i cannot believe that you have taken it upon yourself to tarnish the military record of an american war hero who sacrificed part of his penis for his country you should check your facts before you threaten people i see that among other purple heart recipiants there are fictional characters and animals but a real solder that has givin more then any man should cannot be allowed and if you take tyler off again i will personally contact wikipedia about your harrasment
You should first consult WP:MOS before you contribute to Wikipedia again. You should also take time to punctuate, and use a spellchecker. Also, before you add your addition to Purple Heart again please have a reference, or two since you edits looks to be nothing but vandalism.Jackfork (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2015 (U
i think that if you are the moderator is it not your job to do the research on somthing before you just dismiss what i put on here. I mean what exactly is your job then to just delete what ever you think could be false instead of putting a little effort into it. I wish my job was that easy to just do whatever i wanted with out any real reason and then call it vandalism. I think what you are doing is vandalism.
ANI notice regarding 188.8.131.52
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continuous addition of weakly sourced controversial content by IP. Thank you. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I would like to know what the incident was that I got a message about. I can't figure out what I possibly could have contributed that could be taken as vandalism. If it wasn't me, I want to know if my kids are up to something nefarious. Can you tell mw what was added to the MA page that was taken down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I noticed that you recently reverted some edits to Irreducible element. The same editor has again revised it. The article was fine before the new material was added. It now appears confused and not very mathematical. Take another look.--220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello Jackfork and 18.104.22.168. This is the editor of the article Irreducible element whose edits you reversed. I took another look at the edits I made and I cannot find any (mathematical) mistakes in them (id est, a statement that is false). Although I do agree with the above critique by 22.214.171.124 in the sense that my edits made the article more complex, but this is because the subject itself (the behaviour of irreducible elements in non-integral domain rings) is inherently complex. I actually think that I explained the subject rather well; if someone can do better, then by all means they should edit the article. The other point of criticism by 126.96.36.199 considered the non-mathematicity of the article; I of course agree that I do not provide self-contained proof of all my claims, but then again, I have not yet seen a mathematical Wikipedia article that does. I provided references for the non-trivial claims; those that I did not provide references are usually considered good exercises for undergraduate students.
As for the need to expand the article in the first place: the article was labeled as a stub, and it did explicitly asked to be expanded. The study of irreducibility on integral domains is classic algebra from the late-19th early-20th century, and the more modern research of the subject (since 1970s) has focused to the subject in non-integral domain rings, so this is a natural direction fo expansion. Also I think it is uselful to showcase the subject of irreducibility in non-integral domain rings as there are many contradicting and erroneous discussions on the subject in the internet; this is understandable, since as I tried to convey in my edit of the article, the subject of irreducibility on non-integral domain rings is very delicate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- I will not have time to check the math, but the addition is unsourced and unencyclopedical (shouting, bolding, phrasing). Materialscientist (talk) 07:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello again. I still think that the math is OK, and I can agree that there are quite many boldfaced parts (the idea was to boldface all the parts where different definition of "irreducible element" was invoked). I still think the main material of my edit would be a constructive contribution to the article; some editing of my text is obviously called for, but the facts stated are true and relevant.
Anyway, many thanks for you Jackfork for calling for a second opinion from another Wikipedia-editor. We have not made anykind of official voting on whether to add my edits to the article or not, but I believe Materialscientist's vote is no, and mine is yes, so if you think that the material of my edits should be added to the article in some edited form, let me know and I will make a second attempt. Otherwise I think the dicussion of the matter is concluded. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I posted an explanation for my edit on the Talk page:
Removed claims that German and Dutch are partially mutually intelligible upon reading the source: "Two years earlier however, Ház (2005) tested German and Dutch students with little or no pre-knowledge of the neighbor language.." Yet, two sentences later the text then states Dutch students scored higher "due to most participants having had mandatory German education at schools". Also the German participants that scored best spoke a German dialect (some of these are more similar to Dutch than German) or English (Dutch is somewhere inbetween German and English): "He found that those with a high level in a dialect and/or a high level in English scored best in interlingual interfering." The article states that mutual intelligibility means "mutual intelligibility is a relationship between languages or dialects in which speakers of different but related varieties can readily understand each other without intentional study or special effort". The source that was cited clearly doesn't show this in my opinion. This combined with my experience of being a native speaker of one of the two languages and not being able to understand the other language made me decide to edit this page. Also, many native speakers commented on the 'Talk' page of the article that they cannot understand the other language.
Next time you make a change like this, ref the talk page in the edit summary, or you will be reversed again. Also be sure to sign your comments that you leave on talk pages. Jackfork (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The stuff I changed doesn't seem to need additional quote, I claim. All changed stuff was according to the talk page. The article before correction was totally biased, not following the debate at all.
The shooting of Walter Scott had a parallel to the shooting of Michael Brown...
...which is why North Charleston, South Carolina is now known by the nickname "New Ferguson." Isn't it common sense? When there are PLENTY of parallels to the Ferguson shooting, why wouldn't it now be nicknamed "New Ferguson?" --2602:306:B8A5:26B0:20EF:F0D6:8E78:DE9C (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Jackfork. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Skyfall, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jackfork (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- The source is Skyfall itself. I watched the movie. I don't know if that fits Wikipedia's secondary source requirements, but I would like to include a citation and re-add the change. Please tell me how to do so, as I'm having trouble figuring out Wikipedia's markup language. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
A good start would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Browse/Editing_Wikipedia Jackfork (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- If the other contributors don't need citations, then why do I? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Irreverence. That's why I need citations, but the others don't. The purpose of Wikipedia is to catalog all of human knowledge, not all of human solemnity, but I'll see what I can do anyway. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)