Hello Jmg38, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Benjaminstewart0519:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Basket of Puppies04:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes do not list citizenship for tennis players. They list the nation which they represent when playing tennis. Wimbledon requires you to state the country you play for and it goes into the records that way. Martina does not play for Czech Republic, she plays for USA though she has citizenship in both countries. Plus the flag icons represent what she played under until she retired. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a flickr set here with several pictures of the memorial that can be uploaded from Flickr to the Commons with no problems. Which do you prefer? I like the side view of running Jim and the grave marker. Let me know and I will upload them. Gerry D (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will upload them later tonight. If you don't see them by tomorrow it means I have forgotten. Please remind me if I forget. Gerry D (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on the plot for The White Ribbon. It has gone untouched for a while due to WP:OWN problems. It could use some further refinement in the introduction I think. At any rate, your version is much better. Obotlig (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation. It's a good response to one of the two points I raised in my Edit summary. And that's a significant point. You didn't use an Edit summary at all, so it wasn't obvious what you were trying to achieve. Check out that link to see what I mean. Edit summaries are very valuable.
Given your explanation, I can now see value in your changes, although I still have problems with describing Julia Gillard as "the actual (and current) Prime Minister". It just seems clumsy. Maybe if the "(and current)" was dropped it would look nicer. That she is "current" is really irrelevant, and will one day be wrong anyway, but we'll still have this article.
Thanks. No, I'm probably not indigenous (although there's a mysterious unknown in my ancestry around 1890, in a likely place) but I've worked with indigenous folk and taught in an Aboriginal school. Many friends and happy experiences in that community. HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would put the names of the individual carriers in the production section as I only see them as scenery in the film. The names of the individual ships are interesting but too much detail for the plot summary. But I wouldn't go to the barricades over it. Britmax (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You added things such as "The main channels for the season were Movie Central and The Movie Network." and "then continued on that channel and Movie Central and The Movie Network" throughout the article and those are Fitz-worthy lies. Movie Central and The Movie Network each operate a channel jointly branded as HBO Canada. They commission shows almost always in tandem. When a reporter for the National Post files a story on MC & TMN's new and returning shows that doesn't actually mean the shows will be on Movie Central 1 & The Movie Network (aka the main channel); the only sure thing is the American imports from HBO will be on HBO Canada. If you had watched the first-run of each of the first three seasons you would know that not one of those 38 episodes actually premiered on The Movie Network or Movie Central 1 or any of their other channels; they all premiered on HBO Canada. The repeats of Call Me Fitz are found at various times on every channel in the TMN & MC respective collectives but it isn't the repeats that the article features. Some user-contributed-content sites have at times mixed repeats, first-run, and American dates in compiling episode guides and they can be a total mess. I have this little guide i go by: have a reference or two and if not then don't write about anything i am not absolutely certain about. A quick google of "call me fitz season 2 hbo" would have directed you to the press release about the season 2 premiere on HBO Canada. For that reason i am a little annoyed. That your edit prompted me to fix and expand a bit i suppose is a beneficial trade-off. Please try to avoid making such assumptions in the future. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~02:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My friend-in-editing. You are dancing on the edge of vitriol, when all you had to say was "first run actually ran on HBO Canada Channel". Reading your comments on my talk page, and your comment on the edit itself, you'd think we had been in some huge back and forth argument, for days on end, about which channel Fitz aired on!
I would also suggest that you are using information that should be supported by outside references. I DO BELIEVE YOU regarding HBO Canada, based on you're having watched the show(?), but I made my edits based on factual references that are found in the wiki article itself, dated 2009 and 2011, which BOTH say that the show would be on MC and TMN in those years. (see article's reference #3: http://www.channelcanada.com/canadian-channels/pay-tv-channels/the-movie-network/call-me-fitz-starts-production and reference #4: http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/06/13/movie-central-and-tmn-announce-new-shows-for-20112012/). If Fitz' first run was on the channel labelled "HBO Canada", rather than a station labelled "Movie Central" or "The Movie Network", then simply add a better reference that supports your statement. No problem, easy fix, nothing to start a random fight about.
Aside from your unusual choice to create a non-fight, I do thank you for pointing out that the networks might need to be cleaned up and I am confident that you will find the references to support it. Your interest in the Fitz article is helpful and worthwhile, and perhaps your care-and-feeding of the article could have (should have?) included fixing up the 2 year old stale-dated text that was in need of updating for a very long time, rather than your unusual attack.
