User talk:Renamed user 8j-Z%nKkVr

Do I know you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seneca Flyboy (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, Seneca Flyboy. Who are you? - Jajhill (talk) 10:30 16 October 2015 UTC

Welcome

Hello, Renamed user 8j-Z%nKkVr, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kukini 06:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Presidents

Hi Jajhill, many people have held multiple offices. I don't think it is practical to put an infobox for each one (as you did for Thomas Jefferson). The usual convention is to have the highest office that person held in the infobox (in this case, President). There are templates and sucession boxes at the bottom of the article that give more detail about other offices. For example, Jefferson was also Governor of Virginia and Secretary of State. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then how come William H. Taft's page has him with a presidential table and chief justice table? - Jajhill

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Adolphus79 05:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was not me that was someone else - Jajhill

so it was, I'm sorry... feel free to delete this... - Adolphus79 05:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are forgiven - Jajhill

Numbering of British Prime Ministers

I've removed the numbering from the infoboxes of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. British Prime Ministers aren't numbered like US Presidents for several boring reasons. Firstly, the term "Prime Minister" wasn't used until the early twentieth century, before then the office was called "First Lord of the Treasury", in fact to this day the Prime Minister still is the First Lord of the Treasury, that's what it says on No. 10's letterbox. Another thing is, the United Kingdom didn't exist until 1801, before then it was Great Britain, so technically Robert Walpole was the first Prime Minister of Great Britain and Henry Addington was the last Prime Minister of Great Britain and the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Also, there is a debate as to weather non-consecutive terms are counted twice, like the way the Americans count Grover Cleveland, the Downing Street website says Gordon Brown will be the 52nd person to walk through the doors of Downing Street as PM not the 75th. Then there is the issue of how many times Ramsay MacDonald is counted as the government changed part way through his second term but he remained as Prime Minister. Finally, it's just not a British tradition to count the number people who have held a particular office. Hope you understand. --Philip Stevens 12:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. It's just me and my American ways. -- Jajhill 19:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding numbers again. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say again: Stop adding numbers. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you won't stop. Therequiembellishere (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add any numbers to British Prime Ministers! Why are you accusing me? And why mustn't I? - Jajhill 14:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been talking about the British PMs, I've been talking about adding them everywhere else. If you'd responded earlier, there wouldn't be any confusion. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hello, Jajhill. I'm curious. What was your reasoning for changing MLK's infobox (diff)? I'm not a great fan of infoboxes one way or the other, I just wanted to understand your rationale. Thank you in advance. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that Wikipedia articles do not use honorifics such as Dr. or Mr. --Orange Mike 23:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its because it seems that Dr. King was just as much a philosopher as a revolutionary leader, not only continuing, but preaching the ideas of Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Gandhi, of peace and civil disobidience. - Jajhill 01:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. This is one of the reasons I see info-boxes as problematic: MLK was a religious and spiritual leader, a political activist, a humanitarian, a pacifist, an orator, and so many other things. Hard to settle on one type of box. I do think, however, that his most prominent influence and legacy lie in the history of civil rights and political activism, so, in my opinion the box, if one is needed at all, should reflect this. I agree that "Infobox revolution biography" is not a very compelling title, and understand your wish to change it, but I fear the "Western philosophy" box is even less fitting and would never receive consensus to remain. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. - Jajhill 4 August 2007

Rolland medal

Hello- I've noticed you've added the nobel prize image to Romain Rolland's infobox. Surprised it wasn't there before. But it seems to be covering the last bit of his name, so it reads Romain Rollan. Maybe this is just a weird browser thing at my end. But if you could double check and fix if it isn't just me, that'd be great. Thanks, DionysosProteus 04:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Just curious why you seem to be systematically removing the <sup></sup> and {{st}}{{rd}} tags from biographical articles? The standard has been to include them so taking them out would be inconsistent with most biographical articles on Wiki that include them. --Veritas (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think WP:MOSNUM#Typography supports removing the superscripting. I'm not much on the minutia of WP policies, but that's how it reads to me. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I'm wondering why you are also removing {{st}} and {{rd}} from articles, such as George H. W. Bush with [1]. I looked at before and after, and the use of these templates looked fine to me (if a bit 'cute'). That's a lot of changes you are making without any mentioned reasons that I can see. General guideline: if you _could_ make dozens or hundreds of changes, first make just a few and see what the reaction is. Shenme (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why are you doing these actions again? See [2] from 23:13, 11 November 2007. Some changes you do are 'good' like [3], so you don't look like a vandal. But you still need to discuss before you repeat edits that have been reversed. Perhaps the Wikipedia:Help_desk people could help you find the right people to talk to. Shenme (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poe infobox

