en User talk:JCDenton2052

Notice: Feel free to discuss, but any posts that violate WP:AGF or WP:NPA will be reverted in accordance with WP:TALK. Any further wikistalking will be reported.

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (JCDenton2052) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GT-R

Hello, I noticed you undid my removal on the Nissan GT-R article of the "baby Veyron" comments. I feel this addition creates bias in the article, and do not feel that media outlets (and the forum you've linked) qualifies as sources that should be included in an encyclopedia here.--kb (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS. I can understand your objection to the NAGTROC forum as a source, however it is a scan of an Evo magazine article that has yet to be published online. Do you think that the scans have been altered in some way? However, I don't see any reasonable objections to Autocar or Top Gear. Both are well known sources in the automotive world. Remember, I wrote that reviewers had compared the GT-R to the Veyron, labeling it a "baby Veyron" and then I provided reliable sources with reviewers writing just that. I didn't frame it such that the article claimed that, so there isn't any bias. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Have you seen WP:BRD or WP:EW yet? Typically speaking, it is ok to make bold edits. However, if you get reverted by another editor, in good faith, it is never appropriate to re-insert the controversial new material. If you want the new content to go in the article, you need to go to the talk page, make a proposal for your changes aruging why you think they are beneficial and in line with policy, and see if there is community support (consensus) for your proposal. Twice you have re-added material that I have reverted in separate articles. And in my opinion, these edits seem to be made in (put bluntly) ignorance of wikipedia guidelines (which is fine in and of itself. Everyone is new, and everyone can learn from others. however, when you edit war to add material that goes against guidelines, I have to try to communicate the problematic nature of these edits, hopefully in a kind and polite manner). Have you read WP:CAT or WP:ALSO. For Jonathan Archer, categories are not like myspace interests. We don't add them indiscriminately to articles. Categories are there to pull out the most basic and important aspects of articles. For people, they are there to highlight why the individual is notable. For fictional characters, they are there to associate them with the most important and notable aspects of those characters. If the article does not mention a single word about Archer being a space pirate, it has no business being a category. What's worse is it seems you are supporting this claim based on a single episode. How many episodes of enterprise were there? 98? so something that represents only 1% of the character is not notable enough to work as a category here on wikipedia. If you were to describe Archer in 3 sentences, would "space pirate" come up in that description?

As to the see also section, links that are already included in the article, and links which actually redirects are usually to be avoided. Since misogyny is mentioned in the first sentence of the misandry article, it seems like it is prevalent enough in the article to not be needed in the see also section. Violence against men redirects to violence. Since someone looking for information on "violence against men" would be redirected there, the link is of little help for them. Would you consider adding simply the violence link to the see also section? probably not because it doesn't seem that related to the topic of misandry.

I hope this explains why I have reverted some of your changes (twice now). I don't mean to be too harsh, but I to get across the point that the best way to get disputed new content into articles is to initiate discussions on talk pages and avoid edit warring. On top of that, make sure your edits are within basic wikipedia guidelines. I honestly hope this helps, and if you have any questions about any of this, or wikipedia in general, I'd be glad to try and help.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not noticing that 2 months ago you proposed adding the space pirates category on Archer's talk page. Going to talk first is commendable, and we do have a silent consensus sort of view of things. However, now that there is at least one party who disputes the category, it should remain off until we can discuss things a little further.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. That was some informative reading. I think I now have a better understanding of when to add a page to a category.

I was just trying to make the Misandry and Misogyny articles more parallel. I assumed that since Violence against women had a link to Violence against men that redirected to Violence, that was the normal practice. I have a couple of questions: Since Misogyny mentions misandry in the lead, should it be removed from the See Also? Misandry has a link to Female Chauvinism and Misogyny has a link to Chauvinism. Should that be changed to Male Chauvinism or should they both just be Chauvinism? Otherwise, I think the See Also sections look good now. What do you think? Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicookie

HTC TyTN merge

You need to show the multiple merge notice at the top of the HTC TyTN article as well. If you wish to reply to this message, please post your reply on my Talk page, as I am not watching this page. Thanks.--Mak Allen (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the tip. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help someone with a WP resume like yours. If you have a chance, could you weigh in on a requested merge debate we have going? See talk:Family register. If you reply to this message, please reply to my talk page. cheers,--Mak Allen (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello! :) I noticed that you have been editing alot of "feminism" and "women's rights" articles. I thought you might be interested in this. Check it out and add your name under "Participants" if your interested. Have a nice day! Keep on making good edits, like your doing! --Grrrlriot (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the compliment! :D JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! :) I have seen many of your edits around. It's good to see a new Wikipedian and you have made good edits, considering your new. --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I'm going to work on the "men's rights" type articles, which seem to be in worse shape. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! :) Yes, The "men's rights" articles do seem to be in the worst shape. --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did note my changes in the edit summar

As the title above indicates, I did note my changes in the edit summary. On the Domestic Violence page specifically, I noted several unreliable sources. Since I noted my changes in the edit summary, I will reverse your reverse. We can chat about this further in the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You removed sources that might not have met WP:RS along with sources that did. Additionally, you replaced newer research with older research. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rove

Hi JCDenton2052;

I reverted your edit here [1] Please take a look at my edit summary. Rewrite if you wish and incl. a reliable source. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:TALK, this should be on Talk:Karl Rove. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not such rule at WP:TALK (unless I just missed it) and is rather a matter of interpretation. My intention was to point you to the revert in question so you won't miss it as I clearly was in favor on it's bases. Rather then say nothing I thought it would be nice doing so on your talk page. It wasn't meant to be offensive and I apologize in case you took it this way. Regards --Floridianed (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken and I didn't mean to offend. Are the new source and phrasing alright? JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're both perfect. Thanks for asking, --Floridianed (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update! It was perfect for me at first sight but not for WP-guidelines, So:

Please take a look at my edits at Karl Rove.

Citations/references were missing so I made some changes. I searched for simple references to confirm what you wrote (to take the easy way out) but couldn't find any that would "work" but if I do find anything worthy I'll let you know as I would be pleased if you let me know what you think about my edit. For sure it isn't and shouldn't be the final draft (in my opinion). Important for you to know: I had to take out W. Bush, Rove and McCain regarding direct membership. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only added the bit about him leaving the country, but good work on finding sources for and rewriting the country club bit. I'm not sure if scrutiny is the right word, but I don't know what would be better. I would consider controversy, but from my experiences working on other articles, there is a very high bar to call something a controversy.

