User talk:Jonathan Stokes

Wikipedians by Politics
Jonathan, I'm flattered by your proposal. You can publish my finding where ever you want you credit me by user:c_mon. I will publish my data set in my user space (user:c_mon/wikipedians by politics). There is one major warning about my methodology, since my sample is so small and especially the number of wikipedians who express a political view is so small, the findings are not reliable. My main conclusion would be: wikipedians choose not to express their political view and any conclusion about the nature of these political views is secondary.

Since there are so many wikipedians, it might be worth it to expand my sample. The result could be very interesting for the Wikipedia sociology. I will try to pursue that, just out of fascination to see who wikipedians are. C mon 10:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No thank you! I don't think my professors would agree with "rigorous and impressive" but who cares when one's research gets published. C mon 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

TechCrunch mediation
You asked offline about the mediation case -- below is the notice I have posted to the talk pages of the editors involved. 03:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There is now an active WP:Mediation Cabal case to resolve whether or not the "criticisms" in the TechCruch article should or should not remain. As one of the editors participating in the matter, you are invited to help in the resolution. For more info please follow above links.
 * I have reverted the article yet again in response to the wikipedia vandal who keeps restoring the "criticism" section in violation of the mediation resolution. I note you've reported this case to Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism.  Any way to follow this to see if they do anything?  Wikidemo 02:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I commented in the community portal. However, I'm not clear on what they could do anyway.  I'm not sure how the requests for moderation against vandalism works.  There are so many requests that a new one quickly falls off the page, and then they archive them every week.  I'm not sure how one can follow the request to make sure someone is taking action.  The user hasn't reverted today so perhaps they are going to go away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

WP:MEDCABAL/TechCrunch
Good morning (GMT time); further to your question at the above page, enquiring if editors should proceed to "..edit down..." the criticism section of the article, TechCrunch (talk), I have posted a compromise, mostly on your request, at the "Compromises" section of the MedCabal case page, linked above.

You are invited to participate in determining consensus of the compromise posted, by objecting to or agreeing with the proposal.

Kind regards, anthony cfc  [ talk] 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Award
 The Original Barnstar For your civility in the Mediation Cabal case, WP:MEDCABAL/TechCrunch, and for helping to solve an important dispute efficiently and sucessfully - and making my Mediation easier :) - I, Anthony, award Jonathan Stokes the Original Barnstar. Well done! Kind regards, anthony cfc  [ talk]


 * ''Awarded:, Monday July 29 2024 (UTC)

WikiProject on Vandalism studies Study 1 is complete.
The WikiProject on Vandalism studies recently finished its first study and has published its conclusions (a full and detailed copy of the conclusions can be found here).

The first study analyzed a randomly sampled pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. '''The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used.' From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.''

Currently the project is working on a related study, WikiProject Vandalism studies/Obama article study, and is also beginning to draft up the parameters of our second major study (see Study 2). If you are still interested in our work (your name is on the participant's list), please participate in our efforts to help create a solid understanding of vandalism and information on wikipedia by contributing to discussions of past studies or by helping plan up and coming ones. Thanks. JoeSmack Talk 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Photobucket
Thanks for fixing the references on Photobucket. I was the one who added the references, without the proper formatting (because I didn't know what it was). Would you mind explaining to me how to use the tags properly, so I can do it myself in the future? Thanks! Paul Haymon 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it. Paul Haymon 05:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Vandalism studies' Study 2
Hi Jonathan! Your name was in the volunteers' section of Study 2, and I wanted to let you know we settled on the Random Edits idea (which you supported). We're beginning to work out the procedure and structure of the study - I wanted to invite you in on the collaboration! (Notice new content on both the main Study 2 page and talkpage). Thanks for your help; its nice not being a team of just 3 anymore like it was for Study 1! :-) JoeSmack Talk 01:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and it looks like we have bot help too. JoeSmack Talk 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Rampart scandal

 * Woah, cool! Just saw this.  Thanks!!  Jonathan Stokes (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of GigaOM


A tag has been placed on GigaOM, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. The Determinator p  t  c  19:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Great Revival: CVU Vandalism Studies Project
Hi! We're dropping you this rather unexpected message on your talk page because you signed up (either quite a while ago or rather recently) to be a member of the Vandalism Studies project. Sadly, the project fell into semi-retirement a few years ago, but as part of a new plan to fix up the Counter-Vandalism Unit, we're bringing back the Vandalism Studies project, with a new study planned for Late 2012! But we need your help. Are you still interested in working with us on this project? Then please sign up today! (even if you signed up previously, you'll still need to sign up again - we're redoing our member list in order to not harass those who are no longer active on the Wiki - sorry!) If you have any questions, please leave them on this page. Thanks, and we can't wait to bring the project back to life! -Theopolisme (talk) & Dan653 (talk), Coordinators

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spec script, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages American Beauty and Alan Ball (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder
Hi Jonathan, thanks for creating this article! I've moved it from A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder (musical) to A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder as no other articles are within the scope of this title. Again, thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Pitch (filmmaking) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Director and Producer


 * Talent agent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Producer and Model

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Change step (waltz)
Hello,, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on Change step (waltz), appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Closed and Open Changes. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Change step (waltz) at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 08:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please follow the WP:MOVE guideline for renaming the article. Cut and paste move is not appropriate in wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 08:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations
I briefly looked in our contributions, and I applaud your efforts to improve the coverage of the neglected area of wikipedia. However I have to notice that what you are doing is copyright violation: you cannot copy ISTD descriptions of the steps: they are copyrighthed by ISTD. (I could have easily done them myself 9 years ago, when I was an avid wikipedian :-) Please remove the tables you created and replace them by descriptive texts. Simple rephrasings of the tables will be insufficient do avoid copyvio. - Altenmann >t 09:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Closed and Open Changes a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Cindy ( talk ) 09:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Claremont Shades
 * added a link pointing to Claremont


 * Without a Box (improv group)
 * added a link pointing to Claremont

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Audience superior position
Hi Jonathan,

I was doing new page patrol, and I found your article at Audience superior position. Good work! I rated it as C-class and mid-importance at the literature WikiProject. I see you've been a bit inactive lately - I hope you feel motivated to start contributing again soon! --Slashme (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Without a Box for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Without a Box is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Without a Box until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Claremont Shades for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Claremont Shades is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Claremont Shades until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)