User talk:Jpers36
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome!
Hi Jpers36, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 20:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dogwood
Please hold off changing every link from Dogwood to Dogwood (plant), they'll all have to be reverted as soon as this silly disambig page for nothing is reverted. Thanks - MPF 16:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Basically this form of promotion is spam vandalism. All the dogwood entries have been patiently reverted by adults. --Wetman 17:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's not "promotion", my intent was not vandalism, and attacks against my age are childish. Dogwood (the band) should be included in Wikipedia, as they are a very influential Christian punk band. It seemed to me that the best way to add the band would be by adding a stub band page, adding a disambig page, fixing the link to the plant, and then fleshing out the band page. I apologize if I was wrong in these steps, but there's no need to be rude.
-
-
- Sorry if I was a bit rude. The usual way to add something like this where one meaning is markedly more significant than the other is to add a note at the top of the page to a disambiguation page; take a look at Apple, where there's a link to Apple (disambiguation) which then leads you to a set of links to the computers and so on - MPF 17:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Bad first experience
Hi, I hope you don't mind me editing your User page to vouch for your bona fides; if you do then I'm sure you'll clean it up. Sorry you had a bad experience with User:Wetman. He is in clear violation of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, although I suppose that's not a binding standard? At any rate, I've only been here a couple of weeks so I guess it's not my place to point it out directly (although I have no qualms about anyone seeing it on this public user_talk page).
At any rate, welcome to Wikipedia, thanks for the work you've already done on improving Christian music stuff, and let me know if I can do anything to help you. (Also, Christian punk could really use help -- I've been trying singlehandedly, but it still has huge holes.)
Take care, PhilipR 20:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Christian rock cat
Thanks for adding all the stuff to the C-rock category. I monitor it every few days and was surprised to find that it had roughly doubled in size over the last week. Great to have you on board. On a side note, I really don't think Dogwood is really that influential-they aren't that well known even on the CCM circuit (I can only name one song of theirs offhand).Kertrats 15:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Date wikification.
Jpers36,
Thank you for your recent edits on Mae and related topics.
I just wanted to let you know that typically dates are wikified like so:
[[February 26]], [[2004]].
This is because if the entire date is wikified, a broken link is created (by default, all red links are broken). Wikifying dates as shown above will create two working (blue) links, one for the month and date, and one for the year.
If you have any other questions, please let me know.
Sincerely, Short Verses (talk) 00:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Clueless Newbies & The Pit Bull Patrol
I saw your nomination of User:ConeyCyclone on Wikipedia:Clueless newbies, and since you described yourself as a clueless newbie too, I wanted to drop by and say hi. Now that I've seen what you've been through, I'm glad I did. Don't let the grumpy RC patrolers get you down; just because the Pit Bull Patrol convenes the Inquisition doesn't mean we all do it. Some of them haven't slept in years; its their wikiholism. (You always hurt the ones you should love.)
In the meantime, continue to be bold. Damn the Pit Bulls, full speed ahead! If you have any more problems with having your head bitten off, let me know and I'll come to your defense. -- Essjay · Talk 07:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Your Edits of Illinois Articles
My thanks and applause for your edits of meta-data on many articles about Illinois. Your efforts are appreciated! *cheers* Agriculture 03:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Millennial Wikipedians
Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been listed on categories for deletion. Since you are using it on your user page please weigh in on the vote and that of the other generational categories here. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Whittle
I was actually reading "Tribes" in another window when I saw your recent change go by! Kaisershatner 19:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WikiChristian
Hi
I notice that you are a Christian. Come and take a look at www.wikichiristian.org and consider contributing. It is still small and has very few users. I'm praying that God helps the site to grow and become a forum for Christians to write and read about all aspects of Christianity. It is not meant to be a copy of wikipedia. It is not meant to be purely an encyclopedia. For any given topic, it will hopefully contain a short summary of the topic followed by links to many sub-articles - some containing simple facts; some sharing experiences; some explaining a particular viewpoint and so on.
Take for example the article on grace. It has various "Definition and explanation" articles explaining the meaning of grace. It has a few "Articles / opinions" about grace. It has links for "Quotes' about grace and links to "Songs about grace". The site is also meant to be a resource site containing information about Christian texts, literature, art, music, radio, television and internet.
