User talk:Jpers36/Archives/2007
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jpers36. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks
I am having an issue with Freddythehat placing what seems to be adverts and changing the theme of the article...so I placed his item in reluctantly. So, thanks you saved the day! PEACETalkAbout 05:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Southern Strategy
Yes, that article needs better sources. But to pockmark it with "cites" and all the rest doesn't really serve any purpose, does it? Griot 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't look like a vandal. Please provide an edit summary when you edit.
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. Will (Talk - contribs) 20:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
CHICOTW
I see your user name listed as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago. I do not know if you are aware that we are attempting to revive the CHICOTW. See our results history. We could use additional input in nominating future articles, voting on nominees and editing winning nominees. Should you contribute you will receive weekly notices like the following:
|
| |
|
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Rich Melman has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
| ||
|
| |
TonyTheTiger 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
External links in United States presidential election, 2008
You reverted my clean up of the external link farm in the article about the United States presidential election, 2008 - why? The external link section has a clean up tag and according to WP:EL external links "should be kept to a minimum". --Peter Andersen 19:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help
Man, they are aggressiv today. Must be the weather. :-) Greswik 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Southpark bush.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Southpark bush.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Watch37264 00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
whatever works man, honestly I'm just trying to contribute. The songs and the album are solely speculation at this point, or who knows, they might have been announced on theblessedresistance.net or whatever the site is for Demon Hunter fans. Anyways, if it needs to be deleted, then so be it. -- Shatterzer0 19:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, I was curious to know why you added the NPOV tag to this article. I don't have a particular interest or knowledge in this film (I was looking for Adobe Flash, got to Flash and then thought, hey weird, a 1997 film?). Anyway, the article needs work, but it seems to me that its simply the last 2 sentences that are POV (and smack of copyright vio, though I didn't find it.) Anyway, I pulled out the commentary from the last section, sewed the thing up with the info supplied (I have not seen the film, and frankly, don't care to) and removed your tag. Let me know if you disagree. Cheers. Dina 22:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
revert
I've tried using the discussion page. I've even tried using neutral colors. He's campaigning for the change of Yankee player colors. He's even changed Don Mattingly's colors (a career Yankee). He's also using sockpuppets, i.e., joeidaho. Mghabmw 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not just Joe Girardi, it's multiple players. He's anti-Yankee and that's his only reasoning. Any other reason, fine. Let's just leave the colors neutral until resolved. I posted this under the discussion page. Mghabmw 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?
Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.
I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.
In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
- A1. Benjamin Cardozo
- A2. Learned Hand
The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.
Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.
Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.
As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?
Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Juan Pierre
I was just reverting improperly reverted edits, but my understanding from the original edit summary is not that the mlb page shouldn't be linked to, but that that is the mlb page for the Florida Marlins, a team that he no longer plays for. Wouldn't it be appropriate to provide a current mlb link? Miss Mondegreen talk 13:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Dude Think
Aright Dude First of all the band Anberln does not want to be consider a christian band or Christian Rock it say it right on the page, but for some reson why you guys put them as christian now why is that. Its Like You Gods wrong about everything and that your right about everything now you you know whos the dumd one in that.So if the band say they dont want to be consider christian dont put them as that change it Alright comment back on my page. -- User: Skateremorocker
Ok Fine but i still dont agree with them being labeled Christian rock. But still Alternative rock and christian rock are not the only things they are they are also Pop punk and Emo so plese let me add that.--User: Skateremorocker 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Burnout Revenge soundtrack
I undid your edit but went back and italicized all the album names myself. I did this because your undo also reverted the page back to when none of the individual songs were linked to their pages. Anyway, the album names are all now italicized, so it's not a problem anymore. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.132.126.148 (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)