User talk:Jsgoodrich/Archives/2023/September


Good contributions

I have made changes on Cass District Library and Mason District Number 5 Schoolhouse, including request for photo templates, and I said Keep on the Cass District Library deletion discussion. You have made good contributions. Merry Christmas! --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi JS,
I wanted to add my thanks for your work on both of these articles. Also, if you are anywhere in the area, some photos of the buildings would be fantastic. I found photos of the Cassopolis library building on Flikr, but unfortunately they don't have a license compatible for use on WP. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The photos look great, JS. I didn't expect to see them so quickly! I hope your work in taking the photos pays off. Keep up your great work on WP no matter what the outcome of this deletion discussion is. Take care, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Great work on the photos. You should remove the photo requested templates on the talk pages yourself. I have done my best to support this article, both on the deletions page and elsewhere. Kalamazoo Public Library suffers in comparison with Cass District Library. The ultimate fate is in the hands of an administrator, but I think Keep or at the worst, no consensus will be the result. Meanwhile, the article became much better. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's shortcomings

I sympathize with you over what is happening over the DC snowball fight article, and even more so over the tight leash Mkdw keeps on the flash mob article. Some people have very specific ideas about how things should be done, and chase away anyone and anything that doesn't match those ideas. My long experience on Wikipedia informs me that it takes a huge amount of effort to correct those situations, with not much to show for it in the end anyway.

So, sometimes you have to acknowledge Wikipedia's shortcomings and focus on improving the parts of it that are not under someone's thumb. Thankfully, there are many more parts of it that are still "wiki" than there are parts that are "owned". Snowball fight does not have an apparent owner, and at least some of the content from the DC snowball fight article would be on-topic there, so I recommend you copy it over. Not the whole article, of course, but enough to get people intrigued about the "snowball fight gone wrong", at which point they can click on the citation links for more information.--Father Goose (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

i concur with your comments at 2009 snowball fight gun controversy.
improvement has been tried before: Wikipedia:Esperanza; Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia Reform. ongoing discussions Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) this kind of territorial intellectual jousting among 15 year olds will drive away the expert editors. i recently added some DC lore of the IMF demonstrations at Anti-globalization movement, which i'm sure would be deleted as one off events. (put enough events together, and you have a pattern of behavior, that becomes history) Pohick2 (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you two feel that way. I have left an answer for you on Talk:Flash mob. I hope you will have an opportunity to read it. Mkdwtalk 20:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


more debate on definitions at flash mob discussion page > U2 Streets video . Perhaps you could help?76.175.193.153 (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguous place names

Similar to your Marcellus there is Tonawanda. It was a major pain to repair incoming links to that dab page in part because Town of Tonawanda and City of Tonawanda were not all that clear on which was which. I think it helps enormously to specify village, town, city both in a {{distinguish}} hatnote and in the lede. However, sometimes other editors resist these remedies. See Talk:Tonawanda (town), New York. --Una Smith (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Michigan Project

Thanks, Js, for the note back in December (!) about the Michigan Project. I DID sign on to participate in this project a while back, though I have since not been very active. Despite being retired, I seem to find plenty of things to occupy my time! I do, however, intend to devote more time to Michigan articles of interest in the near future. John Trapp (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Unknown bank robber.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Unknown bank robber.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Geezer Bandit

To expand a bit from what I put on the Request for Comments page. What's really frustrating is the appearance of an article such as this, and wanting to know more! I skimmed your sources, and there just isn't a wealth of detail, is there? Not surprising as he hasn't been caught yet. I didn't see the America's Most Wanted episode. As it stands, the article is just crying for some more detail and I think that's what your request for comment was getting at. What more can you do, having reviewed and cited what minimal authority there is? One suggestion might be to write a one or two sentence description of the guy and his "M.O." to the extent anything has been printed. Apparent age, hair color, height/weight-build, the fact that he doesn't identify himself as the Geezer (and the fact that the FBI named him), and that he is both armed and has pointed a pistol/revolver at bank employees -- all these facts have been mentioned. After creating a thumbnail sketch like that, perhaps a way will appear to glue some of these bits into your article and add some flesh to the bare mask? It just needs a tiny bit more personality. You just whetted my appetite. Wish I could be of more help. Thanks for writing it. Tkotc (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mottville Township Cemetery

The article Mottville Township Cemetery has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No assertion of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 12:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Mottville Township Cemetery for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mottville Township Cemetery 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/Mottville Township Cemetery until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 18:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.


