User talk:JackWilliams

Thanks for the welcome.JackWilliams 00:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1929_View_of_BYU.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1929_View_of_BYU.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BYU_in_1929.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BYU_in_1929.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

User pages
Hey, just wanted to let yoy know that you should post on user talk pages, not user pages. Thanks... -- Samir  धर्म 01:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly!! Cheers -- Samir   धर्म 01:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

BYU
FYI, it's customary to add comments to the bottom of User's talk pages. It took me a minute to find yours.

While the lack of any fraternities and sororities is one of BYU's unique features, the highly religious/LDS nature of the college covers some of this ground. Moreover, this is not necessarily something more unique to BYU than its extraordinary rate of bilingualism, the fact that it hosts the national Welsh library and the largest Welsh program in the country, the fact that it has its own 5-star restaurant, the fact that it requires essentially an entire semester-worth of religion credits, or that it has the largest and longest-running foreign film program in the nation. These are only a few of the unique and significant things about BYU, none of which show up in the first paragraph. And there's really no need for them to.

Regarding Spring break, I really don't see that as all that phenomenal—BYU's Winter semester ends significantly earlier than that of most universities. It may be better to think that BYU has a Spring break, but it is given at the end of the semester, rather than in the middle.

Cheers. The Jade Knight 21:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding what should be in the header, while I appreciate the connection to religious life at BYU, that is certainly not what educational articles should focus on. Headers should focus on the nature and mission of the university, not the social experience of the students.  It's not that those things aren't important to the students, they just aren't what define the university, which is what the article is supposed to do.  To me it would seem odd that 1/3 of the most important things about the university relate to what happens when they are not at school.  That is probably mis-guided, if not mis-leading.  --NThurston 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly recommend you use the "preview" button before posting, so you can get all of your corrections in one go. BTW, the only arguments you present which I find persuasive suggest that the mission experience has a significant indirect impact on BYU's language program. If the mission was the primary factor in language learning, roughly 80-90% of BYU's language classes would be filled with men (as less than 15% of women serve missions). However, this is not remotely the case. French classes at BYU, for example (from my personal experience), tend to have female majorities. The upper-level Welsh classes at BYU have overwhelming female majorities (though it seems to be more even at the lower levels). It is extreme oversimplification to blame the entire language program on missions. Certainly, they have an impact, but I see no compelling evidence that suggests that it is an overwhelming one. The Jade Knight 10:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BYU is a recruiting hot-bed for companies (such as the CIA) trying to find people with language talent. You are also ignoring the influence of FARMS, which has a prominent role in scholarly translations.  BYU's Jerusalem center also contains a mandatory language element, but proselyting in most Muslim nations and Israel is prohibited.  Many BYU students learn foreign languages for genealogical reasons—this is in fact how the Welsh program initially got started some 20-30 years ago.  BYU also has a large number of intelligent students, and intelligent students are more likely to be interested in language.  BYU's recruiting methods also place a higher importance on High School language experience, which may carry into greater interest in language at the college level.  Many BYU majors (such as English and Linguistics) require students to take foreign languages, and the university itself has a requirement which can be fulfilled with language classes.  There are many, many reasons beyond missions as to why people would have an interest in language or take language classes at BYU.  A few non-LDS students even come to BYU because of its language-program reputation.  BYU also has the largest study-abroad program in the nation (and my experience is that most returned missionaries tend to have little desire to study abroad where they served).  The Jade Knight 10:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