Actually, it appears that John McCain has had fundraisers at several country clubs. [2] JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this [the source] out. I'll try to get back to it when I have the time to get it right in the first time [preventing a reverse and possible warring] what I can't just do "on the side". I'm sure you understand my point. --Floridianed (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. I'm not a "full-time" Wikipedian either. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tagging

Hi JC, I just want to drop you a line about your use of tags in regard to situations like this[3]. You've used {{who}} and {{cn}} for a statement that is not unsourced. The first two sentences are sourced to Alice Walker's book. The sentences in question might be badly formed but the tagging you've used is not the best option. For instance the sentences could be restructured to state:

Alice Walker and other Womanists pointed out that black women experienced a different and more intense kind of oppression from that of white women. They point to the emergence Black feminism after earlier movements led by white middle-class women which they regard as having largely ignored oppression based on race and class.^[1]

This reword may not be perfect but it is accurate.
It is not uncommon that more than one sentence is sourced to a single reference. Sometimes whole paragraphs are. Tagging in these cases is not always the best option - sometimes questions on the talk page may be better--Cailil ^talk 14:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It did not seem, from context, that the first sentence was sourced. Such a POV statement needs to be clearly sourced and needs a clear subject. Fortunately, your edits fix both of those issues. I'll keep that in mind for future editing. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc H. Rudov article

Please see my talk page comments here: Marc Rudov talk page LuisGomez111 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading WP:OR and WP:RS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unbalanced template on reproductive rights page

I noticed you put an unbalanced template on the history section of the reproductive rights page, but didn't leave an indication of what you think is unbalanced. It helps to have a comment on the talk page explaining what the difficulty is so other editors can contribute to fixing (or disagree, or whatever), and so the template can be removed once the issue is dealt with. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added an explanation on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what vandalism is not

JC I know this must be frustrating but Alastair's reverts are not vandalism - they maybe stubborn but they are not vandalism. Giving a Level 4 immediate or blatant warning template should only be done in extreme cases of blatant vandalism and should not be used in content disputes--Cailil ^talk 23:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask you, if removing tags without responding to their explanations on the talk page is not vandalism, then what is it? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be considered disruptive, tendentious or pointy, but it is not "vandalism". You'll see at Wikipedia:VANDAL#NOT that stubbornness is not vandalism--Cailil ^talk 23:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how should a user who removes tags without responding to the discussion of them on the talk page be warned? JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well... sometimes you need warn users "manually". Occasionally templates don't work very well and it is necessary to ask a user why they are making edits we don't agree with / don't understand. If they are unresponsive then ask them to stop - if they continue bring in a third opinion or a sysop. If they are responsive (which is the case with Alastair) try to use dispute resolution. Have a read of Wikipedia:DE#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors & WP:DR--Cailil ^talk 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alastair Haines is not being responsive. I responded to User:Jclemens's suggestion to use inline tags. User:Alastair Haines simply removed all of my inline tags without addressing any of the issues that I brought up on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be a response you like or find helpful but it is a response - your next interaction with him was to leave a {{uw-vand4}}. Situations like this need to be defused before they escalate. I recognize that there is something to investigate here and I am not dismissing your views but delivering a {{uw-vand4}} when it is inappropriate is not going to help. In the words of DR. Phil "some relationships need a hero" and sometimes no matter how difficult somebody's behaviour is or how hard it is to understand you must rise above it, and take the calm, patient road to eventualism. Getting the article right is worth taking the time to build consensus of a period of time--Cailil ^talk 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left the vandalism template on his talk page in response to his removing all of my inline tags without addressing any of them or following the advice of User:Jclemens who voiced a third opinion. As User:Ilkali pointed out (and your diff highlights), User:Alastair Haines has a double standard that makes it impossible to reach consensus with him. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find Alastairs demeanor to be positive and forwarding to the articles eventual status. Anytime something is deleted or tagged, etc. there is bound to be a bit of tension. He asked you to discuss...he answered your first comment with his position and seemed willing to continue ...in Good Faith. Im curious ...where does User:Ilkali come into the picture...I don't find him involved in this article or discussion. --Buster7 (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No he didn't. He addressed one issue out of several and removed the tags without discussing their removal. That is not good faith. JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cailil...i much enjoy and support your stance of "articles needing heroes" and asking editors to rise above a fellow editors demaenor. It is a Candle that needs to burn-brightly! The only problem is that you besmirch Alastair while advising JCDEnton. Alastair was not stubborn nor was he difficult. I know PEACE was your intent..that is obvious. But, lets bring peace to BOTH sides.--Buster7 (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think its fair to say that both editors were being stubborn, Buster7. Repeating the same edit is just that. And even in good faith when two editors (or more) do this it is tendentious and it is disruptive. No action was taken here because as I said to JC when he raised it at ANI - this issue "cuts both ways"--Cailil ^talk 11:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not fair to say that. I followed the advice of User:Jclemens third opinion by using inline tags and explaining each one on the talk page. User:Alastair Haines removed all of the inline tags without addressing them on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He removed tags that had been explained on the article's talk page without discussing their removal. How is that not being stubborn or difficult? JCDenton2052 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my request at User talk:Alastair Haines#WP:AN/3RR. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon 1

I removed the changes that you made to Falcon 1. The article does need a "see also" section, so please continue to work on improving it. However, starting the section with N1 rocket is not very helpful as the two are very dissimilar. For example, so far the Falcon 1 has not destroyed its launch pad. Some good ideas for this section might be other rockets by the company, a page about reusable or partially reusable rockets, maybe something about rocket staging, and a page about Kwajalein. If something has already been linked in the article, then it does not need to be added as a "see also". Thanks for taking an interest in improving this article! Wronkiew (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Familiarize yourself with WP:TALK. Bye. Colchicum (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And be so kind to revert yourself. Colchicum (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On whose authority? JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I ask you on whose authority you were going to block me? Fortunately you don't seem to have access to the button and is unlikely to get it anytime soon. No, you are not familiar with WP:TALK: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: <...> Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". Also familiarize yourself with WP:DTTR. Colchicum (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant to the article. At least one source [4] uses the possibly staged photos, calling its reliability in to question. Furthermore, WP:DTTR is an essay, not a policy (and it is an essay with which I disagree) so I am not obligated to follow it. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are not obliged to be civil, I see, and as evident from #what vandalism is not this is not for the first time. Neither am I. Bye. Colchicum (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where I was uncivil in either case. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that you don't see it yourself. I can't help here. As to the pictures, they have been taken by reputable Reuters photographers, while those nearly anomymous reddit users who question their authenticity have no reputation whatsoever and plenty of axes to grind. Anyway, the web discussion (which doesn't even satisfy the criteria of WP:RS itself) is completely irrelevat to the issue of the reliability of the NYT and cannot be used to question it. It is a textbook example of "material not relevant to improving the article". Colchicum (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what doesn't exist. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inappropriate "final warning" to Alastair

The 3RR report was within process.

Before the 3RR report, you were warned of the 3RR issue at 22:09, 3 August 2008, albeit the template wasnt used perfectly, however you as reverted the notice 8 minutes later calling it vandalism.

