Jtnet
|
Adoption?
editI don't know what kind of help you need, but if you feel you need someone to help you around here, give me a call on my talk page.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 15:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Greetings
editWow, that's very informative. Let me try to address your concerns.
Wikipedia is big, and it can be scary. If you take things as they come, as your interests guide you, though, you'll soon catch up. There's no need to stress yourself about every detail; someone will usually come to your aid when necessary.
Most people learn best when they want to learn about something. So go with your interests.
No article is so perfect you can't edit it. If your edit improves an article, who will complain?
I consider myself a very reasonable person, so the only edit wars I worry about are ones where I'm outnumbered. Most people will respond to reason and agree to a fair edit, but if you ever get into a revert war, think objectively about whether you really are completely right. If reason simply can't win, walk away. Reinforcements will arrive eventually, and it wouldn't help if you stress yourself out in the meantime.
As for moving a page, yes, you should worry about redirects that will arise after you move a page, but since the worst a user will have see is a redirect page, you should always perform a move when the title is simply wrong, as it is in the case of Matchbox. Every day that it stays in the wrong place is one more day people can add the wrong link to their own pages.
To be adopted by me, put {{Adoptee|Xiner}} on your user page. Remember, you can graduate from the adoption at any time. And welcome! Xiner (talk, email) 17:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- I forgot, there's no need to fix redirects -- only double redirects are bad, and they are fixed by bots. For the rationale, please read this page. Xiner (talk, email) 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hello again. Since you haven't put up the adopted sign on your user page, I can only surmise that I should take off mine at the moment. I'm free to adopt at any time, though, so feel free to ask me again. Happy editing! Xiner (talk, email) 17:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see you've figured it out. I know it can be confusing, but you'll soon get the hang of it. Remember, any questions, just ask. Now welcome! Xiner (talk, email) 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Info on redirects
editSpecific to the MB page:
General:
User warnings
editThis page will help you deal with various types of disruptive editing on Wikipedia. Now image I vandalized Arsenal F.C.. Warn me on my page using the appropriate level of warning and use the template to mention what page I messed with. Please let others know I didn't actually do anything. :) Xiner (talk, email) 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, please post the warning at the sandbox (WP:SAND) and give me the diff (WP:DIFF). Xiner (talk, email) 14:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, think of this as an assignment. Please note that the whole adoption, in fact Wikipedia in general, is quite egalitarian, so everything is optional. Xiner (talk, email) 20:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikification
editI took one look at the article, and I'd say the most important thing now is to add pictures (which can wait), citations (WP:CITE), and copyedit (which you're doing). Remember, this is a wiki, so anyone can edit, and anyone can put any tag in any article. That said, it's only a vandal who would place a "This article may be biased" tag on, say, Baiji. My point is, though, a tag is not an official statement, but the act of one person. It's usually placed in an article in the hopes that someone might decide to look through the list of articles that need wikification, and work on it. It's also not a statement on your work, only on the state of the article. You may remove it anytime, but preferably only when the article looks more encyclopedic.
Oh, and just call me Xiner. Xiner (talk, email) 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- This page move thing is a perfect example of why I proposed the vandalism question. I'm not saying that was a case of vandalism, but it is one of editing conflicts. You'll have to deal with similar situations if you're to continue editing here. This is the code I placed on the person's page:
{{subst:uw-move1|Matchbox (toys)}} ~~~~Xiner (talk, email) 20:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflicts in general
editTypically, there are three steps to resolving conflicts. Place a message on the article talk page, so other editors can understand the situation. Place a message on the other editor's talk page, so they know something is happening. Finally, if the person did something wrong, place a template on his or her talk page that explains as nicely as possible what rule the person should read up on. Xiner (talk, email) 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Another assignment
editWhen a user forgets to sign their message on a talk page, you can place something like {{unsigned|Xiner}} after their post. You can add a second argument for the time of the post, but I'm not good at UTC and don't bother with it.