Regarding the infobox at Edgar Allan Poe, precedent for featured class articles on writers has actually been to remove the infobox rather than expand them (see, for example Mary Shelley). What remains at Poe's article is safe only because it is neutral. "Genre" is too debatable (but there's plenty of discussion in the prose itself) and a list of "Notable works" will easily annoy Poe scholars and Poe fans alike (I, for one, was particularly annoyed by the focus on horror works, when so much of the article tries to expand beyond that limited scope of Poe's oeuvre). Anyway, just thought I'd let you know my motivations. Oh, and don't forget to add edit summaries, especially on articles that are semi-protected and have a high concern for vandalism. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Objectivist philosophers

Template:Objectivist philosophers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Liberty Caucus

You appear to be one of the more active editors on Republican Liberty Caucus. The article was tagged for over a year for concerns about the lack of sources, and there were comments on the talk page too. Basically, the entire article was sourced to the RLC websites. According to WP:V, Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on third-party sources. If readers are only interested in seeing the RLC view of things they can go to the RLC website. WP:NPOV says we must include all significant points of view, and those are not going to be found on the official site. As a result, I've "stubbed" the article down to a short paragraph. I'd be happy to see the article expanded again, but only if it's based on independent sources. Will Beback talk 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling stone succession boxes

Please stop adding these to articles. Regardless of whether their positions on the list should be in the articles (I don't have an opinion at this time), a succession box is not appropriate. It uses "preceded by" and "succeeded by", which implies the position as the greatest vocalist is passed on from one to another - and it is not even obvious which means up and which means down. It is not a good way to convey this information. I am rolling back your additions. Regards, Trebor (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Property tax rates in the United States by state

The article Property tax rates in the United States by state has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This really just appears to be property tax rates in Massachusetts. Shouldn't this information be integrated into a Massachusetts-specific article? Also, going to a county level in terms of information seems a bit too exhaustive.

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. elektrik SHOOS 17:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rolling Stone Greatest Artists

Template:Rolling Stone Greatest Artists has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass additions

Hey, do you have consensus for these additions? --John (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't see any benefit in these additions and you didn't show me a consensus that they should be added, I am going to remove them. If you need help, I suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music to try and generate agreement. Best wishes, --John (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Comedy Central Greatest Stand-Ups

Template:Comedy Central Greatest Stand-Ups has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Stock characters

Template:Stock characters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DreamGuy (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Stock characters

Template:Stock characters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. szyslak (t) 10:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't re-nominate the template. The attempted nomination by DreamGuy was never listed on TFD, so I did so. szyslak (t) 11:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Roman Polanski. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Jajhill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

151.204.254.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Do not edit with two different account/IPs. That is sockpuppetry, and it can get you blocked very quickly and for a very long time. Cresix (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Washington locations by per capita income, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Property tax rates in Massachusetts

Template:Property tax rates in Massachusetts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use an edit summary when saving your changes to an article

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to List of Massachusetts locations by per capita income does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!

