User talk:RJaguar3/Archive 3

Sara Jean Underwood

You're right, the source provided was rubbish but Jeff Dye did date Sara Jean Underwood. There are many circumstantial pieces of evidence, myspace photos (the couple together in fairly ordinary couple photos) and videos (her goofing watching Superbowl with him), twitter comments (although Underwood no longer maintains a twitter page). The problem is how difficult it is to find a more reputable a source mentioning the relationship given both of them are relatively low profile "celebrities". It is unquestionably true but the way most people enforce WP:BLP most editors will not allow it to be added to the article. There was an editors who dismissed the Howard Stern Show as a good enough source for her relationship with Ryan Seacreat but that was clearly just prejudice or snobbery. Some editors are just determined to undermine and remove any Personal life sections from articles. -- Horkana (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See But it's true!. Verifiability, not truth, is the determining factor for what we can include in an article, especially one on a living person. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with "wikitruth". It would seem more appropriate to label this material as "citation needed" and try to gradually improve it as better sources become available. Many editors have an odd interpretation of WP:BLP that gives them license to delete first and not mark things as citation needed even when they are not actually controversial or disputed, which seems counterproductive to improving articles, even going so far as to delete sourced material because Underwood herself speaking to Howard Stern doesn't fit their idea of a good enough source. Perhaps you might be lucky enough to pick a different google search and come up with an appropriate source that I was unable to stumble upon. -- Horkana (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I was not involved in that Howard Stern show decision, but based on what I'm hearing from you, I'd be inclined to accept that as a valid source (under WP:SELFPUB). From a quick glance, it seems that whodateswho isn't a very reliable source; maybe if you know more about that website, you could make a better judgment. While all statements should be verifiable, we do have to tread very carefully with biographies of living persons, as there are definitely libel concerns involved when we include unsourced and dubiously-sourced claims.

If you want to find another source, go for it. That's how we improve the verifiability of Wikipedia: through more reliable sources. RJaguar3 | u | t 02:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to find more and better sources. I failed. Was hoping you might give it a try. Your edit does seem reasonable, I guess I was just annoyed at this coming up again, since I had posted it before with a short list of weak sources and it was removed and it annoys me that some editors being overly strict and that another editor in good faith added it again and and there's no easy way for him or you to know about it, the talk page only gives a hint of what you'd learn from trawling through the edit history. Personally I'd have left the whodateswho - a weak source better than no source - but also asked for a better citation by tagging it citation needed. Deleting just seems to be a dead end and things don't get improved. Nevermind, I shouldn't let the flaws in Wikipedia bother me so much but I'd like to enourage you to try and help add better sources to the article if you can. It's a bit more effort but you could get lucky with a google search and not need to delete at all. -- Horkana (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hidden Temple

Any chance you could find the original air dates for some of the episodes? Some of the gameplay devices could be sourced to individual episodes, ideally from anything Olmec said. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, here are the sources I can find:

1. Ryan Rinkerman has airdates for some episodes ("Sir Lawrence of Arabia's Headdress," September 11, 1993; "The Golden Jaguar of Atahualpa," September 12, 1993; "The Code Book of Mata Hari," September 25, 1993; "The Lucky Pig of Amelia Earhart," October 2, 1993; "The Mask of Shaka Zulu," October 3, 1993; all from Rinkerman, who claims that they have original commericals, which, if we're lucky, will have movie trailers or other dated material to corroborate the given dates). These dates also appear to come from User:HairMetalLives (Talk:Legends_of_the_Hidden_Temple#Premiere_Date_of_September_11,_1993_is_Correct), who also adds "The Trojan Horseshoe," as September 26, 1993, claiming that part of an ESPN Sunday Night Baseball game was on the same tape. Jon Plesz also has the complete collection, and his airdates match, except for "Mask," which he claims aired October 9 (probably a typo).
2. There are two studio master copies with slate floating around ("The War fan of the Forty-seven Ronin," July 11, 1995, taped February 18, 1995; "The Lion-Slashed Jacket of Sacajawea," June 16, 1995, taped February 24, 1995, both taken from Rinkerman)
3. I seem to recall one of the sources talked about contestants' appearances in an episode to air. Scarberry doesn't mention when the featured contestants' episodes would be airing. Flood, however, mentions that Tabitha's appearance on Legends taped in May 1994 and aired July 27, 1994. Looking at the nicklegends episodes summaries, I believe that the episode in question is 2x07 ("The Diary of Dr. Livingstone"). This is really strange, as the other source on the second season has taping occurring from March to April, with tryouts in February, and this episode has a low production number for being such a late taping.

