Hello Jesant13! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea23:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you're engaging in edit warring with another user over an issue of phrasing. It is assumed on Wikipedia that all institutions of higher education are inherently notable, and indeed VT is. The shootings are an extremely important event in the history of the school; however, they do not define it. The phrasing should be left something along the lines of "VT was the site of etc." --Dynaflow00:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. --Dynaflow23:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the writing skills of others. This has everything to do with impatience and failure to compromise. Please stop edit-warring. --Dynaflow23:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have run afoul of 3RR recently too (see User talk:Dynaflow#your own 3RR), but the rule exists for a very good reason and is for the best. At the most basic level, it helps the editorial process by keeping content decisions a matter of consensus rather than stamina. Edit wars are destructive and distracting, and occasionally bringing the hammer down on reversion warrior is a great way to remind him or her of the value of talking things out first before taking unilateal action. --Dynaflow23:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will not add that piece of information back. However, I have edited & added to the portion of the history section which talks about VT. --Jesant1300:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you are also editng the perpetrator's name back to "Cho Seung-hui. As per the consensus reached at Talk:Seung-Hui Cho#Naming order POLL .28again.21.29 last night, it has been more or less decided that the name order should be "Seung-Hui Cho." If you want to debate that, please debate it there rather than in main-page edits. --Dynaflow00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:3RR. Making the same change excessively is cause for a block.
In any event, can you explain why you believe this change should be in there? That seems to be your only contribution since editing. Virginia Tech is one of the top 50 public schools in the country and has a 1A football team - we're not talking about Bridgewater College or something that unless you happen to be from somewhere near there you never would have heard of. Unless you can explain your claim on the talk page, it should not be in the article. --BigDT (416) 14:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not edit others' comments on talk pages. I have reverted your edit to Seraphim Whipp's quote - your edit made it seem as though he/she prefers a different quote. --BigDT (416) 23:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who originally wrote that quote, & I changed it because I changed the original quote. But he/she can leave it unaccurate. IDC. --Jesant1323:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but this individual is offering that quote as what he/she believes should be in the article. If that doesn't exactly match your quote, then that's because he/she believes that something other than your quote should be used. --BigDT (416) 00:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jesant, can you comment on your reasons for renaming this article, especially since it was done without discussion? The Maine DOT site and the Register for Historic Places all give the name as "Bailey Island Bridge". I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I'd like a source for this being the definitive name. See Talk:Cribstone Bridge for a place to discuss. Isoxyl19:59, 20 August 2007 (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 article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Harland1 (t/c) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (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 article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(from the talk page):
Sherwood Dungeon Online should have a Wikipedia entry, since it is another popular mmorpg. While it may not be as popular as RuneScape or World Of Warcraft, it still is a great game for lots of players. I just need some help improving this page. --Jesant13 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had to delete the article, because there is at present nothing in the article that could indicate notability in the sense of WP:N. You need references to show it from reliable third party published sources. Please do not restore the article till you have them. Reviews in published game magazines, print or on line are the sort of thing needed, but not blogs.DGG (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I didn't know Wikipedia had that sort of policy, I assumed the name capitalizations were because based on how the artist wrote them. --Jesant13 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
Earlier today, I looked at the "WP:BULLETLIST" page and I understand now that list items "...should not have a punctuation mark such as a period, a comma or a semi-colon at the end, except if a list item is one or more full sentences, in which case there is a period at the end." However, I came across this article. I noticed this: "...often defined to indicate a grammatical unit consisting of one or more words..." I think that means there can be one word sentences.
I am considering starting a new section on this page to try to make it acceptable for any editors who want to put periods after the ends of one word sentences in bulleted lists. I think that would be a compromise as opposed to me trying to make it mandatory for all editors to put periods after one word sentences in bulleted lists.
The reason I was editing some articles to add some periods is because I sometimes like using periods as a "checkpoint". Here's an example:
A serious bug was fixed which caused some users' browsers to crash.
