User talk:Jmh123

Talk:Bret Wolfe
I appreciate your efforts and assistance in cleaning up the Bret Wolfe page. Maybe you could help me or give me guidelines on what are appropriate and not appropriate things to add. I would like to remain unbiased and give information that is relevant to Wiki. Is there a template or standard that can be applied? If items that you removed can be backed up from a magazine or press article...do I reference the article or must there be an internet link? Thanks again for your assistance and great cleanup job. Bretwolfe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bretwolfe (talk • contribs) 07:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Richard Gere
Hello, I know it was not your intention but you recently ended up doing a net removal of content here. You reverted BS (also, BLP sensitive stuff) but when you encounter things like that it is always good to check the history of the page to see if the vandalism was added entirely or if it is text that belongs on the page but was corrupted. Thanks, Brusegadi 04:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem! Brusegadi 04:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lucas
It's probably not the only paragraph that should be removed. I think the sourcing is good enough to back up that he wrote those particular quotations, but the paragraph (and the whole section, really) is trying to describe him and charcterize his opinions and writings in general. To me, it's too much a new analysis from primary sources: an WP:OR concern really. Mango juice talk 02:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's too bad neither of us have a real interest in this topic. The article mentions that there's a book on Lucas out there, apparently published without his involvement or approval.. but nonetheless, it's kind of too bad that the article doesn't cite that book at all.  I wonder if any editors that aren't already involved has the book?  B/C I don't think either of us want to get it.  Mango juice talk 03:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Jmh123! I would like to archive the thread at WP:COIN. It seems you left your final comment there unsigned. Can you go add your real signature? I'm afraid the auto-archiver won't do its thing without real signatures. Thanks again for your work on the article. I hope you didn't have to watch any videos :-). EdJohnston 22:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nathan Hamilton
Sorry about that. Doyley 18:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The troublesome article, revisited
J, what has happened? I return from a two week trip overseas and I find the article so pared down (chopped up, really) that I hardly recognize it. Please drop me a line (here) and let me know. 72.68.116.51 09:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See, and the Lucas talk page.  -Jmh123 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

J, what a mess! I'd seen the talk page, but not the COIN stuff. It's a good thing I was away, otherwise I would never have been able to walk away from the pc, seeing what was going on. I'd had a better time on my trip, anyway. BTW, don't take offense as I said the article was chopped up; I see you've done a lot of work to improve it, but you also had to salvage others' edits. I'm still not caught up on my sleep, owing to jet lag, but I'll touch base with you in the coming days. 72.68.123.158 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, J -- how are you? I'd hoped to get back to you sooner, but life continues to "get in the way." Nevertheless, I didn't want to "leave you hanging" or give the impression that I was no longer interested, though even if I had the time I see that I could not edit the article, as it has been under WP prohibition and will remain so until December. I cannot be sure that I'll return then, owing to the busy-ness of that time, but time will tell. In the meantime, and speaking briefly, when I compare the current version to the one last saved on 17 September, I see the balancing content has been removed. In its place is a version which I'd hoped would never stand, a white-washed and sanitized version which "they" had worked for: mention of his American citizenship, but no mention that it really means nothing to him; removal of the so-called "unencyclopedic" content (and I know it was a stretch to include them, but the content was properly sourced, and provided truthful balance, you must admit) which exemplified his artifice, artificiality, lying, opportunism, fakery, and loathsome character; removal of references to his despicable anti-Christian and anti-Catholic blather; and even more convenient links to his websites (readers needn't navigate to the bottom of the page, they're right there under Credits, just click and be lead to a place where you can make a purchase). In a recent peculiar twist, one of "them" had prod'ed the article, but that was overturned by one of your colleagues. I think they're trying desperately to engineer even more sanitizing, i.e., eventual removal of at least his anti-Hasid rant and along with it his anti-Islam rant. Ya know, they ain't stupid, but they're certainly amateurish. Do keep an eye on 76.103.8.174 and 76.174.43.79: they've recently edited this and related articles. Also, another (?) has resurrected an article which you had merged (back in May, I believe). That article has had its improper content removed, reducing it to insignificance; it will soon be deleted, I trust. As I've said before, I appreciate your collaboration on this article. It's consoling to know that I'm not the only one out there seeking truth. I hope to be able to bring about some needed additions to this article in the future. You'll recognize my edits, I'm sure of it. Please reply here. Take care, and until we speak again, I am,

