User talk:Jack Bornholm/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Jack Bornholm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! M aen K. A. Talk 10:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Thanks
Thanks, your explication was what I needed. 131.251.252.193 (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Dont revert a scerewup like that
When I go to fix it, it takes more time to revert it back again and then find the error. Im trying to figure out what went wrong tho...I may just wait until tomorrow. Ive been up way too late already.--Metallurgist (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry about that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What is vandalism, what isn't?
See WP:DV and please try to modify your language accordingly. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will. But when editors overlook an editor notice, refuse to explain on the talkpage and unilateraly changes source and disregarding the concensus made on the talkpage. Not even showing the respect to explain themselve even when asked in a editor notice and several times in edit summaries I dont think that it is editing in good faith. Maybe it is not technical called vandalism, I am sorry if I have used the wrong word. But it is malice. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And by the way it has nothing to do with my opinion. I will respect the decisions made on the talkpage, even if I dont like them. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct; it is not vandalism, it is disruptive editing. The problem with using a term like vandalism is it's a personal attack in a way; you are equating their stubbornness with someone who destroys property for fun. In any case, it's better not to argue in edit summaries anyway (it accomplishes nothing other than to show people who read through the history that two editors are angry at each other); discussion should always go on the talk pages. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get that, and learned a new term too. Thanks. Some of the specific problem is that none of these editors want to share their thoughts on the talkpage, it could be interesting to hear what they think about it. But I get your point. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

popular vote
There is no ‘e’ in popular. Mathew5000 (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Idaho caucus
You undid my edit changing Idaho from "winner-take-all" to "proportional (d)", where footnote (d) indicates that it is not in fact winner-take-all unless the winner gets over 50%. If Romney hadn't gotten over 50%, it would have been proportional. Characterizing it as "winner-take-all" is inaccurate. BGManofID (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but the schedule is very very inacurate from the very start. It is a way to show an extremly complex system in one table. It didnt show either that Idaho elects one candidate during several ballots in each county caucus in a winner-take-all like scenario county by county and that is the reason Romney got astonishing 61.6% And that is just to stay in Idaho, many states have there little rules and different ways like that. The schedule is to give the large picture, and in the large picture Idaho is a winner-take-all state now. All this very interesting informations are better written in the individuel articles, where there is room to show the very specifick rules for the state. I hope you will take the time to improve the Idaho Republican caucuses, 2012 article. Many informations can be found in The Green Papers. I have moved many convention dates down to the early state and removed them from this table. And I have removed notes other states where proportional have changed to Winner-take-all or where they have not changed as in Tennesse. I think this table should be as simple as possible because it is very complex already. If you disagree with this general policy and maybe even want more information in the table (as the info that Wyoming dont have Congressional Delegates to the National Conventions, but County Delegates in a twin county scenario) then dicuss it on the talkpage. When the table was created these conserns was discussed, but you are free to reopen this discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleting instead of moving or sourcing
I see that you were kind enough to delete some unsourced information instead of tagging it for citation needed. That kind of behavior starts edit wars, please refrain. I see that you were kind enough to delete some information which you felt would be more appropriately placed in another part of the same article. You neglected that opportunity to move something instead of deleting. That kind of behavior starts edit wars, please refrain. When it seems to you time to contribute, please contribute. In the two cases cited above, deletion was not the most appropriate course of action. I'll assume that you are unfamiliar with "citation needed" tags. I'll assume that you forgot that you could move something instead of deleting it with a statement like should be moved. I'll assume that you are unfamiliar with finding sources for apparently unsourced info. 50.132.91.194 (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First point taken, but I actually tried to find some source to the rather far out informations and was not able to find any reliable sources. Am looking forward to read these sources in the article and see that this was not just another disrupting editing, a problem that have troubled the article in mentioning for weeks Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems you have forgotten to log in when you made this new section on my talkpage. If or when you respond to my answer please log in so I can see who you are as an editor and not just as an anonymuse person. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points, Jack — Keep up the good work! Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Where are you from?
I think youve said youre from the UK, but your English is not native. So where are you from originally? I am curious...--Metallurgist (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, never said that and hope I havent given that impression. I am from Denmark, a small country in Scandinavia. I am born on the western penninsula (Jutland) but right now I live on the most eastern island (Bornholm) hence my username. It is small island (app. 40.000 inhabitants) in the baltic sea betwin Sweden, Germany and Poland. I speak reasonable jutlandish, danish and english, and I can with some difficulties make myself understood in swedish. In Denmark everyone learn english in school from an early grade and I attended a english speaking college for some months. When I communitated with my friends across Europe we speak english, since none of us are native english speakers it is more or less a broken english, or as we call it: Euro-english [[Image:Face-smile.svg|20px]] Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was actually going to guess Denmark, if not the UK. Ive actually heard of Jutland. :P Thats cool. I know French, Swahili, Esperanto, and Hebrew to varying amounts. Yea I know everyone in Europe learns English and speaks online in English. I think in two or three generations, your grandchildren will all speak English and not be very good at Danish, French, German... :P Your English is very good, but sometimes a little confusing. Just be patient!--Metallurgist (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On your user page I can read that you are a fan of LEGO, witch explains why you know about Jutland. The LEGO idea and the multinational bussiness all started where I am from. The compagny still have its headquarters and big factories in Billund, just outside Vejle, where the Kirk family also still lives.
 * I dont think my grandchildren wouldnt speak danish. 100 years ago all educated people spoke German, 200 years ago it was French and 800 years ago it was latin. All that time danish was used. It survived the transfer from fuþark (Runic script) to the latin alfabet. It has survived 2 major religiouse shifts (from Norse mythology to Catholicism to Lutheranism). So I think it will survive the computer age too [[Image:Smile.png|16px]] Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ditto. c.e.shipp ... PS: When needed, I'll fix dropping an apostrophe in major Article sentences, if you dont mind. Keep up the good work .!. My Father, Edwin Carl Shipp, served his two-year LDS mission in Denmark, and Ive been there once. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also been to Sweden (as a college student on a BYU tour of a dozen nations). Also on the tour (we traveled via bus with about 50 youth and four leaders) was the son of one of the BYU professor/leaders and he later became a foreign affairs advisor to Reagan. He, I, and my brother found a hole in the fence of the royal palace in Sweden and went in for photographs. A kind but strong gentlemen approached us by the pond/forestry and ask how we got in. He said he knew about the hole in the fence, and invited us to leave after a few more photo shoots. Great Memories, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC) We'll get back, some day.

