User talk:Jed 20012

Leave any comments, concerns, or complaints on this page.

AfD nomination of Precisely Right
An article that you have been involved in editing, Precisely Right, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Precisely Right. Thank you.

The article was not deleted due to no consensus on Saturday, December 6th, 2008 Common Era.

AfD nomination of Catholic morality
An article that you have been involved in editing, Catholic morality, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Catholic morality. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent tags...
I've noticed you've added tags to a fair number of articles recently. I don't think I agree with some of them, though. A few comments:


 * I'd try to be more sparing with the usage of the refimprove tag. As an example, Joan Llorenc is certainly not orphaned, and its references were not particularly problematic either (at least for a short article like that, one reference is often sufficient).  National Black Antiwar Antidraft Union could use some rewriting, yes, but it seems decently referenced.  The vast majority of articles on Wikipedia are not at the Featured Article standard, but not being up to that level doesn't mean they should be tagged.  I'd recommend saving refimprove for longish articles with only 1-3 references, or articles where all the references are irrelevant and/or on only one section of the article.
 * "adding warning" is vague as an edit summary and somewhat alarming. Try and say what tags you're adding- "added refimprove and orphan tags" for example (and even better, add "because..." followed by a reason if it's not obvious).
 * Re Chicago Jazz: the disambiguation guidelines (Disambiguation) generally say that disambiguation pages should be at the normal forms of the word, and only be at "foo (disambiguation)" if "foo" is already taken by an article. That isn't true of "Chicago jazz," so no need to create a new page, and furthermore, if you did want to move the page, the proper way to do it would have been to use the "move" option of the tab (which would preserve the history of the page).  I realize that this issue is slightly clouded due to the Chicago Jazz article you created, but that is almost certainly a secondary meaning- very clearly the main meaning of Chicago jazz is the music, so if anything perhaps Chicago Jazz should be moved to Chicago Jazz (figure skating) or the like.

To be clear, though, keep up the good work; just figured these was worthy of mention. SnowFire (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you for the barnstar. My first one!! I hardly ever visit my User page, so I never noticed it till now. Sorry. :)  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  23:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Hi, I noticed that you linked a date or two at The Witches Hammer and List of Iron Man: Armored Adventures episodes. This practice is now deprecated. Please see WP:LINKING and WP:MOSNUM. I'm happy to respond to any inquiries you may have about the matter. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

List of trigonometric identities
I've undone this edit of yours. I've just checked the case n = 4 very carefully both by the usual trivial-but-sometimes laborious algebra that one learns in 9th grade and by plotting graphs of both sides of both proposed identities. It was correct as it stood before you edit. Moreover, your edit summary doesn't make sense. You wrote "error in formula compared to above". What is seen "above" is several concrete special cases, and the formula as it stood was consistent with those, whereas your version was not. As it stands we now have trigonometric polynomials in cosines of multiple angles for three of the tabulated cases: for both even and odd powers of cosine and for even powers of sine. For the fourth case&mdash;odd powers of sine&mdash;we have trigonometric polynomials in sines of multiple angles. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Precisely Right, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Short program (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi Jed 20012,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

New proposals at Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014
Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Language-population update project
Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.

A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.

Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).

Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.

Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the sigfig template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)

Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.

If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.

The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.

Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!

— kwami (talk) 02:40, 4 March 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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers
Hi ,

In order to better control the quality  of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Sacramento Islamic Mosque for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sacramento Islamic Mosque is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sacramento Islamic Mosque until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Precisely Right for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Precisely Right is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Precisely Right& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)