User talk:Jokestress

Leave a message here.

Talk archive

• 2004 talk archives
• 2005 talk archives
• 2006 talk archives
• 2007 talk archives
• 2008 talk archives
• 2009 talk archives
• Please use the "new section" tab at the top of the page for adding comments, and give your comment a title. Thanks!

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jokestress! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 9 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 937 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Ghigo Agosti - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Raymond Lapin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Jim French (photographer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Hartmut Esslinger - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Milt Okun - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Mitch Aliotta - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. A. Wade Boykin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
8. Nathan Brody - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
9. Diane F. Halpern - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Speedy deletion nomination of Hartmut Esslinger

A tag has been placed on Hartmut Esslinger, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. 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), 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. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, I am not claiming I did such a great job--and let me add that this is not the first time that previous gutting by some of a select group of editors has led me astray. Those editors feel that every unsourced sentence in a BLP can be cut, and in this case, that was a lot of sentences. What was left (in an earlier version; I did look at the history, but not that far back) was not much more than the link to that self-published book. I am not happy with unsourced BLPs, I'm not happy with editors chopping content left and right, and I'm not happy with myself when I make a mistake: but you have no reason to doubt my good faith. I've been yelled at and called a deletionist, and I've been yelled at and called an inclusionist. In the meantime, I've saved and sourced a whole bunch of these BLPs recently, and I'm sorry that DGG had to save this one for me. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing of Dr. Peter I. Collins page

I am Dr. Collins. The establishment of this page was for political reasons by a person whom I am not associated with professionally, or otherwise, and appears to be motivated by a dispute with the Centre for Addication and Mental Health where I continue to have a clinical practice. As the subject of the bio, I have a right to add or delete what I feel is an appropriate reflection of my professional work. That is hardly vandalism when one considers the original intent as why the page was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.132 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahoy, where were you born?

I was wondering what your birth location is, so we could add it to the article about you. Tinton5 (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Willam-belli.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Willam-belli.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Melville's

A tag has been placed on Melville's, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Consors

Hi! Back in 2006 you created this page as a redirect. An unregistered IP has turned it into what appears to be a very dubious article on a nelogism (IMHO).

I'm minded to revert. Would you concur?

Cje (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your rewrite as a disambiguation looks very thorough. Cje (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 663

Please don't remove the notability tag from United Airlines Flight 663. If you can make the case that a man smoking on a plane is notable, please do so on the article's talk page. Thanks! Janus303 (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please participate on the talk page for United Airlines Flight 663 so that we can come to a consensus. There is disagreement on whether this event is notable, and simply adding more news stories is not a sufficient reason to remove the notability flag. Janus303 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Seymour Itzkoff

I have nominated Seymour Itzkoff, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seymour Itzkoff. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:1900NewOrleansCookbook.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:1900NewOrleansCookbook.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Anji-xtravaganza.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Anji-xtravaganza.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rekers' role in treating trans kids

Hi Andrea, I think some of this discussion here might be of interest to you, and be something you could be a potential contributor to Talk:George Alan Rekers#following discussion on BLP page, regards. Mish (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying the signers of "Mainstream Science on Intelligence."

Hi, Jokestress, I have been a Wikipedian only about a month, and I see I have occasion today to edit some boilerplate paragraphs that you put into articles about psychologists in 2006. You mention each signer of the 1994 "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" article (which is VERY helpful for reference use of Wikipedia--thanks) and in each paragraph write, "s/he was one of 52 signatories on "Mainstream Science on Intelligence," an editorial written by Linda Gottfredson and published in the Wall Street Journal, which defended the findings on race and intelligence in The Bell Curve." I have changed most of those paragraphs to read "s/he was one of 52 signatories on "Mainstream Science on Intelligence," an editorial written by Linda Gottfredson and published in the Wall Street Journal, which declared the consensus of the signing scholars on issues related to race and intelligence following the publication of the book The Bell Curve." so that it is clear that "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" makes no mention of the book The Bell Curve and so that (under BLP) signers who may not agree with the book are not described as someone who "defended the findings" of that book. I am acquainted with some of the signatories from my own professional research, and I think my rewrite better characterizes what they all have in common. P.S. I wanted to say that I especially appreciate what you say about inclusionism on your user page. I am very new here, and I take Wikipedians like you who want Wikipedia to be full of information as models. Keep up the good work. No offense intended by the edits. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice about post-AfD

