User talk:JohnnyangelNIU

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I just wanted to take a minute to say hello and let you know that if you have any questions about editing that you can access HELP or drop me a line on my talk page. Here are some links that you also may find useful:

I hope you enjoy editing and again feel free to drop me a line if you have any questions. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bartman

I think your addition veers too close to WP:Original research. If you can find a newspaper article or magazine article that makes the same point, then we'd be OK. Zagalejo^^^ 02:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is merit in what you're trying to add. It's just that we can run into trouble when everyone starts adding their own analysis of the film, so I wanted to make sure the article stuck to published sources. I see that the book Mad Ball makes an argument for fan interference, so that's one source we can use to support the content you were adding. I'll restore some things to the article. Zagalejo^^^ 03:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I specified the name of the umpire. But I don't think the "non-malicious" thing really fits into the narrative at that point; it's not part of Yurkanin and Hoffman's argument. Though I agree that Bartman's actions were non-malicious, we already have a long, detailed section titled "Defense of Bartman" that provides such perspective. At the beginning of the article, I think it's useful to just cut to the chase.

Unfortunately, instant replay just wasn't part of baseball back then. It definitely could have saved a lot of heartache! Zagalejo^^^ 00:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Woodruffe vs Woodroffe

Hi, JohnnyangelNIU. I have undone the change you made to Technical Ecstasy. My CD liner notes use the spelling "Gerald Woodruffe". A brief web search suggests that that spelling of his name is quite common. In the article I think it makes sense to stick to the credited spelling. Perhaps Gerald has gone by both spellings in his career. In that case, if ever an article is made for him, both spellings can always wikilink to the correct person. Do you have a particular source that suggested Gerald was going by "Woodroffe" around the time of the Tech Ec album? What prompted your change? Are you sure your source wasn't in error? Jason Quinn (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason - please forgive me as I don't really know how to talk back and forth here on Wikipedia. I just got your reply now. I am positive Jezz Woodroffe's last name is indeed WOODROFFE. It is commonly misspelled 'Woodruffe'. Jezz sent me an autograph in 2003 and he clearly printed and signed his name as 'Woodroffe'.

P.S. if you are reading articles or sources from 'Joe Siegler's Black Sabbath page', while that page is indeed awesome, it is full of little errors. One of those errors being how he misspells Jezz Woodroffe's name. Also, many times band member's names are 'misspelled' in the liner notes, some accidentally - others because of more sinister reasons. See the Ozzman Cometh album for a great example of that debacle.

Jezz Woodroffe was also on board and touring with Sabbath during their Sabotage tour, though he did not perform on the album.

To compromise, perhaps you can list it as Gerald Woodroffe - keyboards (misspelled Woodruffe in liner notes)

P.S. How did you (or how does one) become "in charge" of editing or patrolling a certain Wikipedia page?

Thanks -- JohnnyangelNIU JohnnyangelNIU (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JohnnyangelNIU. We'll keep this conversation here so it stays in one place. See Help:Using talk pages for some help.

You raise an interesting point that may require more discussion. You should explain your case on the article's talk page. However without a reliable source, it may (and probably will) be contested by other editors because, in this case, a primary source (the CD liner notes) claims otherwise.

No editors are "in charge" of editing or patrolling Wikipedia articles. Anybody who wants to do it can do it. That said, there are people who take more interest in particular article than others. One of ways you can more easily monitor changes to an article is to "watch" them by clicking the star near the "view history" tab. This allows you to see changes to your watched articles in your "watchlist". Jason Quinn (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metalium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Osborn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Millennium Metal – Chapter One, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Osborn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coq Roq

Hello, Please do not readd information that has been removed for lack of citations as you did at BK Chicken Fries. Information that is not been properly cited is subject to challenge and removal as I did as part of the article's Good Article upgrade.

Also, I have been on Wikipedia for 9 years and made nearly 60k edits. I do know what I am doing, and the removal of uncited or unsourced information is perfectly allowable even if it has been in the article for a great deal of time. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Good article criteria - Statements within articles must not contain original research.

The claims made within the statement are original research and such they are not allowed. So yes, all statements made in articles must be verifiable. Since you cannot back the claims you are making, they must go unless you can provide some sort of reliable source that shows that they are not your own research into the matter.

Also please read WP:BRD - You made a bold move, but it was challenged. It is now your responsibility to provide reasoning why your change should be included along with proof that the claims are true.

I have provided reasons why the statements cannot be included, the ball in your court to provide reliable sources that show the statement is true and not your own original research. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement you are making about the sentences being based upon information found on the web page means it is a primary source, which means it to is unacceptable. Primary sources can not be used as sources in situations like this because we cannot verify the truth of the statements through independent sources. Primary sources do have their place to simply verify the existence of something, like I did in when I stated the company established a MySpace page for Coq Roq - I simply linked to the site to establish its verifiability. I cannot use any of the content in the site to make statements about the "band", its album or songs. You will notice that I found other sites that did that on their own and cited those reliable, secondary sources instead. Simply stated, If I wanted to include those statements the reviewer would have asked for them to be removed or properly cited, which could not be be done - so they had to go. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signing talk pages

You can sign a talk page by clicking the signature and time stamp button that looks like pen and writing () at the top of the dialog box, or typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your posts.

You can also create your own custom signature on the preferences page of your account using simple HTML markup to change styles and fonts contained in your signature. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:06, 10 September 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) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

In a recent edit to the page Ritchie Blackmore, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JohnnyangelNIU. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JohnnyangelNIU. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JohnnyangelNIU. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]