User talk:JamesAM

Hello JamesAM, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! --Fuhghettaboutit 03:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Welcome to WP, James! I put in my two cents on the Sidri article, and I also added some details to the few articles you created, most notably Cameron Hodge and S'ym. Nightscream 04:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's cool to see people improve on those articles to make them really solid. I especially like the image you chose for Cameron Hodge. --JamesAM 05:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought that image had pretty lousy resolution, but it was all that GCD had, and since my scanner currently isn't working, using my own copy of that ish is not currently possible. But I guess that one'll do. :-) Nightscream 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Good info on your recent edit for Ron Darling. Do you have a source for that? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I haven't lived in NY in a few years so I'm not real familiar. There used to be two TV channels that broadcast Mets game, WPIX and the other I think was just called SportsChannel at the time. Are they more blended together now? Does Darling work for both? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Wall Street Crash of 1929 was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of high schools in New Jersey. Spa toss 20:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to edit the first sentence, which begins with a different name. Cheers. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm moving this discussion to the talk page and let consensus decide.--88wolfmaster (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a reply at Wikiproject olympics, hope that clears things up for you. Basement12 (T.C)

		The Olympics Barnstar
		Thank you for your assistance with United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics and other Beijing 2008 articles! --Jh12 (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bob McLeod (comics), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. RMHED (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Thanks for the correction. Nightscream (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a reply here days ago. Have you watchlisted the page? Please reply below, or on the article's discussion if you prefer. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment, I agree that the old versions of the Indian Affairs section are much better written—however, it still suffers from uncited statements and POV problems. It could be used as a starting point, but only if one has access to a source for the statements—I do not. --darolew 05:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, I think your LAPD points are lost. I gave an explanation on Transity's page. I'm sorry about that, especially since you're a contender for the DAB Hall of Fame this month. --JaGa^talk 22:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there... an anon had removed a significant chunk of material from Semper fidelis just before you made your recent edit to it. I did a reversion to restore the lost material, but in so doing may have undone your edits, in which case, many apologies. seglea (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has created Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur), which has the same name as an article which was deleted earlier as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur). My first reaction is that the subject is notable, but the article is a mess. I am reluctant to invest time in it, though, if the article is going to be deleted. Could you take a look at the references and decide whether there is enough evidence of notability to make the article worth salvaging? -- Eastmain (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has created Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur), which has the same name as an article which was deleted earlier as the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Bentley (British Entrepreneur). My first reaction is that the subject is notable, but the article is a mess. I am reluctant to invest time in it, though, if the article is going to be deleted. Could you take a look at the references and decide whether there is enough evidence of notability to make the article worth salvaging? -- Eastmain (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesAM, at the AfD for Saltine cracker challenge you commented "Delete per nom. No cites to indicate that this is a notable cultural phenomenon rather than something made up one day." I've since improved the article to the point where I think it addresses your concern. I'll appreciate it if you revisit your recommendation on the AfD and update it as you feel appropriate. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesAM, I noticed the note you left in the history pages saying I had white washed the lede without even a verification of the edit summary. I'm sorry, I usually don't do edit summaries I'm still learning, is this something that must be done for every edit?

Also, I don't think that the controversy should be mentioned in the lede with such harshness. I've been reading a lot about him (and literary scandals in general) and he did make up or exaggerate parts but the major elements (being a drug addict and describing it in such accurate detail) were true. TONS of memoirs have their credibility questioned btw. They just don't get caught. I think it should be mentioned in the lede but only as something like "A highly publicized controversy over credibility surrounded of his first book." I'm gonna make an article about literary controversies. SO many books we've read and have no idea their credibility has been questioned or lost... Frey should not be a sacrificial lamb of literature, forgery is much worse. The article obviously has to address the scandal in detail but it should be balanced. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be more neutral. The way it is right now it mostly focuses on the negative (you know the book was a bestseller before Oprah?). Articles aren't to skewer people and this article is the worst example of this I've ever seen on my beloved Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StewartNetAddict (talk • contribs) 21:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stewart. Yes, "it is considered good practice to always provide an edit summary." See Help:Edit summary for information of edit summaries. Note that it's especially important to use edit summaries when you're making a change related to a content dispute. If an issue has been disputed in past, editors should justify their changes regarding that issue. Also, if you don't include an edit summary on a controversial issue, other editors may think you're trying to slip one by. I should note that there's a typo in my edit summary. I meant to write "let's not whitewash" but somehow I left out the "not" so it sounds sarcastic.