Template for 2012 GOP Primaries
Your reasoning makes sense, and I'm fine with changing it back. Glad to see the NPR link can be put to use though. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 21:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Improving the WP page on Republican Primaries, 2012
Jack, You edited and commented: "Contests: I dont think it is customary on Wikipedia to explain what a sortable table is." . . . I'm thinking we can discuss this in the TALK section: [] We are doing a great job (mainly you, Metalurgist, and I) and the world appreciates, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure no problem, sorry if I was a bit hasty deleting your editing. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all good (thanks!) ... A great writer once said, "After you finish your masterpiece, take a look, and throw out your favorite sentence—that will improve it even further." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC) (In this case, we put the explaining sentences back—above the Table.)

Hi Jack. We are within two weeks of primaries in Wisconsin, Maryland, and DC. I'm thinking to add them to "Next Primaries" after Louisiana votes Saturday. How do we decide the time to add? Probably when they begin to be mentioned in the news and WP editors and readers would be interested. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone said some weeks ago that the whole section is unnecesary since the info is in the main table. You argued that it is a nice way to "end" the article and I agree. If it is simply to end the article and nothing else I think only the very next date should be mentioned and nothing else. I have noticed that if many dates are listed in that section different editors tend to add more and more primary dates. (maybe the dates from there own home, that are important to them?). By the way I am working on fixing the sortable problem and at the same time incorporating the convention tables in the main table. I have changed some wording in the table (having to sacrifice the RNC brackets and all). Doing that I have put your explanition on the sortable up on the top of the legend. You can see it in my sandbox, I will put it in the article when I am finished. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jack, I like the two lines better above the Table (where they will be read by casual readers). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ take a look. It is still four lines though, but if you want two it ok by me. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ What time is it there? Actually, I just added grammar-details and your work looks excellent (above the Table) ! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Way to late [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|20px]] Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack esquire, Please see the bottom of our favorite WP article—I propose not changing the Table. It is close enough to leave as it stands now. I have added a section for the states that change and announce their delegation support, such as Montana and Louisiana. I mention your name in my comment since you were always the very best in modifying the table. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice
an admin incidents notice has been opened, in which you may be involved. please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Republican_Party_presidential_primaries.2C_2012_fraud:_User_is_being_unreasonable.3F --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Along with putting up an image saying dont feed the troll I also qouted from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 was starting to become a forum for for general discussion of the article's subject. Disrupting the more calm discussions on article improvements. Anyone reading the discussion can see that I myself also was starting to trolling. So I dont simply accuse Miscon for being a troll, we can all become trolls from time to time. The image is there to remember not to feed them (others trolls and our own). The discussion is not productive. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The barnstar
Wow, thanks so much! :) I wasn't expecting an award, as I just pop into the area to make some copyedits whenever the primaries/caucuses are in the news, but I appreciate having my contributions to the area recognized! Actually, I've seen your name in the area too, so thanks for your work there. Best. Acalamari 18:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!
Wow! Thank you! This is the first barnstar I've ever received, so I wasn't expecting the honor, but it's great to be recognized! I try to do my best to fix grammar and punctuation errors whenever I see them, if I have time to do it. Thanks again! Alphius (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

An award for you
Cool, thanks Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Contributions Barnstar
I am honored to recived such a fine star Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Please undo your undo of my undo
Thank you that you thought my post was worthwhile, but I looked at my post and decided to pull it and revise it. I wish you hadn't posted something that I pulled and then (you) signed my name to it. It was not ready to be presented. Now somebody has replied to it, and I don't want to delete his post, but his doesn't make sense I guess without what you posted under my name. Please take down what you posted under my name and I guess also the response to it and explain to that poster what you did and why. Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I will do that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

(It is possible to see the rest of this discussion on: User talk:CountMacula and User talk:Sgt. R.K. Blue)


 * Thanks for taking care of that little problem, and thanks again for your compliment about my original post. I just put up something I hope is better.  No harm done either way, I hope.  Don't feel that you have to keep this and my previous message on your talk page.  I'll take a closer look at what you posted on my page a little later, can't right now.CountMacula (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for directing me to Talk page guidelines. The del and /del and ins and /ins constructs would have been useful in this case.  I'll try not to have to use them though.CountMacula (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Generalizing the primary/caucus articles
Jack, I've had an idea in the back of my head for some time, and GoldRingChip's proposal on merging the primary/caucus articles has forced me to bring it up sooner than expected. My idea would generalize and therefore lengthen those articles, making it even less desirable to merge them. I wonder whether you could review my idea so it doesn't go off half cocked. Here is roughly what I am thinking:

It seems to me that not only should the state primary/caucus articles be retained, they should be generalized and expanded. I think the general process to be described is that of a state party and its members affecting the national party's presidential nomination and the subsequent election. We may be used to thinking of that process as being the same as holding state primary elections or state caucuses. But for a given state party, the process may also include: 1) county conventions, 2) party conventions for congressional districts within the state, and 3) state-wide conventions. There is also the state party's role in fund raising and organizing as those affect the national election.  These processes and events are but rarely described on Wikipedia, and it is sometimes hard to understand the state-party rules that describe them.  So there is a need.  Coverage of these processes is relevant to---but goes beyond---describing primaries and caucuses, and I don't see a good place for covering them adequately. Documentation of the conventions is off-topic for both the election articles and the primary/caucus articles. So I think we should consider some kind of generalization and renaming of the primary/caucus articles to a form something like: " in the U.S. presidential election, ", for example: "The Missouri Republican Party in the U.S. presidential election, 2012". Searches for primaries and caucuses would redirect to the general articles.