Hi, Jokestress-- You worked with me on the Barbara Warren page a while ago. I'm here to ask for your advice. An article I recently wrote was nominated for deletion by an editor for notability (the nom didn't initially mention any other reason and did say the article had a lot of references and seemed as if a lot of work had gone into it). Instead of placing a "Notability" tag on it, she nominated it for deletion and it went through the AfD process. During the process, I addressed the notability concern by finding more reliable articles (some editors said that some of the sources -- newspaper and magazine articles -- appeared weak). I have found stronger, reliable sources, cited them, reworked the article, and I believe the notability is there, plus it's a stronger article now. A few editors agreed, one quite strongly. But it was ultimately deleted. One editor, voted "Delete" within minutes of the AfD post (also, I thought it wasn't a vote, but, rather, a discussion). It was userfied by the admin, and I've improved on it (I found more articles where the subject was the only one in the article, which the nom requested). If you could take a look at it and give me your feedback, plus suggestions on a good way to proceed, it would be much appreciated. The thing is, because the non didn't seem receptive to improvements I'd made during the AfD, per her nomination notes. I've been paying attention to other AfDs and when improvements are made, the noms are satisfied and happy with the improvements being made. So, my sense is, it will be nominated a second time or someone who got on there with her with a pretty quick "Delete" will re-nominate it, despite the improvements. Your advice on how the best way to proceed would be wonderful. I asked User: Tone for his advice as well; you can click on to his talk page, under Cordelia Mendoza, and see what he said. Here's the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cordelia Mendoza. And here's the draft I've been working on: User:AuthorAuthor/Cordelia Mendoza Thanks much! --AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note. Appreciate it. I'm inclined, because of the nom's record of AfDs and reviews, of reposting the much-improved article, with reliable sources showing notability. Your take? --AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Two more reliable sources

For the Cordelia Mendoza rewrite/revision, I found two more reliable sources (one an obit, per your suggestion), where the subject is cited a couple of times, plus it's a strong reliable source & shows notability. Thanks for your advice. Much appreciated. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Coccinelle-ep.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coccinelle-ep.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Coccinelle.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coccinelle.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous mootch

To: User talk:AliceJMarkham, User talk:Bearcat, User talk:Fuhghettaboutit, User talk:Jehochman, Jokestress, and User talk:Pmanderson

Hi folks,

While I know that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site, I've read edits from each of you and figure that you might have something to contribute to my RD question Being private verses public?. If you can help, I'd greatly appreciate it, though even your attention here is appreciated as well. Thanks.205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Paraphilia Commentary

Hi I ran into the use of the term, Paraphilia in reading an article involving adult spanking. This article was general and did not focus on the heterosexual format or the homosexual format. A "philia" as a term used in Psychology tends to involved many singular love of a fetish or some sort. I don't see why a Wikipedia article should narrow it in such a way. The word intent is to broaden and not narrow. The Budzone guy 20:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadbud5000 (talk • contribs)

Requesting help with WP:SPS rewording

I have made the request to consider re wording of WP:SPS to have a more concise and simple definition. Could you please help with this?Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self_Published_Sources_is_worded_in_a_way_which_is_too_broad

Thanks --Hfarmer (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has proposed a new guideline just for scientific articles.

This may interest you because the BBL articles can be construed as "science". The issues you have would be made even worse if when all is said and done this applies to all science related articles and not just those in the natural sciences. Basically any sources that were not published by the academic establishment would be out. Which would exclude many sources you would have liked to use even more strongly than what SPS does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences) --Hfarmer (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your recent posts

Your posts shown here are about as welcome -- no, less welcome -- than if you were to state (say) "many experts have come to the conclusion that the so-called Holocaust never occurred, see (citation) and (citation) and (citation) and (blah blah blah)", or that sort of thing. OK?

We understand your point of view. We're not interested. If you're at all desirous of continuing to edit the Wikipedia, a good leaving alone of this subject is in order. Herostratus (talk)