JimR

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Sorry but I'm strictly a text person, not an image one :-) I hope to get more time to help with tidying things up one day though. JimR 06:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From other new user

Hi JimR, Thanks for the praise on Deep ecology, I too am a new user, so initially making changes were quite daunting! After all the changes I now feel 'ownership' on the article, but that is starting to fade nicely as I see that other's changes are complementary rather than destructive. Muxxa 04:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bucky

JimR - in answer to your question - OPERATING MANUAL FOR SPACESHIP EARTH was published by E.P. Dutton & Co., New York. copyrighted 1963 and 1971, (paperback). Alf 07:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice work Jim. It's coming along nicely, definitely saved that one. Alf 08:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Synergetics

May I draw your attention to this article, now in AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synergetics, thanks. Alf ^melmac 20:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

spencerk

hi jimr,i removed my criticism until i can word it better

Ayenbite of Ulysses

Thanks for the reference - I've worked it into the article. Not just interesting: a connection to the 20th century gives the article that nice little touch of relevance that may just save it from mortal dullness. ;)

— Haeleth Talk 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-glob writers

Sure.That sounds much better.In fact I too was thinking along the same lines.--Sahodaran 11:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

ref usage

You might have better luck with Gulf Stream if you use {{ref}} and {{note}} for all refs which don't need ref_label/note_label. Use the ref_label/note_label only for links other than the first one, and let "#" ahead of the References to provide automatic numbering of the list. Then when a new note is inserted in References the numbering will adjust and only the ref_note numbers will need adjustment; the links will still work although ref_note numbers will be wrong. (SEWilco 07:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

When I mentioned "#" I meant that in the References section you should replace "*" with "#" ahead of the ref-linked entries, so a numbered list can create the reference numbers. (SEWilco 15:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

Crispin_Wallace-Ingersoll

I was able to come up with a little bit of info on this, but unfortunately the one thing I found doesn't necessarily support or discredit the article. Entries about minor works of authors like this are hard to research via the web alone. Are you familiar with Borge's story Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius? In short, the narrator of the story recalls an encylopedia entry about a country named Tlon. When they go to find the article in someone else's copy of the enclodedia set, it's not there. They unravel huge "academic" conspiracy" to create fictitious worlds. Fascinating read. Jasmol 20:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Our Fathers

Ta for your revision and clean-up on Our Fathers. I am not sure about the localities of Ayrshire and Glasgow. But we shall agree that much of the story also took place in Glasgow. MarkBeer 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your considerate editing. My reading of Our Fathers is way consigned to oblivion. I obviously flunked Geography, having had thought Glasgow a part of Ayrshire. Anyway, the memory of double-A (alcoholic & abusive, as they always coincide) father is still fresh. Meseems O'Hagan's stopped writing!? MarkBeer 04:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive Therapy with Children and Adolescents

Yes, I will dig up some references and post those. regards SamDavidson 18:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Power law stuff

Jim — what you say is true. Basically I'm getting ahead of myself because I was intending some rewrites of the page, for which those articles would be references. :-) —WebDrake 11:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation of talk pages

I understand what you're saying (and what Wikipedia itself is saying) about not editing talk pages, but I may have found an instance where editing a link on a talk page might be acceptable. I'd like you to give me your feedback on it, though.

Once upon a time, there were pages called Arrested Development (rap) and Arrested Development (hip hop crew). Those are both now redirected to Arrested Development (hip hop group). Would changing the links to point directly to the current page, instead of to a redirect page, be acceptable? This is a one-for-one substitution; I can't imagine that this would change the meaning or intent of the writer, unless someone feels the evolution of "(rap)" to "(hip hop crew)" to "(hip hop group)" would be important and that users would notice the "redirected from" notice at the top of the page.

There is also an Arrested Development page about the TV series with a link for the hip hop page at the top of its page. If the user put in the link [[Arrested Development]] and it's obvious that the intention was for the link to point to the hip hop group page, wouldn't that be an acceptable fix? The user might not test the link as long as it didn't show up red—s/he would see that it worked and conclude that they had linked correctly. Thoughts? —Chidom ^talk  08:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. I was pretty sure that was the case; was just trying to make really sure. The history of the Arrested Development page is a twisted path, for sure! Thanks for the assist.—Chidom ^talk  08:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

You might like to check this out, as the previous post here that you appeared to be responding to was a troll post from a banned sockpuppet, which I have deleted. Tyrenius 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something (or, most likely, am just confused as all get out), according to the history of this page, my response to Jim is the "previous post" to this one. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a sock puppet, and no one has deleted me, nor should anyone try to do so. :-P When deleting a sock puppet, do all the posts that they made also get deleted and erased from the history of a page as well?—Chidom ^talk  01:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about this talk page! I was talking about Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines page and this diff, where there seemed no point in retaining an obvious troll post from banned sockpuppet Wikipalooza2006. Apologies if you thought it referred to you — it doesn't. As for whether all posts from (abusive) sockpuppets get deleted, I think that should be played by ear. Tyrenius 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I was joking about being deleted; you might have missed the ":-P". Sorry I was unclear that it wasn't this page you were referring to; but I'd still like clarification on something.

If you delete a sock puppet, do all their posts automatically get deleted as well? So if you delete Master Sockpuppet, every post s/he has made anywhere on Wikipedia gets deleted along with their User ID? And if so, does the history of those pages not retain a record that they posted to the page? (I can't imagine this to be the case, but just wondering if it's a "mass delete" situation.) Still learning, thanks.—Chidom ^talk  18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Your work with External Links policy

Hello, I have been looking into WP:EL and I see a point that you made with which I agree here. I'm taking from this that you feel that some links are still valuable as background even though they do not (or cannot) be found to be verifiable?

I ask because I am discussing the inclusion or exclusion of a certain link on Derek Smart. My personal take is that some links, while they may not be proper for citations and basis for statements of fact in articles, they are still viable as an exposition of varying points of view on the subject of articles. If specifically noted as such, it seems they should be permitted via policy. Indeed, as you said, excluding them would eliminate large numbers of (I feel) valuable information. Can I have your thoughts?

- (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my user page. It hits home. While my opinion is still the same on external links, looking to effect policy change whilst in the middle of a debate (which feels more and more petty to me as I further involve myself) is probably not the best course of action. You're right, it seems personal. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New power law article

Hi Jim,

Good to be working with you again!

As you can see I'm taking my time a bit over the rewrite (mainly due to having a PhD defence to look forward to in the near future:-) so if you want to run ahead and put your own ideas into the revision, you'd be very welcome. Of course in my usual fashion I may completely change everything several times over, but that was the idea anyway and two brainstorming writers will be better than one.

If you need a copy of the two bibliographic references, I'll be happy to send them to you.

Best wishes,

—Joe aka WebDrake 15:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Attempted killing of Wayback functionality

Some editors are trying to kill off this template

• Wikipedia talk:Dead external links#No reason to link to an archive copy of a page
• Wikipedia talk:External links#Archived versions

Notifying you because you helped add it.

DG and a few other exclusionists/deletionists have basically taken over WP:EL for months now (they just wear out anyone who tries to discuss things with them). We could really use some Wikipedians with more common-sense over there..... frustrated (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)