The 3RR report filed at 04:41, 4 August 2008 contained the diff to your notice of the 3RR violation. It is advisable that a {{uw-3rr}} is left on the user talk, however given that you had just called Alastair's last warning "vandalism", it is not surprising that he didnt want to comment on your talk page again. But that is not a big deal - there are thousands of people that watch that page, and the first admin to respond decided that the circumstances of the edit war meant that you didnt cross the threshhold required to invoke a 3RR penalty - lucky you. If the admin had decided it was actionable, he would have checked that you had been duly warned. If you had not, he may have decided to advise you of the report in order to give you time to respond.

Just because the process was not conducted the way you think it should have been, does not mean the report was disruptive, and it certainly doesnt give you the right to give a "final warning" with someone who you have had a pre-existing conflict with. The process depends on everyone working together, and reports that turn out to be rejected are part of that process working. If there was any major issue with the way Alastair had reported it, I expect El C would have informed Alastair.

The 3RR thread was archived at 6:35, 8 August 2008, which means you had 4 days to investigate what was going on and follow up on it, and almost 3 days since it was archived to raise this somewhere. That page is an archive, which means it is not supposed to be altered by anybody; it is supposed to reflect the discussion as it was prior to being archived. Honestly, I dont see that you have a need to defend yourself on that page 4 days late, because no action was taken. As a consequence, I request that you revert your recent comments to the page Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive77, in order to restore the integrity of that page as an archive of the original discussion.

Your posting of a warning at 21:55, 10 August 2008 for events that are 7 old is entirely inappropriate, especially when you are involved, as no sane admin is going to act on it. If you somehow truly missed this 3RR entirely, Alastair had little or nothing to do with with that.

I can certainly see why you feel a bit annoyed at having been left out of the loop of the 3RR report, but there was no need to lash out at Alastair. You should apologise for accusing him of being disruptive, for accusing him of grossly failing to follow process in such a way that was blockable, and finally for your own disruption caused by posting a final warning on his talk when there was no need or basis for it. That is just my opinion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't. User:Alastair Haines misrepresented two sets of two different reverts as four reverts. He also lied that someone else reverted my edits after he did.

I made two reverts, then requested a third opinion. I took the advice of the third opinion and made new edits. User:Alastair Haines ignored the third opinion and reverted my new edits without discussing them. I reverted him once and he gave me a WP:3RR warning.

Do you expect every Wikipedian to have WP:AN/3RR on his or her watchlist? I was given no notice of a potential action taken against me. When I found out, I did not want User:Alastair Haines false statements about me to stand on the record. I have no intention of reverting my edits unless you show me a Wikipedia policy that states that accused Wikipedians have no right to confront their accusers or offer a defense.

User:Alastair Haines had everything to do with it. As he was the one who made the (false) report, he was obligated to inform me of it.

User:Alastair Haines was disruptive and failed to follow process. I do not see where I was disruptive, so I do not know what you expect me to apologize for. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JCD, I've posted at my talk page. You are right to be angry, even if you've expressed it strongly. I reverted two edits you made, where you had actually accommodated my requests. I really appreciate you doing what you did. I look forward to your content related replies to my last posts at the article talk pages, regarding your points 1 and 2. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had to go out for a while JCD. Just to respond to some of your other points. Yes, indeed, I totally agree that false accusations should be withdrawn by the accuser as soon as possible. I also agree that kicking up a fuss and asking for admin assistance in such matters is absolutely reasonable. I also think apologies for false accusations should be prompt and profuse, you have mine on this matter.

Our differences are not yet settled. I still think you were insistant and provocative at first, though I appreciate your prompt involvement of a third party and provision of an appropriate and acceptable alterative was laudable.

Finally, I think Cailil and JAV have done credit to the system in asking you not to be so extreme in your accusations against me. I made two honest mistakes. I've clarified and apologized promptly. It is up to you whether you apply your own standards to yourself. I'll be no judge of that, since others have addressed you regarding it.

Again, looking forward to hearing your replies regarding content at the talk page. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JC I understand why you feel aggrieved but please don't use vandalism user-warning templates like this. They are not generic warnings. Nor are they (and this is the fault of the template design) the most collegial way of pointing out that an action was bad form. Only use {{uw-vand}} when deal with vandalism - never use it in a content dispute and never use it in an inter-personal dispute--Cailil ^talk 12:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which template should be used when someone makes a false 3RR report with multiple false statements? JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boys are stupid

Nice copy edit JCD. Kudos.

I didn't know Sacks was ex-NOW. Warren Farrell was too wasn't he?

Masculist is just a gentler form of men's rights activist, or is it the other way around?

By the way, what do you think of Farrell? Alastair Haines (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, it was Farrell who is ex-NOW.

Masculist is a more modern term than men's rights activist. (Similarly, feminist is more modern than women's rights activist.)

I think that Farrell and Sacks sometimes makes some good points, but they can be too extreme at times. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Alastair Haines (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War rape

I removed the content because it was already mentioned under the section The effects of war rape. However, if it needs to be in both sections, that's alright. JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see now that there were multiple uses of that reference. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from User talk:Timeshifter) ... i thinks its appropriate to be in both sections, as this is getting a very long article (i.e. the quote in the Dafur section "urine" makes no sense without explanation) and people are unlikely to read the entire article from top to bottom (a bit of repetition aids understanding for those readers that only look at specific sections). However, the vaginal fistula part is longer in the "effects" section (explaining the condition in more detail), which I think is appropriate as the part has a more medical focus. Also, the Effects section really summarises different aspects of the article, e.g. there is still some stuff to be added from the Yugoslavian example and Rwanda example (i.e details such as rape with broken bottles, the effects on the women and community when war rape occurs in the context of a Muslim society and ethnicity/ethnic cleansing), hence I think there will be further duplication, but I think it makes sense.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi there, I have posted a rationale for the duplication on Timeshifter's discussion page. There are still bits missing to the article, and I have tried to improve the structure to take out some of the duplications (its still a bit all over the place, especially with regards to military strategy), but in a couple of weeks the article should have moved considerably forward, hence it would be much appreciated if you want to have a look again and do some cleanup (I am not native English and pulling bits and peaces together from so many different sources results in random grammatical typo errors).--SasiSasi (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I wasn't trying to censor the article and if there is a reason for the duplication, then it should stay in the article. Let me know when you're done working on it and I'll be happy to copyedit. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I got sidetracked into the Rwanda genocide article and will do some work on the war rape article in a week or so, however, in the meantime feel free to copyedit the article if you have time (esp the Rwanda genocide section). Ta --SasiSasi (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag in Income inequality article

Hello--I think you were the one who put a disputed tag on Income_inequality_in_the_United_States#Race_and_gender_disparities? I just removed it, only because there was no explanation on the talk page. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misandy

Um, I'm far from new at Wikipedia. Please don't tag the regulars. I gave my reasons for deletion in the edit summary. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What reason am I supposed to get out of "Undid revision 233064848 by JCDenton2052 (talk)"? JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell her

Best edit note, and best advice I've seen at Wikipedia, bar none. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube a RS?