I agree... was using existing text from Derry article while working to get the Big 3, including Salem's Lot, into similar format. I'll look for a Lovecraft homage reference now, then update all three articles accordingly (either adding a reference or dropping the line completely) - Jmg38 (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I was reminiscing on this Memorial Day, and missing my Dad, Carl "Griff" Baily. Jeff was a student of my Dad's at USAFA, and then his navigator at Udorn. I met him at least twice and I believe he was at my father's funeral. I would very much like to communicate with Jeff and wonder if you know of a way for me to contact him. Thank you, Cynthia Baily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louwhodesigns (talk • contribs) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Louwhodesigns (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Louwhodesigns[reply]
Hi, that article is going through a long term rewrite, and the lead has been expanded quite a bit already as a result. The World Series portion of the article is already adequately summarized in the lead as it stands. See, as the expansion of the article continues, so does the lead. That means there's much more that's going to be added to it shortly. Since the lead does have some restrictions on length, I chose to remove the nicely written (but excessive detail) that you added. I think by the time every aspect of the story has been added to the article, the lead will be a solid four paragraphs. Dawnseeker2000 00:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, sir. I was lazy in trying to explain the odd, old, reference to WLS, and now realize that the entire line needed to be cleaned up, find references, etc. I've done the extra work now that I should have done yesterday. Thanks for your comment. Jmg38 (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope that you return that info. I guessed it to be a good faith edit, or I would have just deleted it. I always found those sorts of tidbits of info to be what separated wikipedia from other sources. Oh yes, if you put something, anything on your user page, your signature will turn onto a blue link rather than a red one and I, for one, might not feel a need to double check all your work. Carptrash (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:DISINFOBOX. There are many disadvantages to infoboxes in many articles. They are often helpful for articles about athletes and politicians, but most bio articles do not need infoboxes, and, indeed, many editors believe that they are harmful in most cases. Certainly, one should not add them to Featured Articles or Good Articles without first opening a Talk page discussion. The editors who improved those articles to the FA or GA level have obviously thought about the issue before and decided not to use an infobox. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to UEFA club competition records and statistics, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Ravenswing. Your recent edit to the page The Miami Showband appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ravenswing 20:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Airheads, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this minor edit was done per "Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor"." His first movie with a blue shirt, his first movie with a short haircut, his first movie with 20th Century... any of these random thoughts would need a reason for mentioning (now known for always wearing a blue shirt; always nominated for an Oscar if he has a short haircut; has since made $5 billion in his collaboration with 20th Century). Looked like someone was just screwing around (vandalism), or an incomplete unexplained test edit someone forgot to followup on. If you can find a valuable reason to put the 20th Century reference back, with a few extra words to explain it for the average reader, then please go forth. Before making the change, I dug around a bit but wasn't able to find anything to explain why this random item was inserted. Thought maybe his Happy Madison Productions was linked to 20th Century, but his company is actually located on the Columbia lot. Perhaps you already have the answer for why this was a real item in the Airheads article, or you might take your own shot at some research to address the edit itself, rather than my use of "m"—I absolutely welcome your effort to further improve the article. I'm pulling for you, and look forward to learning a touch more about Sandler and 20th Century. Jmg38 (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I'm not trying to defend her status, I am simply reflecting what the two referenced articles said, neither of which seem to imply much more than indifference. 1) The August 2011 CNN Travel article tells that her failure to be active in Indian cinema has kept her from earning a following at home: “India will never accept Freida Pinto unless she proves herself in Bollywood”. 2) The November 2011 The Telegraph article tells that she is basically unknown: "My periscope does not pick her up,” admits social theorist and cultural critic Ashish Nan & "She is not a factor in Mumbai,” adds director and critic Khalid Mohamed. Jmg38 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I was saying was that there have been tournaments in the past that have used one ball for the tournament itself and a different one for the final match. For example, at Euro 2008, they used the Europass for the group stage and knockout stage, but then changed to the Europass Gloria for the final. The same happened in 2012, when they had the Tango 12 for the group stage and knockout phase, and a silver-panelled version of the Tango 12 for the final. Maybe this is the first time a different ball has been used for the entirety of the knockout stage, but it's certainly not the first time two different balls have been used in a tournament. – PeeJay20:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the only difference between the Beau Jeu and the Fracas (other than their names) is the colour. The panels are configured the same way, the overall design is the same, it's just that the Fracas has more red/orange whereas the Beau Jeu is blue. Definitely just a marketing gimmick from what I can see. – PeeJay23:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some means that "not all the analysts" wanted to see $1B, thus only "some analysts" would say that it was considered "a disappointment", while other analysts had their expectations met.
In lieu of saying "there were analysts who had their expectations met at $800 MM and there were also analysts who had their expectations met at $850 MM and there were analysts who were disappointed that it did not reach their expectations of $1B" - which I guess would be the most accurate way to state the whole long saga - how is it not fair to summarize as "some analysts considered it "a disappointment" for failing to reach $1 billion"? Readers will understand that this means that some were not disappointed and some were, without having to write every-single-analyst's-expectations.
Don't know if this is a concern that the shorter form is seen, perhaps, as being pro-BvS or con-BvS - it is merely a simple logic that some does not mean "all analysts", and readers will understand that there was a difference of opinion from analysts that is important enough to mention. (even if some are satisfied means pro-BvS, some are disappointed implies con-BvS, readers will understand that message that the movie does not carry a one-size-fits-all "a-ok" from all analysts). Jmg38 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I'm still not sure how to ensure there's an understanding that "not all the analysts" called it a disappointment. Again, I'm not trying to salvage the reputation of the film, I'm just want to avoid the 100% agreement that is implied by the phrase it was considered "a disappointment" for failing to reach $1 billion.
The link you suggested, WP:WEASEL, actually talks about editors who use "some" to try and get away with Unsupported attributions. The examples given explicitly point to this. The WP:WEASEL link also reinforces that an unsupported "some" is different from the use of "some" where "the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source.
