User talk:TheJC/Archive 1

Help regarding LondIRC: article created by mistake.
I want to delete an article I created by error, and not sure what template to use. Article is LondIRC and I created it (I believe) the first day I was registered without reading all of the policies fully. Would it come under the "test" template? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheJC (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC).
 * Just use Computerjoe 's talk  11:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks TheJC TalkContributions 11:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for help
Many thanks for the pointers re. welcome templates - and ALL the other goodies at The Starter Toolkit - WikiHeaven! - MightyWarrior 00:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :D TheJC TalkContributions 05:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, TheJC! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk  15:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Prodego! :D TheJC TalkContributions 15:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Double-redirect fixes - Wow!
I see you fixed the hundred or so redirects I made to the entries on the List of Internet slang (or whatever it's called now). Thanks for doing that! I hope you did it with some tool, in any case I'm impressed with your willingness to do such scutwork. From one janitor to another - keep up the good work. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I used a tool called the clipboard, with a lot of paste ;) it took some time but that was the reason I did it - to pass the time! Anyway, you're welcome, TheJC TalkContributions 05:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Large portal sites
Please read the previous message, as well as WP:EL and WP:SPAM to familiarise yourself with the policies and guidelines that are effecting your edits in article Spanking. Yours, TheJC TalkContributions 02:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) (copied from 58.165.187.145's talk page)


 * How would you suggest making a site which is directly targeted to a particular subject known to your visitors ? Specific points may be made but lack of an overview makes this a case of missing the wood for the trees, does it not ? We have thousands of daily visitors , there is a demand for ACCURATE information , this is why I personally took the time to add the link . I can not have our people tied up editing material for inclusion . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.187.145 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 21 Jun 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, however adding a link to a site you are a contributor to (as the link stated on the article) might be construed as spamming an external link. I won't go into an edit war, purely because I dislike confrontation so am always trying to stay on the good side of everyone. I'm not a contributor to the Spanking article, and only reverted the edit when I came across it on Recent changes patrol.
 * If you believe the link deserves to be in the article, the best thing to do in this situation would be to bring it up on the article's talk page. As Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, talking to those that have added content to the article and those that are also interested in the subject may result in an editor looking at your site and adding it to the External links section themselves as they believe it adds value to the article (a much nicer way of resolving an issue).
 * Hope what I've said helps, TheJC TalkContributions 05:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about that. Im not a regular user and made a quick edit based on this article in the latest Esquire;

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2006/060611_mfe_July_06_Innocent_1.html

In it it talks about him changing his name to Hamza. I would have named a source, but I dont know how. Sorry, it wont happen again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.88.134.187 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 Jun 2006 (UTC)


 * (Copied from 200.88.134.187's talk page, these messages regard to this revert on John Walker Lindh)
 * No problem, I wasn't sure so I left a message here. I'm sorry, and I've added your edit back to the page, as well as adding the link to the end of the sentence by typing - the space before the closing bracket results in the link appearing like this: . If you do have a problem or question, feel free to ask me on my talk page. I'm not sure if you want to register a username so others can recognise you, as well as having your own user and talk page. I've listed below the major benefits of registering a username in case you might be interested in the future. Feel free to ask any editing questions at the Help desk if I'm not around, and there are oodles of useful links for beginners to WikiPedia that I've found useful at Wikipedia:Starter toolset. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding, TheJC TalkContributions 00:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusing anatomy
I notice that your last fifteen edits have been merely to add the Template:Confusing tag to the top of anatomy articles (for example, this edit at Subarachnoid space. In many cases, anatomical structures can only be understood in relationship to related anatomical structures, so I ask that before you use this template in the future, you click on the links on the page to help define the terms used in the article. --Arcadian 00:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The articles it has been placed on use terms which I believe could be construed as confusing and don't describe the terms it uses. In the example you've given, the article does wikilink to the terms used, but someone that doesn't know anything about the subject would unlikely click Arachnoid → Arachnoid mater → Meninges → Dura mater → Arachnoid mater → Dura mater → Periosteum to just understand the meaning of one word. In these cases, footnotes or in-line descriptions explaining (in basic terms) what the term/word actually means to those of us who know nothing about anatomy/biology but would like to know more about a certain anatomical part without having to open several other pages to understand the topic. Therefore, I believe the articles I have placed this template (This article or section may be confusing or unclear for some readers, and should be edited to rectify this.) has been used correctly, and having looked at Wikipedia is not a dictionary many of the definitions in these articles seem to be Circular definitions. TheJC TalkContributions 00:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * TheJC, I think that Arcadian is correct. Each anatomical structure article does not need to give the meaning of the other anatomical structures mentioned in the article. Would be very redundant and is unnecessary because of Wikilinks. In traditional reference books anatomical terms are put in bold text and a single glossary or table gives a comprehensive description of each term. Doing it any other way is not practical because each anatomical structure term is used many times and would make the text unbearably repetitive. FloNight   talk  01:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay pokey. :) TheJC TalkContributions 01:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wannabe "IP banners"
As it is the "straw poll" is about ½:½, but slightly leaning towards allowing. Also, this was tried on Meta @ Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles, and the results there are about the same. I might also add that almost all of these "polls" are highly skewed and hence of questionable legitimacy because the people who will be affected (Anons), with few exceptions, will never see them or anything out of the main articel namespace because all they do is look stuff up, fix a typo or 2, add some new info, etc. They never go into User:, Wikipedia: or any other namespace, and are perfectly happy with it. If they were suddenly blocked... you'd know *VERY* quickly that those "polls" were poorly held. Anyway, So long as some Siegenthaleriade that makes Jumbo) lose his mind (Or whatever happened with the new articel creation bit) doesn't happen, I think we're all safe from The Minor Party. 68.39.174.238 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Standard conditions for temperature and pressure
Hello. I see that you've reverted Standard conditions for temperature and pressure to the version by Mbeychok. However, I see no problems with version 60916727. It just disambiged "bar" to "bar (unit)" for measuring pressure, so I reverted your revision. If you believe that it shouldn't have been reverted, please contact me. Thanks. G . H e  22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am the original author of Standard conditions for temperature and pressure and I agree with User:GHe. His disambiguation was and is needed. Please leave it as it now is. - mbeychok 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. :) User has responded on my talk page and the cause seemed to be software problems. Happy editing! G . H  e  23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(The following has been copied from GHe's talk page --TheJC (talk • contribs • [/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username= count] ))

I'm not sure what happened there, it was this edit I was reverting, and was going to add the edit back in but looking at it, you got there first and my browser went a bit cookoo (as software does sometimes) and reverted you by accident, possibly because I was looking at a cached version and reverts don't appear to give any warning that it had already been reverted/changed - my apologies and thanks for catching it :) TheJC TalkContributions 22:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. That happens to me sometimes. :) G . H  e  23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this you? This edit links to your talk page, so you've probably just been logged out. Petros471 08:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not sure what happened there, but I've logged back in now. Probably a cookie problem or something TheJC TalkContributions