You made 59 edits to List of Massachusetts locations by per capita income in succession. Having an edit summary for each edit would be most useful in this case. (You might also want to combine those small edits into a few larger edits.) Senator2029 ➔leave me a message 17:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve List of Massachusetts locations by unemployment rate

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Jajhill, thanks for creating List of Massachusetts locations by unemployment rate!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. 4. all minor.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

Thank you for your addition of schools infoboxes. There should be no comma between the state and the zipcode. I have fixed that in two articles. Can you correct the rest? Hertz1888 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lawrence, Massachusetts. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. John from Idegon (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox school district

I notice you have been adding Template:Infobox school district to a number of city articles. If you click on the link to the template, you will see that the first line states "this template is intended for use in school district articles". While I appreciate your hard work, this is not the correct use of this template and your edits will need to be removed. Thanks for your cooperation. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677. What? I thought we resolved this. Jajhill 15:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. My apologies. I wasn't following the talk page discussion and the template language about this remains unclear. Sorry about the reverts. I'll try to fix them soon. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was not resolved in any way. Changes to templates or their documentation require a much wider consensus than existed at that talk page. Frankly, since the uninvolved editor jumped in and made the change before Magnolia had responded, there was not even enough of a consensus to make a change on one page, much less a template. A consensus is not a simple vote. It is a meeting of the minds of all concerned parties. Obviously, since all involved knew Magnolia was a concerned party, there is no consensus. To change templates, all interested parties have to able to participate. Minimally, notification should have been made at the main talk pages of the two interested projects to ensure wider participation. Please make appropriate notifications and continue discussion. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmore

The section of "political positions" is for the outline of his policy prosals and opinions, it is not for independent opinions on his record of public service. Spartan7W § 02:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

You do not have consensus to use infobox school district on settlement articles. Further, even if you did, I and I believe many other editors, would oppose its use on an article by article basis. If a town is so small as to not support notability for an article on its school district, guidelines fully support writing prose and lists to document the public school system. I really see no arguement for using them other than ilikeit. I will be do I g a bunch of reverting, and I'd appreciate your help. John from Idegon (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can second this opinion - I have no problem with an editor who wants to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, but if the general WP:CONSENSUS is that the infobox does not fit the article (or placement within the article) than I think you should stop adding them and contribute in other ways. Check this out for more info on the infobox you're using and its intended use. Garchy (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How margin of error works — Statewide opinion polling, Democratic Party primaries, 2016

User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wikipedia about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese article on Quincy Hills

If you have any friends who know Chinese they can add stuff to zh:昆市公立學校 if they wish WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Major US Cities

Template:Major US Cities has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 05:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jajhill. 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)[reply]

SAT Update - sources

You appear to be making massive changes to SAT scores on many pages without adjusting the references. Where are these numbers coming from? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jwy, the new numbers and the old numbers come from the same source, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. If you would actually follow the link, you would know this. Jajhill (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you followed the link and look at the indicated 2014-2015 numbers, you might find they point to the old numbers. And, at least for Bromfield, the number you give for the total doesn't match the source even if you look at the 2015-2016 page. --John (User:Jwy/talk)

User:Jwy, if you select the 2014-2015 school year on the link, you will get the 2014-2015 results. However, there are more recent results which are located on the very same page. The old data needs to be updated now. And also, you clearly are not capable of doing basic arithmetic: the 2015-2016 SAT results for the Harvard Public School District (where The Bromfield School is the only public high school) are 594 for reading, 583 for writing, and 589 for math. 594+583+589=1766. I'm reverting your edits. -- Jajhill (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was mapping that number to the fourth number in the source: the total number of tests taken. My mistake. I appreciate your work on this. Avoiding commenting on other editors, however, would likely encourage more productive interactions with others. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Shore (Massachusetts), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whitman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mountains of New Hampshire navbox

Hi - Thanks for all the work you've been doing on geographic navboxes lately. They've been very thorough. I have a suggestion about the Mountains of New Hampshire template. Several of the ranges listed (specifically Baldface-Royce, Crescent, Kinsman, Pilot, Presidential, Sandwich, and Twin) are part of the White Mountains, so it seems strange to have them broken out separately from the Whites. I see that it is possible to introduce subgroups into navboxes - see Template:University of Michigan for an example. Would you be willing to try that for the NH mountains navbox, or shall I go ahead and take a stab at it? --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ken Gallager. If you'd like to create subgroups in the navbox for the ranges that are within the White Mountains, feel more than free. I wasn't sure exactly how to proceed with that when I initially created the navbox, so I just figured I would just separate the ranges (sometimes having too many subgroups can seem cluttered). Just let me know when you're done so that I can see what it looks like. -- Jajhill (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All set. Let me know what you think of the formatting. I left the Mahoosucs as a separate range, though some would include it in the White Mountains. --Ken Gallager (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mountains of Montana

Template:Mountains of Montana has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your Organization of U.S. Representative positions in infoboxes

Please stop changing them. They're fine as they are. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk _Contribs 09:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Massachusetts Rivers

Template:Massachusetts Rivers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jajhill. 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)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

Template:American think tanks is really useful, thanks for creating it!