Regardless, I don't think original airdates are necessary with this type of show. To use primary sources, we have to have enough information given identifying a particular episode so that someone else can obtain it and check for themselves. Here, the episode titles are uniquely identifying enough. For other shows without distinct titles, information like celebrities appearing, names of contestants, names of teams participating, as well as original air date and production number can serve to uniquely identify one episode. There's no problem with citing a particular episode, but stuff like "once on The Joker's Wild, there was a 'Road Signs' category that caused problems for the two contestants involved" is (in addition to being remarkably trivial) hard to verify. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

...

I wouldn't mess with Tomballguy if I were you. He's hypersensitive, and he doesn't like edit warring. Just don't do it, dude. You won't like him when he's angry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.223.29 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hossam taha musician

A tag has been placed on Hossam taha musician requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. NtheP (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

K'nex Sonic Blizzard Coaster

You seconded a proposal to delete K'nex Sonic Blizzard Coaster. The author of the article has contested the PROD, and the article has now been taken to a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K'nex Sonic Blizzard Coaster. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy

Don't forget the two that were already deleted if you are going to make a table of winners. We should have a sortable table based on total winnings. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Jeopardy! contestants for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of Jeopardy! contestants, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jeopardy! contestants until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. CTJF83 chat 19:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is of interest to you, or if such should even be merged into your new "list" article, but for a limited time, the content from the now-deleted Dan Pawson article is still available in Google's cache. [1] Robert K S (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeopardy! Kids Week

You previously participated in an AFD discussion regarding a child article of Jeopardy!. There is currently another ongoing AFD for Jeopardy! Kids Week and you may be interested in providing a comment or vote for/against deletion. If you'd like to participate you can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Jeopardy! (2nd nomination)

You previously participated in a discussion/AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week and I'd like to make you aware of another ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Jeopardy! (2nd nomination) in which you may want to offer your own opinion. Please feel free to comment...thanks. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixing my edit to Richwales' RFA

Yikes! I'm not sure how I did that. Thanks for catching it! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing fake block notice!

Thank you so much for removing that fake block notice on my talk page! I was completely fooled!

Have some fried chicken on me:

Ken g6 has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding {{subst:GiveChicken}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or gobble up this chicken the giver's talk page with {{subst:MunchChicken}}!!

-- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 23:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of 2010 basketball referee battery for deletion

The article 2010 basketball referee battery is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 basketball referee battery until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. tedder (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Pufc

Hi, I noticed that a tag that you added here is causing a ParserFunction error. You can see this by checking {{Pufc|1=Console gameboxes.jpg|date=2011 January 6}} which produces Error: Invalid time. Interestingly, this is fixed by swapping the date format to {{Pufc|1=Console gameboxes.jpg|date=6 January 2011}} which produces the desired result. I will see if I can fix the problem at the source, Template:Pufc, and let you know. You can respond here, since my IP page is shared. 134.253.26.11 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was copying the code from Template:Puf, so I think the problem must lie there with the code it generates. (Also, in case it helps, I use Twinkle to place the puf template, but I have to manually add the pufc template using the code generated by the puf template.) RJaguar3 | u | t 17:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. As far as I can see, then banner in Template:Puf does have the date in "day month year" format, rather than the reverse, which is the issue. There is a template which can handle "year month day", which is Template:date, but it is a bit heavy-handed in terms of the complexity of the code. Better would be if the "{{#time" parserfunction was able to handle this format. To see the core issue, try {{#time: j M Y|January 6, 2011}} vs. {{#time: j M Y|6 January 2011}} vs. {{#time: j M Y|2011 January 6}}. The last one fails, but the other two are fine. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeopardy! theme music

If the IP does it again, let HJ Mitchell know. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeopardy! broadcast history for deletion

The article Jeopardy! broadcast history is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! broadcast history (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Chris Bell Music source

Thanks for adding that ref on the Chris Bell Music bit. I doubt it'll stop the vandal, but at least it's there. Robert K S (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of my entry entitled DIVISION ALGORITHM POLYNOMIALS.

