User talk:Jessi1989

/Archive 1

The Living Word Fellowship
Hi. In response to your question, the footnoted citations in "Another Gospel" are in footnotes 12 to 19 for Appendix A. See page 429 in the online book. --Orlady (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Give me a few minutes/hours. I'll doublecheck the references and let you know what I think is the best course of action. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In WP:MUSIC there is a criterion that calls bands who are subject of a radio or tv broadcast of significant length (either 30 or 60 minutes, can't remember exact details) notable. I think that Anthony Cox's documentary would make this group notable by a similar rationale (being the subject of a documentary), so I therefore won't be reopening the case. If you still feel the wrong decision was made, a DRV would be your best option. (By the way, I don't outlaw references to the church's own website entirely, they can still support facts that other publications are unlikely to cover even for subjects that are notable beyond any shadow of a doubt (birthday's in biographies are one such thing). Articles just don't have to rely on them too much. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * hey, thanks for getting back to me and sorry for my delayed reply. two things about the documentary. firstly, the subject of the article is it's author anthony cox, not the church, so although mentioning the church might contribute towards notability i don't think it's quite as significant as you suggest. secondly, it's an autobiographical documentary by a former member, which means it's not independent. as for the church's own website, i agree it could be used to support facts but it really shouldn't be used to support notability. i am thinking of taking this to drv based on these points but i think it's best to discuss my concerns with this article with you first. if i'm wrong then i won't waste everyone's time by taking it to drv. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Walkers (snack foods)
I think the limited edition flavours would probably be better in their own section with an explanation of their significance, etc. which i don't believe is currently mentioned anywhere in the article. What do you think? --neon white talk 00:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * yes i completely agree. i thought exactly that last night after i made the edit but the electricity has been out from then until now so i never got time to ammend it. i will do it when i get time unless you want to do it yourself. thanks :) Jessi1989 (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, i've moved it to it's own section but still need to add an explanation. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez  Get to know me! / Talk to me! ←at≈:→ 22:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * hey, i'm sorry but you are mistaken, i did not add any new material to this article, i simply moved all of the sentences into one paragraph. all you have done is reverted each sentence into different paragraphs. none of the information in the article appears to be sourced so i will re-revert your edit and add a noref tag for now. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. You are correct. I think this was one of my "on-no-sleep" reversions. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers, ←Signed:→ Mr. E. Sánchez  Get to know me!  /  Talk to me!  ←at≈:→ 21:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Last warning before another block
You should know better than to post anything Jonty-related. Do it again and you'll get another (likely lasting) indef block. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * hey, i'm sorry but it wasn't right for you to revert my edit and threaten to block me. i was unblocked under the condition that i did not edit the haywood article until i have a better understanding of wp:v . i hardly think that a contribution to an ongoing discussion on the talk-page of another article warrants indefinite blocking just because it is vaguely haywood-related. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding a link to Haywoods site is more than just vaguely Haywood-related. I will not hesitate to indef block if it happens again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) i didn't add a link, i just mentioned the website by name
 * 2) it was on a talk page for an article about the same thing as the website
 * 3) i was responding to something that was specifically being discussed in that section of the talk page. to be specific, the previous poster said he had a list of origins to the game but had forgotten where he found them
 * 4) the website has already been mentioned loads of times by different users on that talk page

i know you're doing this because you don't like me, probably because we've argued before and because i've said i'm a fan of a game which you obviously really hate. either tell me that i'm banned from mentioning the name of that website even in situations where another editor would be fine to do so, why, and what gives you the right to give me such a ban, OR, put back my edit, strikeout this warning, stop victimising me and leave me alone. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Game
Thanks for the heads up. I see why that site got blocked now, but threatening a block simply for mentioning it is a bit much! I narrowly avoided mentioning it on the talk page. I'll carry on editing it to improve the page. I'm interested enough in the topic that I've asked the editor of Manifold magazine for a copy of the article from the 1970s discussing Finchley Central, the Mornington Crescent-alike and precursor to the Game. Fences and windows (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2009 (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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)