User talk:Jps57
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Before getting too in-depth, you may want to read about the Five pillars of Wikipedia and simplified ruleset. If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.
- BTW, I know there has been some contention over the Central Jersey article, and this is not related to it. This is strictly a copyright issue. Please feel free to create a central jersey map based on free sources, such as Image:New Jersey Counties Labeled.svg or Image:New Jersey Counties Labeled.svg. Also, FYI, the PNG or SVG formats are preferred over JPEG for this kind of image. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 22:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I saw the message you left for me on commons. Placing that map under the GFDL is perfectly fine. Thanks for clearing up the copyright issue. Cheers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 01:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Commercial use of Image:CentralJerseyMapFromChris1.jpg
[edit]
If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.
If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.
If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:CentralJerseyMapFromChris1.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thanks. CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:CentralJerseyMapFromChris.jpg)
[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:CentralJerseyMapFromChris.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I want to get rid of that image. That image is not used in any articles. There is a clone image that is actually freely licensed (GNU). I simply checked the wrong box when I uploaded the image the first time.
Proposal to remove claims of alleged controversy about Raritan Valley
[edit]Thanks for your past contributions to the article Central Jersey. I've placed a proposal on the article's talk page to remove the claims that there is controversy over whether the Raritan Valley in New Jersey exists. Please visit the page and register your support or opposition for the proposal. Thanks. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Central Jersey. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since you have made edits that amount to a 4th revert, I have reported your conduct at WP:AN/3RR. I'm sorry it's come to this, but you really need to let other editors participate in editing this article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
In regards to this edit [3], please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. Regardless of your problems with content, please remain civil. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
[edit]
Jps57 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am contesting this block. The reversions occurred because one poster completely changed the opening while providing scant justification for his changes. He/She provided no justification or citations for the change. I repeatedly solicited reasons for the poster's changes. I never once told him/her that my version was absolutely correct. I only told him why I thought his intro was wrong. I am shocked that I am the one being blocked when the poster was the one who made unilateral changes with no support whatsoever. There is a lot of contention in the Central Jersey article because insecure posters come on and say what suits their agenda without providing support. I am more than willing to work with those who disagree with me, such as AlanSohn, because he offers his perspective. He doesn't just change the article for no reason or justification. I am being punished for being honest, for telling the truth about Central Jersey. Some people seem not to want to hear that, despite the fact that they have scant justification for their beliefs. The article is pretty airtight right now, with far more references than would normally appear in a regular article about a small region. I refuse to succumb to personal interests who come here for no reason other than to mollify their own insecurities. Jps57 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)jps57
Decline reason:
None of this justifies edit warring, which is what you were doing. It really doesn't matter if you're wrong or right; and attacking other editors is not the way to get unblocked. Further, this isn't punishment; this is to stop you from edit warring. Agree to do so and you'll get unblocked immediately. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock|Thanks for your message. I apologize for engaging in the edit war and promise to follow wiki's policies in the future. I am sorry about my actions that occurred in the heat of passion. However, you should know that I am deeply frustrated by what is going on the Central Jersey article. I think you will agree with me that wiki articles are only good if they offer clean analysis substantiated by facts/sources. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be happening in the Central Jersey article. None of this is an excuse for what I have done. I promise to refrain from edit warring in the future and to follow your policies to the letter. Jps57 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)jps57}}
){kind=link}
Central Jersey
[edit]This still needs sources, even if you think it's uncontrovertible. - Revolving Bugbear 18:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh spare me your euphemisms! You would have to eliminate the unsourced statements from all articles in North and Central Jersey if that were true. Just acknowledge the fact that the standard is different for Central Jersey. And that it is based on personal interests.
- By the way, the development of industry is common fact. It's also very hard to source because the source itself is often making a value judgment not supported by empirical analysis (profits of companies in Raritan Valley, resident totals, etc...). Jps57 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)jps57
- First, yes, I think all the unsourced information in the Central Jersey article should be deleted, but I don't have a problem giving you time to come up with the sources. You seem, however, unwilling to come up with them. Unsourced information doesn't stick around on Wikipedia. It's not a question of "personal interests", it's a question of credibility.