Dear Sir/Madam, I have been informed that the above entry is beyond the scope of the Wikipedia. The equations, I must admit are rather hefty, but on the other hand the mathematics is essentially elementary without any approximations, although quite involved in the derivation. This work appears to be entirely new and unknown to the mathematical establishment at this time so that no immediate verification is possible. I am respectfully appealing to Wikipedia not to delete my entry until at least it has been read by someone out there and worked out and that Wikipedia has been informed of their findings. WPGS25041941 (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank you for the effort you put in into writing that article. However, Wikipedia is not the first place to go when you've come up with something novel. Our policy on WP:No original research states that our sole job is to write articles based on what other reliable sources have written, not to advance a new theory not published elsewhere. For an example of what I refer to, read the polynomial long division article. Although Wikipedia is probably not the right place for your article, you may want to try Wikiversity, a free wiki host, or even submitting to a mathematical journal. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 17:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the proposed deletion of my entry DIVISION ALGORITHM POLYNOMIALS.

Dear Sir/Madam,

As the author [and sole originator to the best of my knowledge] of the above, I have revised my opinion and come to the same view point as Wikpedia, that the research in the proposed entry has not yet reached a mature stage and as yet there is no established usefuness. Neither has the work been verified in the Wikipedian sense of the word. The effort I used in producing my contribution to Wikipedia has by no means been wasted, for I have been able to improve the work for inclusion elsewhere and what is more to the point, have acquired a greater proficiency in computing, to which I am still very new. My computer was only connected to the Internet in 2010 October 10th at 10 UTC. By " verifiable " you surely mean [immediately] verifiable. That is, reference has been made by Wikipedia to an authority where the work had been subjected to a rigorous analysis and was then authenticated by that citation.

However, many thanks for directing me to alternative places where the research can be peer-reviewed and developed into something of practical utility. This I have done.

Yours Sincerely,

W. P. G. Shaw.

[Br. English expression has been used in this missive] — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPGS25041941 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC) WPGS25041941 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)signedWPGS25041941 (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that I was able to help. Incidentally, since you seem to be interested in mathematics, you might consider joining WP:WikiProject Mathematics to help improve some of the articles we have on mathematical topics. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of the contribution " DIVISION ALGORITHM POLYNOMIALS " which is scheduled for deletion.

Dear RJaguar3,

              There is a quote by the eminent German mathematican G.F.B. Riemann [1822 - 1866] in which he asserts that 

the irregular distribution of the primes [prime numbers] is " a mystery into which the [human] mind would never penetrate. "

       He was absolutely right in that he was presumably working

in the decimal system. However in the more fundamental binary system, matters look entirely different. He was in my view, mistaken in believing that the erraticity of the primes is unexplainable. This perplexity was a challenge and in the two contributions to Wikiversity: [the result of many an hour pondering the matter]

" Polynomial Quotient Equations " - the above entry under another name and
" Matrices of Remainders " I think the matter might now be virtually resolved 

except for some straight forward equation solving. Plotting the complex zeros duly labelled, computing their amplitudes and finding their significance seems to be all that remains to be done. To the best of my knowledge this has not happened, for the above equations had not been derived hitherto.

       My very limited interest in maths was in solving 

an allegedly unsolvable problem, but I feel that I have done my part and should leave persuance of matters to others.

       In view of the above, in another forum, 

I cited an equation differentiated from Riemann's Zeta Function [RZF] in that unlike the RZF, all of the even terms are absent - only uneven integers occur. I never imagined that my innocent comment would attact such vehement personal abuse from the Establishment. In the process, I discovered far more about sociological issues of human nature and politics than about logical discussion for what there was of it, which in any case could have been discovered years ago.WPGS25041941 (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Legends of the Hidden Temple

Hi. Just letting you know I failed the article here. If you want to put it up for nomination again, you should probably address the concerns I placed in the review. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It'll just be easier to explain on your talk page. Now, throughout the article, it has some line sentence paragraphs, already a no-no. Also, for the episodes, please look at Glee (TV series) as an example. Also for the Main Game section, references should be used in case you may be bull-shitting how the show is played (I've seen the show and I know you're not but other people might not). As for reviews, you could probably reformat it and it'll look more improved so it doesn't need anymore stuff in it. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the good article criteria, and after looking at them, I must say that I believe you have misapplied the good article criteria. See WP:GACN. First, I will concede that the layout could be improved, especially with regards to short paragraphs, so I'll get to work on that. Second, GAC #2b only requires that the article "provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons," and most of the plot summary statements do not seem to fall into this category. BSing statements can be done with any source (as I was somewhat guilty of three years back on Masters of the Maze, when I added my original interpretation of an article [I got better, and I corrected my statements; I nevertheless apologize for that edit, performed with less judgment than I have now]), and, as this is a work of fiction, the work itself is a perfectly valid self-published source for statements about itself that do not require original research to formulate (that is, statements that are obvious to anyone who reads/watches the show). In either case, for the reasons above the lack of sources in the plot summary is simply not a grounds for failing a GAN, in my opinion. I think your suggestion on the reviews section is a good one, and I will go ahead and change that.