There's a discussion about this going on here if you care to take part. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium capacity

The official website for Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium says The expansion is expected to increase the stadium's capacity to 94,113, and add approximately 2,000 club seats and 44 suites. So the occifial capacity is 94,113, not 98,000. Capacity is considered to be the seating capacity of the venue, not highest attendance. Please revert your changes back to mine. Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your source: The expansion is expected to increase the stadium's capacity to 94,113. That was written before the expansion. After the expansion was completed, Mack Brown said 98,000. [5] JCDenton2052 (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His statement is in line with highest attendance, not capacity. Even before the most recent expansion, the capacity was 85,123 but the highest attendance was 89,422. So the stadium has room for approximately 4,000 standees. In addition, a fan guide on the stadium lists the official capacity at 94,113. Patken4 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Patken4 about that the "official" capacity should be listed at 94,113, since Bellmont does not want to count the seats in the SEZ bleachers. Corpx (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Corpx agreement, I will make the changes to the article. Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Rosenburg

Calling the removal of redundant categories vandalism is not appropriate. If you think those categories belong in the page, feel free to discuss on the talk page. As is, they were readded by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor. Also note that I didn't nuke all of them--just the redundant ones. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are the categories redundant? JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flying, telepathy, invisibility, healing, and strength are all magical powers--Willow is not innately telephathic, etc. Think how much MORE of a mess Stephen Strange's categories would be if they were all included there!
Buffy the Vampire Slayer Characters is a subcategory of Fictional Characters from California.
Technopath is OR--I've never seen anyone call Willow that.
LGBT characters in comics is redundant if we leave her as a Fictional Lesbian and a Magic user in comics, which I did.

Each of the deleted categories can and should be well documented in the text without violating WP:OCAT. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy

Thanks! Horns should be #1 come Sunday, except the SEC-lovin' media will probably have UT number 2 behind Bama. No matter, let's hope we run the table and then there will be no doubt. Hook 'em! Johntex\^talk 06:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not completely surprised - we had an impressive win. All day long Sunday, as I wore my burnt orange on a trip to the east coast, complete strangers were commenting on the game. Having said that - it is an amazing feeling. We've not had this feeling mid-season for a long, long time.

Now we have to hold on through murderers row: Missouri, Ok State, Tech, Kansas, and the grudge-match against Aggies, then if we make it - play a ranked Big-12 north team in the Conf Championship. I'd love for it to come down to us vs. Bama. It would be a great chance to take on the SEC. Even better if Penn State finishes unbeaten and third place. If beloved Jo-Pa got left out like that, we might finally see some colleges in favor of a limited play-off.

A lot more football to play before we can see this in January. Hook 'em! Johntex\^talk 12:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that his chances are less likely now, but the fact remains that he was still a major contender for the Heisman vote before the Tech game and even may still possibly be now. Perhaps it is better to change the wording around so it's clearly in the past tense then to delete any reference to him having been in the running for the award at all? Khalfani Khaldun 09:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I changed the wording to reflect that the sources were all prior to the loss to Texas Tech. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording should only be changed if there is a source to back it up. Otherwise, speculating that McCoy is out of the running for the Heisman because UT lost to Texas Tech is WP:OR. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all from before Texas lost to Texas Tech, so the sources inherently back that up. If you want to mention that reliable sources say that he is still in Heisman contention after the loss to Texas Tech, then please cite them. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon now...

You know better than this. I think that's clearly WP:OR, even if Schlabach is talking out of his ass. — Scientizzle 19:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction

Thank you for the correction. It was not my intention to delete a poll. On the contrary, many of my posts have been deleted from Nationwide Opinion Polling for the 2008 Presidential Election. Please see the discussion page on that article.

You seem to be a quite experienced Wikipedia user and competent in many computer technical issues. Wikipedia can be complex and confusing for the novice, so when I post I try to be careful to follow the criteria of the article and maintain the appropriate format. I think you would agree that one of the ideas behind Wikipedia is to provide access to all who in good faith want to contibute in a meaningful way. I appreciate your constructive suggestions.

Have a pleasant evening!

Edokin (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)edokin[reply]

No problem. I just thought it important to include all of the Gallup results since that was the last poll. Have fun watching the election! JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Palin and warning templates

I explained my edit, which you described as vandalism, in the edit summary, citing Wikipedia policies. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romance novel

I noticed that you re-added Pornography to the romance novel see also section. That is inappropriate; romance novels are not pornography, and directing readers to the pornography article implies that the two topics are closely connected. It is highly unlikely that someone who comes to the romance novel article would be expecting to find a link to pornography. Can you please explain why you believe the link to be appropriate in this article? Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of academics argue that pornography and romance novels are the same thing, are two sides of the same coin, or share some similarities. [6] [7] [8] [9] Additionally, in more casual circles, romance novels are referred to as "chick porn" [10] [11] or "girl porn" [12]. Both articles should probably have balanced sections presenting reliably sourced claims about connections (or the lack thereof) between romance novels and pornography. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the books you've cited by Regis and Thurston in full, and neither concluded that romance novels were pornography. The modern scholarship I've read generally advocates the opposite (as many romance novels contain zero sex). However, there is a bit of information already in the definition that mentions that some do refer to the genre as female porn. If I change the article to link to pornography there, would it then be okay to remove it from the See also? That would be to a) make sure that the article is not advocating that romance novels are pornography and b) not duplicating links, as advised by WP:LAYOUT. Karanacs (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I don't care enough about the topic to challenge your implicit ownership of the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not meaning to own the article, and I am sorry if it is coming across that way. I have done a lot of research on this topic, and unfortunately there aren't many other editors who watchlist the page. The research does not support any allegation that romance novels are pornography, although you are right that some people nonetheless use the term to describe the genre. It is a controversial descriptor, and as such I think it inappropriate to highlight it in the see also section. Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent edit

here. Thanks for making me smile. Johntex\^talk 19:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was either that or the Runners Up Bowl. I'm pretty sure OU is going to play the winner of the SEC championship for the national championship. The voters have already shown (in 2003) that OU doesn't have to win the Big 12 championship to go to the national championship. Hopefully Alabama or Florida will destroy OU. I'd rather have a year of SEC homers bragging that they have the best conference than a year of Sooners bragging that they're the best team in the nation. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some interesting scenarios left for Texas. In no particular order:

Missouri, buoyed by playing essentially a home game in Kansas City and enraged by their loss to Kansas, could rise up and defeat the sooners. If that happened, Texas should advance to the Mythical National Championship game. The precedent for this is Nebraska in 2001. In this case, Texas still has the chance to prove their worth on the field.
As in #1, but the voters could "penalize" Texas for "failing" to win the conference, and vote in USC or another team instead. In this case, yet more BCS chaos and arguing. Would it be enough to move us towards a play-off? I'm ever hopeful of a play-off, but the new ESPN contract through 2012 is a factor against change.
ou could win the Big 12 and get demolished by the SEC. In this case, Texas fans can claim their team would have done better (provided UT at least wins their bowl). There is even a chance the AP could break ranks and crown Texas, but I doubt it since Texas is only #3 in the AP poll.
ou could win it all. In that case, UT fans point out that their team was better than the "national champions".