Our job is to write articles that are backed up by facts. Our job isn't to speculate on what "other people" might do. If other people fabricate memoirs that doesn't mean that we should whitewash Frey's article to remove the properly cited, proportional facts behind what he did. It merely means that once we discover what other people have done and have the cites to back it up, we put that info in their articles. When the article was being editing by numerous experienced editors, they arrived at a consensus on what should be in the article. Unfortunately, after coverage of Frey died down and experienced eyes weren't watching it as often, people came in to whitewash. These editors had virtually no edits on non-Frey articles. They made big changes without using edit summaries. They removed materials as smears when it was very, very well-cited. They hurled personal insults.

If a person is notable for both things likely to be perceived as good and things perceived as bad, the article should reflect that. In Frey's case, prior fame for making the best-seller list was massively dwarfed by his fame for being a fabricator. That was the consensus of the experienced editors. When efforts were made to whitewash the article, I put a lot of effort on the Talk page to document how much coverage of the controversy dwarfed prior coverage. That proof was not rebutted (they just hurled insults at me).

Frankly, my opinion is the opposite of yours. I think the page does a good job of reaching the proper balance and if it had been whitewashed, that would be a travesty. The article isn't POV. It doesn't call Frey a jerk. It simply documents what happened. If that makes people feel badly about him, that's not the editors' fault. A bio page should serve the truth. Fans should change pages to boost their heroes. Dwight Gooden was my favorite athlete when I was a kid. I don't try to strip out the discussion of his problems with drugs and the law (including a mention in the lede), because that would go against my duty as a wikipedia editor. The content should be determined by the facts as shown in reliability sources, not by the vigor of each person's fans in removing info they dislike. It would be a bad double-standard if Frey's page minimized things just because he has vigorous supporters. Your proposed lede would be unnecessarily vague. Frey has admitted that portions of his memoir were untrue so we don't have to pretend its unknown. --JamesAM (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi James, if you would like to comment, there is a discussion at BLPN regarding this article , thanks Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello James, I did not mean it as a "personal attack," I'm sorry it came across that way to you. I knew you would see it so I didn't think to send you a notice.

I've been away for a while but am eager to get moving on a major project of creating and adding to every article related to literary controversies and then later other creative controversies.

I had started with Frey's page and you reacted angrily when I edited the 'lede' (please correct me if you feel I'm wrong and that your tone was civil.) I did see the talk page and it's precisely why I wanted a third party to mediate. I was shocked by the Frey article. Again, correct me if I'm wrong but it appeared to me that you fervently wished to preserve the extremely negative slant of the article. At the very least, the "See Also" section - which I greatly objected to because it linked to only two other writers, ones who completely fabricated books....books about the HOLOCAUST!- remains removed from the article.

The subject is fascinating to me and dates back even before Shakespeare & Holinshed. It's in publishing, the news, academia, and now new media. There's hoaxes, fabrication, plagiarism, false citations, fudging facts, illegal impersonations, and so much more. One article I will make is on memoirs that have been completely made up, memoirs whose authenticity has been questioned, and memoirs like Frey's in which elements were invented but the heart of the book remains intact. Frey's portrayal of addiction was and is noted for it's realism because it was real.

I do not agree with selling a book with fictional elements as a "memoir" but this article makes Frey look like the poster child for literary controversy despite the relative mildness of his deeds compared to oh, countless journalists who fake entire stories, outright plagiarism and the entirely fake "memoirs" about nothing less than the genocide of 6 million people.

Regarding the negativity, there are various positive aspects of Frey's story, for example the fact that the book was a bestseller before Oprah, the fact that hardly anyone returned the book for a refund, just to name two, are not included in the article.

So before embarking any further on making and adding to articles involving literary controversies I requested a third party precisely so I could focus on content, as you say you would like to do as well, instead of bickering and arguing (I felt that I had been attacked by the tone of your response to my edit...) Thank you for the note explaining that you don't wish to get dragged into fights. I most definitely don't want that either.

What I want is to get started making these articles as comprehensive as possible and also as fair as possible (they're human beings.)

