User talk:Jojalozzo
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
TUSC token f55b91cbe975dd875728f9d9718d0bc6
My TUSC token.
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Gallery Added
(I'm copying this to Talk:Overpass#Gallery_Added let's continue the discussion there.)
Regarding the images on the article Overpass, the prior arrangement was somewhat unsightly due to the relatively small amount of text on the page and the large number of images. I left one image out of the gallery because, in my opinion, it was the image that is most descriptive of the concept of Overpass/flyover.
I did intend to move the image to the right side of the article, but I forgot to do that. I have just corrected that oversight.
In your note you mentioned that the images were, "moved ... to the railroad overpass section." I'm not sure what you mean. The article, and the gallery I added, is about both highway and railroad overpasses. What I did was create a gallery for all but one of the images to make the article flow better visually.
Finally, the policy I mentioned in my edit summary is Section 3.2 of Wikipedia Manual of Style/Images which talks about how to locate an image. But I was also influenced by Section 2 of Wikipedia:Picture tutorial, Avoiding stack-ups where we learn that stacking multiple images against large amounts of white space is visually undesirable. My edit was intended to fix that.
Finally if your interest is in railroad overpasses, I think the article would benefit from more railroad related images. If you have any that would be appropriate that would be great.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – 20 August 2024, 06:38 (UTC)
WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
|
changes you reverted
Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Western_world#Repeated_wikilinks's talk page.
Please comment on Talk:Fascism
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fascism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
neutrality
In the interest of being able to keep RfCs neutral - what, precisely, was the non-neutral part of the Fascism RfC? Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- IMO, the original is neutral and the update was neutral for the first two sentences but the rest of it, summarizing the differences between each option is not since it is one editor's interpretation. The diff is sufficient. Let the participants figure out the differences on their own. Jojalozzo 12:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you indeed -- TFD was the one who "added" his interpretation of the differences, and said my (terse) question was "not neutral" <g>. Cheers. I wish you would note that on the talk page, moreover. Collect (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Because neither the request nor the update are signed, it's hard to figure out whose version is whose. (I went back in the history and sorted it out.) My initial post stated that the original was neutral and recommended it be restored. Actually, I prefer the update with just the first two sentences since it gives a name to the two versions and provides a diff so participants don't have to construct their own diff, but the original is preferable to the update in it's entirety. I think that R-41 and TFD violated policy by editing your talk page contributions. You are in your rights to re-edit it as you like and to ask both of them not to edit your posts. Jojalozzo 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- TFD has a very long history of such stuff regarding my posts and positions - and no-one yet has called him on it :(. You might look at WP:DRN for his posts about what the lede of United States should be - and my simple efforts to find a consensus solution which he seems not to like. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Because neither the request nor the update are signed, it's hard to figure out whose version is whose. (I went back in the history and sorted it out.) My initial post stated that the original was neutral and recommended it be restored. Actually, I prefer the update with just the first two sentences since it gives a name to the two versions and provides a diff so participants don't have to construct their own diff, but the original is preferable to the update in it's entirety. I think that R-41 and TFD violated policy by editing your talk page contributions. You are in your rights to re-edit it as you like and to ask both of them not to edit your posts. Jojalozzo 15:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Peer review request
Hello,
If possible, I would like your review on the article Jainism. The link to the peer review is this: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Jainism/archive2.
Kind Regards.
Rahul Jain (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm working on it. Probably will take a week or so. You can follow along here. Jojalozzo 16:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- I was able to make an initial pass. Not a thorough job but sufficient to get you and your colleagues started on improving it. Jojalozzo 01:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Fordham University
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fordham University. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 March 2013
- News and notes: Resigning arbitrator slams Committee
- WikiProject report: Making music
- Featured content: Wikipedia stays warm
- Arbitration report: Richard case closes
- Technology report: Visual Editor "on schedule"
The Signpost: 25 March 2013
- WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh
- Featured content: One and a half soursops
- Arbitration report: Two open cases
- News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews
- Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?
Please comment on Talk:Great Commission church movement
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Great Commission church movement. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Positivity effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valence (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) 19:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
More action at Nantucket#Notable_Residents
Hi Jojalozzo, You have a gentle way of intervening on this topic. Perhaps you could drop by User talk:Carollui and explain why her entries at Nantucket#Notable_Residents were WP:OR and not consistent with encyclopedic writing. She clearly put a lot of work into her contribution. (At least I think it was she.) Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 16:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! That's a very helpful combination of template and tailored response. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 00:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I considered editing the template but it fit so well, I didn't touch it, so can't take any credit for wording at all. I probably could have tailored the part about BLP to address the issue of unsourced detail on living people. :-) Jojalozzo 02:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 01 April 2013
- Special report: Who reads which Wikipedia?
- WikiProject report: Special: FAQs
- Featured content: What the ?
- Arbitration report: Three open cases
- Technology report: Wikidata phase 2 deployment timetable in doubt
Please comment on Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you - Question
Thanks for restoring that comment in Talk:asbestos. As soon as I did it, I realized there was probably more that I should have done to clean up the comments. Should I create and archive page?
I want to split the page for Asbestos into many daughter pages that are all cross-linked with an infobox. I have made an info box in my userpages and asked folks to look at it (see my posts in the middle of the page). But people only post intermittently on Asbestos so I'm not sure how to get wikipedians to notice and/or comment on my idea and my proposed split. Do you have any suggestions? I know there is a editor template for Template:This article has been proposed to be split up to go on the top of Asbestos but I can't find it! Thanks much, Saltwolf (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are so few posts on that page I don't think we need to archive it except for posts that are no longer current because we have addressed whatever they were concerned about.
- I suggest you start a new section about the split so it's obvious to everyone. Make it explicit what you want to do.
- I think Template:Split-apart will work. Jojalozzo 22:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 08 April 2013
- Wikizine: WMF scales back feature after outcry
- WikiProject report: Earthshattering WikiProject Earthquakes
- News and notes: French intelligence agents threaten Wikimedia volunteer
- Arbitration report: Subject experts needed for Argentine History
- Featured content: Wikipedia loves poetry
- Technology report: Testing week
Please comment on Talk:PIGS (economics)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:PIGS (economics). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, what is promotional here[1], could you please, explain? Thanks, - Voidz (t·c) 05:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC) And this is inappropriate. Thanks, - Voidz (t·c) 05:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)