User talk:Jay-Sebastos: Difference between revisions

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

Hello, Jay-Sebastos, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, and come to the Project talk page, where you can join in our discussions about Catholic-related articles. We can always use help with the project itself, and on main project pages such as Catholic Church which are sometimes subject to vandalism and poor content changes. Feel free to discuss anything on the project, but please remember to sign all your comments, and help us to make all of the many Catholicism-related articles much better. Again, welcome, and happy editing!

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

Hi. I see you've already tagged the Chris Petersen article I've just written disputing the neutrality. It's telling me to "see the discussion on the talk page", but you haven't stated any reason for why it doesn't seem neutral, in fact, the article is so new that the talk page hasn't even been created yet. If you could take a minute to let me know exactly what problems you seem to have with the page then I could remove or rewrite the offending sections to resolve the problem. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What gets me is this whole the things about him being a teen idol which permeates the entire article. This needs to be either reworded, referenced appropriately, both, or quite simply removed. Teen idol is a very strong phrase. Per WP:NPOV articles on Wikipedia must represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Currently it is not referenced. We should not extrapolate that he is a teen idol from sources which do not mention him being one. Thanks. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll take out the reference. I'm aware of Wikipedia's policies about neutrality. I used the phrase "teen idol" as a way to distinguish his career trajectory, where many child actors work in shows and/or films aimed at an adult audience, whether meant to be "precocious" or "adorable" (many of his younger brother's early roles for example), I was using "teen idol" as a short-hand way to say that at a certain point in his career, the majority of his roles were in productions targeting a teen and pre-teen audience (the ABC, CBS, and NBC Afterschool Specials for example). Both he and his brother did also appear in numerous teen magazines during their careers; however, I didn't save magazines from 30 years ago to be able to cite them here, I was just assuming people from that generation would know that, and anyone who didn't, wouldn't find it controversial. I'll rewrite the sections where I used the term "teen idol" (I actually only used it twice not the "entire" article) and let you know here when it's finished so you can take another look. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've removed any mention that he was ever a teen idol. Please take a look and let me know if there is anything else that needs to be rewritten. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I've made a start on some more rewording. There were quite a few peacock terms such as numerous and child star in the earlier sections, and there a few later on too. In essence, they are without attribution, and just promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. Better to use facts and attribution to demonstrate his importance, such as listing and citing the names of the films he's been in, or saying a number of films, which is fact. Child star does not impart verifiable information either (nowhere have a seen anything that says he was a child star, and it would be better to just state pure facts like "he was voted young TV personality of the year in 1999" - if that were the case), and in fact I might even question the notability of his brother's article. There are a few other terms like that later on, as I already said. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gone back in and removed any references to "child stars". I wasn't trying to inflate his importance, but I honestly think for many people (if not most people), the meanings of child actor and child star are interchangeable. The same with the terms teen actor and teen idol. It just hits the ear (or in this case, the eye) more comfortably to say "teen idol" than to say "teenage actor who was most notable to teenage audiences, appearing in numerous teen magazines read primarily by teenage readers, etc, etc. After re-reading the article while I was re-editing it, the one thing I'll agree with is I used the word "popular" too many times. Again, this wasn't a case of trying to "sell" his importance, but I try and give context as if the reader has never heard of Starsky and Hutch or The Incredible Hulk, and when a show was short-lived or a movie was considered a "flop" then I always try to note that as well. It's just in the case of this particular actor, all of the television shows he appeared in were "popular" at the time, so I can see how, after the tenth time I used the term, it began to look like I was just trying to make him sound more popular. I've now removed all references to the shows being "popular", except for the one reference to the ABC Afterschool Special, in order to provide context as to why the other networks began carbon copying the format. As far as his younger brother Pat Petersen - I didn't write that stub, but he was, by far, more "notable" than his older brother, and is most definitely what I would consider to be a bona fide "teen idol" of his time (just search his name on ebay if you need to see the "numerous" pinups and articles of him from teen magazines). I was planning on working on his page as well, but his career is considerably more extensive, and will take me quite a bit of time to put together, so I'm asking you to please not do anything to his page for now. I'll start working on it as soon as I finish a few other things I'm currently working on and his notability should be apparent when I'm finished. I didn't have any problems with your modifications to the Chris Petersen page, so if you see anything left that you think needs to be reworked then I'm asking you to please go ahead and make the changes, since I honestly would just be trying to read "tea-leaves" trying to decipher the differences between "numerous" and "various", etc. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the reply. I understand completely that you're not deliberately trying to inflate his importance - all I was saying that some of the wording implied this, whether inadvertently or not. I'll keep on top of it :) Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if everything looks all right then I'll ask you to please remove the {neutrality} tag, since the average reader, who is not a Wikipedia editor, will most likely never take the time to read the entire neutrality policy, and will instead take the tag as an indication that there is something specious about the integrity of the article as a whole. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although this movie is not notable one but is about very unique case in the story of supernatural incidents in America.--93.174.95.98 (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just admitted to it not being notable. Non-notable articles do not have place in Wikipedia. Anyhow, even if it were notable for being "a very unique case of supernatural incidents", this would have been covered significantly by reliable, independent, sources. If it has not been, it is either not that unique, or that uniqueness is not important enough for Wikipedia. Check out WP:N for more. Thanks. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but it was my fault that i could not imply what i wanted to say.I wanted say that this documentary television movie is not as notable as other movie for example Saw series or The others Or constantine., but if you look at the cooments of the people who have watched this movie you could easily understand that this is interesting and notable movie in super natural movies category.--91.99.34.217 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but I'm going to have to say what I said before. A subject is only notable if it has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not until this has been asserted is the article notable. Find the references to assert notability. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 19:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think again you could not understand what i am sating about this article.This movie is about a very unique incident in the paranormal incidents in America which is well documented both articles The possessed movie and Watseka Wonder are bonded togheter.you should consider that most of super natural movies are fictional but this one is based on facts is based on the psychologists statements.This movie is visionary and touchable type of unbelievable true story.

you should know that one of the goals of Wikipedia is introducing discovered and undiscovered objects.i do not understand why you do not perceive how much this articles are unique ans useful for the people who want to research about paranormal occurrences.--Navid1366 (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopaedia. If an article is not noteworthy enough per the criteria of having significant, secondary source coverage about it, then it does not merit its own article per WP:N. Thanks Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 08:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work in patrolling recent changes. I wanted to mention one issue, though. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education, most high schools and universities are considered notable. The {{csd-a7}} tag should not be used for schools. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, the issue is that I didn't see it was a high school - articles that are about an elementary/primary school or middle school will normally be merged into the school district article they are associated with. Other schools apart from high schools are not inherently notable. Thanks for the heads-up. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 16:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jay-Sebastos. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Halyvourgiki S.A., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. GedUK  16:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right. It's not entirely promotional. A lot of it is however: unsubstantiated claims such as one of the main steel producers in Greece and Its huge, brightly colored facilities have almost become a landmark of the Elefsina area. At any rate I think it fails WP:ORG so it's gone to AFD. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 17:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article APOS Systems Inc. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay-Sebastos! I am currently working on the article and hope more and more contributors will join so as to make the article grow. HTML5 support for mobile devices seems to be a separate topic, because of the rapid growth of the devices that connect to the Internet.I believe that HTML5 design for Mobile Devices is different from designing for the web. The Article gives an overview of the mobile Web and the trends that are shaping to support HTML5 in mobile devices Canceo (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SMJ is a medical journal indexed (Pubmed) and with impact factor, known throughout the world . What's the problem ?