Required reading: WP:3RR. Please let me know when you are finished reading. Xiner (talk, email) 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
New assignment
editHi. It's time for another assignment. Please check User:Xiner/Adoptee assignments. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- I absolutely understand. Thank you for letting me know. Good luck with everything you do and I hope to see you back soon! Xiner (talk, email) 12:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jtnet, thanks for contacting me. You didn't sound obnoxious at all. I would agree that the entire section on Mark Hudson should be taken out of the Bros. article, since the article is about the Hudson Brothers, a music group, and not him, and the incident seems to have nothing to do with his membership in that group. But I was hesitant to entirely undo your work and the work of others and admittedly didn't look over the article more closely, since I was just checking through changes on WikiProject Oregon articles and doing some wikignoming. But as I state in my edit summary, we generally don't leave notes in the text that say more information is available at wherever, as that is what the wikilinks are for. (Except on talk pages. See: Wikipedia:Avoid self-references). In some cases it might be OK to add a "see also" section with the approprate links, but since Mark Hudson is already linked in the main body of the text, there is no need to do that. At best, one short sentence about Mark and his post-Bros. activities should suffice, like the sentence about Bill being Kate Hudson's father. I hope this helps! Latr, Katr 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, I noticed you linked the Mark Hudson heading in the Hudson Brothers article. We usually don't link headings in articles. People do it on talk pages (as I did above) so it's easier to reference the article being discussed. Also, since he's already linked earlier in the article, you don't really need to link him again unless its a long article and there's quite a ways between the links. I still think you could just eliminate that section allttogether though. Katr67 23:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
End of an era
editHi there. As you've probably noticed, I have neglected my duties - due to personal circumstances. I cannot in good conscience continue to bill myself as an active adopter, and have thus edited your userpage to reflect the change. Rest assured that I'm still available for any questions you may have on your Wikipedia journey. Please do NOT hesitate to contact me about anything. Good luck and message me again soon! Xiner (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Ringo Starr
editOn User talk:Bobo192, Jtnet said:
There appears to be some controversy brewing re. the infobox in the Ringo Starr article. I just wanted to suggest that the infobox should contain (as it now does again) the name "Ringo Starr", as he is commonly known, and certainly not ever "Ringo Starkey", as he is never known.
I still believe the article should use the full name of the individual, as per, to use a related example, Paul McCartney, where his full name is indeed used in the same fashion. Ringo Starkey is a name which I would never consider changing the name in the infobox to, just to keep you from worrying! Why and when his name was changed to this within the infobox, I'm afraid I have no control over, but I certainly would not do it myself. Regards. Bobo. 15:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Whisk(e)y
editSure, not a problem. I'm quoting from a source of two books (they're at home) which I've referenced in the article, and from on-line sources. I most definitely do not want an edit war. The references state that Irish is distilled three times and is the norm. You've pointed out Cooley as an exception - I'd be interested in knowing if there are other examples too or is there just one exception - do you know how many Irish whiskies are distilled twice? Again, Scotch is distilled twice as a rule, and you've found exceptions. The text I'm using quotes the references, it's not my own language. If you are changing something that may be more myth than fact, it's usually good if you can provide references if you have them to hand. I apologize for using the term "weasel" - it was not appropriate and I wish I could edit my edit summary to remove it. I am sorry. Not sure what you are referencing re. the barley statement - if it's the statement in the "Types of Whiskey" paragraph, I merely moved it from the "Scottish" section to here - again if you know it to be factually inaccurate, go ahead and make the change, and if you have a reference, even better. Bardcom (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
RE:Bayer 04 Leverkusen colours still wrong (14-APR)
editHi Jtnet, I don't understand what you are talking about, the sleeve stripes that I put are black, not white or something, maybe you have an old internet browser (I don't now maybe IE6 or whatever, but in Firefox they are OK) but there is no problem, I will put it just like before. I€₣ (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, did you mean a color like the one that I put in the article, or are those wrong too, let me now.
- And about the socks and the shorts I still don't know how to do that. I€₣ (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK no problem, glad I could help. I€₣ (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Invitation
editHi Jtnet, read your comments on Corgi and Matchbox and wanted to invite you to check out our attempt to catalogue every single diecast model on http://www.ToyCollector.com/ToyPedia. Joschik (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
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) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
edit
Hello, Jtnet. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
edit Hello, Jtnet. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
edit Hello, Jtnet. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
edit Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)