Marquardtika (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap

Good job on Template:Riots in the United States! I was wondering where this navbox suddenly popped up on my watchlist on 20 different articles. Very comprehensive to say the least. GMG ^talk 16:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:American think tanks

Template:American think tanks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --wooden superman 15:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Radio and television stations in Massachusetts

Template:Radio and television stations in Massachusetts has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --wooden superman 09:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Western U.S. majority-minority counties

I noticed you created Template:Western U.S. majority-minority counties, and have been adding it to various county articles, such as Adams County, Washington. However, there is no mention in the Adams County, Washington article about it being a majority minority county. Perhaps I am missing something. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: The 2010 census section of the article states that "Those of Hispanic or Latino origin made up 59.3% of the population" along with a citation. More recent U.S. Census Bureau data shows that non-Latino Whites have continued to be a minority of the population. -- Jajhill (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Is that satisfactory for a revert? -- Jajhill (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert your revert, however, I'm concerned about the helpfulness of the template. As you know, "Templates used in articles are designed to provide information to assist readers", per WP:TG. In this case, readers need to click on the heading of the template to figure out why it has been added to the article. Even then, it's not apparent. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bell Bottom Blues (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Baker expansion

I don't think users who contribute so heavily are given enough credit here. I read through the governorship section of the Charlie Baker article and found it informative. By that I was impressed. I wish we had fifty more users who showed your level of dedication to a particular page. You did an excellent job. - Informant16 October 25, 2018

@Informant16: Thanks. I'm glad someone appreciates it. I agree with your assessment of the current climate within the editor community. I have generally had little success in persuading editors who revert my work to stop. I feel that the administrators (and one administrator in particular) also have had a strong bias against me in disputes (which, as you can see from my talk page, I've had many). It seems like there is a small group of administrators in control who enact editing policies and guidelines through a process that they set up and only they are familiar with. Most of these policies seem to have completely subjective criteria enabling them to implement their own biases in removing what they consider to be an irrelevant edit or to be completely selective in policing it. The administrators are supposed to be elected, but it doesn't seem to me that this website has ever had enough users who are engaged at that level to make the elections legitimate. They need to come up with a different system for selecting administrators so that people in the position are rotated and can be removed and permanently barred if they create enough conflicts with a particular editor or group of editors. There needs to be a power-sharing compromise agreement between administrators on the deletionist and inclusionist controversy to reduce conflict within the community because it seems that editors who mostly create content are beginning to quit the site (I've considered it). The administrators should be working to try to better coordinate the work of editors. One rule should be that administrators who make reverts should be required to assist editors in finding other administrators who need help to expanding topics the editor has an interest in. I could go on. -- Jajhill (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jajhill. 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)[reply]

Further commending

I didn't see your response to my comment until about a week ago. I appreciate the additional work on Charlie Baker. I'm just worried that some of the users on here are going to try and split the article or mess with it in the coming weeks. They've been doing that with a lot of the presidential timelines that I expanded. There's this weird thing where people try to split pages without ever contributing to them so they can brag about what articles they made. Also, are there any other biographical pages that you would be interested in? - Informant16 December 2, 2018

@Informant16: I don't what we could do about that. I certainly hope that doesn't happen. However, even within Wikipedia guidelines about splitting articles, I'm not sure that splitting the Charlie Baker article would make much sense though. Unless the article has topped 100,000 bytes of prose, which I'm not sure that it has. There are other biographical articles I'd like to edit after I collect enough news articles about them. However, I have a Microsoft Word document that still has 19 pages of URLs that link to news articles and press statements about Charlie Baker and his administration that I wanted to add to that article. They would mostly be updates to the existing policy sections, but would also involve creating a section about his administration's public safety and criminal justice policies.

