User talk:GregJackP

Please add new posts at the bottom of the page.

AFC Backlog

Articles for Creation urgently needs YOUR help! Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 3298 submissions waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at our Help Desk. Do you have what it takes? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not? Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions? Are you autoconfirmed? Can you review submissions based on their individual merits? If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add {{AFC status}} or {{AfC Defcon}} to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions. PS: we have a great AFC helper script at User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, TheSpecialUser TSU

Crow Dog

Congratulations on the article becoming featured! I am always glad to see other great law-related articles using the Bluebook style. One last nit: I do recommend against the use of "Id." and "supra." As I note in this work in progress, they are not really compatible with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia (and, by my reading, are optional under the BB). Savidan 11:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll fix that. GregJackP Boomer! 14:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Idaho

That's fine, but I thought the name in the US Reports was Idaho v. United States. Savidan 14:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Can you move it to the correct title over the redirect? Or merge it? Or how do we fix my screwup? GregJackP Boomer! 14:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Since my version was a stub, I deleted it and moved yours. Savidan 15:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

3RR

By the way, you're at 3RR, so please be careful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, GregJackP, I had no idea about your editing restrictions and appeal. I do believe that your involvement in this case was very helpful as directed toward dispute resolution (the RfC) and improving the article by restoring sourced and relevant materials. I thought about commenting on arbitration pages, but decided it would not help given my own editing history, and I do not really know anything about your previous editing to make a qualified statement. Good luck, My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your sig

Hi GregJackP

You may not be aware of this, but Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance_and_color specifically recommends not using markup which increases the size of text. Your sig sets font-size:110%, which has the disruptive effect the guidelines recommend against.

I'm sure that you intended no disruption, but please can you remove the size-increasing markup from your sig? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the policy states. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It says "Avoid markup such as <big> and <font size="3">(or more) tags (which produce big text)".

Your markup also produces big text. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It also says to be sparing with colors, and to have a contrast level of at least 5:1 for text, and according to the "Colour Contrast Check" using #996600/#F8FCFF (default), your colors, you are not in compliance (contrast is 4.78:1). I'll change mine, but it is not good form to criticize someone for a problem (i.e., a sig) that you are also in violation of. GregJackP Boomer! 18:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Greg, I've watched you over time, mostly with a sympathetic view of some troubles you've had. Gotta say, though, this dialog shows a poor attitude on your part. I urge you to do all in your power to be collaborative; this could possibly reduce difficulties. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, but it irritated me based on the comments she made to me at a CFD, basically accusing me of bad faith. Then, when I explained, still in a good humor, she was dismissive, and then goes after my sig. I have no problem with correcting something that I need to fix, but don't throw a drink in my face and tell me it's raining. GregJackP Boomer! 22:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I see; I had not looked for the build-up. Thanks for your patience with me. Yopienso (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No prob. I do appreciate it when someone stops by to be helpful, like you did. I do need a rap on my hard head from time to time, and I hope that if you see me do something stupid, you'll let me know. GregJackP Boomer! 23:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, please give me a heads-up as needed. Yopienso (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Greg, thank you.

I hadn't spotted that glitch with mine, and I'm ashamed to have been making things tougher for people with vision problems, who have it tough enough already. I found the contrast checker, and upped my contrast to over 10. I'm glad I came here, cos I learnt something useful.

Irony doesn't work well in ASCII text. Your comment may have been intended as a joke, but that wasn't how it came across ... and in a discussion related to one of the big faultlines in the modern world, it's a very risky approach. there are a lot of tensions about the Islamic world's relationship with the rest of it, and a lot of people on both sides are twitchy.

And Yopienso, don't be too hard on Greg. He has just given me a bit of help that nobody else has offered in the 4 years orso that I have used that sig thousands of times. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very gracious of you, and yes, irony doesn't always come across well. I'm probably a little sensitive right now and over-reacted to your initial comments, and if so, I apologize. GregJackP Boomer! 00:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Greg. We all have those days where we are a little more prickly than we'd like to be, but if you stepped in that direction it was only a little step.

Good talking to you. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm Afraid You Are Mistaken About My Edits

Read Roggio's own words for yourself and don't just assume they are "controversial." One-sided opinions of others also are not of value. To erase the fact that Roggio is not of controversy is like erasing the fact that Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon. It needs to be known he is not exactly reliable.75.72.35.253 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)