User talk:Jgard5000

Welcome!

Hello,, 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, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Bearian (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Larceny
Thanks again for helping. Please keep up the good work. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job putting together an ambitious project. --Jgard5000 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)--Jgard5000 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)jgard5000

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

July 2009
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please do not delete article talk page comments. SMP0328. (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Economics edits
Hello-I figured I should say hello so that disagreements in specific articles don't lead to animosity. You're working on articles that need work, and I definitely think some of the material you're adding is worthwhile. You should maybe join the Wikiproject economics, and watch the project talk page (which often has useless arguments, but sometimes has stuff genuinely helpful for economics articles).

You're being very bold in your editing, so I'm not keeping up. I think that some of your material added needs work, and so I'm objecting to bits and pieces. I'll probably want to come back through and work with it more. One point I think you should keep an eye out for is avoiding original research. Several of your edits have had an editorial air about them. I might agree with your comments (some yes, some no), but many of the comments don't belong in a WP article, or only belong if they can be attributed to a reliable source.

Anyway, thanks for working on important articles. If I manage time for WP soon, then working with you on those articles will likely be my priority.

O yeah, also--I've noticed several of your edits are adding your signature to the article. Please be careful to only leave your signature on the talk pages. C RETOG 8(t/c) 02:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If any one of the score or more of rebuttals to the economic theory of supply and demand could be cited by a reliable source in the economic community, it would be worthy of inclusion, which is to say, would you be able to find a reliable source, or point me in the right direction? Anarchangel (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Try Eric Beinhocker there is a Wiki article about him - --Jgard5000 (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)jgard5000

There is no animosity - i know threr is some editorializing but i use it to prompt responses to genuine issues that need discussing before they are incorporated into the articles. and often it is just style you can be encylclopedic without being stilted. But i don't mind criticism i welcome it and many of my mistakes are due to my unfamiliarity with the process and protocol.--Jgard5000 (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)jgard5000

Redundant information on Miranda v. Arizona
While the added information on Miranda v. Arizona is appreciated, you seem to be frequently adding redundant information to the article. Example, your most recent edits twice noted the fact that the Miranda warnings are not a required part of arrest procedure, and I believe there were already a few other locations that mentioned this. Since Wikipedia is not a legal reference, just an encyclopedia, redundant information the same information makes the article harder to take in. Much like how names of relevant Wikipedia articles are only linked the first time they arise, could you please limit each clarifying statement to only the first case where clarification is desirable, and assume that people can scroll back up to reference it if needed? -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - gotten a bit carried away with the article - --Jgard5000 (talk) 04:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Jgard5000 But the public having scene a gazillion episodes of law and order where the cops arrest the guy as he is exchanging his vows and advise him of hi Miranda rights as thye drag him down the aisle - maybe redudancy is justfified or maybe NY requires it - who knows.Jgard5000 (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)jgard5000

refs
Hello--Could you look at Footnotes and WP:CITE? They should help you with footnotes. In general, we don't want to use things like "Id" or "ibid". For one reason, someone might come in and insert something new, and then your "ibid" would no longer be correct. By naming the refs (see how at Footnotes), you can re-use them pretty easily in different parts of an article, and they turn out pretty clean at the bottom. C RETOG 8(t/c) 22:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Signing comments
I thought I'd try and be helpful. Two things: One, make sure you're signed in before responding (otherwise it just posts your IP). Two, you only need to type in ~, not ~username. As it happens, that habit made it easy to see that your comment on Talk:Miranda v. Arizona was from you, not a random anonymous user (since your user name came immediately after the IP signature) but it's not needed. ~ is enough, or --~ if you prefer. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks i should learn these things before i jump inJgard5000 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)jgard50000

Speedy deletion nomination of User page:Jgard5000
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, the location of your user page is User:Jgard5000, not User page:Jgard5000. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Test pages
For testing purposes, I find it useful to create 'test articles' that are subpages of my own user page. You can do so by entering 'User:Jgard5000/Article 1' in the search box and pressing go. Or by clicking on these links here: User:Jgard5000/Article 1, User:Jgard5000/Article 2,  User:Jgard5000/Article 3. If you ever want to delete any of those pages, just request a speedy deletion by putting this template at the top of the page:
 * db-userreq

Add this link 'Subpages' to your user page, and you can then easily display all subpages of your userpage by clicking on that link. If you need any more help, feel free to drop by my talk page, or the Wikiproject Econ talk page. Best, --LK (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject economics
Hello--I've just started a discussion of your article updates at the Wikiproject economics talk page. I think you're improving the articles, but it looks to me like you could use some help, also. I encourage you (it's totally up to you, of course) to join the discussion there and to join the Wikiproject. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A well earned Barnstar
Excellent job on the many economics articles that you have been editing. Your good work is seen and appreciated! LK (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

reference formatting
Hello-I'd like to suggest you look more at wiki tools for formatting your references. Particularly, check out this. It shows how to enter a complete reference just once, and then shortened references like thereafter. Probably less important, but I also like using citation templates to format. You can see about those here. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Complicit
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Complicit. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Complicit. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference for Frank's PED estimate for marijuana
Thanks for adding this estimate. Could you provide a page number for it, too? Several participants in the Econ Project will soon begin a significant revision of the PED article with the goal of achieving Featured Article (FA) status for it. Part of the FA review process is a thorough scrubbing of the references by the independent reviewers, so a missing page number could cause problems. Your contributions to the PED revision process will be most welcome! --Jackftwist (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that, it's always nice to have new contributors to an article. Could you also reference your additions to the determinants section? Thanks. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 08:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the page number to this citation. Thanks also for the 2 clarifications and citations from Frank you added to the "Determinants" section.  Eventually, I hope to get around to making 2 very minor changes to the latter: (1) When 2 or more consecutive sentences within the same paragraph have an identical cite (including page number), it's generally adequate to show just 1 cite, after the last applicable sentence (or part of it) that comes from that citation, rather than putting 2 separate but identical cites after each applicable sentence.  On the other hand, once you start a new paragraph, a separate cite would be needed, even though it's identical (unless the separate paragraphs are all direct quotations from the source).  Full disclosure: Yes, I tend to be pretty anal/obsessive-compulsive about such minutiae!  But the Featured Article reviewers are even more O-C, and we want to leave as few easy targets for them as possible. :)  (2) Rearranging each paragraph slightly to integrate the first sentence of each of those edits into the paragraph a bit more smoothly for clarity and readability (IMHO). --Jackftwist (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Aggregation problem
Hello, J. A belated thx for adds of all text sections in Aggregation problem. You might well be the only one in our lifetimes likely to be able to locate easily the p. number of the Kreps reference & other uncited sources in other sections after the Lead. Any possibility that you could supply those without too much difficulty? I think that the sections are much more likely to be read if there was a page-specific source that the reader could follow up on. I'll stay tuned here or at the article if you'd like to respond. Best wishes,Thomasmeeks (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Complicity
I'm a little worried that we're duplicating existing content here, and not including sufficient links to indicate the overlap. For example, my removal of the second "elements" section was an attempt to prevent duplication of the existing, and thorough, coverage at conspiracy (crime). Similarly, I believe that in indicating " Complicity encompasses accessorial and conspiratorial liability", one must be careful to include all the information Wikipedia has about these subjects, and more importantly recognise that more lengthy explanation on each of these two things should be provided on individual pages - currently Accessory (legal term) and Conspiracy (crime). I would appreciate it if we could at least open a dialogue on this. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 14:04, 11 September 2010 (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) 14:03, 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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)