Please comment. Thanks.

CountMacula (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry I dont respond before now, but I have been a bit busy and had to do a bit of travelling. I think you thoughts about the different conventions and other selection processes are very good. It is a wellhidden public secret at even the primary states have caucuses and/or conventions in their state systems. I think that we sometime focus a bit to much about the race for nomination. The primary process is also about finding the many thousand delegates that will shape the next four years of every party having primary elections. A good place to write more about this is in each individuel state article.
 * Thanks for your kind remarks. Not sure what you mean by "each individual state article".CountMacula (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even though the whole renaming dicussion is interesting I think we are trying to do to much in one time. Renaming and redirecting the whole setup as you are thinking about I think will create more confusion among the common reader. All the information can still be written in each article, and even though the article titles will be a little wrong, it will still be very informative. I think those living in each state and/or with knowledge of each state process should work on expanding the excisting articles to be more than just stubs. It is all very good with these new ideas, but we should be realistic and dont destroy our house before we have the means to build a new one. And your thought about expanding are very good. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If a Wikipedia author who might want to write about events finds no place where the information clearly fits, they are left with doubts and an expectation that their work will be deleted as off-topic. So we never see the content that might have been created, and we use its absence as evidence that we don't need to generalize the topic.  We would ask why there should be a place for information that doesn't exist, while we fail to notice that if there were a place for it, it would be created.CountMacula (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Deep 07:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you like the RNC website, including delegate count ?
Jack, I compared http://www.GOP.com/index.php/comms/comments/updated_rnc_delegate_count1/  to our Table and found just a few differences. To save your time, I have listed them here. The main difference is 20 delegates from North Dakota, which Green Papers  list for Romney as 'soft delegates' and 0 "hard delegates'.  We list 20 delegates for Romney.  In addition: 9(NRC) vs 6(WP) at No. Mariana Islands; . . . 12(NRC) vs 11(WP)  for Alabama; . . . 23(NRC) vs 20(WP) for Puerto Rico; . . . 0(NRC) vs 20(WP) for North Dakota . . . Totals:  573(RNC) vs 588(WP).   . . .   FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of dicussion, or I should say was since it is all of no concern now, about the status of the ND delegates in different reliable sources. The problem is that that the state rules states that the nonbininding strawpoll should be used by the state party leaders to make an official State Party Slate. That would make the nonbinding strawpoll kinda binding since the official party slate almost always wins the convention election. These seems not to have happened, but since all the delegates are official unbound, but still have to be "bound" by this slate then... I better stop because not even the state party leaders that made this system understand it themselve. And in articles and blogs many local ND Republicans have said that this system really should be changed before next time. Luckily, all the problems in ND didn't have an effect on the primary this time - Just their luck.
 * I dont know why they count the PR and Marianna RNC delegates as "bound", maybe they are or maybe they have simply committed themselves. But I think if they are not officially bound they shouldn't be put into our table. The rest is simply mistakes I guess. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way forgot the most important. These numbers on the RNC website, as I understand it, are not really official numbers. It is a blog that someone is writting on the homepage and they are of course highly reliable, but they are not to be considered the party's legally account of bound delegates. So this blogger could be wrong about, let's say, the ND delegates. (I guess that they are more likely to be wrong since the blogger is a high-placed prof. party leader :) )
 * But again as I understand it, it is not a official RNC count, so the good people at GP could be just as right as the blogger on RNCs website. Tell me if I am wrong. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jack. I first thought you were on a well-deserved break, since voting takes a few-week break. Maybe you have some other things you do. How is Denmark? My wife (Lynnette) and I wonder how it is that you have such a high and dedicated interest.  We agree that our Table should not be changed. When I add up the differences I mention, there remains a discrepancy of '2', FYI.  Here is what I think (but I will try to find out, maybe asking the Romney team): Yes, this RNC website is official. They use the GOP/NRC logo, etc., and at the bottom carry their copyright. I don't think it would be up if not very official.  And doing extensive Google-searching for 20 minutes, I see nothing else as official. It must be the main and only repository of what the states are telling the RNC. I'll try to verify this is true (and find the main official list, if it is different). If this is not the main official RNC delegate committed count, is it a secret? I should be able to find out, and let you know. Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC) PS: I put in your single-quotes, etc.
 * I agree with you that the Green Papers are the most official source of good information. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)
 * I have been on a break actually and had to go to London for a short trip too. In Wikipedia guidelines it is said that it is good to write about something you are not a part of and have no emotions invested in. And I can hardly be more distant from an american parties primary election, it have no impact on my life at all. Making me very neutral (I hope), and I was also a bit intrigued by the very complex system. That is all. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been to London a few times; and you are doing a fantastic job! Keep it up, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Republican primaries in Minnesota, Virgin Islands
My apologies for not being able to help you with the SVG files, but I'm glad to see that you managed to figure it out yourself. Let's try and make sure that users who conflate the popular vote with delegation plurality don't incorrectly revert our changes. Dan Wang (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevada:
Hey jack. I see you edit the delegate plurality map. I just wanted to let you know that Ron Paul won the majority in Nevada (22 compared to Romney's 3). Here is my source click.68.39.100.32 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I have seen it. But the delegate is bound to vote according to the caucus result (Romney 20 and Paul 8). So in the context of the presidentiel nomination Nevada is still a Romney plurality state. In all other context you are right. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 US Presidential Electoin
I removed Green party as TBD is not a candidate and will therefore never be on a ballot. We should wait til they nominate someone and then readd if necessary. TBD just looks stupid. C T J  F  8 3  22:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Polite of you to write on my talkpage, but I dont own that infobox, it is ok just to write comments on it at its talkpage. But considerate of you in any case. It might look stupid, but it is a way to remove Johnson from the major candidates and create two rows. Please read the discussion and adress that problem. Everybody knows that TBD is not a candidate, but it was suggested it looks better than having a minor candidate in the same row as the major ones. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll continue on the article talk. C T  J  F  8 3  22:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my change to the page, wasn't aware the issue was debated so thoroughly. Jasonmelehani (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * that is ok. I would say it has been discussed almost to obsession by now

