User talk:Jprg1966/Archive 4

Merge tag

When you add a merge tag to an article, as you did here, it is important to explain your proposed reason for the merge on the appropriate talk page. The tag doesn't need to remain in the article for an extended period with no discussion. Cresix (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? I did start a thread. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(comment without section)

Excuse me sir/madam, you got to understand the difference between chakori BHILOWAL and BHALOWAL, these two are separate villages with a ditance of 1.5 miles between them. They both have completely separate history ......Bhalowal (bilo chand ancestors) and Bhilowal with Russian ancestors....... This page is about chakori BHALOWAL, So, please undo your edit.....thanks --unsigned comment left by 130.156.22.254 (talk · contribs)

Thank you for your explanation. I believe that you are editing in good faith. However, in the future you should be sure to explain your edits and cite them with reliable sources. I recommend you begin a discussion on the article's talk page explaining your concern. Thanks. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren

don't worry about me making any more comments. this ip will be banned shortly, but i hope you address Silver seren's incivility in claiming that the Van Haeften article was an attack article. it was not an attack article, and the screenshot proves it. 67.174.52.134 (talk) 04:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about the background of this issue. I reverted your edit only because it was uncivil. You should feel free to state your claims on the page, just without using the words you used previously. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary line

Hello you sent me a message asking me why I removed a line from the Rachel Corrie article. The reason is because I felt like the statement was unnecessary in describing what happened. If you can't remember what it was, it was a statement that claimed that Robert Spencer criticized Rachel Corrie. I have no problem with this criticism, however this is the only line of criticism in the whole article. Please, if you wish to include criticism then please start a whole section doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali5uper (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's undue to include that line of criticism. In that section there is a lengthy excerpt of a statement by ISM and Corrie's parents defending the picture. If the flag burning was controversial, it should be reported. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Longship

Thanks for your polite communication, which is very refreshing on Wiki.I will delve in the library shortly to find the source again.Ka kite ano.1% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.154.113 (talk) 01:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, I used a template. The templates for level-1 notices were just rewritten to be more friendly-sounding. Nice to hear that it's working. Thanks for doing some research. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

A terrorist is someone who commits an act of violence in order to frighten a populace for idealogical or religious reason, or to advance an agenda based on the same. To call someone who publically assasinated someone he disagreed with because of his religious faith is terrorism defined. Thank uou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.119.194 (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The kind of edits you are making — labeling a person or group "terrorism" when they have not been previously labeled that way in the article — are inherently controversial and should be discussed before being made. Wikipedia reports only what other say and does not synthesize disparate sources, so you would have to demonstrate fairly widespread use of the word "terrorism" in reliable sources before it could be added to the article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

1980's Automobiles section

Saw your talk message. Unfortunately the whole entry for the 1980's has as mere 8 citations (and none for the auto section), so maybe the whole article should be junked. As it is, all the assertions I made are backed up the other wiki articles linked to the section. If you want to block my additions, that's fine (I have given up on wikipedia), but then maybe the whole article should be removed anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.147.49 (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't give up on Wikipedia. We're simply following the cycle of you being bold and editing, me reverting, and then us discussing the issue. You are right that there is a lot of unsourced material, and that something should be done about it. I think adding sources to existing material is preferable to deleting it. You, as an editor with some interest in this topic, would be in a perfect position to do that. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Locust

If you look at the talk page you'll see that I did indeed explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.191.236 (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the deletion on the article's talk page. In the future, it would also be helpful to leave a note in your edit summary saying "see talk page" or "superfluous" so that other editors can tell your intentions. Happy editing. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Kwikpoint citation

Hello there. I was editing the Kwikpoint wikipedia page. I saw your message after the information was removed and I just wanted some clarification on what you mean by adding a citation. I work with Kwikpoint right now, and a lot of the information was added by the director. I'm not exactly sure how to cite or what I should cite. If I could just have some clarification, that'd be great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwikpoint — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.207.242 (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. The relevant pages to review are Wikipedia:Verify, Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, and Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest.

