User talk:Jasonnewyork

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that when you post messages on discussion pages, you need to sign your messages, otherwise it gets very confusing for other editors and no one knows who wrote what. All you have to do is type four tildes (or click the signature button, as mentioned above) at the end of your message and it will automatically sign your username and the date/time. Thank you. –BMRR (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, I thought it auto signed it. Will sign in future. Thanks.

The Da Vinci Code

Hi, Jason. Regarding your edits to The Da Vinci Code, a number of points need to be made:

• Although link rot is a genuine problem, removal of information, solely because the link has gone dead, is not a valid solution to the problem. More on this is explained at Wikipedia:Link rot. I restored the New Yorker material, with the updated url.
• Even when you do remove a reference for valid reasons, please note if it is employing the ref name opening tag, which is used when a source is cited multiple times in an article. That source was used for other material in the article, and by removing the entire cite, you cause cite errors to occur, as seen with Cite #19 here.
• Salman Rushdie and Umberto Eco are prominent writers, and therefore, comments that they make in interviews or in lectures is perfectly valid for inclusion. They do not have to be in the form of "reviews". The topic of that section is Criticism. Not "reviews".
• Salon.com is a legitimate publication. You offered no rationale for the removal of the material sourced to that publication's story. If you cannot offer such a rationale, please do not remove such material.
• The comment sourced to that Guardian piece was not from the author of it, it was from a comment left by a user in the Comments section. This is not a valid source, as per WP:USERG.
• A minor point, but references should be placed right after the supported material, or right after the punctuation that comes at the end of it. Spaces do not go in front of citations.

Thanks for adding those additional reviews to the article. Hopefully it looks more balanced now. If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Good tips. Sorry for my sloppy editing. I was admittedly tired and secretly hoping a smarter official at Wiki would make it look better. Agree with most everything you said. Only dispute: Umberto Eco's comment is not a criticism, it's an extemporaneous thought (Dan Brown was a character in his book?) It's a random joke, not criticism. Also, I couldn't find the actual quote used in the source cited.Jasonnewyork (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The comment by Eco in this interview can be found by doing a search for either "The Da Vinci Code" or "Dan Brown". Yes, I agree it's not a criticism, but a comment by a writer like Eco would certainly seem to be a valuable addition to the article. While not criticism, it does seem analytical, since he's commenting on the interests that Brown shares with him, as evidenced by the themes Brown used in the book. Finding ways to incorporate material into relevant sections with cohesive themes is sometimes tricky, but if you feel that it doesn't fit with the other material in that section, one possible solution I would suggest would be to change the heading slightly to "Literary criticism and analysis". What do you think?

Sorry I neglected to maintain the balanced introductory summary on the reviews that began that section, which you correctly reverted. Cool collaborating with you! :-) Nightscream (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Learning the Ropes

I'd be happy to help. Here are some resources:

• Editing Tutorial
• Avoiding Common Mistakes
• Starting an article
• New contributors' help page
• Help Desk - This is to ask questions about how to edit Wikipedia.

• List of policies
• List of guidelines - Don't be daunted by these last two lists; you can just learn the policies and guidelines gradually, bit by bit like I did; I just put these here in case you ever feel ambitious and want to dive right in. Personally, I think the three most important sections there are for newbies to learn are the Content and Conduct sections of the List of policies page.

A lot of the other stuff I learned was just a matter of looking at articles, and seeing how others had done. For example, when I wanted to learn how to format text in bold or italics, I'd find some bold or italics in an article, click on "edit", and see how what markup was used for those effects (three apostrophes on each side of the formatted text for bold, two for italics), so I recommend doing this when applicable.

And if you want to get to know other Wikipedians and interact with them in person, you can always come to Wikimedia New York meetings. I sometimes go to them myself, since I live in Jersey.

If you every have any other questions or need help, just ask! :-) Nightscream (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Since this isn't a social networking site like Facebook, the only way to "friend" someone is to talk to them by leaving messages on their talk page, or by emailing them (which you can only do if they have that function enabled, which will be indicated by the "E-mail this user" link in the lefthand sidebar on their user page and talk page).

And after doing so looking around, I found that there's a Wikimedia District of Columbia, so maybe you can try checking them out. Nightscream (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I'll check it out. Cheers.Jasonnewyork (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean like projects? Well, I'm not an expert in that area, but I can tell you that I'm a part of a couple of projects, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. When tried to replace "Comics" with "Philosphy", I found this page of search results, and on that page I saw a link for Wikipedia:WikiProject, which includes a Directory. Let me know if that helps. Nightscream (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of atheism#Concepts of Atheism

Ive replied on the talk page. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hey Jasonnewyork! I just wanted to point out that you don't have to sign (~~~~) your edit summaries. You do not have to sign any edits in the main namespace. You can read Wikipedia:Signatures and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more information on signatures and talk pages. If you have any other questions, please ask on my talk page, thanks. -- Luke (Talk) 01:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, didn't know that. I just always throw it in there just to be sure.Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You only really need to sign edits on talk pages and Wikipedia namespace pages. -- Luke (Talk) 01:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks for the head's up. I sometimes need those extra 4 characters on the edit comments (seriously), so that will come in handy at some point.Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

good work

keep it up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.77.137.96 (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)