User talk:Jimad

License tagging for Image:LightTruckCAFETargetMPG3.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:LightTruckCAFETargetMPG3.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page protocol

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! In addition, when replying to existing comments, it's best to skip a line, then put a colon : before each paragraph (or single sentence, or single word) of your reply. If you are replying to someone else's reply, you use two colons ::. When you edit the discussion page, you'll be able to see the colons before each participant's comments. Their purpose is to indent the text so it's easy to keep track of who's saying what in response to whom. You needn't put a colon/s before each and every line of text, just before the first line of text following an empty line break. Here is an example:

This is me making a comment.

:Mm, interesting comment. This is me replying to your comment.

::You both raise good points, thanks for your comments, but have you considered what the 
Posse Commentatus people have to say on the matter? 

:::I read their stuff, but frankly it didn't strike me as particularly encyclopædic, so I didn't include it. 
Can we get any corroboration?

which results in the following display:

This is me making a comment.

Mm, interesting comment. This is me replying to your comment.

You both raise good points, thanks for your comments, but have you considered what the Posse Commentatus people have to say on the matter?

I read their stuff, but frankly it didn't strike me as particularly encyclopædic, so I didn't include it. Can we get any corroboration?

If the discussion grows very long (see e.g. NHTSA's talk page), you can "reset" the indenting by commenting without any colon, so s/he who responds to you will add one colon, the next commentor will add two, etc. --Scheinwerfermann 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary protocol

Greetings again, Jimad. A couple notes on edit summaries: There's no need to do the four tildes after your comments in an edit summary, because Wikipedia automatically indicates who has made every particular change to an article. The four tildes are only used when signing your comments in an article's talk page. Also, it's best to reserve strident comments in edit summaries (and everywhere else, for that matter) for those few situations in which they're actually called for. Your comment in NHTSA reads Sorry, but its not that if you import an ECE you will become a criminal, rather NHTSA denies you import license so you cannot import it in the 1st place. You're correct that "blocking" is a more accurate noun than "criminalizing", but there was no need for your initial Sorry, but. You're not in an argument with anyone over this word choice, but when you use argumentative language like this, you're likely to start needless fights. Occasionally you'll run into someone who's willfully not following Wikipedia policies, and persists in damaging compliant work you've done. In a case like that, sometimes a bit of a sterner tone is warranted, though edit wars are not allowed and generally it's best to go through proper resolution channels rather than engage in a debate via edit summaries. And, you probably won't encounter such a situation until you're a little farther along the wikipedia learning curve. It'd've been better in this particular case to summarize your edit as It's not that if you import an ECE vehicle you will become a criminal, rather NHTSA denies you import license so you cannot import it in the 1st place. --Scheinwerfermann 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tap tap tap Hello? This thing on?

Jimad, it's good to see you heeding the advice being provided here to help you along the learning curve as a Wikipedia editor, but you're kinda being a little silent, eh? The same principles apply to communications here as in the real world; it's considered good form to respond to comments on your talk page, or at least acknowledge them. Best of all is to engage in dialogue. If you have questions or want something clarified, ask! --Scheinwerfermann 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith

Jimad, you recent edits at the the CAFE talk page says that my edits, "seemd intended to replace a discussion of liberal vs. conservative balanced references to the subject with a purely conservative position." The general rule of the wikipedia is to assume good faith, and I'd appreciate it if you focused on the content of the article in the talk page rather than the views of the editors, which are frankly irrelevant in a great page. Pdbailey 02:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAFE

Jimad, I know you are a strong proponent of CAFE...and that's a bit of a problem. Not because I'm some kind of CAFE opponent, but because as a core policy of Wikipedia, we strive to maintain the neutral point of view in articles here. Ideally, it should be impossible to discern the personal opinions and preferences of any particular editor by the content of his edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopædia, not a soapbox or a venue for press releases, so it's incumbent upon all of us to be mindful of our personal biases and points of view, and not let them creep into our edits. You've added a lot of high-quality references to this article, and that's a real help. But long pull quotes from cited sources that happen to agree with your own opinion, the use of verbs like "claim" rather than more neutral ones like "say", "assert", or "state", and other such tactics don't help the coöperative group effort to improve this (or any other) article to the maximum possible extent. We trust our readers to process the information we provide and come to a logical conclusion; advocacy for any particular conclusion or position is not in line with what Wikipedia is or how it works. Please keep your opinions and biases in mind when you edit. Thanks for being a coöperative Wikipedian. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimad, before you accuse someone of deleting text, it's a good idea to read the article carefully to make sure the text you have in mind is actually gone. If you'll take a look at CAFE, you'll see the "twice as high" text is safe and sound at the end of the very first paragraph, which has not been modified in quite some time — least of all by me. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ExamplePDFPlotAsImage.pdf listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ExamplePDFPlotAsImage.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Corporate Average Fuel Economy

Hi there. Please try to remain civil when talking with other editors, especially when discussing what goes into an article - a talk page is for civilly discussing what will be put into the article, not for unnecessary arguments. As for the ref, please do not insert it into the article if it is not verifiable by anyone else. We cannot rely on your word and it is not about "how lazy Scheinwerfermann is". Thanks. jj137 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Average Fuel Economy figure

Hey, why don't you just give me a ref for the new CAFE numbers and I will put them into the existing plot. If you really want to make the plot yourself, please include the properly deflated prices, since this is referenced in the text. PDBailey (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I added a comment at Talk:Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy#CAFE_image basically asking you to give references. I think since this regards that page, it would be best to have the conversation there. PDBailey (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, File:CAFE_vs_Gas_Price_2008.png does not cite any sources, I can make one that does if you don't have time. PDBailey (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Combined Crash Causes Correlation to MPG.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:LightTruckCAFETargetMPG3.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:LightTruckCAFETargetMPG3.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 00:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]