My use of "some" in the BvS item is not dangling in the breeze, trying (without attribution) to imply that there might be an unnamed someone out there that holds these views. The first sentence, regarding $800+ MM, ends with specific attributions (ref name="Box Office – The Wrap", ref name="Rainey" and ref name="Box Office – Deadline") to show that there are some specific analysts who saw reasons why making a multi-million profit is not a failure. References regarding $1B that are found at the end of the very next sentence (ref name="Box Office – The Wrap" (repeated), ref name="Scott Mendelson" and ref name="Flavorwire") further show that some specific analysts were disappointed that the figure was not larger. The point is to acknowledge the difference of opinion amongst the analysts themselves. Jmg38 (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Some" is not measurable. The statement, "it was viewed as a disappointment" does not imply "by everyone". If it said "by everyone" then it would. It simply implies that it was viewed as a disappointment period, which is true. The amount of people that viewed it that way is not dictated by that phrase, because it doesn't say "universally" or some other key word to indicate such. In proper English syntax, this would be correct. There isn't an implication of amount, thus you cannot say that it is "all". BIGNOLE (Contact me)13:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a place to discuss the massive unendorsement cycle. Noting that there have been over three hundred notable un endorsements should go directly onto the page describing the controversy. The two article changes have both been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoallen1 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Was only trying to be fair about the fact that the list for D had changed for a particular reason and that the list for H did not take that into account, thus an inconsistency in the relative balance of the lists. However, I agree with your point - readers will know this is an evolving article until the actual election date, so no need for emphasis on what has caused the list to change (which would, thus, appear to emphasize the controversy that caused the change) at any particular point in time. Jmg38 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page I've Just Seen a Face has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everything okay at home, Sundayclose? The 5,417th edit that you have "reverted" (and still growing)!?! I am comfortable with using the primary source as being a sufficient response to your "Unsourced" message. The "23.1 million viewers" are sufficient to confirm that the event did, indeed, happen – further supported by the "owner" publishing an easy-to-watch repeat confirmation of the event on their YouTube feed (like re-watching a movie to confirm the plot summary in a wiki article). For example, the synopsis of the SNL 40th describes 20 different sketches and performances without citation BECAUSE the primary source is sufficient. If you really thought it needed a citation, you could have added a Citation needed tag - but then you wouldn't have had the joy of your over the top execution of your 5,417th "revert". The term "general cleanup" applies to the majority of what was done - added wikilinks to EXISTING text of "Out There" tour and "Red Square" DVD, then regrouped the EXISTING text into electronic (live DVD/albums) and tours, then added a single line with link to the SNL appearance. Chose to NOT write an edit summary that said added wikilinks to EXISTING text of "Out There" tour and "Red Square" DVD, then regrouped the EXISTING text into electronic (live DVD/albums) and tours, then added a single line (with link) to the 2015 SNL appearance, as that would be very very long and major overstatement of a few bytes of change. No puppies were killed, Wikipedia did not cease to exist, the article did not deteriorate into a screaming mess of untruths, by using the term "general cleanup" to describe a small amalgamation of cleanups and information. Jmg38 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop changing the ensigns to the 1921 colour - that is the jack. It was never the Canadian ensign. It is the ensign of government ships and was flown as the jack until 1966. Llammakey (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Llammakey, thanks for the catch. I've re-checked Canadian Naval Ensign for more info. It does show that there was a jack that was different from the ensign from 1910 to 1965 (and again since 1968). You mention that the ensign was also the jack until 1966 - does this mean that the artwork and the year (1966) in the table at the Canadian Naval Ensign page should be corrected? (shows separate ensigns and jack throughout, shows 1965 as change year).
Either way, it was not my intent to change from ensign to jack. I must admit that I would have expected the template to "fail" when I entered an incorrect year (a typo that I then foolishly copied in other edits) - there is no 1921 kick off of a new ensign AND no 1921 kick off of a new jack, so not sure why my { { navy|Canada|1921 } }, using 1921, was accepted. Also not sure why it switched from showing the ensign to showing the jack, since I did not change the word "navy". How does it decide, with identical wording in the template ("navy"), if an editor is asking for the ensign or asking for the jack? Thanks again for the clarification. Will stick with the proper "1911" for WWII - and look forward to insight on how to tell the template when you want ensign vs jack. Jmg38 (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page is correct. 1966 is when they did all the ceremonies. I have no idea why the templates are in such a way. I think I have an idea why, but it's just a hypothesis. Sorry if I sounded snippy about it, there was an older editor who wanted to change them all to the 1921 due to British nationalistic reasons before and I thought I was in for Round 2. Llammakey (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of these articles (many years ago), I want to thank you for the work you're doing improving their readability. Steve Smith (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Steve Smith. Time consuming, but only a fraction of the time you would have put into developing these articles in the first place. These adjustments are just adding touches and minor format to the huge amount of work you did - much of it just spreading a few points from your later format and templates back into the earlier (pre-50s) articles. Jmg38 (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I notice you edited the page Tuninter Flight 1153 to make the words "Canadian made" a link to the article Cineflex. I don't see how Cineflex is relevant there, so I removed the link. If it is relevant, maybe you could add the link back and include some explanation? Thank you! --Tanner Swett (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, sounds reasonable. Only "health" page touched was Tuberculosis#History. Didn't actually enter any health related info, simply touched up a dangling statement about a particular date by reusing the specific point from way back at the top of the paragraph, adjusting " The World Tuberculosis Day was established on 24 March for this reason." to "The World Tuberculosis Day is marked on 24 March each year, the anniversary of Koch’s original scientific announcement." If ever doing any actual scientific changes to a health article, will stay aware of the need for high-quality reliable sources as references. Cheers. Jmg38 (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removing "overlinking" and actors' names from film plots
