User talk:JDDJS/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:JDDJS. 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.

Hi there. I was clearing out CAT:CSD and had a couple of comments about some taggings of yours. First, please take heed of the note "articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion as having no context (CSD A1) or no content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as not all users will place all their information in their first revision" at the top of Special:NewPages. I noticed you tagged Isabeau (2011 film) less than 60 seconds after the author started it. It's better to wait at least 5 or 10 minutes before tagging A1s and A3s. Second, may I asked why you tagged a 7-year old redirect as an attack page here? 28bytes (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

About the first one, well I guess I was wrong. About the second one, I only found about it because an editor pointed it out to me after I taggedAnybody But Obama for deletion. the reason i tagged it was because it had no valid purpose on Wikipedia. It is not something that people will likely search and it is an attack against Bush. Apparently I wasn't wrong, considering it got deleted for hat reason, even though you removed the tag, JDDJS (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the redirect get deleted, but it's always possible I'm wrong! I've asked the deleting admin for his thoughts. Anyway, thanks for the reply, and for your work patrolling. 28bytes (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

We are trying to create a page for Sabal Financial Group, but it keeps getting deleted. We have reviewed the guidelines and have followed them, but our page keeps getting deleted. Can you please provide us with some guidance? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideahall (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you really object so much to Len Hutton as England captain just delete the damned thing. I won't contest it, I haven't really the energy. And thanks for the very condescending message. I haven't written much here before. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

JDDJS, this is the second time in a row you've undone a new Glee episode page for a forthcoming show with a Redirect. I can understand the one for "The Purple Piano Project", because that one only had a title behind it. This time, there's a Fox press release, which is about as official as you get, plus the information from it, such as casting and a couple of lines of plot. This is all we had last season when setting up episodes, and indeed, it's all we had for "The Purple Piano Project" when we undid your redirect there. Can you explain why the press release isn't good enough any more, and what more would be required? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I redirected it because of WP:CRYSTAL. It will be notable but is not yet. The page currently has no information that can't be found or added to Glee (season 3). Read the first view point of WP:DEADLINE if you want a better of understanding my viewpoint. JDDJS (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, this appears to be a point on which reasonable people can easily disagree. However, I have added information that is new and not appropriate to the season 3 page to the article in question, and restored it. (Although I don't believe that individual episode guest-star lists are appropriate to a season page.) On the DEADLINE page, the second viewpoint, allowing a day or two for further sources to be gathered, sums up my point of view. We're both members of the Glee task force; might we be able to discuss this further on the task force talk page to come up with a modus vivendi going forward? Thanks! BTW, both this page and that talk page are on my Watchlist; no need to ping me on my page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Kiyoshi Yoshida requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button 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 article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Splouge (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

aargh... I shouldn't have re-posted the speedy deletion template. Splouge (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The same editor has been adding very similar articles.

1. Masaki Kurihara
2. Kousuke Yamashita
3. Makoto Yoshimori (composer)
4. Keita Haga
5. Junpei Fujita
6. Hijiri Anze
7. Ken muramatsu
8. Akira Senju
9. Takeshi Senoo
10. Yasuharu Takanashi
11. Akira Senju

Could you check these and add them to Yoshida's AfD if you feel they belong. Would be nice to decide once and for all if these types of brief stubs belong or not. Bgwhite (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

With the exceptions of Yasuharu Takanashi and Akira Senju (who at least have a couple of works listed), I have added those articles to the AFD. However, I probably added them wrong, so feel free to fix it. JDDJS (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to put the AfD tag on the article, so I put it on them. Just spent an hour of my time trying to find reliable sources on them and couldn't find anything. Bgwhite (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I ask that you revisit the discussion, and recommend that rather than deletion, the article be tagged for expansion per available sources. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In its current state, the article does not show enough notability. If you expanded it to include some of the films she was in, some awards she has received, or something else to show that she is notable, I'll gladly close the AFD. But currently the article consists of 2 sentences, one reference, and empty sections; therefor it does not show notability. JDDJS (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to quibble, but I am less convinced by arguments toward "Curent State" when the article is still so very new. Even now, the article asserts and sources notability by its stating that she was a film star, and offering that she was a former Miss Bangalore. As for it being a one-source stub, so what? I agree that it will benefit from expansion, and that is why I had just tagged if for issues. An article simply being brief is not always a cause to delete when the issue is otherwise improvable. And to underscore the sources I offered at the AFD, Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation.

With respects, we had a brand new article stub on a notable person, that with the best of intentions was tagged for A7 Speedy just 11 minutes after creation and while being actively edited.[1]. And less tan two hours after the speedy was removed by User:CactusWriter, it was sent to AFD.[2] As we have a reasonable and sourable assertion of notability, an article that has the potential for expansion and improvement, and one that is not a violation of WP:BLP or WP:NOT, let's let it grow through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a mater of a difference in opinion. I believe in the argument of Wikipedia:Beef up that first revision, in which the first revision should be kept to a certain standard. I admit that my first draft of articles aren't very good, but I always put in both award nominations and major roles of the actor when I do, so that it is clear that they are notable. JDDJS (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The author could have done a better job, or perhaps held it in a sandbox until it was stronger... but Wikipdia has those editors who create a stub on a notable topic and then allow others to do impovements over time and through regular editing. To delete a demonstrably notable topic simply because its editor failed to create it bigger or better sourced is not for the ultimate good of the project. Letting something be fixed through regular editing is something of which I have great personal knowledge. Your offered essay links to the perhaps more cogent essays WP:PUTEFFORT which encourages others to improve on humble beginnngs, and WP:DEADLINE which instructs that perfection is not an immediate requirement. I personally find solace in WP:WIP and in determing the potential for improvement of even a stub by practice of the expected research into a topic. I see AFD as sometimes being used to hoist the perceived problem onto others... and yes, I'm willing to work on that stub even though my strengths are not in Kanada film stars... but is it reasonable to use an AFD to force the work of addressing surmountable issues onto others? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being a true Mensch.[3][4] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed you've been redirecting a lot of Monk and Psych-related articles for being simple plot outlines. I'm perfectly fine with this (and even support it, since people could just watch the episode if they care enough to read about it), but when you do this, would you mind removing links to the article from the respective episode lists? Thanks. I appreciate everything you've been doing around here. Kevinbrogers (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You're right. That was just me being lazy. I'll make sure to do that from now on. JDDJS (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read, thanks to some Wiki-browsing, this discussion with interest. I completely argue with your statement that "it will be notable, but is not yet". Because of the nature of the show, every single episode of Glee is notable. It can be reasonably assumed that every new episode of Glee will be notable.