Most sincerely yours, 72.68.127.27 17:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Content on Fallout Boy Talk Page
While it is clearly a judgment call about a conversation being 'gratuitous,' your edit was made in good faith. Your edit summary, however, is condescending and it would be appreciated if future edit summaries are in the spirit of civility as anything else would be 'sophomoric.' the_undertow talk  16:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Another One Perhaps?
What do you think of User:121.247.115.123? - Warthog Demon  05:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe ask for semi-protection? - Warthog Demon  05:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm . . . this reply I made is not uncivil is it? - Warthog Demon  19:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I did then reply with a sincere honest "good day and cheers." Though honestly it is a shame how people suddenly loathe this site just because articles they create don't meet article requirements. :/ (I speak from experience, actually.) Oh well. - Warthog Demon  19:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Burusera - Full quote
I happened to run across this source while researching some cites for the lolicon article--there was a bit of original research that I was hoping to turn into something viable (and I succeeded). The source mentioned burusera, and when I wikilinked it, lo and behold, there was already a Wikipedia article. Coincidentally, another article mentioned the panties in vending machines. The quote: "Japan is known for its libertine view of sex and fondness for bizarre fetishes, such as a craving by men for girls' panties, which were sold in vending machines just a few years ago." -Jmh123 23:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! This is added to the article. / edg ☺ ★ 23:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I put a comment on my user page: talk about this... Timothy Perper 02:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * More on my user page. Timothy Perper 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe
Hello. I recently came across the Marilyn Monroe article that you worked on and found that someone has come along and made it worse. I am hoping that by alerting you, that you could take a look and fix it. I appreciate it.  Ab by  02:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Compasses
Yes, the modern non-masonic world more commonly uses Compass in the singular. Freemasonry, however, originating in England in the 1600s uses the more archaic British formulation of a pair of compasses (see the note in the first paragraph of Compass (drafting)). Thus, in Masonic usage, the tool is correctly termed "The Compasses". I admit that in today's world the usage it is somewhat ideosyncratic to Freemasonry; even Englishmen more commonly use the sigular form these days. No harm, no foul. I assumed from the start that your edits were in good faith, and they were. Blueboar 20:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar point
"However" is exactly what should be used to start sentences, because the alternative, "but", is grammatically incorrect at the beginning of sentences. I believe you simply got confused, but I have reverted your edit just the same. MSJapan 00:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not confused. Once upon a time in the dark ages the rule was that "however" should only be used in the form: independent clause/semicolon/however/independent clause.  I see by a google check that this rule is no longer applied by most.  -Jmh123 00:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris Erskine
Hey, no idea how to renom Chris Erskine properly for his 2nd AfD, I keep getting the old page, can you fix this? I have asked some mods, but if it's still not right when you see it can you fix whatever I've done so it's a proper 2nd AfD?JJJ999 06:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC) I was told a month when I asked, so that's what I'm going with, cheersJJJ999 07:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I was making it plain I was the nominator, but if it was not clear, I will clear it up.JJJ999 05:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's now a deletion review
Hello, Jmh123. I'm alerting all of the editors that took part in the the deletion debate for the article Adult-child sex that it is now a deletion review, as seen in this link. I felt that you may want to lend your voice about this topic in its deletion review as well. More on what may happen concerning this topic is discussed here. After reading that, I'm sure that I won't have to tell you to watch for it being put up for deletion again, if this deletion review doesn't come out as Overturn and delete. I'll see you around. Flyer22 20:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star) has been proposed for deletion
Hello Jmh. User:Lucasent has added a 'prod' to this article. Do you have an opinion? I'd hate to see your good work go down the drain. I didn't remove the prod; will wait to hear opinions. The current state of this article represents a kind of success. EdJohnston 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star)
I am writing to you because you have had previous experience working with this article. The edits of David Shankbone on this article have been reported to COIN as seen here,.

--72.68.31.128 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi, Jmh123 I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)