Thanks for your help with the 08 article, BTW. Johntex\^talk 16:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure if by some miracle OU loses, they might still go (remember 2003?). If not, you're right, we could be punished and the excuse would be something along the lines of "they weren't even good enough to play for their conference championship." There's a very strong bias against teams that don't go to their conference championship which I think is extremely unfair. It punishes teams in conferences that have twelve teams (ACC, Big 12, C-USA, and SEC) or thirteen teams (Mid American) and rewards teams in smaller conferences. It also punishes teams in good conferences, and right now I think there's a huge gulf between the top two (Big 12 and SEC) and all of the others.

A lot of Texas fans are arguing that if Florida beats Alabama, they wouldn't move up into the top two. I think that's ludicrous. However, after the SEC championship, the AP will probably be SEC, Texas, Oklahoma. So, Texas would only have to move up one spot for a Pete Carroll type MNC. Actually if Alabama or Florida narrowly beats OU in an ugly, mistake-filled game, and we destroy a BCS team (tOSU or USC, not Ball St, Boise St, or Utah) I think we'd jump to #1.

I was reading one one of the forums about what might happen if OU wins the Big 12. Obviously they would go to the MNC. The BCS would want to invite one more Big 12 team because the conference is so good this year. The Big 12 North champion, Missouri, would be out because they would have four losses. Then it would come down to Texas and Texas Tech. They may decide to look at head to head instead of BCS ranking, which would send Tech to the Fiesta and Texas to the Cotton.

I so want a playoff. It would make college football (already my favorite sport) even more exciting. Most of the arguments made by BCS supporters/playoff haters don't hold water:

The regular season is a playoff. This season has eliminated that argument.
Playing 15 to 17 games instead of 12 to 14 would be too much for the players. Each division below I-A/FBS has a 16 to 32 team playoff. If they can handle it, the better trained and conditioned I-A/FBS players can. Also, a lot of players on the elite teams that would go to a playoff will be playing 16+ games on Sundays less than a year after the playoffs, so it would make the players better prepared for the NFL season.
A playoff would hurt the bowls. Going to a bowl is exciting, but I'd much rather have a shot at a true NC rather than a shot at beating Utah and going home. Also, an eight team playoff would leave 111 teams for 68 bowl spots.

I think a playoff should start with at least eight teams, with the option to add two to four more teams every couple of years. Conferences should be left out of it, unless the conferences are equalized in size and quality.

No problem. I'll finish up the Outcome section of the 45-35 campaign when I'm less disgusted with the whole issue. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much in agreement with almost all of the above. I particularly love how this puts a lie to the argument that "the regular season is a playoff". With respect to the Fiesta choosing Tech over Texas, I have thought about that scenario. I consider it extremely unlikely for 2 reasons:

If you go down the of BCS placement rules, rule 5 is that they have to put the 3rd ranked team into the BCS if they still have a slot after applying rules 1-4. Rule 6 says they have to put the 4th ranked team into the BCS if they still have a slot after applying rules 1-5. I don't see us falling further than 3rd, and I don't think they will run out of slots this year either. So, by rule, they would not have the choice to look at head-to-head, they have to go by BCS ranking if we are #3 or #4 and if there is an available slot.
At the end of the day, the bowl wants to make money. I think they know that Texas has a far bigger fan base than Tech. As sad as it sounds, I think they would pick Texas simply because we would be more profitable for them. I'm not saying anything bad about Tech fans here - I am sure they would be pumped up to travel to the BCS and they would sell their ticket allotment, but they wouldn't carry the TV base. The TV audience will not have forgotten that they got pummeled by OU and that they barely beat Baylor. So, no, I don't think there will be any chance of the Fiesta taking Texas Tech. You can confidently head back to that fan forum and dispel that idea.

If Missouri beats OU, then Missouri would go to the Fiesta. OU would not stay #2 in that scenario - their lead is too slim. If the voters decide to punish us for not playing the championship, they would also penalize OU for losing it. They could move USC up past us both. If we didn't make the MNC in that scenario, we would get picked up by a different BCS bowl. According to the selection procedures, the bowl that loses the #1 team picks first, from the at-large teams. If Florida is #1 and USC #2 then the Sugar would get to pick first and then the Rose.

Best, Johntex\^talk 02:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to the 2008 Walter Camp Award winner! Johntex\^talk 03:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo Answers

This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yahoo!_Answers&diff=next&oldid=255798381 is insensitive. One of your referenced questions was silly, one was relatively scientific. The remaining one about a curse is a relatively meaningful question for those who follow Wicca. However, this is not a measure of IQ. I spend a lot of time on Yahoo Answers, answering some very intelligent and difficult mathematics questions in that particular answer section. I'm sure there are some people editing Wikipedia in good faith that aren't genii, but the brush is not swiped over all of us as editors. Not notable, not even realistic and therefore, not balanced and not an edit to keep. It has been removed.

Regarding Wicca, I'm not sure your use of that question is indicative of it's "stupidity" in your opinion or your disbelief/disapproval in Wicca. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soapbox Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX#SOAPBOX.--WPaulB (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, just as a passer by, JCD's edit here appears to contain an easily detected element of good humour. It appears the humour was not appreciated by the deleter, which is sad. But it is certainly appreciated by me. :) Anyone reviewing this will realise why JCD has not been troubled by a desire to restore his good humoured edit. Humour is good for collaborative editing. Keep it up JCD! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair, it's an encyclopaedia. No original research, no unverifiable statements (IQ level), no biased statements. I don't care if it was supposed to be humourous. We all know humour doesn't always "translate". The humour can be used on the talk page. As for

Anyone reviewing this will realise why JCD has not been troubled by a desire to restore his good humoured edit

all I will say is that edits like this just make more work for editors who are not playing on Wikpedia, whether or not reverts happen. It doesn't matter how brief the edit stands.--WPaulB (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for you to be right. I think you are certainly right about time...editors time. We should certainly consider one another's time very carefully. But reverting is but the work of a moment, unlike discussion. I'll spare you the time of extending this one. Though I'd like to suggest you consider that displayed text is frequently far from perfect, there's no "rush" to fix it. I'm absolutely thrilled you care so much to act swiftly. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent tags at The Inevitability of Patriarchy

Hello JCD! :)

I notice you added a phrase and a tag to the lead of the article above. I'll leave them for now, however, I want to ask you if you think the following criticisms of those edits seem fair enough to you. Please note, I understand exactly why you made the edits. Indeed, everything in Goldberg's book, in one sense, is "according to Goldberg". Also, when anyone expresses an idea, their idea is only their idea and so is "lopsided" even if all but one person agrees with them.