With that said, I do agree that a page should not be created on nothing but a title, or information not confirmed in third party sources; by all means, those can go until more concrete information is found. But if there is a FOX press release announcing the episode, a storyline, and even if there's nothing else known, that is a valid source and the episode article can and should be created. Sure, we don't know what the songs are yet (First Listen Fridays is the best source for that information in advance of the show), but there is enough to start an article. Any reasonable editor will agree with me on this even without quoting all the policies applicable to this viewpoint. CycloneGU (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am opposing your merge proposal, and therefore I have reverted your bold edit, so a discussion should take place rather than an edit war.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It was not a bold edit. The merger tag was on for almost a month and nobody objected to it. JDDJS (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi JDDJS, I just letting you know that I have redirected Beer Walk! to The Cleveland Show (season 2), Because the episode is not notable and is unsourced as well. Ring2011 (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Hot Water (American Dad)‎. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NJZombie (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel I have done nothing wrong. I used edit summary to explain my actions. No other editor even tried to explain their actions. I left 2 messages on Grapesoda22's talk page, asking him to at least use an edit summary. He ignored this, and reverted my edit without an edit summary. Had he at least given a reason, I would have instead started a talk page discussion, or something. JDDJS (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. Just the opposite in fact. Regardless of who's right or wrong though, you both need to be warned on edit warring. I left the same warning on Grapesoda22's talk page too. NJZombie (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have been ploughing through most of season four and five of CSI and turning individual pages into redirects to the season page. I also see that you have transferred little or no information from the individual articles to the episode page. I wonder if you could link me to the notability guide you have used to come to this decision? Thanks. Scillystuff (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be the general notability guideline. Those pages had little to none out of universe, and had few (if any) sources. There was nothing on the pages that needed to be transferred. Most of the pages didn't even have a complete plot summary. JDDJS (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But you were redirecting one page every 20 to 30 seconds, which isn't really enough time to adequately review the contents or references. I was hoping that there was a consensus in one of the wikiprojects that you were working from rather than just your interpretation of GNG. In some cases you have removed relevant referenced information that isn't in the season guide which should be restored. Scillystuff (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

99% of the articles were just plot summary and unreferenced information and therefor nothing useful to transfer. When that episodes are in that condition, it is not worth having a discussion. I checked every article before I redirected to make sure the page didn't have a lot of useful sourced information. At most, these episodes only had on sourced and useful sentence, which I'm sorry if that's lost but overall it is not a big deal. JDDJS (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You did not check every article. Spidey104 18:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I did. It is unreferenced and 99% plot. Just because it started a spin-off does not make it notable. The only reason why I didn't undo the recreation, is because I want to focus on the articles in which there is no reason what so ever to have its own page. JDDJS (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How is the first appearance of an entire cast for a notable show not notable? Spidey104 18:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Because there is not out of universe information. JDDJS (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability is independent of quality of the article. The subject is notable, but the article about it is poorly written. A poorly written article about the September 11 attacks (for example) would make the subject no less notable. It would be a reason to improve the article, not to redirect it. Spidey104 19:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain on Talk: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close why you consider the article to be non-neutral and having too few opinions? Specifically, what is missing? Without that info, the tags should not remain in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Scillystuff (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Scillystuff (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

why did you leave mea welcoem message suggestign i edited someone talk page? i aint been leaving messages or on other talk page for a while--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for alerting me to this i never done this, well i never intenioally done it, my comptuer is running slow and i am getting it doing weird things so ia m guessing i reverting it by accident, but it could be my accoutn be comprised so i am ogign to need to keepa look on it if there mroe deits i aint doing then i am goign toneed to get sometihng done about it, thansk again--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, JDDJS. You have new messages at TParis's talk page.
Message added 03:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

v/r - TP 03:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi JddJs, I recently created a page Birst, which was flagged for deletion. I am trying to figure out what I need to change? I edited the content a couple of minutes ago, to remove any content that may be percieved as marketing,advertisement etc. However it was flagged again. How do I proceed? Thanks, Seema — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simosha1 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't we keep Charmcaster on the good guy page as well? 173.189.11.64 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

According to an Entertainment Weekly article, the voice actor for Brain in Pinky of the brain said something:

• "LaMarche confirms that Brain was an extended Orson Welles impression and insists "the show is about the love" between his megalomaniacal mouse and sensitive pal Pinky, who does indeed embody the role of neglected spouse, apron and all."

