User talk:Jarkeld

Hello, welcome to my talk page

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom and start with an appropriate heading, for better formatting. Don't forget to sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~

To avoid fragmented discussions, if you leave a comment for me, I will most likely respond to it in here, on my talk page, in an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, always feel free to respond to it there, on your talk page. Remember we can use our watch list to keep track and know when each other respond to each comment.

Archives

Welcome!

Hello, Jarkeld, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 19:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello. I wanted to let you know that I undid again your your recent contributions to Talk:Bruce Campbell because it had erased constructive edits. Marking as « addressed » issues which need no further attention is helpful and I am surprised -to say the least- you qualify my editing as not constructive. Should you still not be convinced, take the time to read the diff. carefully this time. Like I said in <>, feel free to amend my edits if you think of a better layout but reverting them and sending automated message was clearly not the good way here.--210.159.191.90 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pointlessly adding those templates to edits made years ago is not constructive. Have they been added by the people who actually did the edits, date & timestamped: constructive. By an IP years later: not constructive. I reverted you before and you did not provide a compelling reason to re-add the checkmarks. I have removed them again. Jarkeld (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pointlessly ? YOU say so. I assumed the contrary twice...

reverting was most unnecessary….removing those temps without a real explanation/a closer look was stiff.

arguing that check marks should be made only by sb -I suppose that’s what you meant by Have/d? they been added etc..- who made the actual edit (!!!!) but who may obviously not even have SEEN the TP is either a lack of understanding of how a wiki works or a despaired attempt to create a new one. Anyway…You made your point.

What does IP or not IP have to do with it? Something wrong with IP users that I know not? I explained why I dit it after your first revert (my first explanation was unreadable, true). A COMPELLING REASON? IT was USEFUL. To avoid people who wish not, wasting their time. Not enough ? If wasting people’s time is your hobby and a new WP Policy : constructive; but if not : not constructive.

Your removal seems to have been honest in the FIRST place but then, no.

You ALSO could have seen (or maybe you saw?) -as I HAD explained twice- that one thread section was repeated by evident mistake….Was it not constructive to erase one of the two ? I'm wondering what you could say about this in good faith. Well, no, I’m not, actually.

As for the fact that threads are old, hellooooo, some issues are addressed only years later on WP. If you HONESTLY did not know it, well, now you do and all is for the best. You archiving of the whole TP -after a more than pointless but proud revert that leaves a doublet-section to puzzle future readers for wp-eternity- shall be the best conclusion to it all. Hope you’re happy with it. Likewise, greetings, Registered User.--210.159.191.90 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you don't have a clue about what is and is not appropriate at a talkpage. If you had processed the various items and then checked them off and signed them off it would have been appropriate. As you didn't you should not make it appear as if you did. Period. I think you do not have a clue about the correct usage of a talkpage. Jarkeld (talk) 02:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Backlog Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Jarkeld:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. EdwardsBot (talk) 09:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) at 09:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chema J. Medina

I removed the speedy tag, as the newbie appears to have lost the link or interest in finishing it immediately. Can you review it later, and if it still fails, then you can prod it. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the editor will return, as he hasn't edited it in over a year now, with the final edit made 2 days after I declined it. The refs he added at that time are insufficient to establish notability. The band seems equally non-notable.

I think a G13 should be used to re-nominate it for deletion as PROD is not allowed in project space. Or a xfd. Jarkeld (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stream metabolism

Please check articles for Harvard style referencing before tagging with unreferenced. Many articles by newbies also add references in an entirely unformatted style which also count as references nevertheless. Spinning Spark 16:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check WP:HARVARD. If the works referenced in line aren't mentioned in full somewhere, they can be considered not referenced at all. It is nice to know something is attributed to Power et al. 1985, Power et al. 2008. Are these books? Articles? Titles? Who knows. -> Unreferenced. Jarkeld (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed, full citations are supposed to be provided, but WP:HARVARD does not actually say that articles that don't provide them are to be considered unreferenced. There are better templates to use for such cases, such as {{full}} and {{ref expand}}. Spinning Spark 20:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it said that. I meant that if you look at it it isn't referenced. The Harvard method page mentions that full citations are required in the references section. Only authors and a year do not a full citation make. No way to know if there actually is anything there to support the text. New template added. Jarkeld (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure there is no way to know? Ugly template on the article might work if a passing reader takes pity, but I wouldn't hold your breath. The other way is to do what I did and do a little research. Spinning Spark 21:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best option would have been notifying the author that he needed to improve the refs before accepting the article. I will try to fix things, add refs and such, but I tend to do that before accepting. Jarkeld (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the hundreds of thousands of articles slated for G13 deletion. I am trying to rescue some of them, but in the vast majority of cases the original author has not been on Wikipedia for years and there is no chance of them coming back to fix anything. Spinning Spark 22:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with G13: some can be rescued with a bit of work, but it's difficult in cases like this one. As it stands now it's ready for prime time. Jarkeld (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marsianen