So, are the layout problems the justification for a quick fail? If so, would you be prejudiced to my renomination of the article once those are fixed? Again, thanks for your efforts in reviewing the article; it took a bit of discussion, but now I know what needs to be fixed. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I feel like the article is sort of like this. However, I won't be prejudice if you renomiate it again. However, a more experianced editor may fail it as well if it still doesn't fare well. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Romney GA review

Thanks very much for your review and comments. My responses are at Talk:Mitt Romney/GA2. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping out and offering to do the GA Review for the article Aaron Saxton, much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

At Talk:Aaron Saxton/GA1, I took a look at your comments as GA Reviewer, and where possible I implemented as many of your helpful suggestions as appropriate. Some of my responses to your good recommendations included: I adjusted wording, as you suggested. I removed a bit of text that you had quoted in the GA Review. I did another check but was unable to find other related free-use images. Hopefully this is now satisfactory to allow you to conclude the review. Thanks again very much for your time and your helpful recommendations as GA Reviewer - most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Good thinking

Thank you for adding the image of Senator Nick Xenophon to the article Aaron Saxton, it is well placed and looks good! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Romney GA proposal

To try to break the logjam on the Mitt Romney GAN, I've done a new analysis and made a new proposal at Talk:Mitt Romney/GA2#Article length. Let us know what you think and thanks for bearing with this review. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Legends of the Hidden Temple

The article Legends of the Hidden Temple you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Legends of the Hidden Temple for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. I've left my reasoning and any advice I could give on improvements in the review. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the show at all, or I'd try to be of some use to you, but don't be afraid to ask me for any help with it in the future anyway. Good luck with it in the future. GRAPPLE X 14:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I really appreciate someone who knows nothing about the show reviewing it (since it helps make the article more accessible to Wikipedia's audience and eliminates text that assumes that the reader has already seen the show [I ended up removing a reference to Olmec in the lead before the character was even mentioned]). I will definitely try to find more sources about the production of the show. I couldn't find anything about the conception of the show (which, as a fan, I would really like to know more above). There used to be a layouts section, but it was moved to a separate article and then deleted due to being unsourced; although the episodes themselves can serve as sources, I feel that collecting the various episodes into patterns of layouts would violate WP:SYNTH (this is also why I shied away from mentioning the distinction in the caption to the diagram). I will definitely consider adding more information about the set and the music. I don't want to go overboard and simply mirror the ending credits, but I do agree that it would definitely help to add some more credits to the infobox (as soon as I figure out how to do that). I will definitely get to work on this. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive

On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,

• 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
• 423 GA nominations passed.
• 72 GA nominations failed.
• 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011#Feedback. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Requestsfor adminship: RHM22

Hi. Whether editors 'support' or 'oppose', most of the regular !voters do this objectively (it takes a while to load). Please see my response to your rebuttal. You may not be aware of our efforts at User:Kudpung/RfA reform to clean up the RfA process. If you feel there is something wrong with the current RfA system, you are really most welcome to come along and comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Spam HOW?

So adding a link informing people of System Requirements is spamming. Stop accusing me of spamming, Its 100% relevant to the Game YoVille. I will continue to edit it, until you prove that the page or link is spam. If you reply to this message explaining how its spam when stated "nofollow added". Adding that link some where with "dofollow" would be an attempt to spam. This message has been recorded as well as your Wiki information, in case of further actions. If you don't like the content thats one thing, but link title and page is relevant to the wiki page title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.59.131 (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL for general info about external links, which begins to form the basis of my decision. I removed the link because I determined that it is unencyclopedic for the following reasons:

1. It appears to be a fansite, not written by a reliable authority (compare the site to Inside Social Games, for example), and it is not by a recognized expert on YoVille (Criterion #11).
2. It appears to primarily promote some kind of product.
3. It could easily be replaced by a primary source about the actual system requirements from an official Zynga website or forum post authored by a Zynga representative.
4. The system requirements are not discussed in the article, making the link tangential.