Based on this, I added the sexuality section back to the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. As long as there is sourced info from more than just Dennis, I'm good. JDDJS (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool :) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello JDDJS, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Greek Clothing, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. →Στc. 01:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I did a major restructuring of the article. The original author did not do justice to Nucci, but I did :-) Maybe you can undo your tag ? Thank you in advance. the article is here Standard2211 (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

the article should not have been marked for speedy; in the version you see it, it asserted he was a full professor. Depending on whether he fulfills the criteria at WP:PROF, he might or might not be notable, but that assertion is an indication of some plausible importance, which is enough to satisfy CSD A7. The article greatly needed improvement but another editor took care of that. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I replied on my talk, but.... Look at these:

http://www.delmonicohatter.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/AW07-Trilby-Blue-225X.jpg Here is an example, quite classic, of a Borsalino Trilby.

http://rutgersjca.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/felt_trilby1.jpg?w=150 Here is another example of a plainer and less expensive Trilby.

http://www.infobarrel.com/media/image/39195.gif If you take a hard look at this classic fedora in a nameless but typical style, you'll see why a Trilby is always a fedora but not vice-versa!

http://www.aztexhats.com/images/multiple/jerseywoolstingydown_3.jpg Now here is what I think is portrayed in that photo there now on the article. It's known as a New Jersey stingy-brimmed fedora, but I just call it a "nasty-brim". Hate them!

http://images.hats.com/images/products/1_135976_TH.JPG Just as a comparison, this is a true pork pie. Also truly expensive in this form.

Again, I wonder why we couldn't just snatch a photo from one of these sources. There's no copyright infringement obviously, and I don't think the sites would mind if you either approached them and did a deal to label the photo "courtesy of", unless against policy.

I don't think we can use any of these images, but then again, I say why not? I don't really have a capable digital camera, though my hats do have character. And I don't have that many left now. Djathinkimacowboy 06:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Looky:

http://images.villagehatshop.com/media/tyrolean-hat-hcx.jpg

Just wanted you to have a gander at one more fedora, this one known as the "Tyrolean" named after the Tyrol Mountains from whence it came. The Germans have always been handy at inventing new basic shapes - but they are all fedoras. I show you this because it is obvious this is also the Trilby shape.

Come back to reply on my talk page if you like. I want to know what you think now you see all these hats and what they're called, plus the fact that they are still types of fedoras. Djathinkimacowboy —Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

Hi J. What is funny is that painting of Rosenberg shows a typical Borsalino Company style fedora! It's not as far from a Trilby as one can get, but the brim is too wide. I think between what you placed, the new photo, and the Tyrolean style hat, THAT is a "Trilby".

What is important I think is to see it's only a silly name; what I mean is, do you think it's coincidence that around 1890 they begin to call these hats "fedora", then in a couple of years, again taking it from the title of a play, they begin to call them "Trilby"? It's one and the same anyway! Djathinkimacowboy 05:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

	Valued Contributor Award
	You have been identified as a valued contributor and your efforts are appreciated. We are honored to present you with the Valued Contributor Award and we thank you for donating your time, expertise and effort to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Thanks. (more details)

Well deserved  ;-) - Benzband (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Benzband's talk page.

I enjoyed your article on the hat. I informed me the difference in the Fedora and Trilby. O do wish you had left more information on the hat in the photo, what brand and where to locate this style of hat. I love the hat and would like to purchase one. I believe this is you hat in the photo. Great hat.

Thank you, Willy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.173 (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have again reverted your changing of the article Die Semi-Hard to a redirect. Please note that you have yet to gain consensus on this move; please do so before making this change again. Thank you! 71.174.73.51 (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply on my talk page. I respectfully disagree with your stance, since you are essentially unilaterally deciding if a community-contributed resource is to continue to exist.

Your goals are in agreement with the rest of the project, and I have no reason to doubt that you are acting in good faith. However, you must recognize that the impact of your decision (to turn the article into a redirect) significantly reduces the article's chance of becoming more complete through the contributions of others. Secondly, you must have recognized that there was some objection to your change, and you should have recognized that your unilateral choice may not have been appropriate.

Finally, I reject your conclusion that the onus is on me to make the article acceptable to you. To put it bluntly: This isn't JDDJS-pedia. You and you alone are not the judge of this. Nor is it 71.174.73.51-pedia. Which is why when I made my previous reversions I asked that you refrain from turning it in to a redirect before seeking consensus on the matter.

There are many tools available for you to seek that consensus, and it was simply improper of you to, once again, turn the article into a redirect over others' protests (and yes, currently "others" is just one person, but that still should have been enough for you to work with the community, not work against it).

Accordingly, I ask that you undo your most recent change, and begin the process of soliciting community discussion for turning it into a redirect. 71.174.73.51 (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 71, JDDJS is correct on this issue (that the article should be redirected). Unless you can provide evidence that the episode is independently notable, it should remain a redirect. However, JDDJS, if someone reverts you on a redirect, the easiest solution is just to take the article to AfD. That way there will be a community discussion, and the matter will be formally closed. Since individual television episodes are never notable unless they meet WP:GNG (i.e., that they have been substantially discussed in detail in multiple, independent reliable sources), the discussion will generally be totally painless and result in a deletion. I've put the article on my watchlist, and will take it to AfD myself if the 71 reverts again. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This is rather insulting because it implies that I am in the wrong, even though JDDJS was the one who was in the wrong by failing to seek consensus, which you yourself highlighted as an issue. Why is there a presumption that I am acting in bad faith? 71.174.73.51 (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

JDDJS and Qwyrxian, we are at an impasse here. I really would like to resolve this without having to go through arbitration. At the same time, I need both of you to stop acting without consensus and stop presuming bad faith. So what is the next step? 71.174.73.51 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no assumption of bad faith here. If you really want it to be article, then go through the efforts of making it a decent article. An example of a good article for a television episode is I Am the Walrus (American Dad!). It doesn't have to be as good as that article, but that gives the general direction to go in. JDDJS (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey could you speedily delete Japanese Castaways on Anatahan 1944 – 1951 please? Check it out, there are a lot of issues with it. OKelly (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not an admin, so I cannot not delete it. You can tag it for speedy deletion, where an admin would delete it if it meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion. You can also tag for PROD, where an admin would delete it after 7 days if no one objects. JDDJS (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

O.k thanks. OKelly (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

How do I get to resolve this issue of copyright.

