User talk:Jdillonf

Welcome!

Hello, Jdillonf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Laurinavicius (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice[edit]

if you could add a citation to your edit at Allen Tupper True. Also, if you put something, anything on your user page then your user name will appear as a blue link rather than a red one and this is considered (at least by me) to be a good thing. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Requesting input at Walter Keane[edit]

Hello, you may be interested in the discussion I opened at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Requesting input at Walter Keane per your edit to the associated article. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solon Borglum[edit]

It is completely irrelevant to Solon Borglum's education that his teacher appeared in a painting by another artist. Please stop putting this unsourced information into the article, or I will have to seek admin attention to this matter. BMK (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you have a valid counter-argument, please make it here on the article's talk paqe. BMK (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposition is simple. The connection to someone as august as Eakins is J. Laurie Wallace. J. Laurie Wallace was far more than a simple 'former pupil of Thomas Eakins'. He was a consummate model (to Eakins), assistant instructor and important in Eakins' development of locomotion in film, carried on by Muybridge. This fleshes out the attraction to Wallace by Borglum and gives an importance to why Borglum would have sought out Wallace in a town such as Omaha. It is not a BAD thing that knowledge beyond the simple sentence structure would be gained by stating Wallace's importance. Wallace's Wikipedia page is ALL about Eakins. None of Wallace's own artwork is illustrated, which will be remedied. Also Borglum's page, considering his towering accomplishments in sculpture is extraordinarily tiny. And that will be remedied. This entry about Wallace EXPANDS the knowledge delivered about Borglum. That is good.

You have spent an inordinate amount of time on something that is trivial (your expulsion of the information), time that could and should be spent on something far more important. If you delete any of this you will be reported.

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Jdillonf. 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]

re credit for Needles and Pins[edit]

Hi. I can't find a good ref for saying Jackie DeShannon wrote or helped write "Needles and Pins". Have you got one?

[The reference is her discussion with Terry Gross in her 'Fresh Air' interview. She said she was involved in the writing. Can't imagine she wouldn't be if she was there at the writing session with Sonny and Jack. Also imagine a talent like DeShannon sittin' in with the pair and NOT being involved. Remember, at the time, and after, she was more a force in songwriting than singing].

All I can find is "she [DeShannon] claims she wrote most of the song with Nitzsche with some input from Bono", from here -- but it looks to be just some random guy's blog. We can't use it. (The following passage "You have to remember that I, being a woman at that time..." is set up to imply that maybe DeShannon was bullied or ignored into not getting songwriter credit -- but that passage, from SongFacts, is about something else entirely.)

And then here you've got DeShannon describing the genesis of the song, and it's not clear, it sounds like she and Nitzsche picked out riffs -- but she doesn't claim she was making the riffs. She might have just been listening and nodding. She goes on with how Bono and Nitzsche finished the song, and she has plenty of space there to say "That was me. I came up with that riff. I wrote part of that tune [or some of the lyrics]" or whatever, and she doesn't. P I do have this book, where the author flat says "Jackie DeShannon, who wrote 'Needles and Pins'...". But the author doesn't explain why the official credit went to someone else, doesn't explain he's giving credit to DeShannon alone... looks to be like just a passing mention where the writer was being sloppy and confusing the singers and writer. Herostratus (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh excellent, thank you. I've added a sentence to this effect to the lede of Needles and Pins (song), using your ref and the book. Check it out!

Here's my opinion: I think it's fine to talk about it in the article Needles and Pins (song), where we have the space to go into details about the song. But everywhere else, where we're giving the writing credit just passing mention, I think we should stick with "Written by Nitzsche and Bono". The reasons being:

This is the legal/formal writing credit, and the one that is used by all our sources.
And we don't have time, in passing mentions, to get into "but then DeShannon says..."
And really probably they did mostly write the song. After all, in the NPR interview, Jackie says flat out "They did write it for me", and then later that her contribution was "probably a little bit of the bridge and, you know, some lyrics". And in the book, she says "Jack and Sonny Bono finished it".
And now it's in the Needles and Pins (song) article, so people who are really interested in the question can look it up.

Anyway thanks for getting me that ref, colleague. Herostratus (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Robby Mook. Thank you. - Mr X 18:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called 'poorly referenced' or 'unreferenced' information is listed in the article before the addition of the SAME information later in the article. Therefore it is by definition pre-referenced. The removal of the additions by you is purely political and subjective and will not be tolerated. If you remove any other additions a complaint will be filed against you, is that clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdillonf (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on the talk page has been against the usage of the word failed. Additionally, the information you added regarding Russia does not appear anywhere in the article. The word Russia is not mentioned at all, so I don't see your claim to sourcing required under BLP. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on the talk page is that you are backpedaling as fast as you can. 'Failed' is already mentioned in the article and you took it down simply as an exercise. You give Wikipedia a bad name.

Paul Newman[edit]

Hi, please be careful about describing an edit as "minor". According to WP:MINOR, "Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor." Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Jdillonf. 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]

Here's an idea:[edit]

Rather than continuing to make yourself look foolish with cute little gems like: "releases isn't a word", and "the plural of release is release", try reading a fucking dictionary. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Jdillonf. 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]

Vandalism[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Walter Sickert, you may be blocked from editing. Railfan23 (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Impeachment of Donald Trump, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Note that 1) an independent voted to impeach, so it isn't just Democrats, and 2) impeachment is conducted by the House as a body, not just one party. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Impeachment of Donald Trump; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- Mr X 🖋 12:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm WMSR. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ballot harvesting, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WMSR (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indent posts[edit]

Howdy. Recommend you read up on WP:INDENT, so as to properly indent your posts, when required. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Please do not present your own argument as fact, especially if there is no source you cite for it. If there is no source for your analysis or research at all, it should not be in Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 02:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ballot harvesting, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 21:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 21:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. BD2412 T 01:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]