User talk:JGC1010

DuncanHill 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Elliskev 00:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Peoples Temple
Please be advised that removing properly sourced material to interject your viewpoint of an event is not in accordance with WP policy and guidelines. There is not a need to insert a quote in the lead of an article when the material already presents what a quote would convey. If you have issues with this, then kindly take it to the talk page of the article and do not continue to blindly revert. If you have sources that dispute what the source and the Congressional record have recorded, then by all means, present it. Otherwise, your actions will appear to be tenditious. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me be the one to apologize to you for what may be your very trying experiences in the Wiki world. From the many discussions I've read here, I see that it's often that the participants become very devoted to and focused on the issues relating to the articles under discussion.  So, it's probably not unnatural for any of us to present an entire panoply of arguments to present our positions.  In some cases this can be overkill.  But better to be over-prepared than under-prepared I guess.  I want to thank you for your efforts to make the Peoples Temple article a good one.

August 2008 (2)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. I know where you're coming from, but the talk page isn't the place for it. And yes, I have made the same mistake on multiple occasions. Prince of Canadat 01:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for welcoming me, Prince. I've read many of your comments and contributions and enjoyed them.  Regarding my "intervention" on the Peoples Temple page, it was simply a matter of style. I thought using the phrase "in the line of duty" pertained to someone who was...well, in the line of duty in a military or a police force.  The word line in "line of duty" refers to a line of battle or military/police ranks.  As appalling as the murder of a Congressman was, I thought the use of this phrase was slightly out of kilter.  I felt strongly enough about it to make the change, and to persist about it for a while.  Let the matter lie where it is at present.  It's fine with me.

As for my other "interventions" on discussion pages, they were merely examples of "Jim" (that's me) humor, my attempts to lighten the discussions. My humor doesn't always work with everyone, but then it does work with others. Again, thank you.

January 2011
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Great Famine (Ireland). While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. RashersTierney (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)