User talk:Jprg1966/Archive 1

Bob Dylan & the Beatles

Howdy. Bob Dylan kind of stands out in that sentence you added. The others they were into from almost the beginning, in Germany, etc. Dylan came later and was not a "Rock and Roll" pioneer. I'm not saying he didn't influence them, but it doesn't seem to be the right place. Bob shows up later. . . John (Jwy) 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

you have a point

OK, I missed the part about the banner. It is clearer to have the article quote the charter; I don't think I'm the first user to be confused by this. I like your version. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

American Single - May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Helter Skelter (song), please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jprg1966 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

What about page 106 of Mark Wallgren's book, The Beatles on Record (New York: Fireside Books, Published by Simon & Schuster, 1982)? Is that a reliable enough source, or does Walgren not count as an authority? By the way, if you doubt the record's existence, it is Capitol 4274. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.74.139 (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems plausible enough for me. Go with it for now and see if it stays.--Jprg1966 (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

What about page 187 of Nick Schaffner's book, The Beatles Forever (New York: Cameron House, 1977)? Gee, according the Turabian's Manual for Writers, if I find one more independent source, it officially becomes "common knowledge" and doesn't need to be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.74.139 (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a school paper.--Jprg1966 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I checked Castleman & Padrazik, Wiener, and Lewisohn. None of them make the connection between the 1976 single and the tv movie. So, I guess I will defer to your judgment and leave the information about "Helter Skelter" being released as a B-Side out of the Wikipedia entry. (Though if you really want proof that the single exists, email me privately and I will give you my spare copy of the record.) By the way, I would not say Turabian is for "school papers," unless you consider a Ph.D. dissertation a "school paper." Turabian is used for all sorts of published works. I would also not really call Wikipedia an "encyclopedia." I don't allow students to cite it in any papers they write in my college history classes. (But, then again, I also don't let them cite real encyclopedias either.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.74.139 (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I only graduated college a year ago, so that's just my association with the word "school" these days. Cheers.--Jprg1966 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! Today is graduation day here, so I know must have been a big deal for you. But, still, it was very hurtful for you to delete my edit before I even finished writing it. And, if you only graduated a year ago, it is likely that you weren't even alive when the "Helter Skelter" tv movie aired (March 1976) or when Capitol released the "Got to Get You into My Life"/"Helter Skelter" single (late May 1976). In fact, both of the books I suggested you look at (Walgren and especially Schaffner) were likely published before you were even born.

I'll tell you what. I am going to refrain from editing Wikipedia from now on. I'm too old for this stuff. It takes a lot of work to put together a thoughtful edit and then have it simply removed because someone doesn't believe it. I am tired of having to "re-invent" the wheel (such as having to prove a record exists when I am holding a copy it in my hands). I'll let you younger guys keep this stuff up-to-date. I don't have the perseverance to do it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.74.139 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

wadham

it was explained, had you paid attention you would hav enoticed that i was reverting a previous edit, that was itself a deletion without explanation... the explanation is in the first edit but not the second if you look at the history. l.

You're right I saw that afterward. Continue on.--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Boris Johnson, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Widefox (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OH! I thought I was reversing the vandalism. I didn't mean to restore it. Apologies.--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please slow down! That may help until you get more editing and anti-vandalism experience? Widefox (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello, Jprg1966! I would gladly collaborate with him and I have tried to reach a consensus. However, he does not care one bit about the discussion I started before making the edit. He did not make an effort to provide one argument against my arguments. How am I supposed to collaborate with him? Thanks, 92.36.173.254 (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime I have requested page protection so nobody gets the "upper hand" yet. I saw that you began a section on the article's talk page. Did you notify him on his page that this exists?--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems you did. Let the administrators work it out their pace. Continuing the war is not worth it at this point. You seem to have demonstrated a degree of reasonableness, so have faith it will be rewarded is probably the best thing for now.--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. Now another user reverted me, saying that my edit was an "unexplained removal of content". I feel invisible. Everyone ignores my arguments. Everyone ignores an entire discussion, as if I were a robot or a spambot. 92.36.173.254 (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am guilty of jumping the gun, too, sometimes (see above). What would probably help is if you registered an account. You are edit warring with someone who has an account, which gives him the appearance of authoritativeness to someone glancing at this problem for the first time.--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems the other user misunderstood the situation. I am really sorry for causing you this much inconvenience. I suppose you are right. I did not intend to get too much involved but I will consider creating an account. 92.36.173.254 (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No inconvenience. You are entitled to keep an eye on the page in question -- just be patient for the admins/Wiki community to weigh in.--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CVUA

Hello, Jprg1966! I have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and I would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Leave a message on my talk page or visit the Academy's information page. ~~~~