Cooper

Hello JS,
I would like to thank you for your Wikipedia article on FAA_v_Cooper. I am Stanmore Cooper, the plaintiff in the case, and my attorney e-mailed me today about your article. I have just created a username account so that I may contribute content, preferably through you or another contributor since I'm a complete newbie and would probably manage to violate a rule or somehow unintentionally mangle the content if I attempted to edit it directly. The article as it stands is pretty good, but there is some well documented Operation Safe Pilot background that might be used to add helpful content. I have reams of documentation from the FAA emergency revocation actions, the NTSB appeals, the criminal case, my petition to the FAA for permission to undergo recertification, the FAA's grant of my petition, issuance of a new medical certificate and airman certificate, and finally my civil complaint through the district court, the 9th circuit court, and the supreme court. I'm not interested in presenting any particular point of view, but believe some objective details would enhance the article. At this point, I believe legislative reform of the privacy act, revising it to explicitly include in the definition of "actual damage" proven mental and emotional distress resulting from deliberate violations of the privacy act by government agencies is vitally important for future privacy act cases where no pecuniary loss is claimed. I am currently writing a book about my seven year long experience, and between Justice Sotomayor's dissent, my book, and pressure from privacy advocates like EPIC and the ACLU, there may be hope for legislative reform. Stanccoop (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Cooper, I have to admit that I am surprised you found my article, about your case. I make edits to Wiki, when I get free time, and I wonder if anyone looks at them. I am a law student and had to read your case for my Remedies class, it I felt was a important case in right to privacy that I thought it should have a wiki article. I read both your appellate and supreme court case and listed to oral arguments.
To start, I am glad you have an account on wiki, you should first look at the article on the five pillars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

Also on editing on Wiki you can find this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia
The problem you will run into in do your own edits is that it is known as a Conflict of Interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
The article is listed as a "start" article if you go to the articles talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FAA_v._Cooper
While, I understand your want to include more information, at this time I just do not have a lot of time free to do it. I am in my last semester of law school right now and have started to study for the bar. If you have published material you would like to have editors review, one suggestion could be posting it on the talk page of the article, and then other editors could review the material.
I think one thing I can add is that the FAA has provided your license back. I did an Airmen Inquire and I show that Stanmore Cawthorn Cooper was issued a license on March 1,2008. If that is you please let me know. I will then update that.
I have enable email from other users on wiki so if you would like you can email me offline.
Jsgoodrich (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, JS. Great; thanks for the fast response, and I understand the conflict of interest issue. I had an article published in the NTSB Bar Association News soon after the 9th circuit decision, and it has a lot of details. I can post a link to that article on the FAA v. Cooper article talk page so others can review it for any content that may possibly be appropriate for inclusion in the wiki article. The Airman Certificate issued on March 1, 2008 was an update to include "English Proficient" on the certificate, a fairly recent ICAO requirement for flying internationally. The original Airman Certificate issued following the recertification was dated September 11, 2006 (an odd coincidence since my first certificate was issued on September 11, 1964). I would appreciate your updating the article to reflect my FAA recertification.
Good luck on passing the bar exam. Stanccoop (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi JS,
I have uploaded a copy of my 11 September 2006 Airman Certificate to scribd. The url is <http://www.scribd.com/doc/104637871/New-Airman-Certificate-Noaddr-11-September-2006>. The FAA airman records show only the last certificate issued, which for me is the "English Proficient" update issued on March 1, 2008. Thanks for updating the article referencing Senator Akaka's bill to update the privacy act. I would have posted this on the talk page of the article, but couldn't figure out how. Stanccoop (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:The End and Other Beginnings Book Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The End and Other Beginnings Book Cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 in section F6 of the 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Sherika L. Hawkins for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sherika L. Hawkins 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/Sherika L. Hawkins 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. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Children of the New World

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Children of the New World requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://fairybookmother.net/book-review-children-of-the-new-world-by-alexander-weinstein. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Taewangkorea (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It is a Supreme Court case. It is a single source reference document. 192.105.180.47 (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Please move the article from draft it is what is known as a single source, this is common with Supreme Court Case documents, the links to the case are in the info box. There are only two sources for this the Supreme Court Opinion/Case File and the US Court of Appeals both are cited in the Info Box. I suggest before you move articles in to draft you look at the project documents. In the 16 years I have been on WIKI I have never had a user move my work into drafts on a new Supreme Court Case. Please move back ASAP. Jsgoodrich (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Faith Wright moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Faith Wright, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jmertel23 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Faith Wright (March 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Numberguy6 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
WP:NACTOR.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Numberguy6 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Jsgoodrich! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Numberguy6 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Amazon

Amazon is a retailer, not a publisher. Its content is created to promote sales. It has been discussed over 200 times at WP:RSN, all to the same conclusion - it is not a reliable source.[1] It even has its own shortcut at WP:RSPAMAZON. Banks Irk (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, I think you missing my point. If you read the short cut
"User reviews on Amazon are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.), although it is unnecessary to cite Amazon when the work itself may serve as a source for that information (e.g., authors' names and ISBNs). Future release dates may be unreliable."
We are not talking user reviews. It even states "Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.)," The question becomes how should we as wiki treat the information they are pulling from movies via and in support the the x-ray service. While Amazon is a retail business they are also an award winning movie studio. They are also the largest or second largest data hosting webserver provider supporting netflix and other streaming services. They are using AI and computer learning models to harvest data.
Nothing you have pointed too says Amazon Studios and the Xray service is being held as unverifiable/unreliable. In fact this says that it is a reliable source for basic information. Jsgoodrich (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Wedding Cottage moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Wedding Cottage, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 TT me 10:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Please move it back as there are many stub movie articles. This is no different. Jsgoodrich (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Wedding Cottage (June 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Carpimaps was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Itsastampede and DigitalJournal are not reliable sources. Rest of the sources are just Routine coverage
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Carpimaps talk to me! 10:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Faith Wright

Information icon Hello, Jsgoodrich. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Faith Wright, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Faith Wright

Hello, Jsgoodrich. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Faith Wright".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)