User talk:JoeTheGuy/archive5

Click here to start a new message thread.
Please sign your posts (you can do so with ~~~~).

Talk archives

1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5

Welcome!

Hello, JoeTheGuy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Reverting

For an easier way to revert manually, I recommend Help:Reverting. Administrators and some registered users have a rollback button that they can use to revert edits. I didn't use mine in this case because I wanted to explain my reasoning, though. And I'm glad you registered an account, no more pesky non-related IP talk messages that way :) · j e r s y k o talk · 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

heh. I've had this for a while. I'm just lazy about signing in. Joetheguy 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary, again

Please use the edit summary; it's extremely important as a way of explaining your intention with a particular edit. I've reinstated my last change to Donald Rumsfeld, explaining why in the edit summary. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you had looked more closely, you would see that it actually did still specifically link to the 3rd Geneva convention. I changed the phrasing because it IS true to say that it does not conflict with the Geneva Conventions as a whole. And I think, to the average person, it would seem that someone is trying to say that it doesnt conflict with "this little part" of the geneva conventions, and they'll ask "what about those other parts?" PS: you need to adjust your attitude. I think that if my "edit summary" contains the sub-heading of the section i am actually editing, then that would be obvious for any person to see what was edited, considering there are only 3 sentences in the entire section. Joetheguy 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rumsfeld

I changed the name from "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld" to simply "Rumsfeld" because there is no need to once again refer to an individual by their full name and title after doing so at the beginning of the article. JCO312 20:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Pelosi

Why not move it down under National Security, since SanFrancisco is mentioned there? Stealthound 20:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. I'm fine with putting it anywhere so long as it looks relatively professional. It would appear there is a conflict between the 2 pictures that are there, and the fact that the pictures have to be vertically aligned at their tops to the header under which they are placed. The text under the headers seems to take a back seat to this, and therefore you end up with a big space under the header before the actual text starts. That is how I'm seeing it at least -- Joetheguy 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call to Holiness

Hello, concerning your contribution, Call to Holiness, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.calltoholiness.com/about.html. As a copyright violation, Call to Holiness appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Call to Holiness has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Call to Holiness. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Call to Holiness, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

I removed a link to a cached myspace page for the roomate of Emily. Unless details are published in multple reliable sources, they should not be included in wikipedia. Also, it's usually wise to consider if details are pertinent. For living persons in particular, unsourced details or ones that aren't particularly relevant should never be included, not even in talk pages. See WP:BLP Nil Einne 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Population bias

expolitation by corporations. [http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1979/11/ehrenreich.html (Ehrenreich, To be honest to put this in the header part of article is IMO unballenced. However to source it is better than leaving it unsourced. If you want to cut it completly feel free.Dejvid 15:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Tom Smith, US Senate Candidate.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tom Smith, US Senate Candidate.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]