In a nutshell:

• Cite any material that you think could be challenged by another editor. Your closeness to the company means you have knowledge about the company, but Wikipedia does not permit original research — only things that have been verified by an independent source. Also, as a rule, cite anything involving a living person.
• You are allowed to edit on behalf of a company, but you must be very careful to keep your editing neutral. Remember that your first and only responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to create an encyclopedia, not to promote a company.

Sorry to stick a bunch of policy jargon on you, but I'm happy to help you if you have further questions or need assistance. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for vandalism reversion

I know this is random and late, though I haven’t been on WP for months, so looked around recently to catch up. Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my talk page after the "Hublolly" incident I was not aware of. It’s strange... but I have no concern for this past incident. Maschen (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Hublolly was a sock puppet creation of a compromised account and no poses no further risk. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A cute kitten for you!

Just wanted to give you a cute kitty to look at when you're done vandal fighting.

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 06:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Aw, why thank you! He's very cute, indeed. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dream Team 101

I saw your welcome note at User talk:Kurreem1 and hoped you might be able to help with 'user' Dream Team 101 which seems to be a group of students. See both User talk:Dream Team 110 and User:Dream Team 110. We've got about 3 editors using this account and as you know this isn't allowed. Their attempts at editing have also been reverted. I think we are going to have to block that account as they all have passwords to it and get them to set up their own accounts. Even then, they can't work together and edit one addition to an article in a sandbox and then add it to an article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Dougweller (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I make a idea and I change Number Episodes

Hi Jprg1966,

I read your letter last few minutes you returning back as The Morning Show (Canadian TV series) I my keeping try to refresh new idea and I always keep tracking Number Episode what my gold of day it was success numbers for today. I will returning back the real number and other was a idea about no over 60 to 99 number because I think if the show was make 500 episodes and it was late so they really not have over 60 to 99. That my other idea!

Jprg1966 before you change or returning back there is a questions and note. I my not sure if you take a look before returning back, I try to understand what i my saying on the notes and questions. It's fine if you delete but It now on View History.

And one more note for you, Last few mouth ago in Feb 2012 someone like YOU! in Wiki User they also delete with "Guest Stars" to many famous artist and they delete and now I not want again with all the list, for me what a good idea again. I really want for myself to make new idea and also more few more information it same over again and again they always bring back those delets when I make over again renew page. Now do you understand what I my saying? in the other world, I my try to share few information to try something new idea because we know what it make it difforent way to viewers! I wood be happy when I make those ideas! I will keep trying bring new ideas but even it same over again and again delete or returning for myself.

Now I will change again this is is only Number Episode and also link to add a word, it now vary easy! even I not have other ideas... Thank you so much :) ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.180.8 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding information on warts

Thank you for the advice..I am new to editing..Please help me to add contents to the subject on warts Content:.Homeopathy is one system of medicine which has been found very effective in treatment of warts. Almost all homeopaths have treated and cured multiple cases of warts. Gvgv 1 (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC) The information is from this site: http://homoeoscan.blogspot.com/2012/07/treatment-for-warts-hpv.html

Thank you for your respectful inquiry. It is important that all challengeable material on Wikipedia be verifiable. The best way to do this is to cite reliable sources. In the case of medicine, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed medical journals or widely used textbooks. For more information, read WP:RSMED. Thanks again for the note! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for the reply and clearing my doubts at the earliest... Gvgv 1 (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Glad I could be helpful. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

gw

I removed the image because i was the one who uploaded it and a better image can be displayed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The person who originally uploaded the picture is Pjn1990 (talk · contribs). Is that you? You should only edit from that username. Also, leave the images until you upload the new ones. That way the pages have pictures the whole time. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

yes, that is me but it's a very old username (summer 2010). I will check if i can log into that. please don't concern yourself with my images, they are no longer to be displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

they didn't meet the criteria to be uploaded and are violating terms of use. they are not 'creative commons' or whatver you are calling them and need to be taken down, as per wikipedia terms of use for images. --70.44.58.168 (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This IP has now made an explicit legal threat, and so is blocked. By policy, he is not permitted to edit WP at all until he explicitly withdraws the threat. No need to respond or continue the discussion IMO. DMacks (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(comment without section)

That is a violation! Wikipedia states the following: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

There is currently 1 link - I added 1 more. Your removal is frankly not required. The link adds crucial information to the bank. Please put it back. — unsigned comment left by 80.39.19.147 (talk · contribs)

Fine. I will make that my last one.