Barnstar
Thank you very much Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Reveiw and accept
Hiya,

I have added the script so i can review articles for adding. But when i click accept after reveiwing one is sent move failed as i dont have permissions... Is there something i have done wrong Bentpuc (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not 100% sure what you mean, but maybe you have been editing something that is not allowed with your current wikipedia status. Full protected articles can only be edited by Adminstrators, but such articles are rare. More likely you have been doing something you dont have access to do before you get Autoconfirmed. This normally happens 4 days after first edit. I think you will enjoy this article: User access levels. I can see that you have already got the explanation on Requests for permissions/Confirmed.
 * Since you are a webdesigner you know lightyears more about technical stuff than me, but if you continue to have problems I know some very helpfull administrators that have helped me a lot we can ask. Good to have some technic knowhow with us on the wiki Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words... Im hopeing to get to grips with Wiki so i can sort of help clear the back log lol... If theres anything you need help with let me know Ben Hudson (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the revert of the photo change
The photo I changed by Skidmore went from 3 to 6. The photo in question I've changed has been viewed as unflattering to a picture more appropriate. Nonetheless the picture #3 has been taken in 2011. So I edited all pages with #3 to be changed to #6. Both taken in 2011. #4 was also taken in 2011 which I changed to #3 but when people said it was unflattering, I started editing all of them to #6 which was viewed acceptable. So the revert is kind of moot when in regards to dates. They're still based on the person. ViriiK (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Photos seems to be the big topic of the day. I am not sure but I guess you are refering to the 2008 presidentiel election article? I think it is important to use photos of candidate actually taken in the timeperiod the article is about. If the current 2008 photos is bad then you are free to change it, but in my opionon not with a photo taken 4 years after the election took place. If the argument that it is the same person should be effective then all pictures of McCain could be replaced with his official 2009 photo (witch is clearly the best), but he has not looked like that all his political life. Paul looks different on photos now than he did 4 years ago. He actually looks a little younger/healthier now I think. In articles talking about Elizabeth the seconds coronation you wouldnt use the same picture of her as in articles that talks about her diamond jubilee would you? But it is still the same person we are talking about. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you noticed which photos I changed, I changed the Skidmore #3 to Skidmore #6 both of which were taken during the same time period in 2011 in a 2008 article. I didn't change the 2006 photo that was used in Top 4 Candidate arrangement.  You can feel free to use the Mitt Romney, 2006.jpg in the nominee list to replace Skidmore #3 which is used 2 times in that article.  Which again it's still the same person.  ViriiK (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the 2008 article I have only changed the photo 2012 photo in the infobox with the 2006 version (since I couldnt find a 2008 version). About all the other you are talking about I am really not following you, not sure I have any part of that. But thanks for noticing the 2012 no eyes version I overlooked in the article, I will change that. Thanks for noticing. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was confusing. You did get it by the way.  ViriiK (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

More about the 2012 Republican Race (and TNKS for your great work!)
Jack,  Interesting that Montana votes the same day as California, NJ, NM, and SD "but has no binding effect on delegate selection" to be made later in state convention. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes I forgot Montanas nonbinding primary. I really dont understand the meaning of these nonbinding primaries (Monatana and Nebraska) so late in the process. At least Missouri meant something media and contribution wise. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything is fine — I'm thinking the vote of the citizens directs how delegates will be allocated but it is finalized later. Also later, it is decided who goes to Tampa (specific people). At any rate, our Table is set to conform/report at the proper time. In my opinion and understanding, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I suppose we can watch GP//media.

Handball
Hey, just curious. Why is it important who won and who didn't? The criteria was reaching the final, so both did and were qualified. No need to add who won because this has nothing to do with who qualifed and who doesn't.