BYU
I reverted back so we could discuss without losing info. I recognize that my changes give some undue weigh to the history section, but a subarticle and a summary, not a revert is the answer to that. Please discuss further on the article's talk page. Wrad 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think your idea of extending the history section past 1909 is fine, but please leave the intro alone. It was a very concise, inmformative and neutral intro, and you changed it drastically.JackWilliams 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Plese don't undo my hours of work so quickly and without warning. I would really appreciate if you would add it back. Don't you see that the history section needed that expansion horribly, and that the intro is an absolute mess? I want to get this article to GA, but we will need to work together on this. Wrad 19:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You did some good work on the history section, and I added that back, and thanks for that. The intro is phenomenal.  Please leave the intro as is.JackWilliams 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me for now. Let's move this to the talk page. Wrad 19:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I also added several refs which we will need to add back into the intro and the infobox. It may be best to just revert all the way back and then work from there to restore the original intro. Please be more careful when reverting in the future. Wrad 19:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tell you what... The restoration of the history section still doesn't restore a lot of the work I did to improve the references in the intro and infobox, so I'm going to revert all the way back and then undo only the main text of the intro, so that only that portion is the way it was before. Then we can discuss it. Wrad 20:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I did it. The recent restoration of the history had also caused there to be two identical sections describing the recent Dick Cheney events, so I removed one of them. Whew! Now we can get on to this intro business. I probably should have waited before changing the intro, but the changes it needed seemed so obvious to me that I decided to be bold. Anyway, we can discuss it on talk. I'll go ahead and present more of my feelings on the intro there... Wrad 20:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro
I just responded to your recent post. I'm letting you know here because it's kind of in the middle of the discussion and may be difficult to find later. Basically, the lead is supposed to summarize the article, not just be a collection of the most important points (which our lead currently is trying to do). Wrad 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:BYU Logo 1969-1998.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:BYU Logo 1969-1998.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 02:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Context is needed
If you look at any decent university article on wikipedia they all would say whether they were public or private. Think about if you only had ten seconds to find out what BYU was about. "University" alone is not helpful. Is it a boys-only university? Is it coeducational? Is it a research university? Is it private or state sponsored? if it is private, who sponsors it? These questions must be answered in the lead. Please look at some of the FA university articles and get an idea of what a good university article looks like. Wrad 05:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it's rare. The lead isn't supposed to just discuss weird things about the school, it's supposed to define the school, summarize the article, and provide context. Besides, you didn't just change that one part of the lead, you reverted all the work I did in collaborationg with another editor. If you have a specific problem with something, please change just that. If you have a problem with what that other editor and I changed as a whole, please discuss it with us before destroying everything we created to make it better. We both really want to get this article to a higher standard, but we can't do it if we're reverting and not talking. I've tried to discuss the lead before, but nobody seemed to care. Now that an edit war started over some minor things I'm hoping we can start a dialogue and get some things done. Wrad 05:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at any FA articles for universities all, and by all I mean all and every single last one of them use the format I added. Duke University for example. Read that intro. That article has been determined by a consensus of editors to be the best wikipedia has to offer. If the best do it, then we should seriously consider following suit. Wrad 05:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So what? You think "coeducational" is any more unique for Duke than for BYU? That's not the issue. The issue is being precise and defining exactly what the university is and does. If we list a bunch of weird facts and the reader still doesn't know the basic, fundamental organization of the school, then we have failed. That's all there is to it. Also, if that's all you didn't like about our changes, why didn't you just change that one little thing? Why do you always revert all of my work rather than just editing the little things you don't like? Why don't you respond to my concerns specifically? I really thought through what I wrote. I'd like it to be respected at least a little. I never revert your work except to restore mine. Ever. I've never destroyed anything you did. I've tried to talk with you. Last time we had a disagreement over the lead you reverted all of it and then left for months just as I was trying to start a discussion. Level with me. Talk with me. I'm a person too, here, and I feel like I'm not being heard. Before I came that article was largely unsourced and riddled with copyright violations. Now it has over one hundred sources. I know I have something valuable to offer if people will just discuss things and stop reverting them. Improve, don't revert. Wrad 05:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Jack, I changed a lot more than the private coed thing. You can't just revert everything and then change one little thing back to the way I had it. You're doing it backwards. The polite thing to do is to start with my version and change the little things. That version is not good because now there are all sorts of problems yet unfixed that Alanraywiki and I both agreed needed to be fixed, such as one-sentence paragraphs. That's how consensus are formed. Just for once, can we start with a version of the lead before you reverted it? I always feel like you're stifling me. I just feel degraded when you revert everything just because of one little things you don't like. Please just let it stay the way I had it and then discuss changes from there. It would be very diplomatic of you. Wrad 06:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule
I am reporting you to Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Wikipedia rules say you can revert one article no more than three times in one day. You reverted at least five times yesterday. Such action can and will get you blocked and hurt the growth of consensus. Wrad 16:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * here is a link to my report on your violation of policy. Wrad 17:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversions
I have left a note at []. Regards, M er cury    01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting and start talking
Please see the discussion on the talk page about the Intro before reverting again. You almost got yourself blocked last time. It's time to start seriously discussing the intro rather than starting edit wars. Wrad (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Before reverting changes on Wikipedia articles (unless it is blatant vandalism), it is strongly suggested that you receive consensus before reverting an article to an earlier state. In response to numerous complaints resulting from your persistant BYU reverts, mainly focused on the article's lead, please take part in BYU's talk page and engage in a discussion with your fellow editors before any further major article changes.  Thank you.  - Jameson L. Tai  talk ♦ contribs 17:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the relevant discussion. Wrad (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