Thanks, though, for taking the time to ask my opinion. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________

Thank you for replying, guess I have to work harder. Also Official source isn't necessary BIG business, because many assume "to be official", one needs to be part of some sort of BIG business company (Like an employee). Also it's not a fan site from what I can tell. Again, thank you for clarifying your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.59.131 (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RJaguar3. You have new messages at Mo ainm's talk page.
Message added 16:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks...

Thank you for adding the deletion notice on Crustache, as I just couldn't find the right warning!
I tried adding a unnotable, but then I realised it was for people articles! Thanks again,
Limideen 15:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for fixing the license tag! Without your help the image might have been deleted. JohnHWiki talk - 04:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeopardy! international tournaments for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeopardy! international tournaments is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! international tournaments until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Empires & Allies

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Empires & Allies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TransporterMan (TALK) 02:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, seeing as you're a regular, but please add reliable sources as soon as possible, taking WP:CRYSTAL into consideration. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

First, while I do appreciate the deference you have given me, I do think that is contrary to policy; whether a page meets CSD depends on the contents of the page (and can be bolstered by the subject of the article as well), not on the creator. Second, I believe that Inside Social Games is a reliable source (although you can raise the issue at WP:RSN). Thirdly, it appears to be me that the article makes, in addition to a claim of notability with the cited source, a clear claim of significance, being a video game by a notable company. Thus, I don't think A7 applies, and I commend you for re-evaluating your decision. It might still have been a bit too early to create the article, but I will add sources as they (should) come out tomorrow, rendering this moot, hopefully. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 02:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Rod Blagojevich corruption charges

I withdraw the nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please post any comments that will help editors to improve the content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jeopardy! intertitle.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jeopardy! intertitle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

R Jay Gabany

Subsequent to your successful nomination of R Jay Gabany for speedy deletion on the grounds that notability had not been established, perhaps you would like to review of R. Jay GaBany. I think the subject might be notable, but I'm a bit concerned that the article creator's name is the same as the subject of the article. TheMadBaron (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

First, although I don't remember the speedy deletion (which appears to have been three years ago), the article looks very good. Notability and significance are clearly established. With regards to the creator, I don't see anything wrong with his (or her) editing of the article; however, it might be good to remind this user of WP:COI (in a non-WP:BITEy way). RJaguar3 | u | t 16:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hasdn't appreciated that the speedy d was so long ago! I agree that the article is good, and I don't know for sure that the author is the subject, so I'll probably let the matter rest. Maybe somebody should mention WP:COI to the user, but it won't be me. TheMadBaron (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And I see that you already have! TheMadBaron (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Zynga Poker

I saw you did a couple of redirects/renames on an article I created, Zynga Poker. I was wondering if you would consider undoing the renames as I do not feel they were necessary. The common name for the game is Zynga Poker, which is why I originally named it as such. Since the current website and logo indicate this as the common name, would you consider taking this into consideration? I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

JovanWelks (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You do have a point, and your proposed edit is clearly constructive. When I ultimately decided to move the article (which was not an easy decision), it was based on my consideration of how the official name reads to sources like AppData and Inside Social Games. Here are the usages I could find:

• Inside Social Games October 2011 list of the "top 25 Facebook games by DAU" lists "Texas HoldEm Poker" as the fourth-ranked game. [2]
• An October 11, 2011 Los Angeles Times article about Zynga refers to its "popular Texas HoldEm poker game" without using the title "Zynga Poker" [3]
• AllThingsD.com uses "Texas HoldEm Poker": "In 2007, [Zynga] launched Texas HoldEm Poker." [4]
• Business Insider uses "Texas HoldEm Poker", probably following AppData/Inside Social Games: "[Zynga's] next most popular game is now Texas Hold 'Em Poker" [5]
• Times of India used "Zynga Poker", viz. "Today Facebook and Zynga Poker have made [poker] extremely popular." [6]
• AOL's games.com uses "Zynga Poker"; see [7].
• In a PCWorld article on a patent infringement suit against Zynga, the game is listed as "Zynga Poker" [8]

• TechCrunch: "CityVille launched on Google+ two weeks ago, joining Zynga Poker." [9]

Also, I'm not familiar with the exact details, but I think the Facebook version is still officially titled Texas HoldEm Poker, while the other versions (like on mobile phones and on Google+ [see [10]]) use the title Zynga Poker. Zynga's official forums place all discussions in a forum titled Zynga Poker, but this contains discussions all versions of the game on all platforms. Zynga's fan page on Facebook for the Facebook game uses the title "Texas Hold'Em Poker." [11]

Regardless, I do think that your argument has merit, and that it's definitely not a clear issue. I would suggest starting a discussion on the talk page and perhaps listing an WP:RFC about the page title. Thanks for your message and continued efforts in improving Wikipedia's articles about Zynga. RJaguar3 | u | t 23:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I have started a discussion on Talk:Texas HoldEm Poker (Zynga game) and look forward to the input.

