User talk:Jj137/Archive 3

Idea
Hey there! As you are no doubt the top contributor to sports related articles, I have a suggestion. I recently applied and was granted "access" to AWB (anyone with 500 edits can get it) and have been using it quite a bit the past few days. I've found it really speeds things up when you are trying to add/subtract/do whatever with a mass amount of articles...I thought you of all people would probably benefit from it the most. Well, just a suggestion. All the best...and nice background. jj137 ( Talk ) 02:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "As you are no doubt the top contributor to sports related articles..." To be honest, I'm flattered by that comment. Anyway, Ksy already suggested the idea to me, but I'm not sure how I'll use it now. Tag all articles with seasonal templates? I'm just saying, how do I use it at current time? And thanks for the comment on the background, but it's probably just temporary. I'm tinkering with new ideas to the page.  Soxrock Talk/Edits 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you really can use it however you want. For me it just makes things probably go 2-3 times faster which is just great. Unfortunately I think it takes some fun out of the "regular" editing style but it makes tasks much easier and faster. You don't have to use it, I generally still edit here and if I see a large task that needs to be done, well, that's where AWB comes in. Also, you really are the top contributor to sports articles; if I click on the history of any random baseball article (that's generally where I stay), 90% of the time, there's Soxrock with several edits at the top :-).  jj137  ( Talk ) 20:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Roots (Everly Brothers album)
Hi. :) I just wanted to point out to you that the above article actually did have a reference when you placed your "unreferenced" tag on it here. The reference is in the infobox and can be traced by following the "link". When I first started working on albums, I was confused by this as well, but this is the standard placement as developed by consensus at WikiProject Albums. I also wanted to note that the article had the "inuse" tag at the top of it at the time you edited. Of course, it is only a request that other editors not edit the article while the tag is in place, in order to avoid edit conflicts, and you were well within your rights to ignore the request, but it is a nice gesture to hold off while the article is under active construction to see how it develops. You may already be well familiar with that template, but since you're on new page patrol I thought I would point it out to you in case you were not. :) --Moonriddengirl 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, before I say anything else I would like to apologize for the confusion (and sorry about how long it took to get back!). I have generally always hesitated when tagging album articles with unreferenced tags, because I realized there must be some reason hardly any of them cite no external links or references at the bottom of the page. However, I am very familiar with the in use/under constuction tags because I am in the NP Patrol and use it myself when creating articles sometimes. The reason I tagged it was because I saw it was in use, and realized that you must still be working on it, and if you saw the tag, you would add references. (That's where I made the mistake.) I never paid enough attention to the music infoboxes to notice that one link would be the references. Thanks for the notice…and I now have my confusions clarified. jj137  ( Talk ) 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. :) As I said, when I first started working on albums, I was also confused by the apparent lack of sourcing. I still sort of think they should be on the bottom myself, but that's consensus for you. --Moonriddengirl 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, thanks for the help. jj137  ( Talk ) 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application
Dear Jj137,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher!

Jmlk 1  7  02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)  Jmlk  1  7  02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My Opinion
i dont think this is vandalism so i am going to say it: i just wanted to tell you the red sox suck--75.82.16.153 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you go for the Yankees? It's not a bad thing if you do. BTW... that wouldn't be vandalism, just stating your opinion. jj137  ( Talk ) 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

no i hate the Yankees, i love the Rockies--75.82.16.153 22:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I really have wanted the Rockies to go to the World Series and play the Sox. I think it would be a good matchup. jj137  ( Talk ) 01:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

that would be cool, well good look to your sox--75.82.16.153 04:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

copyvio
Are when you cut and paste from a copyrighted site. If the text is in the public domain then it isnt. Could you correct your suspicions of John Flower (Cleric) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victuallers (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There were no 'suspicions', it simply looked like it may have been copied and pasted, and I just wanted to clarify. No worries if it isn't. jj137  ( Talk ) 19:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not offended...but you are still using the wrong words. It was copy and pasted ... but is not a Copyvio. Copy and pasting is fine when its out of copyright and especially if it is well referenced. Keep hunting Victuallers 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I understand. I just wasn't sure whether it was in the public domain or it was simply copyvio, and needed to clarify that. Thanks for the help jj137  ( Talk ) 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Western seminary
Please feel free to tag Western Seminary, instead of the improperly titled Western seminary, which is now a redirect as a result of my move to a correct title. - CobaltBlueTony 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks- and I see I accidentally posted the "stub" template three times :). jj137  ( Talk ) 20:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Game Logs/2008 LA Dodgers season
So are we going to put the game logs directly onto the articles or do we just put it into a template? I think just putting it in the article is faster and saves much more time. Are you going to help edit the 2008 Los Angeles Dodgers season page. If you are going to do it all season long then are you willing to make the stats and keep them updated every game? That's what User:BrianY and I did last year. We got tired of it half way through, but if you are willing to help us we're going to create the stats for the players. LADodgersAngelsfan 06:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try and help out with all of the teams next year. The stats in my opinion are tougher to keep up with than the game logs, simply because there is much more info to be inserted. Also, what we're going to try and do is put the game logs straight onto the articles, and then we will move them onto a template when they are completed. Let me know if you have any questions. jj137  ( Talk ) 11:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1974 Cincinnati Reds season
Hey there. I say you placed technical on 1974 Cincinnati Reds season; I created this article and felt I should explain it if you did not understand. In Major League Baseball, each of the 30 teams has played over 100 years of baseball (well, most teams) and we have agreed at WP:MLB to have an article for each year of baseball for each team. In my opinion, this article was pretty random, as there are probably around a thousand of these articles. It would be pretty useless to put this tag on every article, as if you read up a little, you could probably understand it more (and it would be a lot of tagging!). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks jj137  ( Talk ) 02:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hm, okay, but isn't it better to point out in those articles that they're about baseball? The article is currently written in a way too complicated manner and is hardly understandable for the layman. Perhaps this would help? I'm not sure I worded it correctly, so feel free to revert it or anything :)  Melsaran  05:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, honestly, I think that is a very good idea. As a matter in fact, I think I will go around and place it on all of the seasonal article pages, because it does clarify a lot in just a short sentence. Again, great idea there. jj137  ( Talk ) 21:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mummers' Dance
Although I speedy deleted The Mummers' Dance the creator of the article just recreated it. I deleted it again and left a warning on his/her talk page. It might be worth keeping an eye on this. The song is probably public domain - although I cited it as copyright because the original version mentioned Loreena McKennit's version - but it's still a speedy candidate if all that's posted is the lyrics... 23skidoo 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Integrated Support Command Ketchikan
This is db-copyvio, not nonsense. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 00:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I wasn't able to tell. jj137  ( Talk ) 00:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just drop a quoted sentence into Google, usually works. If you get several hits, put -wikipedia in the query. Usually narrows down the source. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 00:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, although I knew copyvio or not, it was getting deleted (more than likely). jj137  ( Talk ) 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is that copyvios and attacks can cause legal liability for the Foundation, so they are priorities for the deleting admins, and tagging editors. And if someone had put a hangon on the page, the copyvio would have been publicly visible in the meantime, possibly to the copyright owner. Not good. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 00:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, definitely. I didn't realize just how important copyvios are...I should spend some time on that. Thanks for the help. jj137  ( Talk ) 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CSD
Hi. Please stop marking pages as nonsense like you did with Alexander Cody Stammers and StudentCity.com. Per WP:CSD, Nonsense is an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases. I have replaced those two tags with more appropriate ones (a7). - Rjd0060 02:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good. Honestly, I'm not sure why it matters, because it's getting deleted anyway. jj137  ( Talk ) 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It matters because some admin's will only speedy an article for the reason listed on the tag. If it does not match, they wont delete it.  Also, when deleted, unless the admin specifies a more specific reason they deleted it, that tag will show up in the articles deletion log, and we should make sure it shows the correct reason it was deleted. - Rjd0060 02:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To make it easier on the admins when deleting, ah, yes, that would make sense. I feel I have been making a lot of stupid mistakes when it comes to NP Watching lately, and as an experienced editor, I should know better! :) Thanks for the help jj137  ( Talk ) 02:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It happens. Everybody makes a few mistakes.  You have a point, it will be deleted anyways but here's an example.  See this deletion log.  Notice it says "content was: '  Chase Oliver is born....".  That admin didn't specify a specific reason for deleting it, so the system automatically inserts the first 100 (or so) characters from the page.  Since that article had a proper template (attack) we now know the specific reason it was deleted.  Otherwise, it would have just said "nonsense" or something.  Make sense? - Rjd0060 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfect sense. I think I should start working harder at remembering all of the CSD types, as it will come in handy. jj137  ( Talk ) 02:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It definitely helps. I don't know if you use any scripts but I use WP:TWINKLE and it really helps with vandal reverts.  Maybe something you should look into if you havent already. - Rjd0060 02:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have AWB and NPW. AWB is great, and I think NPW is pretty good, but it can mess up a lot, so I only occasionally use it. Now that I know it has all (or most) of the types, I think I'll give it another try. jj137  ( Talk ) 02:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I had AWB but switched to twinkle. I think it is a lot better.  Well, ok.  On to the next one! - Rjd0060 02:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism???
I am not sure how you can consider my addition of clarify to the seperation of church and state page to be vandalism. The original statement for mexico made no sense as it said something to the effect of Mexico has a seperation of church and state, all mexican churches are controlled by the government (paraprhase). This makes absoluetely no sense and should have been removed or clarified.

Someone has cleaned it up and given some historical context to it so it is a little clearer. If you have cleaned it up to this point, thank you. But choose your accusations a little more precisely in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.99.220 (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not call it vandalism, I called it test editing, which can be considered vandalism if used inappropriately. If you cannot get something like that correct, you should use the 'Show Preview' button, instead of continuously saving over and over. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Thanks. jj137  ( Talk ) 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Rudget RfA
Dearest Supporter, Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!

Rudget Contributions 09:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA
Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn  (Ni!)  01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)