--Chip123456 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

see here User talk:Achowat#Twinkle Icon

Hello, I'm Chip123456. The reason I have posted this here because me and another Rollbacker have been looking at your recent edits. To say the least, they are very promising. I myself have been through the academy and would strongly recommend it, especially if you are looking for new vandalism tools e.g WP:RBK which helps you quickly revert vandalism. Of course, that is not the only thing you go in there for. You get to learn how to correctly identify, revert, warn and report the user. Any questions, ask here or my talk page. You can also ask Achowat who is willing to take you as a student. Best --Chip123456 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I will definitely give this offer consideration. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope you do! Once again, any questions just ask. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Spam defined not by INDIVIDUAL posting of false information, but of repetetive posting of false information throughout WP

Hi, Jprg; You recently tagged me in Curry_Todd as a result of my use of the word "spam". Let me assure you that the description is appropriate and used advisedly. The word as I used it refers not simply to the individual entry, since an individual entry cannot be spam, but to the habit of the editor of circumventing the appropriate Talk page (the relevant one is American Legislative Exchange Council, where I have discussed this topic at length. ALEC is a 501(c)3 organization, and it is utterly POV to label it a lobbying group, and a pejorative to label it right-wing, since it is actually Centrist/Libertarian. The editor does NOT refer to Talk pages, but INSTEAD repetitively inserts the phrase "right-wing lobbying" into dozens of pages, wherever ALEC is mentioned. I assume my edit came up on some Bot, since I do not see any evidence that you are an involved editor (another problem with the ALEC page; Wiki-lawyering and canvassing, both on and off-Wiki)--209.6.69.227 (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

1RR

I've noticed that you're in violation of the 1RR on the article Gilad Shalit. You had one revert done at 14:02 on May 21st, and then another 4 minutes later. Although I did block the IP you were reverting, I am not going to block you, since you at least remained civil in your edit summaries and made attempts to bring discussion to the talk page. Just remember to keep the number of reverts in line and not to get bogged down in edit wars in the future.--Slon02 (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realized soon after my second reversion that I was not in compliance. Thank you for understanding. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The English Translation of Nausicaä

I've come to rebut the message you posted on the User Talk page for 75.27.41.134 (which is indeed a shared IP address). It seems a bit unnecessary for you to have done that, but I see that you're a Constable of the WikiPolice, and I can deduce what that means.

"For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English."

The Nausicaä manga has been translated from the original Japanese into American English by a publisher based in the United States. In fact, the only English edition of Nausicaä currently in print is the American English edition. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable—even within the confines of the policy you quoted—to change the spelling from British English to American English. It's also worth noting that the article is not entirely written in British English; at the very least, the grammar and spelling should be made consistent throughout. And, as this particular book has been translated into American English by a publisher based in the United States, American English is the clear choice. I am going to continue to change the spelling in this article using that rationale.

"Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours."

How someone could possibly misconstrue the changing of spelling in an entry as a lack of respect for another version of English, I don't know. But I do know that I am going to continue to edit this article, in the interest of improving it, because I care about the subject. Thank you. 75.27.41.134 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

ECA

Well seeing how I own the wrote the content I "copied and pasted" from copyright is not an issue, however changes were made to suit you. Second how is it now marked advertising. I placed nothing in any of the infomation that tells how "great" ECA is. Everything that I placed on there are nothing more than non-debateable facts. Locations of schools, dates that the schools were opened, affiliated business of ECA and links to those businesses websites without suggesting that users user those services or indulging in how wonderful they were. What is your definition of advertising? ECA's students are allowed on Wikipedia to receive facts about everything. If facts that do not promote people to do something are advertisments then perhaps we need to reconsider allowing our 15,000+ students and 5,000+ faculty and staff members on Wikipedia.

