User talk:Jpetersen46321

Problems with upload of Image:Phil Goss.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Phil Goss.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI
You are being discussed here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Phil Goss.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Phil Goss.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Deor (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

January 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Warnings don't seem to have worked with this editor and given the pattern of editing only sporadically a short block would probably have been ineffective. So far as I'm concerned, all the editor has to do is to agree to stay away from WP:ERA issues to be unblocked. As simple as that. I'm sure there are more constructive things that this editor can do if they wish to edit here. Dougweller (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|reason=This block is inappropriate for the following reasons:

=REQUEST FOR UNBLOCK=

WIKIPEDIA POLICY AT ISSUE
Whether edits changing CE/BCE are appropriate?

IMPLICATED WIKIPEDIA POLICY:

"Years are denoted by AD and BC or, equivalently, CE and BCE. Use only one system within an article, and do not change from one system to the other without good reason. The abbreviations are written without periods, and with a non-breaking space, as in 5 BC. Omit AD or CE unless this would cause ambiguity." FN1

"If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." FN2

FACTS
I am a casual user of Wikipedia and I use only one account: User:Jpetersen46321. Information contained in this username frankly can readily identify who I am and where I am located. I use only this account, although I have made edits without logging in for the sole reason of convenience and no other purpose.

This block emanates from alleged incidents reported by User:Steven J. Anderson regarded edits by me involving the dating protocol AD/BC vs. CE/BCE. (see WP:ANI by Anderson above) Mr. Anderson has a documented history of single issue purposefulness in advocating the use of CE/BCE over AD/BC. FN3 FN4 In fact, Mr. Anderson's conduct has been criticized for offensive or insulting commentary. FN5 Anderson has intimated, without facts to support his assertions, that I have acted in bad faith or engaged in "sock puppetry." FN6

My recent edits involved changes to AD/BC style in articles, by way of example and not limitation, "Tower of Jericho" or "Great Pyramid of Giza." Being mindful of Wikipedia policy (see above) and issues with User:Steven J. Anderson, I will review the edit history of sites to confirm whether a new consensus is emerging or whether AD/BC was the original usage. For example, the a recent edit to "Tower of Jericho" suggested a new consensus emerging for AD/BC. FN7 Consequently, I made a similar edit in reliance on the apparent new consensus. Alternatively, the first major edit to "Great Pyramid of Giza" used the AD/BC protocol and I consequently made my edit back to AD/BC in conformity with Wiki policy. FN8

At no time have I engaged in an edit war with Mr. Anderson (or anyone) else regarding changes that I make. I review the articles, make any changes I deem appropriate and supportable by Wikipolicy and I move on.

ARGUMENT
This Block is improper and should be removed. The efforts of Mr. Anderson to enforce his single issue bias corrupts the ability of editors to make good faith changes to articles. For example, editors acting in good faith may disagree about style issues, but such disagreement is part of the natural evolution of Wikipedia and not indicative of bad faith or "sock puppetry." Consequently, changes of this nature should be encouraged or the page should otherwise be locked.

Further, Mr. Anderson (and others) make a spurious argument that changes from AD/BC usage to CE/BCE usage should be preserved due to "long usage." This position ignores the fact that single issue editors have vigorously squelched other editors with different viewpoints. Consequently, Wikipedia policy has evolved supporting reversion to the original Era used by the first major contributor.

My edits are supported by Wikipolicy and made in good faith. For all the above reasons, this Block is inappropriate and I request that it be removed.

Respectfully submitted, User:Jpetersen46321

FN1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Years_and_longer_periods FN2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 FN3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dhutch86 FN4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.145.182.73 FN5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steven_J._Anderson/Archive_1 FN6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive497#Jpetersen46321 FN7 From history page for article “06:12, 3 December 2011‎ 173.238.69.86 (talk)‎. . (4,876 bytes) (-1)‎. . (whats this BCE non-sense, its BC) (undo)” FN8 From history page for article “ 09:36, 9 August 2002‎ Ed Poor. . (286 bytes) (+147)‎. . (undo)” Jpetersen46321 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)|decline=(a) WP:NOTTHEM. (b) You'll be unblocked if you'll avoid WP:ERA issues completely; you've been asked to stop messing with dates for five years now; enough is enough. --jpgordon:==( o ) 20:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC) }}


 * And as this editor also edits logged out for convenience, even with agreement to avoid WP:ERA issues I'd be concerned that he'd continue such edits logged out. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Indiana Society of Chicago concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Indiana Society of Chicago, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Indiana Society of Chicago


Hello Jpetersen46321. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Indiana Society of Chicago".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)