It's a great topic. The confusion alone surrounding the origin of the quote, "Good writers borrow, great writers steal" is wonderfully fitting and ironic- It's been attributed to dozens of different people... StewartNetAddict (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "there are various positive aspects of Frey's story, for example the fact that the book was a bestseller before Oprah, the fact that hardly anyone returned the book for a refund, just to name two, are not included in the article." That's incorrect. For instance, the lead paragraph states that both his memoirs were bestsellers. (I think I used the journalism term "lede" incorrectly.) And the "Lawsuit settlement" section explicitly notes, "only 1,729 readers came forward to receive a refund for the book." Those cited, verified facts which may reflectly positively on Frey have consistently remained in the article. The problem isn't keeping that well-cited information; rather it's the selective stripping of only that well-cited information that described the fabrication (and has therefore been labelled "negative"). Since we mention his bestseller status in the lead, we ought to mention the scandal. I think they're both lead material (although I'd argue that the fabrication is actually the larger of two sources of fame).

The "See Also" section was added a mere two weeks before you made your edits, so it doesn't seem to me to represent some broad long-term, multi-editor systematic bias against Frey. I don't have a strong opinion about it, and didn't fight its removal. But I don't think its as troublesome as you do. Frey is associated in the public consciousness with memoir fabrication, so that seems like a relevant "See also" link. Herman Rosenblat is particularly relevant because he also appeared on Oprah. If I recall correctly, several news articles/commentaries explicitly linked the two (i.e. does the combination of Frey and Rosenblat show a laxness in Oprah's research staff in examining the books the show chooses to feature). Notice that the editor who added the "See also" section is an experienced one who even has rollback rights. And that's a pattern: content accused of being anti-Frey has been added or preserved by experienced editors who have a demonstrated track record of contributions.

You wrote about "and memoirs like Frey's in which elements were invented but the heart of the book remains intact. Frey's portrayal of addiction was and is noted for it's realism because it was real." Honestly, I think there's a much, much stronger argument that that analysis violates NPOV than what I sought to preserve. Specific acts of fabrication by Frey are well-cited, verified facts. Frey has even admitted to them. The notion that Frey the heart of truth in his books remains intact is opinion. If that were to be included, it ought to framed something like "so-and-so has argued that the heart of truth remains intact in Frey's memoirs despite the fabrication of some facts" followed by an appropriate citation. It should then be balanced by notable contrary opinion, if any.

The existence of "countless journalists who fake entire stories, outright plagiarism and the entirely fake "memoirs" about nothing less than the genocide of 6 million people" is not an argument for removing info on the fabrications from Frey's article. Rather, it's an argument for including such information in the articles about those other people. In my experience, editors try to do that consistently. It's not just Frey being singled out. For instance, look at the article on journalist Jayson Blair. Or look at the article on How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life by Kaavya Viswanathan. Viswanathan had just graduated in college and was profiled in the New York Times for her novel. So had a lot of media attention before the plagiarism was revealed. The prior positive attention isn't just cause to minimize the negative aspects. Frey didn't have a long, storied career before A Million Little Pieces. Kissing a Fool isn't a film that drew significant critical or box office acclaim. So a fabrication scandal that undermines his main prior claim to fame (the two memoirs) is a pretty big deal. Compare Frey to Dan Rather. Rather has had a long, storied journalistic career. He has covered thousands of stories and appeared on television broadcasts of major networks for thousands of hours. Calling into question a particular story he broadcast would only be one part of the numerous stories that Rather covered. Yet in spite of that, the "memo-gate" controversy was considered significant enough to make it in Rather's lead paragraph. Judged by that standard, Frey's fabrication is proportionally much bigger. Frey doesn't have nearly as long a track record and what is under fire are Frey's two biggest commercial achievements.

You wrote, "I knew you would see it so I didn't think to send you a notice." In fact, the only reason I saw the discussion is because another alerted me that I was mentioned in a discussion and might want to reply. If not for that editor's note on my Talk page, I would never have realized I was being disparaged on that page. Ideally, we should discuss article content rather than the character of editors. But it's hard to avoid rebutting when I think I'm being attacked personally. --JamesAM (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate you contributing to the consensus for the New Page Patrol disambiguation bot at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WildBot Josh Parris 03:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JamesAM! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 18:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JamesAM! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 8 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Bernard Gilkey - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I was totally unaware of this! Thanks for the edit. [1]. Tb (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nominated for deletion. Please comment here for consensus on this article. Thank you. Spidey104^contribs 18:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you removed a link from a bio infobox to an anthroponymy article here. The reason for the link was stated in the edit history, but the relevant discussion has since been archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Archive 6#Is it appropriate to link from surname instances to surname articles?