Hello, I noticed you've been busy undoing a lot of work by editors on several film pages. There is no reason why film plots cannot have either inline notes as to who plays whom, nor blue links to relevant topics within the plot summary. It is not, as you believe, overlinking, and I ask that you please revert the pages where you have been removing the aforesaid content. In case you are wondering, I have already checked with an experienced editor in the film project (User:Niteshift36) that these are not examples of overlinking. Have a good rest of the day. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Please see my response there. Per WP:BRD suggest you unrevert until there is a consensus. We are still in the 'D' part of this process, as two editors (myself and Niteshift) disagree with your definition of overlinking in this article. Reread Niteshift's response as I think you have misread it.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've copied this to the film talk page, per his request discussion continues off his page. Reason I came here to start with was I thought I could not ping you, not sure why now. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jmg38. I keep seeing your edit summary "box tools" on my watch list. I wish I knew how to make a barnstar with a Toolbox in it to say thanks but I'm not any good at doing that. Instead I'll just leave that link to the article with all the nice pics :-) Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk19:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, GoneIn60, I did not see, until now, that you’ve already gone through a long and interesting discussion regarding Interstellar in recent weeks. I was not being mean-spirited on my edit and explanation regarding the number of links in the plot synopsis, but suspect (after seeing the cast discussion) that it might have seemed like that. Just in case, thought I’d check and make sure I didn’t rub a decent fellow editor the wrong way on a bad day. Doing it here to avoid opening wounds at Interstellar talk page or at your user talk page. Jmg38 (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jmg38,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk01:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One of your edits (to Anthony Pellicano) came up on my watch list, leading me to a trail of edits lacking a WP:RS. A reliable source is always required. Please click the link, read the policy and adhere to it. Thank you, Lindenfall (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct that I reversed your edit in error. I am not sure how it happened, perhaps it had to do with clicking prev / cur. I typically click current and must have clicked on previous. I ended up accidentally reversing what already had been deleted, definitely my mistake. I had thought that I was deleting the unsourced names, but was wrong. (Oddly enough, the same thing happened to me quite recently, and the editor, an Admin, no less, never did even acknowledge his error, just argued his untenable position. True story: Talk:South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club#Deletion of sourced facts) I apologize to you for those two reversals gone awry, and corrected the other one as well. On another note, I was only looking due to your activity on Anthony Pellicano, which someone else had justifiably reversed. That content was rather outrageous, so I looked further (but poorly, or, perhaps, too hastily). Thank you for understanding. Lindenfall (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Lindenfall. I know that you have done a lot of work here over the past few years, lots of thoughtful and helpful adjustments, so I was actually a little concerned about how these were so outside your norm. I'm relieved to see your response - not because my edits came back (win some, lose some, try not to get tied up in a battle), but relieved that you are okay! I will always welcome your feedback and edits, and agree that it is unhelpful to avoid arguing untenable positions. (sorry to hear that happened to you - that Admin may have been having a bad day). Jmg38 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful words and understanding, quite undeserved at this juncture. I can certainly see, now, how the Admin that I mentioned had made the same mistake (and, had he looked, he might have, too). I think it's important to take responsibility for our own errors, and I am grateful that you see my mistake for the simple buffoonery that it undeniably was. Cheers to you! Lindenfall (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Magnolia677, what is happening? The source is in the article, and has been since March 22 2019 - the New York Times obituary clearly states when they met, when they married, when he died. Not sure why you’re making threats instead of reading the citation... early morning/late night where you are? The closing credits from Happy! are direct observation of the source material - the closing credits of the episode.Jmg38 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the future it would be great if you could please leave an inline citation (even in an infobox), as there is no mention of it in the body of the article; also, leave an edit summary rather than just revert the edit; finally, please mark your source as being behind a paywall. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary was in the next edit, where I also added some further detail from the ref - had not expected that you were patrolling the page and would so quickly react to the reversion, in the few minutes it took me to do the next edit, while I was also preparing edit for talk page and re-reading the cited material, for the third time. If I knew that I did not have a few minutes to complete everything, and that you were on patrol, I would have executed different series of steps over those few minutes. Substituted speed - not that critical on a 19-year-old fact (he died in 2000, this wasn’t a breaking news story) - in favor of rechecking the citation, preparing a larger edit and preparing a longer edit summary.Jmg38 (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason your tagging a bunch of editors with the not around template? Is it a specific subset of editors you are trying to identify for a specific purpose? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots22:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like a "make work" project with little benefit to the encyclopedia. What's the point of tagging someone's talk page who hasn't edited in several years? Also, in the case of User talk:EnDumEn (I haven't looked closely at the others), they haven't edited en-wiki since 2010, yet they are an active Administrator at the Swedish Wikipedia. I don't doubt the good faith behind your edits, but if you intend this to be a long term project of sorts you may want to consider doing something in that enormous page of maintenance tasks that would have a positive impact. Just a suggestion. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots23:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not long term, just a little something to contribute to the existing Wikipedia:Maintenance that I am able to do with a bit of available time. That said, you may want to raise your concern about the entire notion that this should not be a maintenance item at the existing maintenance page - as it may well be a thought that has been on the minds of many other editors. I'm just a humble country editor, trying to help out here and there. Jmg38 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think my question came off more as criticism than I had intended. It's clear that you're intent is to help, there's just so many other maintenance areas that are begging for someone to chip away at that would have so much more of an impact. I'll put my money where my mouth is and work on a few of them today (hmmm...perhaps reviewing this list). If only there were more hours in a day!-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots15:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. Your not around template caused an email to be sent to me notifying me of the change. I hadn't realised so much time had passed since my last edit. I've replaced the not around template with a semi-retired template, and will aim to reduce the lag-time between contributions. Thanks for your prompt. These things can do some good. Regards Wotnow (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Wotnow. Glad to see you might step back into the process - you had lots of good contributions in early 2010s, and good editors are always appreciated. Have fun. Jmg38 (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Jmg38. I'm dragging the chain regarding contributions, but I don't plan on throwing the towel in anytime soon. Regards ~~ Wotnow (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to undoing your revision on the plot, I felt you took away pertinent information that has been on there for a while. Did you feel it was too descriptive? Why did you remove the links? Why did you remove information about Sharon Tate in the film? There was very little to begin with. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to me. The other thing about Tate is it shows she's present in the film and involved with the Hollywood community. I understand what you're saying about the links. So if you feel some of them should be removed per guidelines I understand. I feel the make and models of the cars are important though as a lot of detail was put into recreating the exact car the Manson Family used for the murders in real life. The Cadillac, not as much, other than it's the same exact car that was used by Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs. I personally think it should stay but if you feel it goes against the guidelines then I understand why you might remove it and I won't interfere. The Ford Galaxie is important though, as again, it's a detailed recreation of an important historical car. Also, through conversation if only one name is used for a character, it has been agreed by editors on the page that it should be the last name. Thank you again and now I more clearly understand where you're coming from. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for working on that with me. I edited it slightly again for clarity but didn't change anything you edited that we had discussed. Just in case you want to look at it again. They're very minor changes. Looks good! Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I am attempting to add a reference on the page but I keep coming up against the same obstacle. It says I haven't entered a correct reference tag. Do you know how to fix this? Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for getting back to me. I don't know how to place a copy of the reference here unfortunately. I really don't understand how to add references. My attempt I'd the last one on the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood page. If you're able to look at it there, great! If not, I don't know what to do. I just provided an external link for now. Again, thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I appreciate all the information but I'm still not entirely grasping the entering of the references. Another editor was being a stickler about citations which is fine, as I'm sure it makes the page more credible. So I figured out how to create external links and get them on the reference list. I suppose that's ok but I'm guessing it's not ideal. By no means do I expect this of you but if you find yourself with some time and are able to fill them out I think it'd be great and much appreciated. I'm guessing either way someone will eventually. Thank you. I hope all is well. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just now edited my reversion - I didn't realize there were 2 templates so I only looked at the one template's page & didn't look at both. I explained the situation in my last edit summary. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, College Place Hawks. I did not enter anything about her birth date, but if you have noticed an error in the Jessi Combs article, I’ll check it out. I’m sure all the news reports will (sadly) have the proper details, so will make any change. Thanks again. Jmg38 (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking, I note that the news reports say she is 39, which would be 1979 or 1980. These may be a misquote, picked up from wires services, so will just have to wait for a more complete story in coming days. Jmg38 (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Random reversions of parameters defined by template
Full set of parameters, where available, identifying information on m., div., died, his death, her death, etc, is laid out in the templates developed by 20 years of community template development. Might change in future via community evolution, but currently:
"Use of |end= will cause a line break between the name and the dates", no additional line break needed when |end= is used.
"Infoboxes already reduce text size to 88%, and MOS:FONTSIZE sets a lower limit for text size at 85% of the normal page font size, so it is not appropriate to use font size reduction when this template is used in an infobox."
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well J38. MarnetteD|Talk04:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
Kindly stop removing red links just because they are old. Specifically Admirals are inherently notable and any ship over 100 tons is likely to be notable Lyndaship (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Admirals? Sure, meets notability, should have left them. A link to a small boat that doesn’t even have an article in its home-language wiki, over a decade later, from a “class” page that attracts editor attention by itself (“hey, looks like the individual boats don’t have pages”), is just a sea of red.Jmg38 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The credits in the beginning are considered the beginning credits and the ending credits are by first appeared order. And there's no need to remove fully named roles in the cast section also since they were mentioned in the movie. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the main credits are at the end of the film. Not many editors tend to use the order in the main credits at times when the end credits are by first appearance which is deemed too messy to use on this site. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you're going to refer to him by just one name, Sánchez is probably the one I would go for, but in the Anthony Martial article, it's the first time we've referred to him, so it doesn't make sense to pipe the article title to anything other than Alexis Sánchez. That article seems to consistently refer to him as just "Sánchez" despite saying in the lead that he is commonly referred to as just "Alexis". Either way, that doesn't make any difference for the Martial article. – PeeJay10:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that at [2] instead of citing the Washington Post article to which I drew their attention, IPNI cited me! Not a reliable source. Anyway, you've done good work on the lists. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only learnt in the last week that if you deliberately link to a disambiguation page, you should follow the instructions at WP:INTDAB and always link to a page/redirect with "(disambiguation)" in its title. This stops both the bot and fellow editors 'correcting' you. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, Peter C. I'll check that out and will now be able to return to this post, a convenient "cheat sheet" [XXXX (disambiguation)|XXXX], if I ever do one of those again. Jmg38 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, discospinster. As noted in the edit summary, this was a straight up translation from the existing German Wikipedia article at de:Serra International. That said, I will look for more refs to add to this en.wiki article. As I find more, I should probably add them into the source de.wiki article - right? Thanks again. Jmg38 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