I am creating this wiki page on behalf of the society, so you can see this is all new to me.

this is an update to the first one that got deleted.

I have permission fron DAS to put them on the web as I volunteer for the society. I have done face book and twitter with no issues.

Can you help me to get this done correctly?

I dont want to get blocked.

Kind regards,

Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norteyt (talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

- Thanks for notice, but it's also very strange that I haven't seen any discussion and updates in talk page before undone reversion. Though I don't insist here, but you seem make it showing I'm causing deliberate harms, even that I've repeatedly asked for advices at first. If there won't be other further progress, I can only back out or recover the article. -- Doracake (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am fascinated by how much time you spent on blanking many of the SP episode pages without asking for anybody's opinion or bothering to check through previous AfD discussions. It is even more fascinating how you go ahead and revert other editor's undoing of your edits with excuses like "you don't need anybody's approval for your edits unless there is a consensus against your view". Take this as a friendly reminder that there IS indeed a consensus against your actions and try to spend your energy building articles rather than rampaging, which makes other users waste their time to clean up the mess you produce. Also, remember that there is a wp:3R. Nergaal (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to agree with the above sentiment. Why create all the redirects? The pages you re-direct to now re-direct to themselves. I have no doubt that the episode articles need to be improved, and are consist highly of original research, but I think some consensus should be built before effecting what is essentially the deletion of multiple articles that at least have *some* sources. I thought at first your actions were those of a vandal, but a check of your edit history shows that you are an experienced editor with a lot to give to the community. I guess I'm politely asking you to re-consider this particular course of action. Have a great day! 78.26 (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll third the sentiment. Consensus is against you on this. Please refrain from such actions. Cheers!--averagejoe (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with your episode blanking. The users above me show there is a consensus against your actions. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 02:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Those users are talking about South Park, not American Dad. There have been multiple editors who agreed with me redirecting the American Dad pages. JDDJS (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's because everybody cares about South Park, and not as much about American Dad. By the way, you've completely fucked up "Cartoon Wars". - Unreal7 (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Stop Vandalising those pages. --98.216.243.140 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

changing the formatting on Beatles-related articles, unless you have a good reason for doing so - and quit edit warring over it. Radiopathy •talk• 01:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I explained why they should be changed in my last edits, and this is not edit warring. The first time I didn't explain myself, so I thought it would be okay as long I provided an explanation. Note: when undoing edits that aren't vandalism you are suppose to give a reason. JDDJS (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I am just making the Annoying Orange TV series Episodes. I am fixing it. Daneboe made 2 versions. Web series and TV series. The TV series is NOT suppose to be direct people to the web series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WISEPHAROHPSN (talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Setting reflist|30em allows the browser to adjust the column width depending on the screen monitor. It is a widely accepted improvement to a rigid reflist|2 (or reflist|3) which looks really bad on wide screens. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I am using a wide screen and 30em does not look right when the article has less than 20 references. But I will not edit war over it. JDDJS (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a threshold for the number of references to start introducing columns, and it depends on the screen width. Admittedly I rarely use wide screens, and when I do, I am unhappy about the layout of images and refs. This is a moot point to me, I just know that reflist|2 is being abandoned by many. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Joel Blum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stardust (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) 10:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I did an update to your user page.
btw regarding Can't Retire, why would you want to? SlightSmile 01:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello JDDJS. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Will Hall (disambiguation), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is a disambiguation page, not a duplicated article. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Good call on removing those categories. I never cease to be amazed by all the bad categorization I see around here. In this case, one conversation in bad Italian hardly qualifies this as Italian language film. Absurd. Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 22:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. JDDJS (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for creating pages for Megan Lawrence and Da'Vine Joy Randolph! I've been working on creating pages for Tony nominees because I was surprised how many didn't have one despite plenty of information being available elsewhere on the internet to create a page with, and many of them have done more than enough to deserve their own page. Some of them though like Joan Ellis (Featured - Actress in a Musical 1979) - there is almost no information available on so it's a bit harder. Having the information on Wikipedia is a great resource for theatre folks like myself! Thanks Again and Happy Editing :) Rharrington112 (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. And, I know what you mean. Randolph was easy to find sources for because she is currently nominated, but the older are harder to find. JDDJS (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It's great to see the new material being added to a number of character articles for Glee. Just a heads-up that when you include TV episode titles in articles, they need to have quotes around them, e.g., "Sexy". The same with titles of songs. I've noticed that you're pulling in segments of "Reception" sections from individual episode articles into the various character articles, which is why episode names need to be added in. Consider also trimming these reviews so they only comment on what's truly relevant to the character; non-essential details about the episode in general can be left on the cutting-room floor. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I truly do not understand why you do not allow for Mercedes to be a Significant Other on this page. They clearly said they've been together in the Prom-a-saurus episode. What is the qualification you require to make the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.124.5 (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please you removed an image for the west point cadet sword article. You did not give any reasons on any talk page. will you please tell me why you did this with out telling anyone ? I rolled it back as that is the only image on the page of how the sword looks today. questions, please ask. AndyAndy2159 (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The page was essentially a disambig. I've tried to clarify that. Please continue the conversation if necessary. I'll check the talk page over there. Thmazing (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(edited for typing error) Thmazing (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, regarding this edit - when you find a category within some discussion text, the correct action is not to remove the category, but deactivate it. This is done by inserting a colon between the double square brackets and the word Category, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make sure to do that in the future. Thanks. JDDJS (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I have a few question about being not notable of some articles HERE in Wikipedia. Some of the articles I've read was the article Party Pooper Pants which is one of the episodes of SpongeBob SquarePants. I think to myself, why is this article not notable, since it is a special and NOTABLE episode from the said HIT series. There are more not notable articles here in Wikipedia just like Wrimare School Inc.. I think this is not notable and should be redirected to Education in Bulacan or somewhere else. See, the article Party Pooper Pants is notable, why do you (User:JDDJS) think it is not notable? - 180.194.247.170 2012-07-24 (UTC)