Why are you against the truth that everyone knows? You watchmen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marsianen (talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

? I nominated the article you created for deletion as it is a misplaced talk page comment. Please read my comment on your talkpage. Ps.: new comments should go at the bottom of a talkpage. Jarkeld (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku-Depot Article

The user who created the article in question is in Google programme for kids to learn about open source software (GCI2013). Could you help give further guidance to the student in what he did wrong? I have already told him/her that there is plagiarism in the article and that it is not to encyclopedic standards. Dlpkbr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem I saw with the page is that there aren't enough sources (reliable third party sources) to indicate why we should have a page on Haiku-Depot (per WP:NOTABILITY. As such I don't know if it could have been saved. The article was deleted as a G11 (Promotional) so I guess another user and an admin viewed it as such. Jarkeld (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on changes to the AfC mailing list

Hello Jarkeld! There is a discussion that your input is requested on! I look forward to your comments, thoughts, opinions, criticisms, and questions!

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

This message was composed and sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stopzilla

have you ever used stopzilla? it causes fake viruses and it is a fake security program! you keep on trying to keep that page like it was a real anti virus program! why do you do this? me a person who annoyed 122.57.106.136 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can't provide reliable sources about your claims, they shouldn't be included. Jarkeld (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Articles for creation March 2014 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Jarkeld:

WikiProject AFC is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script has been released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Posted by Northamerica1000 (talk) on 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of WikiProject Articles for creation[reply]

Notification of a June AfC BackLog Drive

Hello Jarkeld:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1800 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

The AfC helper script can assist you in tallying your edits automatically. To view a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Sent on behalf of (t) Josve05a (c) by {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} using the MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand

..that I am a scientific professional with the necessary doctoral level training (and, as well, a background in the ISEF arena) and so qualified to do a first major edit of the Andraka article. The edits that will shortly begin to appear have been the result of days of research and work. The article does indeed have NPOV, OR, VERIFIABLE, and other issues, and other editors that have noted these before should have been give the response AGF requires (and their raised issues thoroughly vetted and not dismissed). Please read the Herper Forbes article and Smithsonian article already cited, in anticipation of my edits. These sources, further research in the secondary literature of in vitro testing for cancer biomarkers in early disease diagnosis, and a fundamental commitment to the sourcing of science that WP demands will be the basis for the edits that appear. Expect bold edits based on my expertise and experience (and a commitment to defend the rigour and objectivity of the edits, as necessary). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

white pride edit

hello, I apologize for going back and forth on this article, but i was on a tablet and could not see your messages. I hope we can come to some agreement on the inaccuracy of this page and what needs to be edited. I am new to Wikipedia as you can see, so please be gentle, i only wish to learn and assist others in acquiring as accurate information as possible. I am no English major, just saw an injustice and set out to make it right. Now lets get to the page in question. the entire main description is grossly inaccurate and biased. there is a side to the phrase/slogan "white pride" that is connected with white separatist groups and Nazi skin head gangs, as my revision stated, this is a perversion of the phrase my power mongers and drug pushers who prey on an other wise harmless expression of ones cultural heritage, and use it to promote their own agenda. Again, i reiterate this all belongs in the controversy section. I of course thought my re working of the main definition and relocation of subsequent content was more then accurate, however i would be extremely pleased to have someone of your qualifications do it justice. Once again apologize for the back and forth as i believed it was a computer error. ALSO, i believe i inserted ample explanation in my edits about why i felt it necessary to change the extremely biased content in this page it clearly violates the second pillar.