2. I think it should be sorted by date, makes the most sense. Kante4 (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * a differents of opion, I think it is important what confederation that are number one, two, ect. And also who became one, two ect. Because this is all important when it comes to seeding, how many spots every confederation gets and so on. The dates of qualification has no importance. I believe the first thing the reader should se is the important once. If he or she is interested in the chronology - that is why the table is sortable. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for the seeding it can be added, no problem with that. But for this table it has no importance. They were qualified because they reached the final and not because they won or placed second. For the date, it just makes the most sense sorting it through that. Don't see a valid reason for another move. And what important? Every user has different opinions of importance. So by date seems legit. Kante4 (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In your mind yes, but I disagree. As I have alredy stated why. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So, we should ask more people about that maybe? Since we agree to disagree. Kante4 (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont think that many is interested at all, it was practically no activity on the talkpage. As a principle thing (how are all handball pages sorted) it could be interesting, but I am not going to use a lot of time on this article so you can have it your way. If you do a lot of these tables I think you would get a lot out of reading Help:Sorting. Not every table have to be sortable but if they are it is really nice that it actually can sort. And there is quit narrow limits to what you can put into a sortable colum. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Will take a look at the page for future articles. Kante4 (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Jill Stein image
Thanks for posting a new image of Jill Stein. I'm wondering if you took the photo, or if you got it elsewhere? I've been asking people to find a new one to post so I was glad to see it, but I know that images will be quickly removed if they are published anywhere else, etc. Thanks. GreenIn2010 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it from her own campaign site under downloads, where it is clearly states: "You can download these high-resolution images for use in publications or online". As the title of the file says I then cropped it a bit before uploading on Commons. I am not sure I have tacked the right licens code on it, so feel free to check that and change what is needed. On the download page there is also other photos of mrs. Stein. You might be interested in this discussion about her too: Talk:United States presidential election, 2012 Jack Bornholm (talk).
 * Right now there is a discussion about the copyright issues at that talkpage, not what I am best at. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My experience has been that any image where you are not posting it as the actual photographer gets removed, almost no matter what, which is why I only post images that "I" have taken. But it was a good choice on your part and actually very important that you posted it at this particular window of time because Jill just got huge press coverage relative to the past 6 months, so, many people have already viewed a much better image of her, thanks to you, and that counts as a good deed in my book, regardless of its imminent removal. GreenIn2010 (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you made the effort and *did* contact someone with Jill's campaign, that would be one more person to wake them up that Jill needs a good image on wikipedia, not one that's 2 years old. The contact email they post is HQ@JillStein.org. GreenIn2010 (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They've already totally removed it and now the other image is gone too. It seems like that one should not have just disappeared.  It's wrong for any presidential candidate to not have any image at all. GreenIn2010 (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have send a email to the ones helping with licensing, it should be possible to get it back. In any case I am looking forward to hear from them. If nothing else it will educated myself even if it helps no others. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following through. Once you learn these things about posting images you never forget them, so its time well spent.  It will also educate her campaign.GreenIn2010 (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello
I'm curious enough to ask, how do you know so much about the US presidential elections and their political system? To be honest the US federal political system is structured very complicatedly to most people who aren't a Washington insider or a political analyst. Did you have some experience regarding politics, or are you simply trying to raise awareness for third-party candidates? — stay ( sic ) ! 23:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither actually. Even though I am sure that the many mechanisms that control federal politics in our big neighbour across the sea is complex as they are in most democracies, I find that the most complexity is found on the state level. It started with the republican primary last year, I absolutly didnt get any of the process and that annoyed me. So I read up on it and since there was a lot of easy access information I didnt find anywhere I just tried to do my part in bringing what I have read to the wiki. And it is pretty much the same with the general election. I have no experience in politics and consider myself to be nonpolitic also when it concern the politic of my homeland and I do know the basics of politics back from public school when I was a kid . But it is not like it have taken me many months to figure out the basic of the system. The election system is based on Duvergers Law and have always been a plutocratic democracy. It seems that for the last 50 years or more it has been increasingly plutocratic. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Congress and the White House are stuck in a cesspool of special interest groups, corporate "donations", political action committees, the military-industrial complex, and last, but not least, partisan politics. In fact, the latter has dominated the political landscape for almost the past century and a half. The US federal government wasn't always powerful as it is today. The rise of big government has mostly occurred during the post-WWII era. Unfortunately, trying to find an uncorrupted, non-hypocritical, and honest American politician nowadays is like trying to find a needle in the haystack. But it's no shocker to me since job #1 for most incumbent congresspeople is to get re-elected in the next election 'til retirement.


 * One reason why third parties in America don't have much representation in legislatures is due to the winner-takes-all voting system. Also, third-party and independent candidates receive relatively very little campaign funds for important state or federal elections (i.e. gubernatorial or US senate elections). Regarding presidential elections, third-party candidates face more of an uphill battle to win, let alone spoil, the presidency. The Commission on Presidential Debates often leaves out third-party candidates by setting up very high requirements (e.g. the ludicrous 15% polling support). In fact, the CPD is entirely controlled by Democrats and Republicans alone! This is why America is always viewed as a two-party system. The average American independent voter will only hear two opinions and the mainstream media ignores the others as if they were not there. Thus the CPD effectively secures to presidency to one of the two parties.


 * I'm sorry about my long rant, it's filled with a lot of cynicism. But you're right. When I first began paying attention to politics in my country, during the Obama vs McCain election, I only knew about two candidates, two parties, and didn't know about anything else. Heck, a lot of the things they were campaigning about was confusing to me as well. I still remember buying the HOPE and CHANGE posters. (Lol!) My knowledge about politics were very minimal. I only learned a few facts from the US History class I took back in high school. (The US educational system is severely broken by the way. Too much bickering over the state curriculum between the evolutionists and the creationists! And run by incompetent, unenthusiastic bureaucrats appointed by the state. It is just ridiculous!) So I'll end this rant with an awesome quote that most politicians worldwide can agree with. — stay ( sic ) ! 12:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fact: Money can buy you everything, even happiness.

In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women. —[Tony Montana]