regarding your question in this message (please see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.193.141.118&diff=cur), already have an account, this one obviously. Edit with the IP (static by the way) sometimes, after having been viciously stalked here. They have already discovered my IP address too, i want to leave the project (for lack of fun, it's been 14 years) but cannot seem to bring myself to do it.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello. I took care of your request at WP:RM/TR, but just wanted you to know, in case you don't already, that you should be able to do these kinds of moves yourself. As long as there is not more than one edit at the redirect that points back to the article to be moved, any autoconfirmed editor should be able to move the article over the redirect. Station1 (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello; thank you for your recent edits. Please retain the lists of former villages in the Slovenian municipality templates; they are useful indicators for missing material on Wikipedia, and in some cases they are the only information available for users searching for a particular toponym (and they are therefore informative for what the place was and where). You are welcome to help create the missing articles. Thank you. Doremo (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jmg38, Belgium's French Community is not exactly a speech community but a state. Though it is true that the three Communities are named after their official languages (=the languages officials must use), article 30 of the Constitution guarantees free language use all over Belgium except for public services and law courts. A majority of Belgians are proficient (L1+L2) French speakers, but Dutch has more mothertongue (L1) speakers than French. — The distribution of states is complex as every inhabitant of Belgium lives in three of them: Federal Belgium, one of the Regions, and one of the Communities. The exception is the Brussels-Capital Region which hosts parts of two Communities on its entire territory. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jmg38, thanks for your good faith changes to alter links to either of the Wachowskis in numerous articles You will have noticed by now that I undid a bunch of them, in those cases in which simple links naming one sister, were altered to a piped link. As both names are already redirects, this is both unnecessary, and counterproductive. When the link already works, like "Lana Wachowski" and "Lilly Wachowski" both do, then there is no reason to alter them to piped links of the form [[The Wachowskis|Lana Wachowski]]. More explanation can be found at WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mathglot. As noted in the edit summaries, the only time an individual sister was changed was if The Wachowskis is used for the pair as a duo elsewhere in the article, or if both sisters appeared separately in the article, thus using one consistent link throughout the same article. When the article only has one sister in the entire article, and no mention of the other one nor the pair of them as a duo, then the link to the single sister was left as is, as in June 21, Angela Morley, Razorline, and so on. I do thank you if you fixed any where I may have changed an article where only one sister was named, and never the pair as a duo. Jmg38 (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, not sure I quite follow completely what you mean, but if both of them are linked individually, then one could code, "[[Lana Wachowski]] and [[Lilly Wachowski]]" (or, depending how the sentence flows, "[[Lana Wachowski|Lana]] and [[Lilly Wachowski]]"), but not "[[The Wachowskis|Lana Wachowski]] and [[The Wachowskis|Lilly Wachowski]]" because of NOPIPE/NOTBROKEN. I think we're agreeing, but I wasn't sure. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mathglot. I think we're close, but not sure if all the way. If the sisters are listed side-by-each in a sentence, as in "[[Lana Wachowski]] and [[Lilly Wachowski]]", then that is exactly the spot to use a single link, as they go to the same target, their joint biography, as "[[The Wachowskis|Lana Wachowski and Lilly Wachowski]]" (when the credits show them individually with full name side by each), or as "[[The Wachowskis|Lana and Lilly Wachowski]]" (when they are being talked about in the text rather than an exact quote from credits or other outside reference). Jmg38 (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my previous comments, I was appealing to the style guidelines (BROKEN and NOPIPE), and would argue strongly for adherence to them. In your last examples, I think there's more room for different editors to do it differently, because they might or not be part of the guideline. I agree with your second case, where they are clearly being talked about as a unit (you can see that, because the first one named has their last name dropped out). I still think your first example, "[[Lana Wachowski]] and [[Lilly Wachowski]]",should remain that way, per the guideline, because it appears to me they are being talked about separately, and especially, because of this:
that is exactly the spot to use a single link, as they go to the same target, their joint biography
the point here being, you can't base your decision based on that, since that could change tomorrow. If someone writes up a biography of Lilly (definitely notable) then this logic falls apart. There is no downside of listing both links separately: while there is only one article, they go to the right (same) place, and if & when there are two separate articles, they *still* go to the right (two) places. Changing the two to one, however, kills that flexibility and makes it break when the new article is written. This is one of the reasons we have redirects in the first place.
If in the context of the source it is summarizing, or the sentence in the article, you believe that it is talking about them as a unit, why not just change it to "[[the Wachowskis]]", which is clearly the unit, where "[[Lana Wachowski]] and [[Lilly Wachowski]]" seems clearly not a unit, at least to me? But as I say, this is the point where different editors may see it differently. As long as you have NOPIPE and NOTBROKEN in mind, and you think your changes are compliant, there should be no problem. If you are not sure, you might consider going to WT:MOSLINK, describing your specific case, and see what the folks there think, who are more familiar with these things, and might be interested in this case, which has some subtleties. Thanks (also for the interesting conversation), and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Rashinseita, thank you for the insight. Her hair covers that first word, and my French was not robust enough to deduce what word the "-ste" might be part of. I will go ahead with the caption on her page. Much appreciated. Jmg38 (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why, the English finalist is defined as "A contestant in the final session of a competition" in The American heritage Dictionary, so the word carries the same meaming as the French finaliste, the Dutch finalist, and the German Finalist, to mention only the three official languages of Belgium. — If your English isn't native, or your vocabulary small, you can still look up words in a dictionary or ask our community. (-ste isn't a word, as you can tell by the lacking word space. It's a productivesuffix.) Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, LiliCharlie, not sure what's happening here? Odd turn of phrase regarding English not being my native language or that I should have started looking through dictionaries of various languages to find a word ending with "-ste", or that I should have thought of looking under "competition" in The American heritage Dictionary to see if there were any words there ending in "-ste".
Perhaps you may have felt that my comment above, to Rashinseita, was a dig, but it was sincere, and I am truly grateful for Rashinseita's help. I was pointing a finger at me, not Rashinseita, and addressing the fact that we all use the clues available and our own experience with language to deduce what the incomplete word is. We all do that, for example, in completing crossword puzzles when we have only a few letters for a word. I was simply acknowledging that I might have avoided asking Rashinseita about this in the first place (in other words, I did ask the community, or more specifically asked the person who posted the image and therefore was the most likely to be able to provide the answer) if my experience was in French rather than my native English. If the visible letters had been "-st", my brain might have deduced "finalist". Since it was "-ste", and I am not inherently thinking in French, I failed to deduce "finaliste", and greatly appreciate Rashinseita having provided the answer.