Take a look at the example article on the song Shout to the Lord. It has links to information about the song, lyrics and chords to the song and links for comments or opinions to be expressed about the song.
The site also intends to explain the history of important events in Christianity. Take a look at The Reformation section. This has links for "Overview" articles, "Opinion" articles, "Quotes" and "Travel" stories.
The site intends to be a reference about major (and minor) figures in the Bible, the early church and today. Take a look at John Stott. It contains "Overview" and "Opinion" articles. It contains texts of "Talks" given by John Stott and links to "Books" by John Stott.
In summary, I suppose, that my hope is that WikiChristian becomes a major reference point for Christians and non-Christians to go to find about any issue related to Christianity. I don't believe that this should be carbon-copy of wikipedia. It should resemble it in some ways, but in other ways, it should be quite different in structure and evolution. I realize that there are different views about different topics - and accordingly, there should always be the opportunity for a person to write his personal view under the "Opinion and articles" section of any given page.
I would love you to take a look at wikichristian and contribute. If you don't wish to contribute, would you consider visiting it's world wide directory of churches we are setting up and entering your church into the database. The point of the database is to state the location of a church with the service times and add a brief description of the church. You can take a look for example at: Church Directory -> Australia -> South Australia -> Adelaide -> St Matthew's Anglican Church
If you don't wish to contribute to WikiChristian, you could consider one of the other wikis related to Christianity that have been set up by other people. These include: Theopedia, Compass or OrthoxWiki.
Thanks
[edit] Notes To Self
Somebody needs to fix Boies Penrose. Jpers36 21:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Done some, take a look. -Falcorian 04:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Baseball. Jpers36 19:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus
Check out the Jesus article and edit it to keep it focused on Jesus and a biographical account of Him. Watch the Jesus page to keep it focused on Him. Thank you. Scifiintel 22:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Concerned Alumni of Princeton
From the Tribune article: "The organization was founded in 1972, the year Alito graduated from Princeton, by alumni upset that the school had recently begun admitting women". I'm going to put back the co-education reference. Tlogmer 16:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Er. Thanks for correcting all my typos. :p Tlogmer 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hurricane Katrina
Sorry for the misunderatanding, but I'm not a vandal. I really want to contribute with Wikipedia. I have almost ayear reading the Wikipedia without being an user, but I don't know how to do. Please understand me, I have only one month in these project and I'm reading the policies right now. I hope you understand. juan andrés 01:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you
Thanks for your great edits and catching a lot of the vandalism that goes on here. There are times that Wikipedia can drive me crazy, but it's because of people like you that this site can be self-regulated. Thanks for the hard work. Giles22 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thank You, Thnak you 100 times
Your quick and simple edit of style greatly improved the flow of my sentences in the SCOTUS Marshall Court section. John wesley 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hello
I put all your user boxes in a... umm.. box. If you want me to change it back just tell me. SaintDante 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm something wierd just happened i do not know why. but i will try to fix it. SaintDante 18:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I am just going to change it back.
[edit] Chicago State
Thanks for the reverts, I suppose I did jump the gun a little with the early removal. Craig R. Nielsen 15:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VUPD controversy and such
Thanks for the message. I felt like putting this whole thing in context, and that's why I put in the information on Kinsey Hall. (I took Interpretation in the Social Sciences last year, and our group project was to look into the causes of the fire there in 1970.) I don't have my sources nor the old paper in front of me right now; once I have time I will try to put in citations and make it, well, more accurate. But I agree, there was a lot of bias in some of the older versions of the article, which I'm pretty sure were all done by the Valpo Facebook group members (the 152.228.***.** anonys give it away) to argue their side of the story and discredit the VUPD (and then, on their Facebook page, brag that their case was large enough for mention on Wikipedia ...). Pretty much, this whole episode the past two weeks is dwarfed by the issues from 35 years ago, and I doubt 35 years from now many people will care that a gun happened to be drawn on someone during a suspected drug bust. Spell4yr 19:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your hasty decision... again to delete my contributions.
