User talk:Jen3774

Advice

 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again.
 * When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: [[Image:Edit_Summary-2.png|Edit summary text box]] The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. John Reaves (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
Hey, welcome. I noticed you wanted to be adopted, would you like me to adopt you? I've been around a little more than a year and I more or less know my way around. I'm glad to answer whatever questions you have or give whatever feedback you want. Don't be shy, I love getting messages on my talk page! Anyway, let me know (I can answer any questions whether or not you want to be officially adopted). Talk to you soon hopefully! Peace, delldot | talk 15:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool! No problem if you don't have much time, it all depends on how much time you want to put in. Some of us (like me) are way too addicted to WP, but others contribute only once every couple months, and are still valued contributors.  Adoption works pretty much however you want it to - we can communicate a lot, or you can just drop me a note whenever you have a question or need help.  Or I can be more proactive in offerring suggestions and stuff.  It's really up to you.  Unless you say otherwise, I'll basically wait around for you to ask me a question.


 * I'm excited that you're interested in human rights activism; so am I!


 * I had a look at your Van Jones article and was really blown away by how good it is. I couldn't think of any problems with it, basically just keep it up adding info and sources.  You may be aware of the criteria for articles about living people.  If not I'd sugggest reading it, since it applies here, and it's very important that we get all our facts straight with living people's biographies.  So I'd suggest using the formatting style, as explained in Footnotes, so you can cite particular pieces of info.  (Nothing in the article looks particularly controversial to me though).  I can help you with using this style if you want to learn how to use it (it's not hard).


 * A couple other suggestions:
 * Put new messages at the bottom of talk pages.
 * I noticed from the article history that an admin had at one point removed the image from Ella Baker Center for Human Rights because of licensing. Did you work that out with him/her?  Are you sure the image is permissable now?  It seems to me that the fair use claim is valid, so I don't know what the problem was.  But I can help you with this if you want to deal with it further.
 * I don't know if you're involved with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, but if so, are you aware of WP:COI? If you are involved, you can suggest changes on the talk page and I or some other editor can add them.


 * Sorry for the wall of text, I hope this isn't too much. Anyway, I'm excited to be adopting you!  Definitely let me know if you need anything. Peace, delldot | talk 20:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey again, I just realised that some of the Ella Baker Center is taken from their website. I think this is a violation of copyright; we cannot use copyrighted text unless we have permission from the copyright holder to use the text under the GFDL (meaning anyone can use it for any purpose).  I think the article will have to be "stubbed down" (removing all the copyrighted text) until we have permission to use it.  If you do have permission, you should leave a note on the article's talk page and follow the directions at Requesting copyright permission for emailing the Once you have received a confirmation that permission has been given, the Wikimedia Communications committee and so on.  Let me know if you need more help with that.  Once we do have proof of permission to use the text, it will have to be reworded to avoid a violation of WP:NPOV, which you are probably aware of since someone else tagged the article.  Sorry to be the bringer of bad news and annoying work!  Let me know of any way I can help.  Peace, delldot | talk 20:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, I figured you weren't done with the Ella Baker Center article because of what you said on my talk page.  So you're ok with the removals I made?  I'm glad you weren't angry about it.  So you have permission to use the website content and are going to get the center to send an email to Wikipedia releasing the material?  Let me know if you need help with that.  I think the writing will need considerable editing if we keep it in, but you are already aware of that and working on it.  Yes, I think a lot of wikipedians would feel that your previous association with the center is too much COI,  especially since the article currently has WP:NPOV problems, which is the reason why the coi guideline exists. The closest you come is WP:COI, I think, and it's not exactly the same thing.  But I'd be cautious.   So I think you should err on the safe side and leave suggestions for revisions on the article's talk page rather than on the article itself. You can also let me know you've made the suggestions if you want it to get looked at quicker.  I don't think that you have a COI with Van Jones though, if you only slightly know him. Thanks for being receptive to my comments, a lot of people would have been annoyed! (by the way, I noticed you're already familiar with the style!  Oh, and I'm moving your messages on my talk page to the bottom of the page, per normal talk page procedure). I can tell you're going to be a great asset to wikipedia!  Talk to you soon.  Peace, delldot | talk 22:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm looking at it now. I see you're already posting suggestions to the talk page -- you keep being a step ahead of me!  :)  I'll post to the talk page when I'm through looking it over.  Peace, delldot | talk 22:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I love getting messages. ;) The way you posted to the talk page was perfect. Good that you're going to provide refs, I have some mentions of that in the response I'm writing up for it.  I'll just leave them in as pointers to specific parts that especially need refs, though.  I think just rewriting it is the better course of action too.  Then we won't need to bother with permission.  I've never actually gotten permission this way, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.  The text will need to be significantly different though - e.g. it's not enough to change the wording if you still have the same info and structure.  I'll have to compare versions to determine whether I think it's too close (and maybe someone more experienced in copyrights would be willing to lend a hand, I can ask around).  If we decide we have it how we want it but that it's still too close, we can go about getting permission then.  About "does the article still read like an advert?" I certainly think it's better, but there may still be some NPOV issues that are going to be difficult for us to tackle.  For example, it states objective facts and cites sources (which is g reat), but the facts are all in support of the center's philosophies, you know?  It would be hard for either of us to correct it, since we're both sympathetic.  Maybe we should get the article written as best we can and then file a request for comment from the general community so that someone with a more neutral position can give input.  I can look the article over again and leave a message on the talk page with suggestions on how to further NPOV. Peace, delldot | talk 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:VanJones2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:VanJones2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