The notability is stricter with things like television episodes because in cases like with the episode you named above, all of the relevant information can easily be merged with the season page, and there are never that many episodes in one season. There can be a lot of information on schools, and there can be a lot of schools in one area. As such, schools generally have a loser guideline for notability. See here for more information on episode's notabily, here for more information about school's notability and here for the general notability guidelines. JDDJS (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This was not vandalism, so you shouldn't have used the rollback feature on it. In the future, please make sure to only use rollback on clear-cut cases of vandalism. Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is vandalism. ClueBot [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Good_Luck_Charlie&diff=prev&oldid=508524485%7Creverted} a similar edit by the same user on a different page and warned the IP not to do those edits. JDDJS (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot is automated, and makes mistakes. Adding colors to an infobox is against the MOS, but is not actual vandalism. The IP added bgcolours that matched the logo; he/she is probably unfamiliar with the relevant guideline, and performed it in good faith. As I said, please be sure to only rollback clear-cut cases of vandalism. Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please autoconf-lock the page? The article is and will be vandalized because YOBA happens to be a Russian 4chanesque imageboard meme. I've cleaned the shit, but it won't disappear that easily.

I had to change it back as the photo is the most important photo, if you move it one would look at the first photo and think that is the sword that this article is about, it not. An editor forced me to put a photo of a standard military academy and explain the difference. If you want to change the standard to the position that you put the first sword in it would be fine with me but please change the reference points that point out each photo. Andy Andy2159 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Roger (American Dad!)#Sexuality and Talk:Roger (American Dad!)#Gender=Male? for discussions regarding your recent edit. At Roger (American Dad!)#Personality, the first sentence quotes his character as self-identifying as "pansexual". The definition for Category:Fictional bisexuals is "Fictional characters who are identified as bisexual, pansexual or omnisexual. NOTE: Characters must be explicitly defined as bisexual and/or pansexual in order to qualify." That's apparently why the article was put in that category – based on the character's explicit quote.

Also, if you watch the show, the character is clearly written with qualities that are more male than female, not that it matters which they are (or if they have any gender at all), since they self-identify as pansexual, and the gender of the subject is not relevant.

If you don't agree, I think you need to obtain consensus (to change the definition of pansexuality, invalidate the quote, or something?) on the Talk page first, since there is clearly opposition to your POV in the previous discussions. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Cortana and SHODAN are not even robots/androids/whatever (they're AI programs/computers, their avatars are a hologram and on-screen computer graphics). --Niemti (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phineas and Ferb: Mission Marvel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crossover (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) 11:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is to inform you that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.

What is the best way to handle/report an admin that you feel is abusing their power? I searched through several pages and could not determine where is the proper place to report them. The admin I would like to report is User:Pratyeka (who became an admin back in 2003, back when RFA was a lot simpler). On more than one occasion, Pratyeka has restored pages that had been deleted via AFD without without any discussion or fixing the issues with the page, instead acting within his own opinion. JDDJS (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you feel you have a solid case, you can report it at the administrators' incident noticeboard. Just out of curiosity - can you provide a few examples (with links) of this behaviour? m.o.p 21:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Observe Hack Make and Nemerle. Both were nominated for deletion (WP:Articles for deletion/Observe Hack Make and WP:Articles for deletion/Nemerle and the consensus was to delete, but he restored the pages without a DRV or addressing the problems. He also has restored many articles that were deleted via PROD without fixing the problem such as OMAPI. While technically, that is not an abuse of power, it is not a good use of it either. JDDJS (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, there was a DRV for Nemerle here, after which Pratyeka brought back the article. However, I can't find anything for Observe Hack Make, and the recreation of that page is troubling because it was done by undeleting old revisions, not starting an article from scratch... which involves using admin tools to overturn a unanimous community decision. So yeah, that's definitely something. We'll see what the discussion at ANI brings. m.o.p 21:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that he restored it before the DRV, but it looks like he restored it in the middle of it. Still, it is an abuse of admin power to act based on a discussion that is not finished. JDDJS (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Pratyeka and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 01:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, JDDJS. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. I see that you have reviewed FACs in this area before. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Could you please explain to me why you reverted back to the old format? I already incorporated some of the edits that Edgars had done. If you compare the two versions, you will see that Edgars omitted info that was perfectly acceptable to be included. I think my table format is more uniform, and it is easier to read. Also, could you please direct me to the wiki link for the "proper" table formatting for a Wikipedia page you are referring to? Thanks. Mimi C. (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It is the way that almost every other biography on Wikipedia is. Additionally, your version has too much extra information, and is very confusing to navigate. JDDJS (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am going to re-add some information, such as albums in the discography section, that Edgars omitted and make the tables at least the same length width-wise so they look more uniform. Thanks for your help! Mimi C. (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi again! I'd like to draw your attention to this: [[5]] If you scroll down to the "Appropriate" section and open the "discography" and "awards" tables, you'll notice that the version of my tables is correct and acceptable by Wikipedia standards. The titles have a background color and the discography section is in table form. Just because you see a specific table/chart version "in almost every other biography" Wikipedia article does not make it correct, nor the standard Wikipedia format. Thanks! Mimi C. (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you reviewed it as I was adding Wikipedia links. Can you please review it again? I included two links to other Wikipedia articles, and I added a link back to this article from two other Wikipedia pages. How do you get other people to help you edit and add to it. I found lots of sources via Google Books but I wanted to keep it simple to begin with until I got a little more feedback, guidance and or direction. I left my discussion notes on the talk page of True Colors (personality) if you want respond there. Thanks again for the quick review. I didn't think it would happen that fast considering how many pages are on Wikipedia. Mslibbylibs (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey JDDJS; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you like developing theatre articles:

• Mel Mercier won Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Sound Design and is nominated for Tony Award for Best Sound Design.
• Also, {{DramaDesk PlayFeaturedActor}} looks odd with one redlink at Tom Edden.
• Some other drama desk award categories were won by subjects with no articles: Choreography, Lighting Design, and Outstanding Revue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a personal vendetta against this guy? That's like the third time you've demanded his deletion. Rusted AutoParts 16:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC

I have never "demanded" his deletion. The first time, I simply nominated him for AFD because his most notable role apparently was in the Marvel movies, yet the part was so small, that even though I've seen all the movies multiple times, I had no idea who he was. Consensus agreed that he wasn't notable enough for his own page. The second time, I saw that his page was recreated as a redirect to his Marvel character. I am against real people redirecting to fictional people, so I nominated him for RFD, and again consensus agreed with me. The most recent time, I saw that it redirected to a user subpage. It is against Wikipedia policy to create redirects from the mainspace into user-space, so I filed it under the appropriate CSD, and an admin deleted in accordance to policy. Maybe one day he will be notable enough to have his own article. If his most recent TV role lasts, it might even be soon. But unless you have the sources to prove me wrong, that day is not today. JDDJS (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

JDDJS, I've seen the production order, and what it was really like, the arc 1's villain is Khyber, arc 2's is Malware, not Arc 3's, arc 3's is the Incursions, they can't just change the air dates and leave arc 3 episodes in the 2nd arc, switching places, neither can they switch arc 4's Ep. 5, with the 1st episode of arc 3, we need to know where the events truly take place, chronologically, that's why I did that

76.188.124.154 (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The thing i showed you is an unreliable source, But this Nelway character, I don't know who he is 76.188.124.154 (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It looked like you blanked a section at first.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This could have been avoided if you took a better look at the edit before reverting it. However, it also could have been avoided if I used an edit summary. So really, we are both to blame for this misunderstanding. JDDJS (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I saw on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_films you mentioned you weren't sure how to include other articles in an AfD nomination. I think the accepted practice is to list and link to the other articles in the nomination, and add the appropriate AfD notice to the top of those pages. In the case of List of fictional films AfD, I believe

<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> <!-- The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page=List of fictional films" with "page=List of fictional films (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination. -->{{Article for deletion/dated|page=List of fictional films|timestamp=20130817182245|year=2013|month=August|day=17|substed=yes|help=off}} <!-- For administrator use only: {{Old AfD multi|page=List of fictional films|date=17 August 2013|result='''keep'''}} --> <!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->

would be sufficient. (I copied that from List of fictional films.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern for not wanting separate pages but I have to disagree with you when you say that they don't need a separate page because there "aren't that many" awards. That's your opinion, and I have to point out that you didn't even bother getting consensus to revert back the entire page. It wasn't hurting anything having the awards section separate, and most actors have a separate awards page when it's more than just a couple. Plus it helps their own page not become overrun with text and info. If you find it absolutely necessary to revert back and put the awards back to the actors main page, then I insist you start a section on their talk page and get consensus before you do it again. Lady Lotus (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I note there is proposal to remove the capital "C" of Candy. I have now proposed that it be deleted. You are being notified as creator. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your edit here, what exactly is it violating? Curious. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Broadcast. --JDDJS (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Now I know (and knowing is half the battle!) EvergreenFir (talk) 03:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you certain he's only had 2 roles? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

That's all that is listed on the page, and the link IMDb doesn't work. JDDJS (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

http://beta.filmflake.com/actor/david-goldsmith appears to be the director of Sally 2000 film with Rachel Leigh Cook In ictu oculi (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I've had a quick look at your last couple of prods, and I can't comment on the Marvel ones but strikes me that you should not be writing "notability" on stubs, no matter how stubby, such as Edmund MacDonald and Russell Wade. Before adding a prod I always (a) check in Google Books, and (b) run the name on en.wp to see what-would-link-here if the links were made. I'd recommend doing this. Notability is determined by what isn't in articles, not what is. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Phineas and Ferb (season 1) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to A Hard Day's Night

Starsky & Hutch (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Action

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello JDDJS,

Thank you for cleaning out all those broadcast sections that are A) ugly and B) go against MOS:TV. I wonder though if it could be handled better? The guideline certainly discourages listing broadcasts from all countries in the world in list form but I would think that having the information badly formatted is better than not having it at all. Whenever I come across articles like these I just take the five minutes to rewrite it according to the guidelines. Since there are only a few countries that typically qualify for mention (US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand) it doesn't take that long and after you've done it a few times you basically are using the same template every time. SQGibbon (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I ave to agree. Deleting the content completely is unconstructive. Reriting it in prose form, per the MOS, is a far better option. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings,

I am going to ask my editor to undue the changes that you made as you have left loose end all through the article. Thanks for your explanation as to why you took it on your self to do so. The changes that you made vandalize the article.

Thanks

Andy2159 (talk)AndyAndy2159 (talk)

It seems that you did not read the article or you might of corrected all the references that refer to the image.

You might just understand that there will be a lot of rewording.

The photo was there for reference.

What are you going to do when I post the official plains to the new design to the new West Point Cadet Sword, delete that as well??