I do, however, have to say that it was nice of you to come to Rashinseita's defense, even though there was nothing to defend. Again, that is a sincere statement, as I truly do mean that it is nice to see editors sticking up for each other. Jmg38 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No idea how you're doing it (doesn't seem to be AWB), but just an FYI that the short descriptions you've been adding to Belgian election articles are all going wrong (e.g. this). Cheers, Number5721:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It might be worth adding a reference to SDNONE in your edit summaries as I'd imagine quite a few people will look at that and wonder what's going on. Cheers, Number5723:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the linked discussion. It agreed that the Wikipedia article on the Most Ancient European Towns Network should be deleted. Fine, I've no opinion on that. But, it did NOT say that every mention of the Most Ancient European Towns Network should be excised from Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Emeraude, the discussion makes it clear that the concept of a MAETN had one meeting, never settled on anything, never came to fruition, but in the years since the mention of something called the MAETN has been picked up and repeated by other websites, but never by an actual MAETN website since the MAETN did not actually come into existence. Jmg38 (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I read that. But, it did NOT say that every mention of the Most Ancient European Towns Network should be excised from Wikipedia. Emeraude (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It. Does. Not. Exist. Nothing to mention, since nothing is there. Can not list the members nor add their membership to each of their pages when there are, in fact, no members - because there is not and never was an organization to be a member of. Jmg38 (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright and Trademark Infringement Lawsuit section
The Talk Discussion is now opened to all Editors to comment on the Copyright and Trademark Infringement Lawsuit section for the article. Please visit the talk page for InvestigativeNews located at User_talk:InvestigativeNews
Yikes. Deadman137, thank you for that information. Started on something else, otherwise there would have been many more. Thank you for catching the ones I had already done. Jmg38 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jmg38! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Marquis Chimps that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, which is it? Your edit summary for the revert was "What added informational value does another photo have?", then you complain here that the issue was that the photo had changed the meaning of the article. The additional photo did not change the meaning of the article in any way, unlike your self-proclaimed "Minor edit" that replaced the article's text "the late 1970s" with "the 1980s". It does, however, fit MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE; as per your edit summary (sort of), I agree that it was not that important to add a third image in a small article, and I thank you for being bold and reverting for that reason. Jmg38 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was both. You made a significant edit - to add the photo - but you marked it as a "minor edit". I used the template to inform you of that - perhaps I should have adjusted the wording slightly as it was the appearance rather than the "meaning" of the article that was significantly changed. My view was that it was also an unnecessary addition, and I'm glad you agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jmg38. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Serra International, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonah Smith (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The "Long plot" template on The Unforgivable and how I tried to shorten it by tightening things and removing phrases and statements that weren't really all that relevant
I noticed your {{Long plot}} template on the article at The Unforgivable. I had a go at trimming it down, but I don't have a word counting tool. I'll leave it to you to remove the tag, or leave it there if you think it's still too long. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Doug Wellertalk08:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of all these en-GB edits? Do you have a discussion to back this up? To me, they are pointless; this isn't wiktionary. The articles usually state on the talk page which English they are written in. These edits just bloat the "lead"... or "lede". Why does Color blindness need to open with 4 synonyms? Do we need to put every redirect in the lead? Curran919 (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi Jmg38, hope you're doing well. I've been looking for help from editors who are familiar with editing on poker-related topics and saw that you'd made a few edits to some poker player Wikipedia articles. A little while back, I submitted a first draft of an article for GGPoker to Articles for Creation and it was declined; I've made some edits to address the issues from the reviewer's feedback and I'm trying to find editors who are willing to review the updated draft. In full disclosure, I work for NSUSLab, GGPoker's platform developer, and have a financial conflict of interest, which is why I submitted the draft via AfC. Is this something you'd be into helping with? Thanks! Chris H (GGPoker) (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing that section at 50 goals in 50 games. I've wanted to do that for a long time but I didn't feel like getting into a fight with Leaf fans. They seemed pretty determined to get Matthews name on the list somehow. Masterhatch (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the errors on scoring table. Keep in mind that any season from before the digital era could have these errors as the league went through their records and updated their site a few years ago, but in all likelihood nobody went through and fixed the numbers here. Deadman137 (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deadman137, thank you for the "Thanks". Thought something like that might have gone on, but did not have luck tracking down the reason - was actually looking at the Dinger source on Internet Archive when your note popped up! Had tried to generically allow for that possibility by adding "from the official NHL source" in the edit summary. Will use "from the revised official NHL source" if I come across any others, though I won't be looking right now. Thanks again for the insight. Jmg38 (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between October and December 2022. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
I reverted your edit on the cast section of The Rock because it removes the necessity of who else was on it. If you want, put the majority of them on the Additionally list instead. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edited per the up front detail of the full 600 words in MOS covered by the original edit summary “WP:CASTLIST - cast and order per closing tombstone stand-alone credits, roles per closing credits scroll“ vs list including random brief appearances such as Anderson in closing minutes. Jmg38 (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, did include Wilson (military/Pentagon) and Grant (executive branch) in additional, whose characters have longer narration than others in those two “areas” of the plot, covering the collective high level aspects happening away from the main cast of the plot found, shown in the list, who are the prison and at the police/FBI/SEAL situation control center near the prison.