Lastly the item I removed is baised. Go to your other for-profit college wikipedia entries. The week that the issue was on the floor 36 other owners and partners of for-profit colleges were present and vocal. Yet ECA is the only one with this linked to them? Don't be baised. If I am not allowed to list the affilated businesses in the page then the first paragraph should not discuss affiliated businesses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.138.18 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean that you "own the wrote the content" that was copied and pasted? Copying and pasting from a website is not permitted under any circumstances. The only edit I made to that section was for the sake of visiblity -- it should not be seen as a mark of approval.--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well JPRG1966, I wrote the material that I took off of my website to fill in the voids from a lack of information. You may want to return and read the policy on copy and paste. Public Domains are permitted(this does not fall under that) and can I really violate a copywrite when I am the one who wrote it for the ECA website and also maintains all content that goes on there? Okay so you didn't like the copy and paste. I changed the parts that were pasted. Check for your self. Copy each line and paste it into Google. You will get Wikipedia's result. Anything else that you see will be facts, such as were ECA is licenses from? If you didn't place the "this article appears to be written like an advertisement" then that leaves who? Again I ask. What part of this information about the history of ECA is an advertisment? The years that they opened the campuses? I never once put a thing in there that was geared in anyway to push anyone to have anything to do with ECA. It is just facts!Did you even read it before that was placed at the header of it did you assume. Do you really believe that it is not baised to have ECA as the school that was involved in the governments hearing? Seriously! Why is that on here but not all the other for-profits? Is that a good enough reason to remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.138.18 (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, now that you have had admitted that you are paid by ECA and you wrote the very content you posted, your actions constitute a conflict of interest. It was pretty clear to me that you were affiliated with ECA when you not only copypasted from their website, but deleted information you believed was damaging without providing an explanation. Regardless of whether that information is on other pages, you cannot delete content simply because it is damaging to your organization. The fact that someone who has been paid by ECA copied an entire web page onto an article I think qualifies as promotional and not encyclopedic content. This does not mean that the article is about to be deleted, or that all the information you posted is false, or that you cannot make useful edits to this article. But it means that other editors should be aware that a non-neutral source is writing in a non-neutral (i.e., writing verbatim from a promotional website) information in an article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, as I said, there is information that can be salvaged from what you added. But it must comply with Wikipedia's content guidelines. If you'll allow me, I will work to make that happen so I can remove the "copypaste" and "advert" tags and replace them with something less urgent. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What does the place I work at have to do with anything. A conflict of interest. Yeah buddy. I cannot place facts on here about ECA without a conflict of interest. You do not answer questions and cannot tell me what part I put in there that was an advertisment or conflicting except that I make money from them. I don't make money based on how many many people go to their schools. I guess seeing how I am a sports fan that is also a conflict of interest if I post something about a sports team. You took out the part where the students signed a wavier acknowledging that accreditation had not been received and yet you claim I am being baised. Let me give you a link to that... http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=14008994 Now can you put the information about the students signing a wavier before ever starting classes back in there? This makes it sound like students were never told there was no MS accreditation and before the information was removed it was listed that they signed the wavier and even asked about it. Does that seem fair and non-baised to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.138.18 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Oh and I told you I was affliated with ECA in the first message to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.138.18 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's policy on COI: "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest." And I'm sorry I didn't understand in your first message that you were disclosing your workplace -- your message was not easy to interpret. Furthermore, you were responding to concerns about copyright -- not about COI.

The reason I took out the section on the waiver was because it was barely written in legible English. If I really wanted to hide that information, I wouldn't have provided a link (see reference 2) that contained the information you want in there. The information is relevant, so there's no reason why it can't be in the article.--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to Mansoor Ijaz Wikipedia page

David Frum has an axe to grind with Ijaz over the Memogate affair. Each article he has written has bias, unsupportable commentary and is based on the information provided to him by the antagonist in the memorandum matter, Ambassador Husain Haqqani. There is no evidence in the public domain anywhere that Ijaz himself has made unsupportable statements with regard to bin Laden's possible extradition or not in 1996. The matter in any event is covered objectively further in the Wiki article on Ijaz under Statements on Bin Laden. The commentary posted (most likely by Frum or one of his associates) is biased, does not have any verifiable content and could be considered by Ijaz and his lawyers as slanderous and defamatory. Such comments may not be made according to Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalahind (talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you deleted two references, if I recall -- an article by David Frum, and another by Peter Bergen and Andrew Lebovich of the New American Foundation. Please don't tell me Bergen can't be trusted as a source on this topic. Second, Frum and Bergen are not the original sources regarding this accusation. The original source is journalist Richard Miniter, in a book he wrote. This has nothing to do with your personal suspicions regarding David Frum and Husain Haqqani. I will revert your edit and request that you explain on the talk page why you are discarding the use of Miniter's book as a reliable source.--Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Miniter book has many different sources. Ijaz is not the source of the accusations over bin Laden's possible extradition offer - those are the ex-defense minister at the time, El Fatih Erwa, and others. If you read the book carefully, Ijaz appears in one chapter with regard to the Sudanese counter-terrorism offer he allegedly negotiated in April 1997 that is a matter of public record. See Ijaz's testimony in Congress in June 1997. See article reference in section dealing with bin Laden where Ijaz and a former US ambassador to Sudan jointly write an article about what happened. See VANITY FAIR article in December 2001 on efforts to bring bin Laden to justice, that include the perspectives of at least four person, including former US Amb Tim Carney. To say Ijaz has a "long history of fabrication" is not a substantiated statement when the section of the Wiki article dealing with the controversies he has been involved in already cover the pros and cons of each individual matter - Memogate being the latest. Such comments are perhaps better left in the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalahind (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

John Axford

Hi there. I added the {{update}} tag to the article because I believe it needs to be changed to clarify that Axford's save streak has been broken. It's actually a bit confusing. The article says that the streak ended but also says that it is the longest "active" save streak, which is obviously not correct since it is no longer "active". I suppose I could have made the necessary changes myself, but, being unfamiliar with the specifics of the streak, I wasn't sure exactly what it should say. If you know more about it, perhaps you could edit it to be more clear. Thanks. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think tagging the whole page as out-of-date may have been overambitious, since nearly all the information on the page was accurate. There is also a sentence (albeit unsourced) later on that mentions that the streak is broken. The original sentence that mentions the streak is all that needs to be updated. It might be more useful in the future to mark that sentence with {{update after}}, as this produces an inline tag. (See: Update after)

Thanks for your response. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)