Andy2159 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Back in August, you proposed deletion of Michelle Hurst. The article was deleted, but I have now restored it in response to a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I am letting you know, so that you may consider taking the article to WP:Articles for deletion if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Simplifying_actor.2Factress_gendered_categories. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

When you add content to talk pages, such as at Talk:Phineas and Ferb the Movie, please be sure to sign your posts. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Aloha, JDDJS! Good job decluttering the Hilo article of a truly excessive number of pictures - it needed it.

But I do want to suggest putting back the one of Lili'uokalani Gardens (currently titled Japanese Gardens and lake 1959). It's an excellent photo, still relevant because the gardens haven't changed, and they're a very notable feature of the town. The title could be just Lili'uokalani Gardens.

Best, Awien (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Btw, it's not that I'm asking permission - I'm asking you to do it, since I know nothing about posting images. Who knows what would happen if I were to try ^_-

Awien (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Article has no sources. It appears to be original research which is not true...more than 30 years of research materials available, but I will post it later... Linuxtroll (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I just wanted to ask you why student festivals are not considered to be notable?

The festival about which I am referring is International University Theatre Forum in Vilnius. There are some things I want to mention:

1) It is organized by two biggest Lithuanian Universities - Vilnius University (one of the oldest universities in Northern Europe) and Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. So Forum is NOT created as students initiative.

2) It is not a private event and has a lot of viewers. Since theatre troupes from other countries are performing in their own languages, public of Forum is not restricted to residents of Vilnius or visitors from other Lithuanian cities. Tourists are also encouraged to come and watch performances.

3) This event is important in cultural context.

4) One of Forum guardians is AITU/IUTA (de l’Association internationale de théâtre à l’université / the International University Theatre Association).

Egluzzek (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Back in 2011 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi JDDJS, I see you reverted the 30em [6] back to 40. I couldn't see a reason, it seems a small thing so I thought I'd just ask directly. Widefox; talk 23:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Because there are only 10 references. 30em breaks it up far more than is necessary, especially on wide screens. JDDJS (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they're borderline maybe - rendered as 3 columns on my screen. There's little guidance but width based on ref size is mentioned, with 30em used so commonly. I don't see really wide references. I see the template doc has recently changed - there's discussion of the 30em common use at Template_talk:Reflist#Basis 30em standard for multiple column .Widefox; talk 09:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For removing unsourced future airdates and episodes of television shows. Finealt (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:TVPLOT, for season articles, episode summaries should be "approximately 100–200 words for each, with upwards of 350 words for complex storylines". None of the storylines for The Big Bang Theory can be considered complex, so the 350 word limit doesn't apply. Please note that the 100-200 word figure was based on standard 1 hour episodes, so 100-200 word summaries can easily accommodate the 22 minute Big Bang Theory episodes. Please also note that the 100-200 word size is specified by the instructions for {{Episode list}}, which says that summaries should be "a short 100–200 word summary of the episode". All of the episodes identified are longer than 200 words so they are far too long. Your edit,[7] and subsequent reversion,[8] also inexplicably removed the table title. Titles are required by MOS:ACCESS/MOS:DTT, as is other code, such as "plainrowheaders" and "|scope="col"" declarations. Based on previous featured list discussions, excluding the table title from one season article when it is used in the other six would prevent List of The Big Bang Theory episodes from ever being promoted, so it is required for this reason as well. You might care to also check out WP:BRD. Instead of simply reverting as you did, you really should have opened a discussion on the article's talk page, as my edit summary made it clear why your edit was reverted. The issue of episode summary length has been discussed at various venues, so there is really no argument against it. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Along the lines of the above, WP:FILMPLOT says "Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional." In most cases, such as the films that you've removed the {{plot}} tags from recently, 700 words should be the upper limit. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE it says that "There is no universal set length for a plot summary, though it should not be excessively long." However, you are right; WP:FILMPLOT and WP:TVPLOT are the ones to go by. However, I do not agree with them because so many articles are tagged with {{plot}} even though they only focus on the important story lines. I want to start a discussion about this. Where should I go to do that? JDDJS (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT and WP:FILMPLOT are both parts of the manual of style, while WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE is only part of an essay, but it is correct in saying that there is no universal set length for a plot summary. Instead, WP:TVPLOT specifies the length for television programs while WP:FILMPLOT specifies the length for films. TV episodes range in length from (roughly) 11 minutes to a hour while films are generally 70 minutes to 3 hours or more, so you wouldn't expect there to be one rule for all. Plot lengths have been discussed to death, but if you want to discuss it again you could try Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, WT:TV, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film and WT:FILM. Regarding this edit, experience has shown that editors tend to ignore a single plot tag. They really need to be placed in the episode summary. Your edit has again caused the table title to be suppressed from display. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Changeling (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Kelly (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) 09:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You reviewed Joel Johnstone, actor only got two future project, one of them has completed the shoot and is in post-production. Actor has two significant roles of television shows. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 04:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting a mistake.

Bearian (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A Db-g5 for a redirect is non-controversial, because it is easy to re-create.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adam Riegler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intervention (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) 08:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I removed that, since the article does appear to make a credible claim of notability. According to the article (or at least the google translated version) "Schwarz was one of the most important bridges linking the Albanian world to German language culture." He does show up on google searches and appears to be the namesake of the "Robert Schwartz German-Albanian Cultural Association." It's currently at pages needing translation and will probably be prodded soon if no one can come up with reliable sources (online ones seem to be lacking.) Valenciano (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello JDDJS. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Yasuhide Kurihara, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Neither A1 nor A7 applies here; there is both sufficient context to identify the subject, and a claim of importance (conspirator in bluelinked incident). Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello JDDJS. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Takaji Muranaka, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Neither A1 nor A7 applies here; there is both sufficient context to identify the subject, and a claim of importance (conspirator in bluelinked incident). Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed your Prod. It apperas that he's made a name for himself as "Edison Po". Please take it to WP:AfD if you want. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

NONE OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS I HAVE MADE TO THIS PAGE ARE 'SPECULATIONS' BUT ARE GARNERED FROM ASPERGER ARTICLES BY PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS WHICH HAVE BEEN METICULOUSLY SOURCED AND THE CITATIONS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED HEREIN.