My specific criticisms are these.

1. Your addition is simply repetitive. "The theory proposed by Goldberg is that social institutions, like patriarchy, that are characterised by male dominance, may be explained by biological differences between men and women (sexual dimorphism). Hence, in Goldberg's theory..."

Additionally, if we are to be repetitive, we can strengthen all of Goldberg's statements.

So, "in Goldberg's theory, male dominance (patriarchy) might be inevitable" is now factually erroneous.

From the very title of the book, his theory has no "might" about it, "in Goldberg's theory patriarchy IS inevitable."

Finally, it looks awfully like weasling Goldberg, hence injecting an editorial POV.

2. The article, after your edit, now reads "'Goldberg's theory of male dominance and patriarchy is unassailable'.[opinion needs balancing] Nevertheless, Goldberg's theory still has critics."

To me, that just looks funny. Three lines of criticism follow the suggestion that the position is unassailable, yet the suggestion is made that something is unbalanced.

Again, as above, I'm quite willing to leave your edit and strengthen the "Goldberg" side of things to restore neutrality. I will just add two more major writers that praise Goldberg's theory so that we have three "for" and three "against".

Please consider this, I am a "difference feminist" if you need to classify my position. But that is irrelevant to the article, there is no trace of my personal views in the article and never will be. It does just happen that Goldberg is clearly a difference feminist also, which is why so many difference feminists have written in praise of his work. Other forms of feminism can have their say in the criticism section of the article, some of the best of those are already cited.

Finally, because, from what I recall, you are a fair minded kind of chap, and one with whom I would agree on most ideological issues, I think you will be willing to remove your well-intentioned tags. That'd be much appreciated. I would recommend you "talk before tagging" though. Ultimately, tags unsupported by open-minded discussion will be removed, or the article restored to neutrality by the addition of sourced information. Really I don't think those sorts of things are ideal. The place to discuss issues is the talk page, not the article space itself. This is obviously true when an article is clearly being actively worked on. I'm around, talk to me! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "in Goldberg's theory" makes the sentence NPOV. Wikipedia itself claiming that male dominance/patriarchy might be inevitable is extremely POV.

The reason why I added ^{[unbalanced opinion?]} is that you prominently presented one diehard proponent of Goldberg's theories in the introductory paragraph with five quotes. No specific critic of his theories is presented and no quotes from critics are given.

I am not willing to remove my tag until it is properly addressed. JCDenton2052 (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep up discussion at the article talk page. I'm quite happy for that tag to remain and entertain people who see it. The text alterations simply introduce unsourced POV errors though, so they will need to be removed unless you can source them. Please use talk before altering content statements in future. I'm quite happy to quote additional material from Inevitability (within reason) if you suspect I'm not accurately presenting what is in the text. I've seen plenty of people misrepresent sources at Wiki. But I assume good faith and check the sources before I alter text. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperialism article

Hey,

I noticed you reverted my deletion of several "related articles". I have explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imperialism#The_Bush_Doctrine.2C_Neo-Conservatism_and_the_Imperial_presidency_should_not_be_on_the_.22See_also.22_list . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeagleman (talk • contribs) 02:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zune

Time bomb? Current disaster tag? Please, have a sense of proportion. Misuse of that tag could easily be consider vandalism --Blowdart | ^talk 14:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion belongs on Talk:Zune. Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Your recent edit to the page 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add any incorrect information to the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in getting into an edit war with you, but writing that Israel used "chemical weapons" was not supported by the source you cited. You did change the wording a bit in your third attempt to include the sentence in the article and I do think that was wise. I would like to point out, though, that white phosphorous is not generally viewed as a chemical weapon by the international community. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 04:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was supported by the article. Some international sources view white phosphorus as a chemical weapon, others do not. JCDenton2052 (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is, at best, no consensus as to whether or not WP is a chemical weapon, doesn't that make the unadorned statement "Israel used chemical weapons" POV? 98.25.179.111 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Award

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks to your efforts and others, List of Texas A&M terms is now a WP:Featured List. Thanks for all your help! *— BQZip01* —** ^talk 07:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck?!

Why on earth did you link Mark Kirk to Liz Trotta, using a summary of "rvv" (diff 1, diff 2? There seems to be pretty much no connection between them. Doesn't particularly matter now since it's been removed, eventually, but it stayed there for far longer than it should have thanks in part to your misleading tag. SnowFire (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between them is that they both joked about assassinating Barack Obama during the 2008 US Presidential Campaign. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text

This edit[13]. The information is covered in 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict#Civilian_protests_and_support with coverage given to both violence against Jews/Israelis and Muslims/Palestinians. Also the coverage given is low since the article is about the conflict in Gaza, and not around the world. Hope that explains it.VR _talk 05:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Depression

Regarding this edit. I don't think greater depression is common enough term to use. Several Google searches found no use by the media. It seems to be a term a few Economists are using. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 23:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But I think it should be at least changed to Recession of 2008-2009 or something like that, since the recession is still going on. JCDenton2052 (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for 2009 Icelandic financial crisis protests

On 27 January, 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2009 Icelandic financial crisis protests, which you helped update. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦^C 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of web browsers

WP:WTAF read this and understand. this is spam what are you doing! mabdul 0=* 10:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what do you want from me? Was I in any kind "bad" to you? I mean I only reverted you edit and you say something about read this and that (I'm as long as you in wikipedia active [in the german wiki I'm longer o.O] and have nearly the same numbers of edits). I know how to deal with you or anybody else, in wikipedia or where ever. I was NOT impolite to you! so where is you're problem? talking about problems(and reading "a manual" -->talkpage of the list) is sometimes better! mabdul 0=* 16:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have reached three reverts on the Avigdor Lieberman article. Please desist from making any more, or you will be blocked. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've requested informal mediation to resolve the issue. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late 2000s recession

You made a revert on late 2000s recession. In doing so you wiped out improvements in text and reinserted mention of people after it had been requested of the other editor to establish their notability before reinserting in the text. Please note that reverting assumes the prior text was better or has been accepted by other editors. I don´t think this is the case. Please reconsider your revert. Cosmic Magician (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further examination, I see it was you who originally inserted the comments by these commentators. Please confirm their notability or remove them. Cosmic Magician (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the section. If you have issues with any of the sources please bring them up on the article's talk page rather than blanking the section. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you portraying AIG bonus recipients as victims?