That discussion did not reach a conclusion. As you removed the link, I hope you won't mind me asking whether you know of a definite policy against such links?

In the absence of any guidelines, I'm inclined to put the link back, but perhaps in one of the "name" entries in the infobox rather than its title. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting the Calexico link in Jim Neversink! I try to be pedantic about these things, but it's hard, so thanks a lot! SkaraB 12:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing a serious change to the Broadcast section of this article. Please take a look and provide feedback. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I thought you might be interested in the December 2010 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive. We're currently recruiting help to clear a massive backlog (22,000+ articles), and we need your help! Participants in the drive will receive barnstars for their contributions! If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Guoguo12--Talk--  01:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am Brazilian and I need of you to correct my translation edits, because you are from an english speaking-country, please help me in the Same-sex adoption in Brazil, Changing legal gender assignment in Brazil, LGBT rights in Brazil, Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil, Age of consent in Brazil, Prejudice in the Brazilian LGBT community, and Criminalization of homophobia in Brazil. 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for your kindness and your work in Women Ice Hockey. Thanks for correction in the pages. --Geneviève (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesAM, I'm interestd in the AfDs process in Wikipedia and notice that you once involved in AfDs. I'm not sure whether you find that some discussers are admins while some are not. I'm just wondering whether you care about the adminships of the participants in deletion discussions. Does the referee's adminship affect your attitude towards the result of AfDs? Thanks. Bluesum (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving Nayef by spotting that there is more than one race called the Autumn Stakes.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JamesAM! I saw that you've found some "disambiguations" in my articles and article edits. Thank you for the help!!! I guess I assumed, wrongly, that when I put the square brackets around words that have a technical meaning in the sea shell world that those words had only one definition. I wonder, do you have a list out there with proper syntax so us newbie editors can avoid making these types of mistakes? A list of sea shell terminology that you and the other editors looking for "disambiguous" phrases have had to fix before would be great! I have seen a few others in gastropod articles that have not been caught or fixed, i.e. within the article Conidae there are some links to genera that go to non-gastropod topics. I'd like to help fix these, but do not know how.Shellnut (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! I don't have a formal list of sea shell terminology that leads to disambiguation pages, but there a couple of things I can think of up the top of my head. The Disambiguation Wikiproject usually works on whichever dab pages have the most links. I was working on operculum because it had over 40 incoming links. There wasn't any particular effort to target sea shell topics. Shell itself is a disambiguation page. So you'd probably try to change those to link to either sea shell, mollusc shell, or gastropod shell depending on the context. Also, taxonomic categories like class, order, and family lead to dab pages because those words have multiple meanings. The article title for the taxonomic categories are usually formed by sticking "(biology)" after the term - for example order (biology). Of course, a simple way to find out if your wikilinks go to a dab is just to click on the link and see where it goes. Hopefully, the correct article will already be listed on the dab page. Usually, the article for the biology meaning of a word with multiple meanings is named by adding "(biology)" to the title. If there are multiple biological meanings, then it's often titled by adding the taxonomic group in parentheses, like "(gastropod)". It looks like there's no article on the genus Theta, but if there were, the preferred article title would probably be "Theta (genus)". And you know to format the links within the brackets, right? The article you want to link to goes on the left of the "|" symbol and the text you want to appear in the article goes on the right side. If I think of any other ambiguous sea shell terms, I'll let you know. Feel free to ask questions. --JamesAM (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For constantly disambiguating links; your changes really do make a difference. Nobody seems to have recognised you yet, but I have! Rcsprinter (talk to me) 17:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am part of an effort to get Wikimedians access to the 2016 Summer Olympics as accredited reporters and photographers. Part of this effort includes covering the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Two Wikimedians have credentials to attend these games as reporters through Wikimedia Australia. As English Wikipedia does not allow original reporting, this is largely through Wikinews with a project page found at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. If you are interested in helping to get Wikimedians to the next Summer Olympics,I'd encourage you to assist with Wikinews efforts, and also to work on all language 2012 Summer Paralympic Wikipedia articles before, during and after the Games to demonstrate a track record of success. Thank you. --LauraHale (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to make MMA articles on wikipedia better! In September 168 people made a total of 956 edits to MMA articles. I noticed you havn't listed yourself on the WikiProject Mixed martial arts Participants page. Take a look, sign up, and don't forget to say hi on the talk page. Kevlar (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JamesAM,