THE REVERT TO ORIGINAL WAS MADE HASTILY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AND WITHOUT PERUSAL OF SOURCE MATERIAL CITED DELETING THE ENTIRE NEW SECTION ON TV DOCTORS WITH ASPERGERS AND ALSO DELETING THE NEW CITATIONS WHICH REPLACED PREVIOUSLY POSTED NOW BROKEN LINKS.

THE ADDITIONS TO THIS PAGE TOOK HOURS OF LABOUR. THE RETRACTION WAS POINTLESS AND DISMISSIVE .

THE HASTY DELETION WAS NOT PRODUCTIVE NOR IN LINE WITH WIKIPEDIA PROTOCOL BUT SEEM TO REPRESENT EFFORTS TO GET POINTS AND CREDIT FOR RETRACTIONS TO OBTAIN MORE IMAGE 'AWARDS.

THIS IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA AND IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. WIKIPEDIA IS MEANT TO EDUCATE.

I TOOK THE TIME TO ADD TO THIS PAGE AS I HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF AWARENESS AND EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC CONCERNING ASPERGER SYNDROME HIGH FUNCTIONING AUTISM AND PARTICULARLY TO PROMOTE POSITIVE IMAGE RATHER THAN SUBMIT TO BULLIES WHO ARE SO DISMISSIVE OF ANY GROUP OF"OTHERS" TO PROMOTE THEIR OWN ILLUSION OF POPULARITY.

I HAVE ASPERGER SYNDROME. I AM A SPECIAL EDUCATOR OF ASPIE STUDENTS AND A MOTHER AND GRANDMOTHER OF A/S CHILDREN.

THIS MATERIAL IS MEANT TO INSPIRE AND TO PROMOTE AWARENESS AND NOT TO BE DISCARDED DUE TO AN EDITOR WHO DID NOT EVEN READ THE CITATIONS BUT SUMMARILY REMOVED ALL OF THE HOURS OF POSTED TEXT SUPPORTING ASPERGER AWARENESS WITHOUT A THOUGHT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherine Curran (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So, if you wouldn't mind looking at a table I created to show the different movies that the actors that work a lot with Judd Apatow, (Seth Rogan, James Franco, Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill, etc), and thought it might be beneficial for users to look at. I created a draft for it here, I was originally going to do more people that collaborate a lot together but realized that would take me forever so now it's just the table. What do you think? Let me know, thanks :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello JDDJS. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Avalanche Sharks, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to movies or TV shows. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello JDDJS. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Avalanche Sharks, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It's in IMDb, so it's not invented by the page creator. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Avalanche Sharks. While appreciating your wish to improve Wikipedia, it is considered proper to use diligent WP:BEFORE prior to proposing any film article be deleted. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, JDDJS. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat Stogran.
Message added 02:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

For being a model editor by starting Talk:War_on_Women#Intro instead of reverting/warring as many others likely would have.

EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Giving you a heads up that I've responded to the delete request positively. The party was registered at one time but is no longer, and thus, I agree it should be deleted. However, was confused a bit about your comment regarding why it should be deleted, and wished to point out that Canada does have 'joke parties' such as Rhinoceros Party of Canada (1963–93) Nickjbor (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There;s seem to be mistaken belief that I don't believe any joke parties are notable. That is not true. I only nominated the joke parites that a significant amount lacked content and references. However, since most of these nominations are being strongly opposed, I fear that lately I've been too much of a deletionist, which is why I'm sort of on a wikibreak. While I know I will not be able to completely stay away from Wikipedia, I am going to try be less active and to stay way from deletion discussions for at least a week. JDDJS (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi JDDJS
Although the article for Paul S. Farmer was previously flagged for deletion I re-flagged it for deletion. The notice for deletion was subsequently removed by you. I am new to Wikipedia but even as a newcomer to Wikipedia I can see that this article is a patent violation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You will note that from the article's talk and history pages that the author who wrote this article was Paul S. Farmer himself. I disagree with the outcome of the proposed deletion of this article and would like to re-open it for deletion for three reasons: 1) The article documents a non-notable person by virtue of the fact that 2) the article of this person was written by the person himself and 3) that keeping this article sets a viable precedent for future non-notable articles of the same kind.

Please re-consider flagging this article for deletion or co-operating with me to get the article nominated for deletion. If not, can you please explain your reasoning of why you think the article should be kept. Thank you for your understanding. RawPotato (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Prod on Giraffes on Horseback Salad; you motivated me to improve the article (which I have done). DS (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 68th Tony Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Patrick Wilson (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) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to insist on adding {{update}} to List of Lost Girl characters,[9] you need to make the nature of the problem clear to readers and editors. Simply adding the tag is insufficient, because it's not clear what needs updating or why. A section needs to be added to the talk page explaining the issues or, you can always fix the problem yourself. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Killing this page seems a bit harsh. Given that both "Guy of Gisbourne" and "Sir Guy of Gisborne (BBC TV drama)" are fictional characters killing one page and redirecting it to the other seems arbitrary. They are both based on the same legend but for all practical purposes they are independent. Mtpaley (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It was entirely plot summary. If had some out of universe information, I wouldn't have redirectes it, but it does not. JDDJS (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chris Hardwick may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)