User talk:Jadon
|
Jefferson page
[edit]Hi Jadon,
Thanks for your edit. Yes, what you encountered and corrected on the Jefferson page was typical. I have just spent the last several months chasing after a couple of editors who in my opinion were out to ruin the page. At one point the slavery/Heming's sections took up about seven pages -- while the other sections were being gutted and ignored. - Again, thanks for your help, Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
References and lead
[edit]You added some text to Hoyle's fallacy and Watchmaker analogy and Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. The text is good, but there are some issues that I don't have the energy to fix at the moment, so I thought I would tell you about them.
First, per WP:LEAD, it is not satisfactory to add a new argument to the lead of an article because the lead is supposed to be a summary of what follows. Second, it is a problem when more or less identical text is added to three different articles—duplication suggests that some rearrangement is required.
Finally, there is a reference problem. Templates like {{harvnb}} can be difficult to use as they require the harvnb with the cited text, and the citation itself. To demonstrate the problem, click the "[N]" following the cited text in any of the articles (N is 1 or 2 or whatever). Then click the linked "Richerson & Boyd 2005" and observe that nothing happens. To see what should happen, try the same with the refs in an article like Charles Darwin's education.
Another issue is that it is not satisfactory to mix reference styles in an article, and there needs to be a very good reason before an existing style is changed. That means that when a reference is added, it should use the style of other references in the article (so harvnb should not be used in these articles). Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
JW Deletion Talk
[edit]Jadon, thank you. It honestly wasn't easy, but I tried to be nice. Vyselink (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Jadon. 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)
Yahweh
[edit]Thanks for your recent edit to Yahweh. It's a valid edit, and useful, but can you find books for your sources? The problem with Internet references is that they can be easily challenged. Regards PiCo (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
November 2024
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Project 2025 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)