User talk:JackGavin

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, JackGavin. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Epicgenius (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Democrat party"[edit]

Hello,

I saw your edit to the fort lee scandal article and I thought you might be interested to read this. Best, AgnosticAphid talk 19:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree that "Democrat" (adj.) is often used pejoritively. Thanks for the link. JackGavin (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Governor Chris Christie administration scandals and controversies page[edit]

I got your message on my Talk page. While I appreciate your offer about e-mail communications, it would be best to address our personal interests about this proposed Wikipedia article on one of our individual Talk pages rather than through e-mail since it is easier to cross reference other related Wikipedia issues here. I deleted the section you added to my Talk page about this topic as you requested.

I am like you in that I would not be comfortable in creating such an article since I am a relative novice in Wikipedia set-ups and formats. I am also like you in that I am from NJ. I am somewhat familiar with the many topics that you have proposed to be included in the article. However, not to the point where I would have immediate detailed knowledge to impart to specific topics to the article. I would need to Google for related issues before I even attempted to add anything.

Right now, I am not seeing a real strong passion among editors, including myself, in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal page to create the proposed new article. More importantly, there would need to a lead group that would work to get this article off the ground. Even with the relatively small current interest in this proposed new article, I do not see exactly where this group of originating editors are going to come from. I was thinking that perhaps the suggestions for this proposed new article might gain more interest, traction, and contributors if it was also posted on the Talk page of Governorship of Chris Christie. On that Talk page, it could even be suggested, as an alternate, to start off these individual topics under a section within that article and see if it reached the point where a new separate article was warranted.

You could eventually let everyone know that a new Talk page has been opened up on Governorship of Chris Christie to consolidate the interests of those working on Fort Lee lane closure scandal and those working on Governorship of Chris Christie to address these scandals and controversies. At that point, you can also get into the general arrangement and set-up, initial topics to be addressed, order of topics, etc.

Some of the proposed listed topics can more easily start off as part of the existing Governorship of Chris Christie since it would avoid the current obstacle of starting a completely new article. There is a current section, George Washington Bridge scandal (Bridgegate) and related controversies, that could be used to start off. It should first be renamed "Administration scandals and controversies". It can then be rearranged and edited for each of the proposed topics. At some point, as that section grew, there could be stronger consensus to create a separate new article, Governor Chris Christie administration scandals and controversies.

While Djflem is experienced in creating and expanding new articles, Djflem seems to be initially opposed to creating such an extensive article, as currently proposed.

I will watch this page so that I can continue to communicate with you about this topic and will continue to watch the Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion. Wondering55 (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look closer at that Governorship page, as maybe that will do. Since I'm real green at this, I'm not ready to jump in with both feet on the new page. (Sorry, mixed metaphors.) JackGavin (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)[edit]

Thanks very much for bringing that article to my attention. You know, at first blush, what strikes me about it is that it seems to be a case of the "tail wagging the dog." In other words, the article focuses on the Guthrie song inspired by the crash and not the crash itself, even though the article is mainly about the crash. I'm going to explore that further. Coretheapple (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I grew up hearing that song, and knowing that it was of true events. So sad. Because of the similarities with the bus crash 15 years later, I thought you might cross-link the two articles.JackGavin (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, definitely. But meanwhile I've asked at the talk page that the article focus a bit more on the crash itself, and be retitled to reflect that. My sense is that the song should have a separate article. Anyway, thanks again for bringing it to my attention. Coretheapple (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current article title Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos) should remain, because of existing links and people looking searching for "Deportee" (as I did), and that the existing article become more focused on the poem/song. The event itself should get the new article, perhaps 1948 Los Gatos plane crash, which would then be cross-linked to both the poem/song article and the 1963 article. JackGavin (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems to be the way to go. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A marker for deportees lost in 1948, with 28 names, was dedicated at the mass grave in September. See coverage by LA Times and NPR. Also see Tim Z. Hernandez's page on the memorial project, which also has links to research on the crash. Hernandez is working on a book on the subject, All They Will Call You.

BTW, the Woodie Guthrie site lists the song title/credits as:

Plane Wreck at Los Gatos
(also known as "Deportee")
Words by Woody Guthrie, Music by Martin Hoffman

JackGavin (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Coretheapple (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delete Item about Samson NY subpoena issued, then rescinded[edit]

I was thinking about whether the recent addition to the Fort Lee lane closure scandal article should be deleted for the the Samson NY subpoena that was issued, and then rescinded on March 10, by the U.S. Attorney in NY .

The primary reason is to reduce the number of bytes for the article. There would be a savings of 928 bytes if it was deleted.

The secondary reason is that this item is of somewhat limited value to readers compared to knowing about the ongoing investigation by the NJ U.S. Attorney that is covered in the article.

Interested readers would not be worse off about not finding about a subpoena that was mistakenly issued and rescinded within 3 days.

I was aware of these events prior to its recent addition in this article. At the time that it happened, I did not think it was needed for inclusion in the article based on the reasons I outlined above.

Let me know what you think. Wondering55 (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike when Christie ran the joint, there has been very little news leakage from US Atty (NJ) about what it's doing. This item at least shows that something is happening, and who is being examined. That said, if you'd rather move it to David Samson (New Jersey)#Allegations of conflict of interest, I'd be ok.

I agree the article is big, and getting (too) bigger. Perhaps some of the Timeline entries are now less important than they first seemed. But trimming around the margins will not work forever. We might soon need to spin off one or more major chunks (eg Investigations) into a new article, and only a "Main Page" pointer and a brief synopsis here. JackGavin (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schirra and Englewood[edit]

Your latest edit to the List of people from Englewood, New Jersey has been reverted. As the source cited indicates, he attended a school in the city and he is listed there as a notable alumnus. If you believe that attendance at a high school is indicative of being "otherwise closely associated", I encourage you to build clear consensus for your position at the article's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dates[edit]

Hi,

Just wanted to leave a message to clarify something. When you opened that thread at Talk:Khizr and Ghazala Khan#Date format, I had just noticed that a certain garnish had changed all of the dates in the article for the second time, with another misleading edit summary, without discussion, ignoring messages on his talk page, just after I had manually changed all of them back, and would likely be doing so again. I don't think I did a great job of masking my annoyance, but it wasn't -- or shouldn't have been -- directed your way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites, no offense taken, and none intended by me. I genuinely appreciate your work in establishing and maintaining the page, which I think documents a major episode in this election. Glad the edit war is apparently done. JackGavin (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 19 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Fort Lee lane closure scandal page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Lee scandal article[edit]

I applaud your dedication to the article. I have been following it as well and I find the entire ordeal fascinating. Pyrusca (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, should the lead be trimmed? its a little verbose.Pyrusca (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that, too, Pyrusca, but have been more focused on current events than on that, lately. JackGavin (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I just trimmed a bit for you. That lead was way too long for any casual reader. anyways cheers. Pyrusca (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole trial is ending soon. Pyrusca (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and the whole saga comes to an end.Pyrusca (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there will be lots of fallout to keep an eye on, maybe more legislative hearings, maybe another indictment, who knows? JackGavin (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, JackGavin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, JackGavin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, JackGavin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]