User talk:Jprg1966/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Jprg1966. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on my talk page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Any time! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much

For cleaning up the nasty mess at my talk page. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Jprg1966

While I appreciate your work on this site, my most recent edit is completely valid, his legitimacy as an umpire will forever be tainted. Go edit Don Denkinger if you love umpires who have obvious blown calls. Watch a baseball game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.232.96 (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Jprg1966

Thank you for your quick replies and hard work, I'm a sour Braves fan. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.232.96 (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Sam Holbrook/Zack Greinke

Regarding the ejection incident that you removed, although this would not be evident from the talk page discussion, I'm somewhat inclined to think that the incident really was notable. My reasoning is it is not often that a starting pitcher, particularly of Greinke's stature, is ejected from a game after just four pitches. Also, it's fairly unusual to see a pitcher tossed out for spiking the baseball. That's my 2 cents. AutomaticStrikeout 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to defer to your judgment. I removed it since it did not indicate notability. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I will replace it if you don't object. AutomaticStrikeout 01:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

CONOR MAYNARD

I was told my Conor myself that he is dating Meghan Wildbeck. He and I are very close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellewelle (talk • contribs) 19:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You still need a reliable source for all edits. --GSK ● talk ● evidence 19:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor)

Jasper Conran

Thanks for re-reverting the removal of the Personal Life section on the Jasper Conran page. I had reverted the edit following its initial occurrence and am perplexed as to why it has happened again, given that there is no explanation on both occasions. The information is not only appropriate, but I would be surprised if Conran himself would object to its presence (usually the case when someone is "openly" gay). The page is on my Watchlist, so I will continue to monitor it in the event that you are unable to; also, I will post a message on the Talk page of the user responsible. It guess that it might be a case of vandalism.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Trying to Add Citations

Thank you. I was trying to add citations, but the page became a total mess some how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.18.89 (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I hope admins like cookies.

Here is a cookie for you! Marios1337 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Assistance?

How can I contact you to inquire about making edits to a page you monitor/maintain? There is incorrect information about a company, and I want to correct this if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.230.217.4 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the slight delay in response. On Wikipedia, it is not as simple as "correct" or "incorrect" information sometimes. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth — it relays what other sources are saying. So if there is something unsourced on your company's page that is damaging to its reputation, you are allowed to remove it with a simple note in the edit summary. If you are unhappy with sourced material on the page, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page. You should identify what is problematic about the content in question, such as if the source being cited is unreliable, or if the tone of the article is not neutral and presents a clear bias for/against the company. Thanks for your question. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No title

You continue to edit information about fern high school and tha fact Carla Rushing aka as Cody Lane did attend there and is in fact a porn start.I dont think your beliefs should decide what you think is appropriate to be on a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.240.194 (talk)

Apologies

Hello. I bring apologies for this edit to Christian Benítez. I intended to revert to the last good version, hit the wrong button, and reverted only your last edit instead. Sorry :-( ...Struway2 (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks for notifying me. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No title

Why was the link to the marmot site inappropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangesad (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for dropping me a note. Wikipedia's policy on external links discourages links that are only marginally related to the page content. We are also careful not to promote private organizations. I'm not assuming foul play on your part — just letting you know about what is typically considered a proper link. If you think that link is relevant and not overly promotional, do explain here and we can continue the conversation. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It isn't marginally related to the page content. It is about the exact same thing. In fact, large chunks of the article are taken from the site.

The site I linked to says: "Vancouver Island marmots are easy to recognize by their rich chocolate brown fur with contrasting white patches on their nose, chin, forehead and chest."

The article says: "....this species can be easily distinguished from other marmots by its rich, chocolate brown fur and contrasting white patches"

And why did you think it was "overly promotional?" Honestly, did you even look at my link before you deleted it as "marginal" and "promotional?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangesad (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did look at the link and I would appreciate a more respectful tone. I probably should have taken a longer look than I did. Upon further inspection, it checks out. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Pavitra Paapi

The meaning (literal translation) of "Pavitra Paapi" the words in Hindi or Sanskrit is "Holy Sinner" . Hence the meaning provided in the article on the Bollywood film was correct. Please revert the changes made by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.82.167 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak Hindi or Sanskrit and thus have no way of verifying that. Please reference a source on the page. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Jared Padalecki

Thanks for the assistance on that page. It would be prudent to edit block the page for the next week as well as that is the duration of the scavenger hunt that is currently leading to the spike in vandalism if you are or know an admin. Gateman1997 (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears the page is currently semi-protected, meaning IPs and newly registered users cannot edit it. This should catch most of the vandalism. If it continues, you can file a request for page protection here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Help at Uniting for Consensus

Please, check this edit. The other user wants to add South Korea between the signatories of the UFC proposal, although it isn't present in the source (http://www.un.org/depts/german/gv-sonst/a59-l68.pdf). At the same time he wants to eliminate from the list other countries because they are not explicitly defined as "core" members from another source, even if they have signed the UN draft resolution.--Enok (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

From WP:Edit warring: "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not his or her edits were justifiable: it is no defence to say 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring'." You have been blocked twice before for edit warring and ought to know better than to get into a revert war. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What should I do now?--Enok (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I filed a notice for page protection until this dispute could be sorted out. I am not an administrator but would find it hard to believe you and Blizzard will escape being blocked temporarily. Starting a discussion on the talk page seems like a reasonable course of action. From there you can follow the various steps of dispute resolution. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent modification to Hampton University page

Sorry I did not include the reasoning never made an edit on here previously, but as a graduate of the school who previously worked in the alumni affairs office it is clear that the inclusion of the name I removed on a list of notable alumni is without merit. There are far more worthy names that could be included and based on the recent the class year it seems to be self added. A reading through the rest of the listings in that section should make it clear if you factor in the notable omissions of Percy Sutton and Albert C. Eisenberg for example, city council for a very small town hardly seems to rise to an adequate level. Thanks for taking this under consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.166.169.237 (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your message about reverting the page that I edited

Hello Jprg1966! I read the message that you wrote to me, regarding your reverting of my changes to Jimbo's page. After thinking it through, I agree with you on the subject. It was not very constructive or suitable, and you seem to have acted in the correct way to maintain the Wikipedia guidelines even though this situation calls for a lot of arbitrary judgements. I hope that you and other Wikipedians are not offended, including Jimbo. I did not mean to be offensive or silly. I wish to thank you for sending me the message about the matter, informing me about the actions made and doing so promptly and in a good and helpful manner. This helped me to quickly understand what happened to the page in question, and also it informed me about the mistakes that I made. I think that I have a lot to learn, and I think that I should get myself acquaintanced with the guidelines and policies a bit more before editing pages without thinking it through thoroughly. This while at the same time not making things too difficult or hesite too much, something that Wikipedians seem to refer to as "being bold". In this case, I understand that I was "being a bit too bold", while my judgement was lacking the time and thorough thinking needed to make changes that are constructive. I read Wikipedia a lot so I should do any editing in the same way and with the same qualitative goals that I wish to find on Wikipedia myself. I do know how to sign my post using four tildes but in this case I don't want to do so for personal reasons. I hope this will not be to much confusion for you, and I believe that it will not, because it seems like you are an experienced Wikipedian. I hope that this incident has not been to much trouble for you and any other parts involved. I wish you a good day and good success in your future editing on Wikipedia. I will also continue to read Wikipedia and when I feel ready for it I might start editing, but I will assure you that I will pay more attention to the guidelines. Thanks!

A kitten for you!

nice.......................................

Sonakuruvila (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kittens! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)