The other biographical articles I would want to edit would be the articles about Deval Patrick, Jerome Powell, Janet Yellen, and Ben Bernanke, and the reason I would want to edit them is because, while I know a bit each of them, I would like to know more about their tenures in public office. I live in Massachusetts and have been following the state's politics pretty closely for over 10 years now, and since Patrick has reportedly been considering running for President in 2020, I think it would be worthwhile to expand the section about his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts. I would like to edit the Wikipedia articles about the last three Federal Reserve Chairs because I also have a very strong interest in monetary policy, in part because once I graduate from college, I intend to go into finance.

In addition, I also have an interest in these articles in particular is because I often feel like much of public policy discussions in the United States, given the current news and social media environment, have become so vitriolic and polarized that collectively American society is losing the ability to have constructive public policy and political discussions. In fact, I would argue that part of the reason why the subprime mortgage crisis and the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 turned into the Great Recession was largely because of this. It prevented the Federal Reserve as well as other public policy institutions in the United States from being able to formulate and implement decisive actions that could have ameliorated the severity of the recession. I believe that editing these pages could help to create a common base of facts that could help reduce polarization and keep things like that from happening again, but also because it seems to me that creating a common base of facts is precisely what Wikipedia was invented for. (Also, just as a personal aside, I do think my editing of the Charlie Baker article in fact had that effect on the recent gubernatorial election in Massachusetts, even if it may have been an indirect effect.) - Jajhill (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jajhill: I like your counterargument to splitting it but there are a couple of policies on here that these users who favor messing with pages that other people have tried to work on tend to use to get away with whatever they do. For example, while everyone is all of a sudden concerned with George H. W. Bush, I wrote about 25% of that page late last year and tried to provide summarized content from my Foreign policy of the George H. W. Bush administration article. All of this, which added to about 30,000 bytes, was considered too big by two people and thereby prevented from being allowed to stay on. Keep in mind, the main H. W. Bush page is over a 100,000 bytes smaller than the Charlie Baker article, which makes me worried that they will use the same arguments to mess with it, especially after how hard you've worked.

I do have an interest in the Deval Patrick article, though the others only less so due to a conviction that I probably couldn't find as much material. It wouldn't stop me from trying though. I like to think I've done an alright job with Strom Thurmond and Robert F. Kennedy, two articles I wrote large portions of, and am interested in a variety of long-serving politicians like John C. Stennis, Sam Ervin, John Sparkman, and Richard Russell, Jr..

I like to believe that editing on here does make a difference in terms of what people can find out about in relation to the topic at hand. I wouldn't be surprised if people did look up Baker's tenure and mostly learn about it through your edits. That was part of the reason why I had thanked you in the first place, but also because I know that a bulk of articles on this site that could be considered informative were written entirely by one or two people who oftentimes have to put up with parliamentary tricks by those that don't contribute so thoroughly. - Informant16 December 3, 2018

Celebritynetworth.com as a source

Hi Jajhill . I noticed that you used celebritynetworth.com as a source for biography information in University of Massachusetts Boston.[4] Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that celebritynetworth.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks.--Ronz (talk) 19:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz: Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I was unaware that it did not meet the consensus reliable sourcing criteria for articles containing biographical information. I only used it because it was the only reference I could find using Google for that particular alumnus entry, but since it does not, I'm more than glad that you have already removed it. Thank you. -- Jajhill (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Your recent editing history at Psychology 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. See BRD for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -----Snowded ^TALK 17:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cite article

{{cite article}} is an alias for {{cite news}}. Probably not the template you want in most cases. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Massachusetts locations by unemployment rate for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Massachusetts locations by unemployment rate 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/List of Massachusetts locations by unemployment rate 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. User:Namiba 14:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Waterbodies of Connecticut

Template:Waterbodies of Connecticut has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Western U.S. majority-minority counties

Template:Western U.S. majority-minority counties has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. TartarTorte 01:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]