See AIG article. Are you asking American taxpayers to send them cards and flowers next? Tellya (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at my other edits to the article: [14] [15] [16]. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed research, which has been quite thorough and accounts for both critical and supportive commentary w.r.t. the AIG bonus payments issue. I changed some of the language to make it more objective and NPOV. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've learned that putting "So-and-so says 'quote.'" is the best way to avoid POV issues. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Deborah L. Turbiville

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Deborah L. Turbiville, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Fails WP:BIO1E

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan2 (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

I neither blanked nor deleted page content as you suggest; I simply edited those items that ran afoul of WP:NPOV. If you're not familiar with Neutral Point of View, I suggest you enlighten yourself. You should also realize that you are already in danger of being blocked for WP:3RR. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked the page twice. [17][18]. I'm familiar with WP:NPOV. Are you? Obvious vandalism, such as page blanking, does not fall under WP:3RR. JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, killer... That's a spurious claim, as he only seems to have removed some content (not "blanked the page"). If you disagree with a removal of material, take it to the talk page. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Vandalism, blanking is Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. That is exactly what Rydra Wong did. I created sections on the talk page for the blanked content so any editors who have concerns can bring them up there. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Faith Warnings

I have reported your bad faith warning. Arzel (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was warning you in good faith because of your bad faith blankings. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RVV

It would be helpful if you left edit summaries with more meaningful messages than "RVV" when reverting good-faith removals of your additions (and I don't appreciate that you blankly labelled my edit as vandalism either). I've undone your re-insertion linking MP3.com to the Destruction of the Library of Alexandria, although I would be interested to see the justification behind the link. Gail (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When MP3.com was sold a couple of years ago, music from thousands of artists was lost. Some commentators compared it (seriously or not) to the Burning of the Library of Alexandria. However, I'll leave it out unless and until I can dig up those sources. JCDenton2052 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had performed a quick online search before reverting, and the only result I came across linking MP3.com to the burning of the Library of Alexandria was this Akahele blog entry, which references the Wikipedia MP3.com article itself. Although the Akahele entry is a good analytical article (and I hate to break the validity of its reference), I don't think that it would meet WP:RS. On the other hand, there's also a Whatever post which argues that the comparison is exaggerated and flawed; again, not WP:RS. If you come across any sources which we could use, I would recommend that you reintroduce the link as a referenced in-text observation (rather than a "See also" link). Gail (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

Quick warning, you are coming very close to 3RR. Please cut it out. You are completely undoing the consensus version back to a version you like. There is no consensus to back up your reverts. Please stop. Brothejr (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR does not apply to reverting obvious vandalism, such as Showtime2009's massive blanking. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He never blanked the page. He removed a section from the article that others, including him, had objected to. Brothejr (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All, you've been doing is reverting against consensus to a previous version that has long since changed. Brothejr (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He blanked several sections without first sharing his concerns on the talk page. That is acting in bad faith, as you are doing now. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, he did not just blank several sections. Second of all, you are reverting against consensus, which had been slowly fixing the article, back to a version you like. Please desist and respect other editor's edits. If you want to bring the article back to that version, please discuss it on the talk page and wait for others to comment before rushing off to revert. Thank you. Brothejr (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did, and no I'm not. Please show where Showtime2009 established consensus for his blanking on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours

Hello,

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You are well beyond WP:3RR on the Tea Party at this point. 3RR is a bright line rule, and cannot be circumvented in any way in a content dispute. rootology (C)(T) 19:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JCDenton2052 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See below.

Decline reason:

Per Rootology below. Sandstein 20:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

1) I only made three reverts. [19][20][21]

2) WP:3RR does not apply to "Reverting obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking" which Showtime2009's edits were.

3) I was never reported to WP:AN3 or given a chance to defend myself.

4) User:brothejr reverted three times just as I did, so it is unfair to block just me and not him too. [22][23][24] JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As others are disputing the content, it's not vandalism. A good faith edit never is. This is a content dispute. Your reverts are to start: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and thats just today. There are another 8 to 11 (!) after that. Edit warring is edit warring. We don't allow it. rootology (C)(T) 20:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at each one.

[25] Limbaugh's comments had been on there for a while with no objections that I saw. If you'll look at Wikiathlete's edit history, you'll see that it is a single purpose account for blanking 2009 Tea Party protests.

[26] Again I was restoring material that had consensus and was removed by a single purpose vandal account.

[27] I was reverting a WP:NPOV violation by a single purpose vandal account. If you'll look at the history of the page you'll see that one group of editors has tried to remove labels from only conservatives and another has tried to remove them from only liberals. I feel that only labeling one group and not the other is a WP:NPOV violation, so I created a talk page section to try to achieve consensus on whether labels should be used at all.

[28] Again, I was reverting blanking from a single purpose vandal account.

[29] Same as above.

[30] Again, someone else took the labels off of only liberal commentators, which I feel is a WP:NPOV violation. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, these are different reverts of different bad faith edits. WP:3RR applies to 4 identical reverts of the same edit. Please share these other "8 or 11" reverts so that I may address them. Thank you. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JCDenton2052 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Rootology has mischaracterized my edits (see above) and has shown favoritism by blocking me but not blocking User:brothejr for making the same number of reverts.

Decline reason:

I count 9 or 10 different times you reverted the article in question. Additionally, finding the existance of another user who may or may not have broken any rules does not in any way excuse your particular violation. If you wish to be unblocked, you need to acknowledge that you understand why your actions led to your block, and you also need to assure the admins that you will not commit these actions anymore. Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just noting that Brotherj only has 3 reversions on the article today. I leave this for other admins to decide. rootology (C)(T) 20:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As do I. If 3 were sufficient for me to be blocked, they should also be sufficient for Brotherj. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, as I've already pointed out they are not 4 identical reverts and many were reverts of a single purpose vandal account. Please share these "9 or 10" reverts so that I may address them.

I don't understand why I am blocked for making 3 identical reverts but another user who also made 3 identical reverts was not blocked.

I don't understand how any of my actions are worthy of a block. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Henceforth I will pursue dispute resolution when I add material to 2009 Tea Party protests and other editors remove it and are unwilling to attempt to achieve consensus for their removals on the talk page.}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per promise to pursue DR rather than edit warring.