EBC
Jen - EBC page is looking good. I'm going to make some minor edits and I think it should go up. -D. 209.76.159.3 00:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Hey, I glanced at it, and made a couple minor changes. I'll have a more thorough look at it as soon as I can, probably in about 24 hours. I have a couple minor comments right now:
 * "Books Not Bars works to close California’s current youth prison system and replace it with effective alternatives."
 * "effective" strikes me as POV and too vague - what do they want to replace it with?
 * "Five young people have died over since 2004 in these prisons"
 * died over a typo? Over five have died?
 * "Even so, the rate of recidivism is 75%."
 * Rm even so
 * "By these standards, California has the nation's most expensive, least effective juvenile justice system."
 * "effective" strikes me as POV here too. I think this whole paragraph has POV problems since you're presenting the arguments of the center and only those arguments.  We may need to get someone else to fix this problem, though.
 * "trouble-makers and trouble spots in local police departments."
 * "trouble" strikes me as a POV term. As with many cases of this, show don't tell; that is, say exactly what they're doing, don't describe it.  What activities make them trouble makers?
 * As billions go into eco-friendly construction, clean technology, urban agriculture and renewable energy, Reclaim the Future works to ensure that low-income people will be able to take part in these new opportunities.
 * Sounds POV
 * "As the lack of meaningful work opportunities for at-risk youth and formerly incarcerated people in society becomes a bigger problem,"
 * I don't think we can say something is a problem. How about "impacts them more greatly"? sounds kind of weird, I know... but this should be tweaked.
 * "The group was known for a passion and willingness to take on tough fights that few other organizations would tackle "
 * Sounds POV

I stopped reviewing at the beginning of the history section tonight. I'll take another look tomorrow. I think the article still casts the center in a very positive light, a problem I think is going to be difficult for us to fix. Again, maybe we'll get a third party involved later on. Thanks for all the hard work! Peace, delldot | talk 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job NPOVing history section and providing references all throughout. Many of them look like they're very solid reliable sources, too.

Heya
How's life? Any progress on the article lately? I've gotten a job and haven't been around as much lately :( but I just wanted to check in. Peace, delldot | talk 18:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:EBC logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:EBC logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Checking in
Hey, haven't seen you around in a while! I wondered what you've been up to and if you're still involved in the project. I'd love to hear from you, drop me a note when you get the chance! Peace, delldot   talk  07:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)