 * Your revolution was not really based on the freedoms you today value so much, since you already had them as englishmen (magna carta and the english revolution) in contrast to the french revolution. Maybe because of the modest goals (independents and selftaxation) your revolution works. With a revolution controlled by the plantations owners of the south and the merchants of the north it was not really fraternite and egalite for the masses. No voting right for slaves, women and so on. I must say that the system set up started the US's long travel toward the modern democracy. If I may be so bold: It seem to me that you public school system are not really doing a good job teaching civic skills today. Comparing Americans of my generation to what my father told me about the Americans after the second world war, I find very few similarites. It does make me thing about the classic story told in our high school (not totally the same system but still) about the fall of Rome. But whatever time period I think you are right. The american dream is about making money, and it seems that americans never have understood civilication where personal happiness and personal money was not the same. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As much as the United States has progressed in the past 200+ years, regarding the end of slavery, voting rights for women, civil rights movement for racial and ethnic minorities, etc., some people who strive for personal freedom and civil liberties would still find that everyone isn't treated equally under the law. In many US states, gays are banned from the right to marry, women's right to abortion is heavily contested in a number of states, and ethnic discrimination still persists in American society to some degree no matter how subtle it may be. In the Southern United States, some people still wave the Confederate "Dixie" flag as a symbol of their tradition and historical pride. Please note that I do not agree with their idea of displaying southern tradition. I believe it would be akin to waving the Nazi swastika in modern-day Germany. Most of what I learned about history didn't come from my teacher's lectures, rather I looked it up on the internet as my reliable source for information. When comparing Americans of different generations, many people can agree that society's attitudes has changed over the many decades, hence the gradual social progression. The generation of adults today may not hold dear to the ideals their forefathers carried with them. And the children of today will eventually grow up and replace this current generation in the coming years. My theory as to why Americans are relatively conservative compared to the rest of the Western world, is because parents work hard to instill their beliefs into their children. For example, if a parent believes their kid should say a prayer before eating each meal, they will relentlessly continue to teach their beliefs onto their child until the lesson has been drilled into their brain. I do not endorse this method of religious parenting.


 * Going back to the original topic of this discussion, I still do not understand why you want to include the Libertarian and Green Parties' candidates at the front of the article. As any American would know, the third-party and independent candidates do not have a realistic chance of winning. Just because they've garnered enough ballot access to a potential 270 electoral votes does not mean they can be expected to win. If the CPD decides to exclude them from the presidential debates during the general election, it would be surprising if either third-party candidate can even get 10% of the popular vote. The last time this happened was in 1992, but is was only because Ross Perot was then allowed to speak in the national debates along with candidates Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush. I'm not sure anymore if we are still on the same page here, but it seems this discussion has gotten pretty complicated. — stay ( sic ) ! 20:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Rome wan't built in a day. But when it fell, it burned down in a fortnight. According to Duvergers Law the system of election in US will always insure a two party situation. But that does not mean that it have to be the same two parties. The last time this manifested itself in a presidentiel election was with the election of Abraham Lincoln (witch is quit reasonly). A more normal pracis is to take over one of the excisting parties as the conservatives succesfully did manifested by the election of Ronald Reagan recreating a moderate party to its current conservative state. Do I think a party shift would happen this time or manifest itself? No. But I do believe that articles on current elections should be extremely neutral and not asume anything. I find that the consensus that have been made in the general election article are so. I do find your comment on praying rather offensive, I believe that any parent are imprinting their moral values in their children and that is a natural process and a responsibility of any parent whatever faith or lack of same they have. I also find that praying have nothing to do with people being conservative or socialists at all. But it have really nothing to do with the third party candidates. The subject have been rather extensively argued on the talkpage, not only by me and a concensus was reached. In any case only the one meeting the long established criterias after the election will stay so no harm is done in the longterm. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Euro calculations
This could go on forever. Let's not edit the group A article anymore until we have consensus on the talk page. Skrofler (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ok Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Basecamp table
Hello Jack. I see You are involved into edition of Euro 2012 page. Could You edit the table with base camps? Previous table clearly shows 13 base camps in Poland and 3 in Ukraine - it was really clear and direct. Could You update this table with such division involved again? BTW: I restored You concept and information about 'Concerns and controversies' - it was deleted by Walter Gorlitz. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonFor (talk • contribs) 10:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the importance of mentioning this info in the table, it is already in the text. There is a discussing about the basecamps here: Talk:UEFA Euro 2012 maybe a good place to have the discussion. But to me it is more important to have a clear info on the distance betwin basecamps and venues. To me Krakow and Lviv have much more to do with eachother than Krakov and Gdansk. The hosts are both two relatively big countries with long close relationship, so I think it is much more important to have the info in a sortable table than as it was before where the only info was what country the base was located. (southern Poland have much in common with western Ukraine, just as much as they have in common with northern Poland]. But maybe other editors can take part in the discussion if you write a part on the talkpage under the base camp discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but I completly disaggre with such statements "Krakow and Lviv have much more to do with eachother than Krakov and Gdansk" or "southern Poland have much in common with western Ukraine, just as much as they have in common with northern Poland". Please do not forget that Poland and Ukraine nowdays are really diffrent countries (i.e. in terms of road system develeopment, infrastructure, economy etc.) So for example, Kraków nowdays has only one thing much in common with Lviv than with Gdańsk - both are located closer to each other, nothing more. So this point of view is simply wrong. Long close relationship was historical. So I agree with You that this table is good as it is now - no need for a further changes and discusion about it, but using such point of view in other topics releated to Euro 2012 leads nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonFor (talk • contribs) 11:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, since I live very close to Gdansk and very far away from Krakow it might simply be my point of wiev, and I have not used it in the article but on my own talkpage Still for the common reader from lets say Australia I think that the distance is what matters. Would it be possible for you to sign your remarks with four ~ for pratical reasons it is really annoying answering back fast on such unsigned comments. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for your participation
As a frequent editor of U.S. election-related articles, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.--JayJasper (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oversourcing 49er class
I note your change to Sailing at the 2012 Summer Olympics – 49er class regarding oversourcing. I take it you will be dealing with the other 9 Sailing articles in similar fashion? Hamish59 (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didnt know that there is a problem in the other articles too. I simply used the article and saw that there was 14 references to the same website (that was also noted as a source at the top of the table) and that I dont think anyone would argue that it is oversourcing. And as a good little gnom I try to clean up to wikipedia standards where ever I go. That there is 9 other sailing articles that have been oversourced is no argument that this article shouldnt be changed by a gnom. If anyone think it is not over referencing as said in Citing sources should argue on its talkpage. But dont let me stop you, feel free to do the work Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I did not make myself clear. What I wanted to know was whether you were going to clear up the other 9 similar articles while you were about it.  For the sake of consistency, if nothing else?