Request handled by: —Travis ^talk 22:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

RE: Your MSNBC userbox

I have corrected the </div> at the end of the userbox. Please try linking to the userbox directly and see how it works. If you still experience problems, please let me know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 22, 2009 @ 04:19

It works now. Thanks :) JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No flagged revisions category up for deletion

The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Anti-Confederate.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Anti-Confederate.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention Against Vandalism

This is to warn and inform you of a recent filing to the Administrators for an Intervention Against Vandalism with which you are directly involved in. Tycoon24 (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Anti-fascism.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Anti-fascism.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Anti-neofeudalism.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Anti-neofeudalism.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:911ct supporters

Template:911ct supporters has been nominated for deletion by Ice Cold Beer. As this TfD nomination includes objections to the same list of people that is currently in use in Template:911ct, I am inviting you to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. (I am sending this message to you as a current or former editor of Zeitgeist, the movie, following the guideline on multiple messages.) Regards — Cs32en 09:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BS system

That is awesome! Thank you for calling my attention to the story today. Earlier this week, I noticed ESPN has an online poll posted where 97% of the respondants were in favor of some form of playoff. I also saw yesterday that Texas is #2 in the Sports Illustrated's spring poll, with FLA #1 and ou #3. Should be an interesting Red River Shootout again this year! Hook'em!! Johntex\^talk 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait until next season, but I'm afraid that because of our weak SOS, even if we run the table, USC and Florida (or some other SEC team) may edge us out if they also run the table. Yet more reason for a playoff. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On NJGW

Hello JCDenton2052, I noticed that you had a bit of a tiff with user NJGW, how is the matter now?

Heard that NJGW is on holiday, the lucky unemployed dude.

On vacation, responses may be slow In case JCDenton keeps at it, see [1]. NJGW (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NJGW 15:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.8.243 (talk) [reply]

AfD nomination of Decline of women in computer science in Canada

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Decline of women in computer science in Canada. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decline of women in computer science in Canada. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now have full access to your systems

Don't mean to interrupt - I realize you are perhaps busy with the protest article - but I just needed to tell you that you have the best username on this project, according to me.

This is an apropos moment, because I've just been playing that great game and had failed to save as radiation ate me apart in Paris before a hello message from a particularly rude artificial intelligence... I hadn't saved since I entered the lower hull of the super freighter about 3 hours earlier.

Best of luck to you :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Beth DuClare has been dissected and placed in cryonic storage.[reply]

Ha! Thanks. I play that game through at least once a year. It's amazing that a game that will be nine years old on Monday hasn't been topped. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding categories

Please read the category page before adding the category to an article. Category:Cancelled aircraft projects only applies to "aircraft projects that were cancelled before reaching full production." That does NOT apply to the F-22. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Satsuki.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Satsuki.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. DAJF (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of IPad Nano

Tea Party editing help might interest you

Hi again JCDenton2052, there is a substantive edit/merge discussion occurring over at Tea Party protests, 2009 and Tea Party movement. Given your significant contributions in the past, I thought you might want to drop by and check out what's going on over there. Thanks!--Happysomeone (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Feminism

Hello, Feminism Task Force Member! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

Mexican Drug War

The conflict is between organized crime gangs and security forces. There is no intention to overthrow the government so it does not match your categorizations. Thank you, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

President Calderón disputes this. He said "This has become an activity that defies the government, and even seeks to replace the government." and "They are trying to impose a monopoly by force of arms, and are even trying to impose their own laws."^[2] JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A mutual something or other

I just discovered you after reading your comments 2 years ago about Tedickey. I'm a newbie. For me, it started when I made the huge mistake of nominating a page for deletion. One thing led to another and so on. There's a strange comfort in knowing I'm not alone in having felt frustrated. It does make me feel a little bolder, at least for a baby step. Cheers! Msnicki (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually pretty much given up on editing Wikipedia because it is so dominated by trolls. JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But duty calls. Msnicki (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:JCDenton2052/mh5

You may want to be aware of the requested move made of one of your user pages. As it appears to have been made by someone other than you I've speedy close it. I'm assuming it's not you because as an autocinfirmed user I assume you'd have just logged in and move it yourself. Dpmuk (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Black hole

Hi, I've created a section on Talk:Micro black hole regarding your belief in the POV regarding the word manmade. Regards ^Khukri 13:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:YQGkS.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:YQGkS.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nurburgring lap times.

Can you find a (non blog) source for the new lap time, if you want to include it. thanks Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come hang out with us!

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that we have created an IRC channel for "countering systemic bias one new editor at a time", aka closing the gender gap! Come hang out at #wikimedia-gendergap. I hope you'll join us! (And if you need any IRC help, just let me know!) See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HTC One X

Hi, just explaining why I reverted your inclusion of xda forum links/refs... they are not WP:RS. Is there a reason you feel they need including? Widefox (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could I use a prominent tech or Android blog as a source or would I have to use traditional media like CNN or New York Times (which probably wouldn't mention bugs in a phone outside of an iPhone)? JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the link details which of your list are likely to be RS. Please read it. Widefox (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. When you recently edited List of emerging technologies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sky hook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:JCDenton2052/Sandbox5

User:JCDenton2052/Sandbox5, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JCDenton2052/Sandbox5 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:JCDenton2052/Sandbox5 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BDD (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Superhuman powers and abilities in fiction

I would like to hear your opinion as to why you continue to add examples without proper explanations of their powers and characters who are either already used for other examples or are without their own proper page. Feel free to move this over to the Lists talk page, thank you. Thefro552 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding references now. As for repeatedly calling my edits bad, please assume good faith. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article is heavily biased towards comic book characters. I'm adding in characters largely from other media. However, ff there is consensus that this article should focus on comic book characters, I suggest renaming it to List of superhuman features and abilities in comics and creating another article for other media. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bad faith assumed, I noted my reasons for all my changes. I have no issue with adding television characters and I agree its heavily comic book biased but that is only because the most common medium. My calling them bad examples has to do with most of the characters your adding having no easily readable description of their abilities;(Willow Rosenberg,Deanna Troy), lacking their own page;(Ted Sprague, The Shrike), or are already included and/or your placing them in several different categories;(Willow Rosenberg again, Hiro Nakamura). The opening explanation on the page covers most of this and many powers your adding characters too already have 4 or more respectable examples. As far as renaming the list goes it has already been argued to death in past discussions and the current title was settled upon. Thefro552 (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Han shot first, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AMA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of television series that include time travel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Force field (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit citation

Hi JCDenton2052!
I'm confused on the reliability of the source you provided in this edit: Han Shot First Edit 2013 Would it be possible if you could provide a brief explanation on how this might be of encyclopaedic value?
Thanks, GuyHimGuy (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Revolution of 2011 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Algerian Revolution of 2011. Since you had some involvement with the Algerian Revolution of 2011 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JCDenton2052. You have new messages at Talk:Gynophobia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Gaza genocide" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gaza genocide. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 17#Gaza genocide until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Deborah L. Turbiville for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deborah L. Turbiville is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah L. Turbiville until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

{{Sam S|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 04:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Walker, Alice, In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens (Phoenix, 2005), ISBN 9780753819609
^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38565051/ns/world_news-americas/

[Walker-1] Walker, Alice, In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens (Phoenix, 2005), ISBN 9780753819609

[2] ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38565051/ns/world_news-americas/

[1]

[2]

User talk:JCDenton2052