- Second, your claim that "the development of industry is common fact" and that it is "very hard to source" is ridiculous. They're called history books. Historians have written untold volumes on the development of industry and its effects on population on pretty much every corner of the globe that has industry. And not all historians disagree on the facts and effects of industry development. New Jersey itself has a flourishing community of historians dedicated to its history, some of whom I have studied under, whose official library is, apropos, in Newark.
- Wikipedia should not take your word for it that these things are true, and even if I agree with some of your analyses, you still need to source them. That's the way this works, and the fact that Central Jersey is an area of "personal interests" doesn't change that. Your edits need sources. Please stop adding information without them.
- Regarding my edit after you added the source, your source blatantly contradicted what you had written. You wrote that the migration out of Newark "started [...] as a result of" the riots. Your source stated "'White flight' from Newark to the suburbs [...] started in the 40's". I think this demonstrates the clear need for sources, and for using them correctly. - Revolving Bugbear 19:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your selective paraphrasing is primae facie example of exactly what I'm talking about. Here's the whole statement ""White flight" from Newark to the suburbs, which started in the '40s and accelerated in the '60s, meant that an increasing number of people who worked in the city no longer lived there." Notice the area that says "accelerated in the '60s."
- As for your reference to historical text, any student of history will tell you that history books are inherently subjective. Why is the Vietnam War ignored in most American textbooks but covered extensively in other textbooks? There is no such thing as "objective" analysis. I don't want to get into that with you. Only empirical evidence (raw numbers), count as objective sources. And even then, there are gray areas like statistics where you can manipulate the stats by asking leading questions. Historical text base their claims on sources that have a subjective component to them. For example, primary sources such as newspaper articles have a subjective bent to them because the newspaper articles are written by certain people in a certain period of time. There is a historical movement stressing non-sources because official archival records and primary sources kept by the wealthy and elites often overshadow the life of common people in all civilizations. In the financial services sector, numbers are often used in a selective way (like what you just did) to further agendas. There is no such thing as a "statistically sound" buy or sell. So even numerical information is misleading if used the wrong way. Your naive attitude regarding sources and failure to recognize the inherent contradictions in the Central Jersey article is beyond me. Furthermore, you might want to work on edits to entire towns in the United States. There is unsourced information everywhere on wikipedia in every region of the United States. Jps57 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)jps57
- Yes, it accelerated in the 1960s. I agree with that. I have never disagreed with that, and I agree that the source says that. But your edit had said it started in the 1960s, which is blatantly contradicted by the source. So it's exactly what I said. My use of the source was not at all misleading -- I quoted it to say that white flight started in the 1940's, which it did. Ellipses do not mean misleading. They just mean the stuff in the middle (the word "which") was not important and broke the grammar of my sentence.
- And don't tell me what I do and don't know. I am well aware that history is subjective, having studied it extensively. You are in fact the one who is making statements such as "I don't think people are going to challenge this analysis". So how does that make me the one who doesn't understand that there are shades of grey? Your ad hominem attack on me is both baseless and irrelevant. I am certainly aware of the subjectivity of history, but that does not negate the need for sources. You still need sources to back up your claims, because your claims are just as subjective as anybody else's, and your Wikipedia handle is not considered a credible source on the subject.
- This shouldn't be controversial. Source your edits. It's that simple.
