in the future if nothing develops. Jujutacular ( talk) 04:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems, from reading the policy, that keep is not a default for BLPs of relatively unknown individuals; it's the default for other types of articles. This could have gone either way. But if it is kept because of a single source, it seems that source should be in the article. It isn't. It also seems, along the lines of common sense, that BLPs should raise more than the concern of whether it has negative information; they should, like all Wikipedia articles, have reliably sourced information. This article doesn't. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 05:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Default to delete BLPs is not policy, as far as I'm aware. Since there are no unsourced negative statement issues here, I chose to default to keep. Jujutacular ( talk) 05:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

As I am not familiar with the policies, I had to run around and read them. For BLPs of relatively unknown persons, the non-consensus default to keep is not policy. And for BLPs it's not just negative material that matters, poorly and un-sourced material is also considered problematic. Anyway, there are additional pages about BLP deletions that you can check out. While the policy seems to be walking on eggshells to say nothing, it clearly does not say that deletion discussions without consensus should default to keep; and I think, from looking at the discussions, that conclusion arises from a general consensus among Wikipedia editors that people closing BLP discussion consider all aspects of the particular article, not just whether it has negative information. This article also remains unsourced, meaning it can be put up for deletion, even the non-discussion deletion, anytime. Anyway, you answered my question as to the LA Times reference: it's not in the article. Thanks. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 14:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

I did add it. And feel free to take to WP:DRV if you would like other opinions. Jujutacular ( talk) 14:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's useful. The article can stay or go. Not really feeling the deletion stuff; most of what I looked at seemed to be invested editors predisposed one way or another, so not much participation going on, my original purpose for heading that way. --( AfadsBad ( talk) 15:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC))