User talk:Jmacwiki

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 and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

march 2008
Welcome again to Wikipedia, user:Jmacwiki!. Just a quick hint, for future reference. On a talk page, we generally do not edit the posts of other users, even for spelling mistakes. You did so, here, though I expect it is not a big deal, but it is frowned on in most normal circumstances. Read the Talk page guidelines for more information when you get a chance.

Also, I replied to one of your posts at Avoid weasel words, if you are interested. Cheers! Newbyguesses - Talk 10:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Thanks for tip re: editing talk pages. Not an obvious rule to me a-priori, but I can see why not having it could lead to mischief.  (I hope that editing here is the appropriate way to respond.) User:Jmacwiki 05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I am glad you understood the tip. I notice you are getting onto the discussion pages, so read up and do good! Now, you left this particular message on my Userpage, but posts are to a discussion page, so you ought to have put it on User talk:Newbyguesses, where I receive my messages, and a big orange bar appears for me!
 * I will look over and consider your posts to Avoid weasel words, as I have edited and discussed there before, if you check the discussion page. As for editing a guideline, yes, you may do so, being bold, however another good plan is to discuss such changes on the discussion page first. When doing so, wait for other, possibly opposing, comments, and study them. Compromising sensibly with other editors is the helpful way to go.
 * I will read your reply here, (keep discussions centralized). If you need help at any time, contact an administrator. Contact me if you think I can help you again, in this small way. If you need more links to study, visit my talkpage, the big blue box is valuable, you may find. Best, Newbyguesses - Talk 11:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies about previous posting location, Newbyguesses. I could not determine, by looking at my own pages, where to place something to you.


 * FWIW, I feel that editing a guideline dealing with a fundamental policy should be done with extreme caution: the one place where boldness may be indistinguishable from disrespect. (Analogy might be to challenging someone on an attribute that is fundamental to their sense of identity: generally an invitation to a tense interaction, at best.)  So if I make the change I mentioned to the WW page, it will not be for many days; and I am indeed hoping for a cross-examination to my suggestion before I take that step.


 * BTW, thanks for making me feel welcome. It speaks very well of the WP community. Jmacwiki (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, Jmacwiki! Now, I say you MAY be BOLD, even at a guideline page, but be prepared to have your work edited mercilessly!.


 * Understood!


 * Some advice from me, you seem interested in much of en.Wikipedia's work, and workings. So, put some time into articles, reading their discussion pages, and contribute in fields of interest to you. Seek out proper references, and add them, if you get the syntax wrong, some editor will probably fix it.
 * I do mainly minor edits, cz that's what I like doing.
 * Give yourself a bit more time and familiarity, before jumping in at the deep end, that is, in Wikipediaspace (guidelines etc.)
 * That being said (from personal experience), i reiterate my reference to being bold, if it suits you.
 * It is good to glean worthwhile ideas, offered co-operatively, from all the editors whose work you will encounter.
 * Oh, I recommend populating your Userpage (so it doesn't come up red)
 * Check my user page, you can "borrow" some code from there, it is safe.
 * Put up the en1 userbox, or something, that is my suggestion.
 * Keep up the good work&mdash;Newbyguesses - Talk 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I take your point. I will wait a bit before adding to my user page, though.

Congratulations, I like your new User page!

PS To sign your posts on discussion pages, including this one, (though I often dont on my talk page), use four tildes. HTH. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

at Words to avoid
Re your recent edit, discussed above, the proper procedure, if you have noticed a mistake you made there, is to UNDO your own recent edit at the discussion page! That is, a self-revert, to restore that user's post, with the spelling mistakes. In your edit summary, just put self-revert, didn't realize it was a talk page or something.

You do not have to, it is no big deal, a couple of spelling mistakes, but that is the usual procedure, to repair one's own mistakes, however minor, if possible.


 * Yes, I had to do this right after a change, on some other page I came across. :-[ In the case of the talk page, though, I decided to leave well enough (or poor enough) alone... just this once.

If you are unsure about this, just ask, i am currently monitoring your talk page, User:Jmacwiki. (Don't worry at all about this, it is just trying to show you the ropes, as i was shown myself.) Newbyguesses - Talk 04:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated, Newbyguesses.


 * Oh BTW, very good work with your latest edit to Words to avoid indeed! Newbyguesses - Talk 01:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you.


 * Done (for fun). Newbyguesses - Talk 08:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

dark ages
see comments below. Your discusiion was sensible and I wonder if you'd be willing to weigh in now and try to improve the situation at Dark Ages.

I have just read through 50 pages of Talk on Dark Ages, and it reveals a Wiki article that is in deep trouble. 29 people contributed comments complaining about the one-sided polemics against the term "Dark Ages." 7 people argued that to talk of the Dark Ages is invalid and that the article need only represent this one point of view -- but mostly the rejecttion of diverse views is the work of two people, stbalbach and Doric Loon. Loon compliments stbalbach for "assiduously maintainging and defending this article over the years," meaning, beating back all other contributors and defending their personal POV. They don't seem to be ashamed that during this time the artcle lost its status as a Good Article, way back in Mary 2006. Some defense! In the talk pages, stbalbach and Loon state openly that they consider the Dark Ages not dark, and that their opinion is the only valid one, and the only one that may be included. For ex, stbalbach: "Its impossible to defend the use of the term (Dark Ages) with what we now know." Any alternate, referenced quotes or information are undone and dismissed as not good references. This is Orwell's 1984 - some pigs are more equal than others. Marskell said it very well back in 2005, and its still true now in 2008: "It's disappointing to see revisionism has won out. 'the middle ages were not dark, therefore there can be no causes of darkness...you see stbalback beecoming a crusader...it is still possible to walk into a respectable university and hear the Dark Ages discussed...unfortunately readers of wikipedia won't be able to find out...." One poor user of Wiki wrote his frustration on teh talk page, that none of the information he was hoping for on The Dark AGes was here, just polemics. His complaint was trashed. This page is crying out for arbitration, to stop a small number of people from domineering and preventing balanced POV. It's time to rebel against the dictatorial rule of stbalbach and his henchwomen. I am fairly new to Wikipedia. Judging from stbalbach's page, he is very active - does that make him impregnable or is there something that can be done? There is really no point in trying as individuals to improve the article while he is in place as the self-appointed Dictator of Truth. Now is the time for concerned people to speak up. If you agree that stbalbach's reign of power should end, and the article should include references that support the term Dark Ages, and explain why, so as to have a balanced POV, please speak up now. More experienced Wikipedians - what can be done?--Cimicifugia (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Cimicifugia

Reverted Theodora article
Hi! I have reverted Theodora (wife of Justinian I) to the last version before the insertion of block quotes, like you suggested on the Talk page. Then I tried to reinsert some of the later additions. Could you have a look? I have also one specific question: our article says that her father belonged to the blue faction, while Evans writes he belonged to the green faction. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

History of the Eastern Roman Empire
I'm sorry for bothering you, but since I noticed in the past your interest regarding the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, I thought you might like to know that there is a request for renaming the article "History of the Eastern Roman Empire" to "History of the Byzantine Empire". However, there's no problem if you're busy with other things. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

category of categories
Saw your post on talk page of category (category theory) and perhaps you are interested in Cat the category of small categories. See also They say that it is possible to construct the 2-category of all categories, by considering the enriched category over Cat. LOL. linas (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2012 (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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Roman And Byzantine Military History
Hello I currently have a project known as the Roman and Byzantine military history page WikiProject Military history/Incubator/Roman and Byzantine Military History, I was wondering if you would like to join, as you have shown interest in both eastern and western rome. Iazyges (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

FFT
Here fast modifies Fourier transform, not Mr. Fourier. Not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Since you took this to my talk page, I responded to you there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Timely history edit
Your edit combines history with current events. I salute you. Tony Mach (talk)

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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)