What is the deal with completely deleting my entry out of that article without a good explaination. There are already many links in the article that source things. I don't think it would be appropriate to source every sentence. Then what would the purpose of wikipedia be? I see many other edit histories of that article that are attacked as if somebody is trying to censor a controversial topic rather than make a more suitable article. Somebody actually took the time to do all the google searches sourced in my image and claim it's a possible copyright infringement when the images were taken from public domain and that I'm supposed to go through some lenthy process to prove why it should stay. This sounds like a guilty until proven innocent situation. Still, just because you don't like the topic is no reason to attack my contributions. — (Unsigned comment by Bart80.)
Reply to your reply: You claim I am outlandishly lying about my image. I gave sources for all 3 images so that anybody could find them on the Internet. There is no copyright issue with this guy's blog. It is somebody taking photos on vacation, there is nothing stated there about copyrighting his vacation photos. Nobody copyrights that piece of earth either. These images are of nothing remotely controversial of copyright infringement. Nobody would ever care in a million years. How is that not public domain by your definition? I don't believe anybody would even jump on google to research such a photo that obviously poses no risk to copyright infringement without a pretense for wanting it removed for other reasons. I see you as having nothing better to do than continually check that particular article and deleting any contribution I may make as a whole no matter how much I refine it. I see that article has been under attack before by looking at the edit history. Instead of saving and building upon new discoveries and pieces of information, they are hastily deleted. This leads me to believe that this place is just bent on destroying articles on controversial topics such as that one. If my time and help is not appreciated here, lots of luck. Bart80 16:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peer Review of The W's
The W's is going through the Wikipedia:Peer review process. Please leave comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/The W's/archive1. Dan, the CowMan 20:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fictional George Bush
Thank you for helping with this article; hopefully it can end an edit war. It needs info and more pictures, so if you ever have some extra time, feel free to continue. --Iriseyes 22:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Southpark bush.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Southpark bush.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Chicago Blackhawks
This certainly is a good compromise as far as I'm concerned and I added the information on a couple of pages but was immediately reverted. I have raised the point there : Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format, maybe you could give your opinion. 86.192.127.194 20:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Christian Metal Project
If you are interested in joining a potential Project Wiki Christian Metal project go here to sign up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Christian_Metal --E tac 07:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- see project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian Metal
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] Thanks for the help
Man, they are aggressiv today. Must be the weather. :-) Greswik 18:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] The Final Chapter
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)
[edit] Flash (1997 film)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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, July 25 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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
[edit] 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, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] newspaper article
Hello. My name is Mary Spicuzza and I'm a reporter with SF Weekly newspaper. I'm working on an article about Wikipedia and would love to speak with you. May I give you a call or send you an email? Best, Mary Spicuzza Staff Writer SF Weekly (415) 659-2070 phone Mary.Spicuzza@sfweekly.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marynega (talk • contribs) 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Active players
Hi, we both work on the Baseball top 500 HR list. Is there a "list" of active players, so that we know who to take off when the season begins? Thanks and keep up the good work, Happy138 (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] FIRE
Hi, I meant for the details of the affiliations to be within the footnote - I see it as less inflammatory that way, not giving "undue weight" to criticism. It is fact that those people had the jobs they had, but the article on FIRE need not necessarily bludgeon us with those points in the introduction. Your view? (here or at talk). Kaisershatner (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Invite
 |
Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept! |
--RyRy5 talk 18:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Top 500 HR hitters
Are you saying this was discussed and decided before, cuz I don't see that, or are you saying nobody deleted that for a long time? If the latter, let know if you object, and if so, why. If you don't object, please revert yourself. -- Y not be working? 22:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
Thanks for your suggestions on Kemetic Orthodoxy and Tamara Siuda. However I am concerned by your suggestions that these topics are not notable. I hope that this is not an attack on any religion that does not match one's one. I don't see similar contributions on other religion wiki pages (such as Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, etc.), so I hope that isn't the case. Please tell me why you think the pages are not notable, so that hopefully they can be corrected. However the many people who have worked on them and the many more people who have used them do not seem to agree. Please let me know. IanCheesman (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Top Importance Chicago Articles
If you want to help me choose Category:Top-importance Chicago articles, come comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago/Assessment#Current_Top-importance_Candidates by June 5th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