This is Raymarcbadz, and I am working with WikiProject Olympics. I have read in your user updates, and mentioned that you created articles, with or without stubs for those who don't have yet, particularly with the 2008 Olympic athletes. Here's what I'm going to tell you first. For the past two months, I have already published articles for the athletes who competed in the following sports: athletics, fencing, judo, modern pentathlon, shooting, swimming, taekwondo, triathlon, weightlifting, and wrestling. My ultimate goal is to have Wikipedia articles for all of them. The missing ones will be those who competed in badminton, basketball, cycling, rowing, sailing, synchronized swimming, and table tennis. Since I've already understood your status, I have a favor for you. Can you create all of them please, so that each and everyone has their own article, provided that they are connected with Olympics, and supported with references and accurate data? To make things easier, use NBC Olympics website as your main reference for the results. They also have their biography profiles as well, to track updates and display results from their respective sport. It is an immense help to improve standards with 2008 Summer Olympics, and I know that you have the full potential to work everything well. Thank you, and accept the challenge! Good luck! -- Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hy! i've seen you just modified southpark voice. I'm trying to move southpark.jpg from en.wiki to common but i can't login. Could you move this image for me? thanks in advance. Luca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.6.59.40 (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Martini: A Memoir, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Rangasyd (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me with these two articles please? I have made a draft templates for the government in exile.Mr Hall of England (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You, several other editors, and I were involved in an AFD discussion in the past here. At the time you and I agreed, but perhaps you will not here. On this particular occasion, I am involved in an AFD discussion, here. Your participation, not contingent upon taking any particular side, would be greatly appreciated. Silver Buizel (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of songs recorded by Secret may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 January 2014, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anna Ringsred, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 2014 Olympic speed skater Anna Ringsred used to be afraid of racing, calling competition "scary and nerve-racking"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Ringsred. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

We are making a run at a historic clearing of the board at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/February 2014. Would you like to pitch in and help make this happen? bd2412 T 17:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...for a merger proposal. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Economy of Algeria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• iron and zinc. Lignite is found in Algiers; immense phosphate beds were discovered near [[Tébessa]]] in 1891, yielding 313,500 tons in 1905. Phosphate beds are also worked near [[Sétif]], [[Guelma]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could you please paraphrase film title " Step Up Revolution "? what does mean it exactly? thanks million. Alborzagros (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a current or past contributor to a USCG Auxiliary article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

COASTIE I am (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James,

I'm a reporter with Fusion (fusion.net), trying to reach you about the Rachel Roy wikipedia page and what happens when you get a deluge of people editing at once as happened this morning. Any chance you could send me an email? I'm at ethan.chiel@fusion.net

thanks, Ethan Chiel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.240.185 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of sons of King Abdulaziz ibn Saud by seniority—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Melissa Lee page & accompanying talk page this morning. I appreciate the work you did and I admire your patience. :-) tharsaile (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to women's ice hockey articles. I thought I'd let you know about the women's ice hockey task force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's ice hockey. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!

I see you disambiguated Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina to Episcopal Church in South Carolina on Theodore Dehon. The problem is that it is not a neutral edit, since the Diocese of South Carolina also claims to be the original diocese. So I'm thinking about creating an article on Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina (before 2012) to deal with the mutual history before the split. What do you think? StAnselm (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, User:StAnselm. I think the creation of a pre-2012 article would be okay. I know similar things are sometimes done with schisms of political parties. I don't have a particularly strong preference between keeping the status quo or creating the pre-2012 article. But I don't think leaving the discussion of the pre-2012 events and links with the Episcopal article would be problematic either; I strongly disagree that my edit is non-neutral. I don't see this as controversial because it's a structural/organizational judgment, not a theological one. Whatever one's opinion is regarding the relative morality or theologically "correctness" of the Episcopal Church versus the Anglican Church in North America, the structural situation seems clear. The Episcopal Church continued on, while the ACNA broke off. The EC continues in the Anglican Communion. My edit doesn't repudiate the view of any who may believe the ACNA is a restoration of true Anglicanism, because it is simply a recognition of the organizational reality, irrespective of moral/theological judgments. --JamesAM (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and created the article. In this case, the diocese decided to secede and then the Episcopal Church formed a new diocese. So perhaps not as clear as you suggest. StAnselm (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moses Magnum 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/Moses Magnum 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. TTN (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jessan Hoan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Acanti has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sidri has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TTN (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]