Hi Jmg38, could you point to the diff you found from 2010? The responsible diff I found was this one by a drive by IP from July 2008. Best, CMD (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, "roommates" as a concept is not restricted to describing those living in the exact same room, so your edit was unnecessary and potentially confusing with the addition of the term "sharehouse", whether linked or not (and ironically linked to the term "roommates" 🙄). So in total, a solution looking for a problem. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, per your edit on List of former Emmerdale characters (the principal of which I agree with), it has now made a chronological error in the formatting of the list. Previously, the tables worked downwards in order of most to least recent of who had left, so if you were to swap them, you should have reversed the order of each individual table, like I have done on other former character lists. For example, in the 2023 table, Marshall Hamston should be the last person listed, as he left last week, rather than Priya Sharma, who departed in early 2023. Would you be willing to make such a large change? – Meena • 09:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jaydoggmarco, take this to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Looks to me like: you have attempted to point out to the user why they should be the ones to provide an explanation for removing the material; the multiple sources are WP:BLPSOURCES, which means the material is not WP:BLPGOSSIP, as his previous arrest is a supported fact and the later arrest warrant against her is a supported fact; the accusations against her husband, creating the situation, were tossed out by a judge ruling in a court of law; which all adds to the material in her "Personal life" section providing the explanation as to why she is a "former actor" – which should appear in her article – who has not acted in 5 years. However, I am not the last word on any of this, so let the experts at the Noticeboard adjudicate the issue. Jmg38 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night and the Doctor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, your enthusiasm is an important part of what keeps the project moving forward. This was not vandalism, nor a series of misplaced sandbox experiments, and the edit summaries explain that. More at your talk page. Jmg38 (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit: perhaps the article on the college should be moved, then - you could request a move, or just boldly move it. The list entry ought surely to match the article title. (Bath, above in the list, is also a redirect). PamD11:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, realising that that list is 10 years old, perhaps out-of-date college names are appropriate as long as they link to current college names. The official website of the Gazelle group is a dead link - I wonder when it folded? PamD11:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, PamD. Still working on this. Middle of night here, might be a few hours (way past bedtime!!) before I get technical move request in, as a redirect name must be sorted. Name has been full "The City of Liverpool College" since 2013, when changed from Liverpool Community College. Jmg38 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking at the history of that redirect it's quite weird - an edit summary says its content was copypasted to Liverpool Community College, but there's no sign of any history there, presumably some history has been lost in page moves over the years! FE colleges do seem messily prone to renaming themselves, and sometimes reusing previous names from decades before too. Good luck in sorting all out. PamD11:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you have recently edited numerous articles with the edit summary of "use consistent links" to explain removing links to embedded redirects. While the spirit of the effort is appreciated - it is actually unnecessary, amounts to busywork, and may need to be undone at a later date in cases of disambiguation (such as at John Diehl. Please take a moment to review WP:NOTBROKEN for more information regarding this. Thanks. --Picard's Facepalm•Made It SoEngage!•20:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring that a random mixture of different links were used within the specific film article to reach the article for actor John Diehl. Use the direct link throughout the article, or use the piped redirected unnecessary disambiguated link throughout the article, but don’t use a random mixture of these links throughout the article. The link to Diehl is not an example of variations of long/short forms of his name (like the [[Franklin D. Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]] example at WP:NOTBROKEN). If the unpiped direct link is already in use, stick with it throughout the article. Jmg38 (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanson Brothers (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.
Thanks, Morbidthoughts. Always learning. I simply copy pasted the URL from his ex-wife's en.wiki article. You may want to let the original editor, from a year ago at Warner's article, know as well. I also note, in trying to search for information about the unicourt.com website yesterday, that there are 100 other BLP articles that use citations sourcing government (court case) documents from that website. Your administrator tools missed those. Perhaps those editors used an odd syntax in their citations that stymied your tools. For example, your administrator tools missed the original citation at Warner's article for a full year; I did cleanup that citation yesterday, before copying it to the Prince article, so perhaps I inadvertently (with a good outcome for this whole issue!) cleaned up whatever was blocking unicourt.com from being caught by your tools. Thanks again for the heads up. Jmg38 (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the warning you left was correct! Unless the movie studio agrees to release their marketing materials under a compatible license (such as some Creative Commons licenses), the material can't be retained. And nor does anybody want it, especially. I don't know why even good faith editors are willing to copy in a studio's advertisement so long as the advertisement is masquerading itself as a plot summary. But I suppose I digress. Thanks for flagging this! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9 August 2023 view of Lahaina Banyan Court Park, still smouldering from the 8–9 August strike by the 2023 Hawaii wildfires
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the word "strike" in this context. My reading of your use of the term is that of an airstrike, which unfortunately feeds into Marjorie Taylor Greene's widely reported Camp Fire conspiracy theory in 2018, which was later adapted by bad actors (often involving foreign state actors) in 2023 and applied to the Hawaii fires to imply that "they" (often times referring to nefarious others, such as "Jews") used directed-energy weapons (DEW) to burn Lahaina down. In reality, historians of Hawaii have long known about the fire danger in Lahaina (this is not the first time it burned to the ground), and scientists had been warning the state about the fire risks for several years. For these reasons, I would recommend removing the word "strike" and just saying "view of Lahaina Banyan Court Park, still smouldering from the 2023 8–9 August Hawaii wildfires" and leaving it at that. "Strike" does not really work well here for the reasons cited above. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But most importantly – and I can not stress this enough – you can simply edit the caption yourself, if you have concerns. It is highly unlikely that you changing a word or two will ever catch my attention (I am not sitting here patrolling the 1,400 edits I made in August of 2023) or ever cause me to be upset (I assume you've run into issues with other editors, thus your lengthy and unnecessary discussion here). I am unaware of the spurious mess of who/what/how may have happened that you have tried to drag me into. Make the changes you want, don't let "the man" get you down, and keep smiling. Jmg38 (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me recap: You wrote the caption using the odd word "strike", which dovetails into the bizarre conspiracy theories discussed on the main fire page. I explained the problem with your wording and asked you to change it. You replied accusing me of "nonsense" and claiming I was trying to drag you into something. I think that's where everything stands. If this isn't clear, you may want to ask for help at the Teahouse. Good luck. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, somebody has clearly wound you up. I am not that somebody. Let me clarify my position for you, by cutting and pasting directly from WP:EPTALK:
I have already said that I do not care, that I did not use any specific word to imply any specific theory - so clearly any changes you choose to make fit "unlikely to be controversial" as far as I am concerned. Make the change you want to this caption from over a year ago, and sorry if someone else decides you are being controversial and attacks you for it - but it will not be me because I do not care. Jmg38 (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you removing Curlie templates. Is it really titsup? I haven't seen any announcements/news, but can see that the website is very dead. TBH I never liked it or DMOZ inclusion in articles so removing is a GoodThing™10mmsocket (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to UEFA club competition records and statistics, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. SLBedit (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Antonia Rey, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Antonia Rey. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 08:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