Your still not understanding, it is vital information regarding this bank in Iraq. The wiki page has very little information thus it would be ideal to start adding more info. I notice on your user page - Israeli Writing, let's not make this a personal attack on me! Not nice. I have no disrespect to Israeli's, I have very good friends from Israel. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.19.147 (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not personally attack you, but I am glad that you are open-minded culturally. I'm not perfect, so if you still want to press your case, I would recommend going to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. People will decide by consensus whether your link is fit for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Now it makes sense.... SO what do I have to do to add it?

It escalated because - i had 3 diffrent people sending me messages. I read the wikipedia rules and it said links are alowed so long as they are not excessive. 1 current link plus the one I added would not do no harm. This is not fair. 80.39.19.147 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

80.39.19.147 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Just go to the reliable sources noticeboard (click here) and start a new entry explaining that you added this link and another editor thought it was not appropriate. Ask them if they think it is OK. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added an entry - now I await a response. 80.39.19.147 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you find it? 80.39.19.147 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added a respons again..... try getting one of your friends to respond to me.. 80.39.19.147 (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Rollback of 509489452

I have rolled back an edit done to your talk page as it seemed like a vandal did it. If you want the edit undone, please click undo on the view history tab. Piandcompany (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to thank you for that. This editor and I had been having a pretty civil discussion and I don't know why it escalated all of a sudden. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It happens. Good luck and thanks for keeping Wikipedia up to snuff. :) Piandcompany (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't me. 80.39.19.147 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

16:30, August 27, 2012‎ 80.39.19.147 (talk)‎ . . (103 bytes) (-19,091)‎ . . (←Replaced content with 'Your A weirdowith nothing better to do than "police a wikipedia page lol. Go swival yourself you twat!') Care to explain? Piandcompany (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to explain :-) 80.39.19.147 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

edits on third party

Hi, Basically the version you are reverting to has more POV issues than mine. Firstly, it says the united states has had a two-party system for over a century. That's just not true. There are many parties in the elections. The version you are reverting to is set up to sway voters away from third party candidates. I have made a simple statement in the beginning of mine (deleted the point that democrat/republicans own the media due to lobbyists) and left the list of parties at the top. What is wrong with that? If there is a problem with my version, please review it rather than reverting to the more biased one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.223.101 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

follow up - third party

I don't think I have explained myself fully above. I've attempted to arrange the article and include information that people would be looking for when they search "third party" . First and foremost, Wikipedia should tell the reader what a third party candidate is. That is done in the first paragraph. The second paragraph makes the point that there ARE third party candidates in the U.S., which a reader who is researching "third party" may not know. To follow is a list of third parties, which is really what the reader is probably looking for. It directly follows from the question "what is the Third Party in the United States?" which is what a Wikipedia article should be answering. In the version you reverted to, the article with "third party candidates rarely win elections." Why? Why is that the first information given about third parties? It is extremely biased. In fact, a lot of the information further down the page (after the list of third parties) is extraneous but I have left it there anyway since it is generally neutral and informative. My attempt here is to rid the article of the two-party sway that is blatantly evident in the version you have reverted to. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.223.101 (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are problematic.

The fact that third party candidates rarely win elections is not biased at all. It is completely true and many third party candidates would acknowledge that fact, too. It is not a normative judgment on whether to vote for a third party candidate, which would be an example of bias.

Your citations are also not accurate. The USA Today article you provided in the lead as a source for "media dominance of the Democratic and Republican parties" says no such thing.

In any case, these are major changes to the article and should be discussed on the article's talk page first — especially since multiple editors are objecting to them. Please start a discussion there. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also point out that the original lead has links to the successes of third party candidates, such as Third party officeholders in the United States. And we should not assume that the reader is there for a list of third parties. We are an encyclopedia, not an almanac. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My citation was to support a prior sentence in that paragraph about how americans have expressed distaste for republican and democratic candidates, which I have since removed, so thank you for removing the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.223.101 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

third party

very well then. I am simply going to rearrange the article that you have chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.223.101 (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)