BYU
Those are valid concerns. But, you need to discuss the issue with the other editors on the article's talk page. As it stands now, there is consensus that the lead is proper. If you think this is incorrect, go to the talk page and discuss it with everyone. Explain your concerns and try to work them out. I am sure if you just start talking with everyone they will listen and work on a compromise. KnightLago (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Flagship
None of them are. The Church doesn't favor one over the other. I've researched this and have been unable to find any official source saying BYU is the flagship university. That's just not the way the Church does things. The BY Universities are centered in the CES, not at BYU. Wrad (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please make these argument on the article's talk page so everyone can see them. I will copy our discussion so far to that page so others can join. I'm not the only one against this wording. Wrad (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Propaganda is what junk sources on the internet say, not what official sources say. Wrad (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to take part in a discussion about this with a growing consensus to keep flagship out. . Wrad (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  contribs  21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wording on urban blight in Mesa, Arizona article
I've reverted your edit regarding urban blight in the article on Mesa, Arizona because I feel the existing wording is less POV. Would you mind discussing it on the article's talk page before changing it back again? Thanks! &bull; WarpFlyght (talk &bull; contribs) 20:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Brigham Young University Collaboration for June 2008
Thanks to all those who helped out with May's collaborative project (J. Reuben Clark Law School) and other BYU-related articles. I look forward to working with you on this month's article. Go Cougars! --Eustress (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but...
While I see your point, the line about "99.7%..." is out of place in the construction of the paragraph...it needs to be mentioned with relevant material; i.e. where I placed it. The opening paragraphs are supposed to summarize what someone will find in the article, yes, but the opening paragraphs should also be able to stand on their own in terms of logical flow and structure. You wouldn't randomly mention that 99.7% of BYU-I students are LDS and then a paragraph later mention it again in different words...you'd put them together.

"Mormon" or "Members of the LDS Church" is irrelevant if there is a wikilink provided. Both are accepable and correct terms.

As for the 99% being the most "defining characteristic of the school" that may be your opinion, but it is hardly THE definining characteristic especially since it is a "Mormon" school. It is certainly, however, noteworthy and should be included in the opening.

The opening should first introduce the school and where it is located; then it should fit the school into any system it is a part of (in this case CES and the relationship with BYU); finally, the opening introduces noteworthy aspects of the school that are explained in more detail in the article.--JonRidinger (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obamas mothers race
First of all, if you are going to use race, either state the race of both parents or neither. Its misleading to state the race of only one parent. Secondly his race is irrelevent, its ethnicity thats common to lead biographies/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therock40756 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are also approaching three reverts in 24 hours, you could be blocked if you continue. --— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 02:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The color of his skin is of zero interest to me. Discuss it on the talk page. Do it again and you will likely be blocked. --— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 02:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama's mother's race
Hello, you appear to be an admin or a mediator of some sort. I have added Barack Obama's mother's race to his entry, but someone keeps deleting it. What is the best way to resolve this dispute? Thanks. JackWilliams (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Use the talk page I think. There's a lot of traffic on that page, so I would be surprised if this hadn't already been discussed.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Flagship
Reply: Get your thick head out of your prideful rear end and try to get it wrapped around the idea that BYU isn't the best school in the system. It isn't. Wrad (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Brigham Young University Collaboration for July 2008
Thanks to all those who helped out with BYU-related articles this last month, and a big thank you to Wrad for helping get June's Collaboration (BYU Jerusalem Center) to GA status. I look forward to working with you on this month's article. Go BYU! --Eustress (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Firefly
Hi. Please don't take my reversions personally, but the material you added had problems, as described in my edit summaries. If you need any further clarification, don't hesitate to ask. I'd love to see Firefly's Featured Article status be maintained and enhanced by new material. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Brigham Young University Collaboration for August 2008
Thanks to all those who helped out with BYU-related articles this last month, and a big thank you to Wrad for helping make some big strides on July's Collaboration (BYU Hawaii). I look forward to working with you on this month's article. Go BYU! --Eustress (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look
I recently created an article, Randy L. Bott, for which some notability concerns have been raised. Whether I'm right or wrong, I'd appreciate it if you took a look. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:BYU Logo 1969-1998.gif
Thanks for uploading File:BYU Logo 1969-1998.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Camelback Road


The article Camelback Road has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * doesn't assert notability, largely unsourced for 8 months

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Imzadi1979 (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)