JovanWelks (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello RJaguar3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Zynga

Hey, sorry if it seemed unexplained, that's my fault for not using an edit summary. :) I rolled them back because the user added copious links to the same blog (fusible.com) to a series of articles unrelated to the blog's main topic (domain names) and the name of the account is the same as the company that owns fusible.com. I didn't see that they added other references not to that blog, so my bad. Thanks for dropping me a note, I appreciate it! Steven Walling • talk 23:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Billy Elliot revert

No problem! I have done my share of inadvertent reverts and warnings. Thanks for your contributions! Cheers, Jim1138 (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Zynga-poker-thumbnail-logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zynga-poker-thumbnail-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

User pages

Hi. Please see WP:User page#Deletion of user pages for special details on deletion of user pages and user talk pages. Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? episodes (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WikiLubber (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Buy Here Pay Here, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Credit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Power-up

You should know that I reintroduced the original, fair-use version of the Pac-man cutscene in the new History and influence section at Power-up article. The image is now illustrating the history of the Pac-Man power-up and thus can't be replaced in this usage by a free image, so I think it's legitimate now. Diego (talk) 12:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited 2011 Wisconsin Act 23, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Password Plus and Super Password with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit count account

FYI: your edit count account link on your user page says it is expired. ;) --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good catch! I thought I fixed it where it used to be on the userpage, but I only fixed two of the three links. Thanks! RJaguar3 | u | t 06:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

;)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with revert

I don't agree with this revert: [12] because I mentioned all details, and the email is valid, it can easily be checked, just ask Dell customer service. Further, self-publishing is not something unheard of: the other Dell customer that got refunded in Belgium was also self-published, it was a blog he wrote himself. For all we know it could be just a hoax, just as well as mine. At least I quoted the exact email, with reference numbers, unlike him. I can and will write a blog entry about this, of course, but that's still self-published. So, should I write a blog entry and then it's OK? I am confused. Just because that "dell refund win" story was widely circulated doesn't mean it's less more more true then mine. In fact, as I have stated, it is less supported by actual Dell reference numbers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msoos (talk • contribs) 16:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's still doesn't change that the pastebin fails WP:V and WP:SELFPUB. If you think that the other Dell refund stories fail Wikipedia's sourcing policies, please feel free to let me know and I will take a look and, if necessary, remove them. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, RJaguar3. You have new messages at Carrite's talk page.
Message added 10:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The AFD debate for CBS music was closed, see discussion on this talk page. Thanks. Go Phightins! (talk) 10:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, RJaguar3. You have new messages at Infosfinaki's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Thanks for adding the Bridy refs to the Copyright Alert System article, and for all the other attention you've given it. I'm glad it's not languishing anymore. —mjb (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for consumer arbitration

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Your work at consumer arbitration is very illuminating. Impressive! II | (t - c) 16:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Help with Center for Copyright Information article

Hello RJaguar3, I noticed that you've previously made some edits to the Center for Copyright Information article. I'm currently working on behalf of the CCI to improve the article and, due to my COI, I posted a message on Talk:CCI previously about my proposed changes. This led to quite a bit of feedback from a few editors. I've now addressed that feedback, but the main editor involved has indicated that he's busy currently, and asked that I reach out to others.

I'm wondering if you might be willing to take a look at the discussion at Talk:CCI and the updated draft in my userspace and, if things look okay, go ahead and move my draft over? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, another editor has taken a look at this, so it's now  Done, but thanks anyway! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Adam Orth Twitter incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adam Orth Twitter incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Orth Twitter incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tout le monde veut prendre sa place

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tout le monde veut prendre sa place requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Caffeyw (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Mike Turzai

(section heading added by RJaguar3)

Hello. Would you please explain why you are so attached with removing factually correct information of a legislator's record -- in the entirety of a career, and continuously adding back a comment made to a partisan crowd? I would appreciate an end to the internet vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiskin (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

List of precedents for Windows refunds

Hello, RJaguar3. You have new messages at User:Bahaltener.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. I transferred the discussion to the Talk page of the article -- Bahaltener (talk)

Proposed deletion of Comparison of collegiate quiz bowl formats‎

The article Comparison of collegiate quiz bowl formats‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.