As to oversourcing, I am sorry, but Citing sources does not talk about "oversourcing". Can you point me to a policy, manual of style, standard or whatever, please. I would like to have a read-up on this. Hamish59 (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No you are right, oversourcing is the wrong word in this situation, since there was actual only linked to one source in all the references and it was simply a case of citing multiple pages from the same source. All the links was to different pages of the same source and the table itself was totally identic with the page that was cited as the general source (the same website) But I should have called it something else, I am sorry for that.? My english fails me.
 * The more correct term, instead of oversourcing must be overlinking and underlinking. If you want to read about that I have myself found these interesting articles: Manual of Style/Linking, Citation overkill and How to mine a source. The last one is from the see also section of Citing sources where there is many other interesting articles depending on what specifics you are interested in. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympics
Hey, just a small thing. If you add the throw-off times please add them with a ":" instead of ".". Kante4 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ok Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a look at how the official times look at [London2012.com]. They goes as this minutes:seconds.seconds. Ex. 14:125.535. Why is that wrong when it is used by the offical timeholders? Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Archiving
Hello, a problem with talk page archives at Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece) which was caused by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Dawn_(Greece)&diff=prev&oldid=496415116 one of your edits to the page back in June] was discussed at the Administrators' noticeboard. Please be careful when setting up page archiving; in particular, check that the archive counter is correct, note that subpages contain one slash rather than two, and, if you would like to set up archive indexing, remember to create the index page first as discussed at User:HBC Archive Indexerbot. If you have set up automated archiving at any other page, please check it to make sure it is set up correctly. Graham 87 06:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about having made problems and thanks for the note. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's all a little over the top ... Thanks for taking the time to setup the archive in the first place! Nobody Ent 09:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Setting up automated archiving for such a highly active page was a very good idea. Thanks! Graham 87 14:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edit
This was probably an oversight mistake on your part when adding independents, but Republicans lost 3 seats, Maine, Mass, and Indiana. C T F  8  3 !  02:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I guess they lost 3 seats, but gained 1 for a net of negative 2. :) C T  F  8  3 <font color="#6600cc">!  02:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes they won a senateseat in Nebraska Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Pope Francis
Well done for rationalising the talk page - it needs it! But it might be worth explaining what you're doing in the edit summaries - I was just about to revert you until I realised what you were doing. DeCausa (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right, I am getting forgetfull. Thanks. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, Jack, I left a reply on the Pope Francis talk page re the "tu level." Short answer: it means the informal form of "you" ("tu" in French or Latin) rather than the formal one ("vous" in French, "vos" in Latin). --- OtherDave (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks, logical when you think about it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group E standings
Template:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group E standings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Kingjeff (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Live updating of sports event (2014 FIFA World Cup qualification)
Hello, Wikipedia is not a live scores site. Please wait until match is over. If carry on to do live scores I'm afraid it will be reported. Skyblueshaun (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please report it, I would like that very much. And please also go to the talkpage Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round where this is actually discussed beetwen those that want to discuss it. Right now you are simply trying to impose a new consensus on everybody long before such one has been reached. Please report me, I will only be glad to let my profile help settling this consensus debate. But I will not be bullied, as you have bullied others at 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round I find it bad taste to do so without so much as answering the other editors comments on the talkpage. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Your recent editing history at 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF Second Round shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See my reply on: User talk:Monty845. It looks like I have been blocked for upholding the right of everybody to live update. No one have yet to show me a clear consensus that have changed the tradition of live updating. I have simply been blocked because I have tried to keep an unimportant match live updated (sorry Sudan but our black stars have already won the group). To me it seems that some are trying to bully other editors to stop live updating. I have been live updating many events for the last 2 years, but right now no one have had the civility to show me this new agenda before blocking me. Even though my record show that I have always been cooperative and have never been blocked before. So are the ones that want to stop live updating editwaring against the person that are doing the live update or are the updater warring because he is updating against some editors wish? I dont know, but thank you for my first blocking :) I hope the discussion goes on, before there is a clear consensus and someone show it to me I will continue live update from events that have my interest as I hope to benefit from others live updating. For now I will not use more time on this block. Just for the record. I tried 5 times to get the persons hindering the live update to comment on the talkpage, but they never did.Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I have no position on whether live updating is good or bad. For the purposes of edit warring and the WP:3rr rule, it does not matter. There are a handful of exemptions to the 3rr rule, being right about a policy or lack thereof is not one of the exemptions; Your edits qualify for none of them. As such, you got blocked for continuing to edit war. The main editor who was warring with you got blocked for the same reason. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. I got the discussion on the live update template started, and I even got time to add my own comment before you blocked me. I really hate when someone are taking over a article and are bullying others to leave, especially when they dont want to take the debate on the talkpage. So I guess I should get time to cool off in the penalty box :) Have a nice day. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)
Hey! Would like your input on Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) and Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)! -- Lejman (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give United States debt-ceiling debate of 2013 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into United States debt-ceiling crisis of 2013. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I guess I missed that class back in wiki School. But not to worry, this is my first time moving anything. :) Jack Bornholm (talk)