Added search bar
Added partial HTML5 support
Fixed a bug which caused random freezes
In the example above, I would read it as "A serious bug was fixed which caused some users' browsers to crash. Added search bar Added partial HTML5 support Fixed a bug which caused random freezes" versus "A serious bug was fixed which caused some users' browsers to crash. Added search bar. Added partial HTML5 support. Fixed a bug which caused random freezes." If I screw up reading something, I'd prefer to fall back to the next "checkpoint", which in this case would be "A serious bug was fixed which caused some users' browsers to crash." For me, reading through what I want to read might therefore take longer. I hope that makes sense to you. --Jesant13 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. It took a while, but I changed back some of the changes I made. In some cases, multiple users had already done so, so I didn't need to do anything else. --Jesant13 (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries – the ability to change your mind is a sign of good character. In the example you give above, I think parsing could be made easier by re-ordering and re-wording the points:
Added search bar
Added partial HTML5 support
Fixed bug which caused random freezes
Fixed serious bug which crashed some users' browsers
You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Thank you for your recent changes. Is it possible for you to provide a more detailed edit summary than "I corrected an error", to help other editors to know what you changed. Thanks. Stepho talk23:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that the last edit to March 23 warranted an accepted revision? I would just hope you make sure before you automatically accept. Thanks. Lightheadþ04:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That IP user deleted the hidden comment; which was important. That person also added the names of two people without articles, possibly friends of the IP user. You might want to double-check that edit. Lightheadþ04:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After I made my first response to you, I checked the edit and realized I had made a mistake. After you responded to my response, I checked again and realized that a hidden comment was deleted. It was tired when I accepted the edit, so I don't think I thought hard enough about deciding to accept it. I'll try to be more careful in the future. --Jesant13 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, we're not getting paid. There's nothing I hate more than people who think this is a job, and more, think they're your boss! Just try to be more aware. Sometimes those edits don't get discovered until a year later, or even worse, those edits just lead to the article going down a downward spiral into cheesiness (or just plain bad). People start thinking that those articles are a dumping ground for their vandalism. If you feel tired at a certain point, maybe the best thing to do is just relax and lay low from editing. Just a thought. Happy editing! Lightheadþ07:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And from one Wikipedia editor to another, that IP user seemed to know what he/she was doing. For them to delete a hidden comment might say something as to how much knowledge they have about Wikipedia. I'm just sort of wondering out loud. That wasn't, in my opinion, just any vandalism. If you're new, you'll learn about that kind of thing later. Cheers. Lightheadþ08:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was not really helpful. I just spent wasted at least five minutes staring at the diffs before I finally realized that you'd moved a closing parenthesis from one place to another.
Since a lot of us watch that article, I imagine many editors had (and others will have) the same experience.
Could we please ask you to use edit comments that would be more helpful? This one should have been something like
moved a closing parenthesis to the correct place
And this could have been marked as a "minor" edit, too.
As you can see from here [1] TMUS has over 800m shares. A parent or owner would own all 800m shares. Since they own more than anyone else, they are considered a majority share holder. They are not a Parent or an Owner. A parent means that another corporation owns 100% of the shares. An owner means a person owns 100% of the shares. Neither of those are the case. - GalatzTalk22:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the owner field part, but not the parent company part, per the Parent company article. Also, the T-Mobile article mentions in the T-Mobile US section that T-Mobile US is a subsidiary of T-Mobile International AG. - Jesant13 (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The parent company article clearly is lacking any mention of US requirements. What are you using to state that 72% meets it? The IRS wont let you consolidate without 80% ownership. - GalatzTalk15:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bloomberg, T-Mobile International AG does own T-Mobile US. Also, per Object Management Group (whose headquarters are in Massachusetts), "a subsidiary of which it owns more than 50 percent (50 percent plus one share)". Therefore, 72% would be more than enough. Also, T-Mobile International AG is a German company, not a U.S. one. - Jesant13 (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be a pain about your Ethernet over twisted pair edits. Your removal of spaces in 5-digit numbers made the numbers difficult to read so clearly that needed to be reverted. I agree that commas are fine but spaces are also fine. We're looking for editors to make improvements to articles. There are a lot of acceptable ways of doing things on Wikipedia and we resist changing from one acceptable way to another unless there is a good reason for doing so. ~Kvng (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying. The thing is, I've found on Wikipedia that typically with numbers in the tens of thousands either no spaces without a comma or with a comma are used. The same goes for numbers ranging from 1,000 to 9,999. Having recently read the articles Ethernet, TIA/EIA-568 and Category 5 cable it seems to me like it would be more uniform to use commas instead of spaces. - Jesant13 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the formatting is inconsistent within an article, it is definitely a welcome improvement to make changes for consistency. Consistency between articles is a much more difficult sell. If you have strong feelings, and more importantly, reasonable justification for consistency within a group of articles, you can make your case for it on one of the Wikiproject pages, in this case Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing/Computer_networking_task_force. ~Kvng (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turner Broadcasting System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AT&T Mobility, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sprint. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Jesant13. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cockpit voice recorder may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
