User talk:JBW

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

Chip Tha Ripper

Hello, I see that you salted this page name back in 2010. However, the Chip tha Ripper article should be moved here under the MOS:THEBAND guideline: "Similarly, for duos and individual musicians, a leading the is not capitalized mid-sentence in a nickname, pseudonym, stage name or other alias. Exceptions include grammatical articles from non-English languages, and stylized forms such as thee, tha and da." With Chip Tha Ripper having a "tha" in his name as opposed to a "the," it meets this criteria. Would you be willing to unsalt this title so the article, which has since proven notability, can be moved to this preferred title per the guideline? Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffSpaceman: Assuming that by "which has since proven notability" you mean that the references in the article show that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, can you point me to two of those references which are substantial coverage in independent reliable sources? Or failing that, just one? I can't see them. However, whether the article should exist or not, granted that it does there's no advantage in keeping it at its present title, so I have moved it. JBW (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I may have overstated its passing of WP:NMUSIC. I'm not about to nominate it for deletion (WP:NEXIST may apply, for all we know), but I do appreciate you moving it per what you have noted. Thank you for your help. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank record?

If any talk page stalkers are interested, I have now received notification that an editor has thanked me for something I did 12 years and 1 month ago. I would be surprised if this is not a personal record. JBW (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wow -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it was a record when I posted that message, it isn't now. I've just been thanked by an editor whose user page I deleted, on their request, fourteen years and six months ago (November 2010). Personal record? Almost certainly. Maybe even a site record? Well, possibly. JBW (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source link

Could you explain to user Losdilos, that in order to prove something, you need a source link.[1]108.208.136.169 (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a message to their talk page, but there's no reason why you couldn't have done so yourself. JBW (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username

Hey, JBW. Could you please change my username to Ronaldo7Mil? I no longer feel connected to my current one. Furthermore, 90% of my Wikipedian legacy is related to football, so having a more football-related name just feels appropriate. Not to mention that I'm Portuguese, so... Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chambers (academic) (repost)

Hi. Reposting the following since it seemed to have been overlooked the last time (feel free to ignore it again if that was intentional): You deleted the page on 2 May as G4 citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosecution of Paul Chambers. From what I can see from the logs and notices, this was a different version written by a different Wikipedia contributor, so I must question whether G4 should have applied. Anyway, looking at the AfD either version probaly needs additional work on sourcing, so I'm requesting that restoration to draft be considered. (Perhaps at Draft:Paul Chambers (academic) 2, as there's now another version.) --Paul_012 (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012: First of all, I did mean to respond to your earlier message, but forgot. I apologise for that.

Way back in my early days on Wikipedia I formed the opinion that G4 is the least clearly defined speedy deletion criterion of all. Different editors interpret it anywhere on a spectrum from G4 being valid only if the new page is virtually identical to the deleted one, through to it being valid as long as the new one has substantially the same content and the reasons given for deletion apply equally. The definition of the criterion says "sufficiently identical", which is not very helpful: how sufficient is sufficient? Anyway, because of that range of opinions, unless the content really is virtually identical I am almost always willing to restore a page that I have G4 deleted on request, though I reserve the right to immediately take it back to a deletion discussion if I think it reasonable to do so.

OK, so much for my general thoughts on the subject. As for this particular pair of articles, the two were certainly not identical, though their content was essentially similar. I will therefore restore the one that I deleted if you like, but there is now a draft at Draft:Paul Chambers (academic), which in my opinion is much better than either of the deleted versions, and contains essentially similar content plus much more, so unless you strongly feel otherwise my suggestion is to abandon the old articles and work on that draft. JBW (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. If there's nothing in the deleted version that's now in the newer draft then there's no need to resotre; I'll take your word for it. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]