Next matchday scenarios
Hello! I invite you to a new discussion on the matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Ivan Volodin (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Laeborg Runestone edit
Regarding your Mar. 21, 2014 Laeborg Runestone edit: (1) in the transcription of the runic text, you used a large R at the end of "runa R " where I think the normal standard is to use the "small cap" R for this rune (see Algiz) / sound unless it is in the beginning of a name or at the start of a sentence (although I understand that the term "standard" regarding this is open to question). Also, (2) in the English translation you changed "cut" to "made." While various translations of any runic text differ, the prior translation was per the reference Rundata database as noted in the article's footnotes. If the new version is to be used, there should be a footnote added to some accepted reference so others will know where this wording comes from. Thanks. Deanlaw (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Being my native language I didnt realize that the english transliteration difffers from the normal danish where large R is also used in the end, but if it is so in a an english transliteration you are of course free to change it back. I changed cut to made because cut to me didnt brought out the old danish/ new danish translation as well. "Hugger" would be cut while he "gøre" the runes. Another good word would be setting the runes. But if authorities translated it this way lets just change it back. But if the same authorities also translated the last word with his lady they are flat out wrong. The word is in old and new danish Queen. By using the translation His Lady they are simply giving air to the theory that the Great Queen Thyra had a second housebond after the death of Gorm. This theory is not proven and are today considered frindge.
 * But you are right I didnt support my edit on any authorities an therefore feel free to change it back. It is nice that foreigners also are intersted in our old language. You may be interested in the Faroe language too, since it is very much close to the old danish than modern danish is. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Sevastopol". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Governing Body
Hi. You have added an 'outdated' template to a section of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, but it's not clear what needs to be updated. Can you start a corresponding section at the article's Talk page indicating the recent changes you're referring to? Thanks.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, getting to it right away. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012
The article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Ghana!
Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Ghana! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 3,474 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Ghana.
 * Browse the new WikiProject page
 * Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012
The article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wugapodes -- Wugapodes (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Reporter interested in talking to you
Hi Jack, my name is Zach and I'm a reporter at National Journal. I'm writing a story on the editors of political Wikipedia pages and would love to talk to you. If you'd like to talk, please contact me at zmontellaro (at) nationaljournal.com. Thanks! Zach NJ (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Paul Onuachu
Please do not revert again per WP:BRD - and yes my "clean up" was cleaning up your mess - unsourced content, non-notable information, poor formatting of references, use of non-reliable sources, poor English etc. etc. GiantSnowman 23:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I strongly disagree. My english might be poor, but information as like the Nigerian U23 team and his loan to Vejle is not non-notable. I find your edits very offensive Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, blindly reverting me (which include you removing valid categories) will just result in you getting blocked. I suggest you stop, take a breather, and raise any concerns on the article talk page. You have been reverted per WP:BRD, please follow that. GiantSnowman 23:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should start by showing me a little respect. I have been finding very valid reference and you have simply deleted them. I take offense of you attitude toward me Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please name a valid reference I have deleted? GiantSnowman 23:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your very first delection (witch is the one that made me angry) you deleted ALL of my references. Maybe you wanted to reinstate them as you have done, but if so please use your sandbox until you are ready instead of deleting another editors work. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I presume you are referring to this? You added four references - I removed 2 and kept 2; of the 2 I removed one is non-RS and I have re-added the other - so not "ALL", don't be so dramatic. Rather than simply blindly reverting perhaps you take more care and look at the edits that are being made - and you should not be editing if you are "angry." GiantSnowman 23:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And your first comment in this thread doesnt show you were angry. :) But hey, you are the big guy with all the muscles, so lets just say that I am totally wrong and you are totally right and I will leave this article for you to edit, sir. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't have that kind of attitude, this is a collaborative project after all. GiantSnowman 23:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am ending this discussion by saying you are right in all you have said in this thread and I am wrong in all I said. Then we dont need to discuss anymore, since there is nothing more to discuss. And let me give you a clear apology for ever reverting anything you have edited. I am very sorry! This way we can go to bed (I dont know where you are in the world, but it is past my bedtime) and sleep nicely. Please excuse my bad second language Ghanaian english. The article you have made looks very good now. I only hope anyone has a free picture of him. I looked through the once I took on vacation in Denmark (FCM is my brothers team) but they are all to fuzzy. Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Cut it out dude
My info is accurate. Stop removing my stuff on Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Ghoul flesh (talk) 02:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Ghoul
 * Look at the sources. I am only using those and your numbers are not the one in the consensus sources. You might be right, but then you have to go to the talkpage and change the consensus making other sources. It doesnt matter who is wrong or right but what the source says. I am sure if you have better sources than the GOP unoffical count it will be easy for you to change the consensus on the talkpage in due course. Looking forward to seeing your good sources there. This has been discussed quit a lot at the talkpage so there is a consensus. If this is your first time chancing a consensus you might like to read Consensus. Jack Bornholm (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian Inclusion Discussion
And where is this discussion you remember so well? It certainly isn't on the talk page, so please reference because you 'remembering a discussion' does not provide any proof of what was said or decided beyond your 'Hear say" (if said discussion ever actually took place). Acidskater (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I remembered it well properly because I didn't myself take part in the discussion, but I searched the archives of the talkpage for you and I found it. What I did was simply writting Libertarian in the search archive box on the talkpage. It is now archived at: Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016/Archive 3. Your welcome . I would have told you to remember not to continue the discussion at the archive page but simply link to it and then continue the discussion on the talkpage. But I see you already have started an interesting discussion there so I will add the link after I read through it. Happy work to you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Autoreviewer?
I think you should apply for auto-reviewer privileges. You seem qualified enough to deserve them. p b  p  17:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have no idea what that is and more importantly how much time it will take on a regular basics. I am a WikiOgre Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Republican primary candidates from mobile is terrible
When viewing the republican primary candidates from a mobile the pictures misallign over their names. I do not know how to fix this but can someone? Tanchee06 (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is a good idea to bring this to the talkpage of the article? Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Picts. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. ''Rather than remove calls for cites, add a source. '' - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 21:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments on infobox at United_States_presidential_election,_2016
An RfC was started at Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016 get comments on whether or not Castle and other write-ins should be added to the infobox. Your participation is appreciated. <font color="#333333">Sparkie82 (<font color="#666666">t •<font color="#666666">c )  10:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)