- And yeah, there's unsourced information all over the place. And when I see it, I usually say something about it. I could just as easily tell you to go edit a different article, but I won't, because that would be silly. You're not going to bully your way out of sourcing your edits. - Revolving Bugbear 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Revolving Bugbear, when I made that statement about not challenging the historical analysis, I wasn't necessarily referring to you. I was referring to the people who randomly came onto the Central Jersey site to make bald statements that suited their personal agendas. I have sourced the section. But your insistence on them for every conceivable statement belies both academic standards and common sense. Your excuse about not going onto other sites (try California) to change their unsourced statements is simply an example of your SELECTIVE preference for sourcing in certain articles over others. You also misinterpret the word "start." If a farming community has some development, it doesn't mean that it's changed. "Start," then, means when the character of the community has undergone FUNDAMENTAL change. Again, your failure to even mention the 1960s acceleration is just an example of your bias. The point I'm trying to make here is that no one should pretend they're objective, even with sources. Everyone has an agenda. I have an agenda. I am trying to inform, to add as much as possible (even cultural references), to an article about a nebulous topic. A tactic used to defeat portions of the article not liked by certain users has been to insist on sourcing. That is a fair statement. Your failure to realize your own apprehensions about the article is baffling. Your assumption about the nature of sourcing just reinforces your unfamiliarly with the concept of research (though I can only say what's true for the financial and maybe the legal industries). Jps57 (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)jps57
- It doesn't matter who challenges the information in the article, if it gets challenged, it needs be sourced. There's still an awful lot of original research in that article that needs to be sourced, and if you're serious about your edits, you should source them. That's a fundamental policy on Wikipedia.
- Of course I'm biased -- I'm not particularly interested in California, so I don't spend a lot of time looking at the article. But if I wander over to the California article and see things I think should be sourced, I'll point them out. But the idea that somehow other unsourced edits mean I shouldn't insist you source your edits is ridiculous and ultimately meaningless. I have neither the time nor the desire to wander around Wikipedia looking at every article I can find for unsourced statements. But I have Central Jersey on my watchlist, and so I notice when unsourced stuff goes up on it.
- I'm not going to argue with you about the meaning of the word "start". But why should I have mentioned the 1960's to you when you already knew about the phenomenon? I was pointing out to you why I disagreed with the wording you used, and, if you'll notice, I left the point about the 1960's in because I fundamentally agreed with it, but changed the wording of the sentence to something that more accurately reflected what the source said. How on earth does that reflect a bias on my part? You're really grasping at straws on this argument -- the sentence as you wrote it was not supported by the source, and I changed it so that it was.
- I am not trying to "defeat portions of the article". I am trying to make sure that the article is rigorously sourced so that it approaches academic quality. Right now, it doesn't. There are numerous claims of direct causation ("This has occurred because of the New York Metropolitan Area's explosive growth"), value judgments ("Trenton, in the south of Mercer County, is fittingly the capital of New Jersey") and appeals to statistics / demographics ("This region is also one of the only working class areas in New Jersey") which do not stand on their own without sourcing. It should be clear why statements like this need sources. Yes, you have added some sources, but there are still many statements in this article which could be challenged and are not obvious, and thus must be sourced. I don't understand why you refuse to source these things.
- The standard we use on Wikipedia is not the financial standard. The standard we use is exactly the following:
- Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
- and additionally,
- The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
- What I am requesting is entirely within the norms of Wikipedia. I do not understand why you are fighting it so hard.
- Finally, stop telling me what I do or do not understand, realize, or hold as a bias. You have literally absolutely no idea what I do or do not understand, realize, or believe, and I do not appreciate your presumption that you do. Stop commenting on the contributor and comment on the content. That's a rule on Wikipedia too. - Revolving Bugbear 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Image:CentralJerseyMapFromChris1.jpg
[edit]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:CentralJerseyMapFromChris1.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:CentralJerseyMapFromChrisRevised1.png
[edit]
You uploaded or restored , File:CentralJerseyMapFromChrisRevised1.png, but for various reasons did not add an {{information}} block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.
If it's entirely your own work:
please include {{own}} in the relevant source field, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers.
- If the {{media by uploader}} tag is present please add, a
|claimed=yesparameter to the tag. - If the {{img-unclaimed}} tag is present, please change it to {{img-claimed}}
If it's not entirely your own work, or the media is based on the work of others:
Please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or {{own}}, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers. You should also read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission which details how to confirm any permissions you obtained for works by others that are still in copyright.
Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If media is not claimed, and there's no other obvious source or authorship information, the file may have to be removed for copyright reasons.
It's okay to remove or strike messages like this once the concerns have been addressed. :). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The file File:CentralJerseyMapFromChrisRevised1.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The file File:CentralJerseyMapFromChris2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
