Jump to content

User talk:Jessicapierce

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nýlistasafnið (talk | contribs) at 12:07, 3 July 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A cup of coffee for you!

thank you for your advices!!! Al20dash (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessicapierce

If you’re going to add kelis allegations to nas wiki you can at least add the fact that he denied all her claims, okay B.b.brown (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Olowokandi

Hi Jessica, I made edited changes with supporting references on Michael Olowokandi but you reverted it back. Melchizedek123 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He played 36 games in the 2002–2003 season before sustaining an injury that forced him to miss the rest of the season. In his last year with the Los Angeles Clippers, he sustained a hernia and knee injury, which greatly hindered his ability after being listed as a top free agent prospect for the 2002–03 season. He finished that season averaging 12.3 points (on 42.7% shooting from the floor) 9.1 rebounds, 2.2 blocks, and 2.7 turnovers per game. During that offseason, he signed with the Minnesota Timberwolves. His time with the Timberwolves was marked by serious injury which resulted inconsistent play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchizedek123 (talkcontribs) 22:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notable achievements from his best season was a season high 30 points vs the Chicago bulls on March 8th. "Olowokandi contributes to sweet Clipper win" Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</nowiki> or this:<ref name>(citation details)</ref>

However, I'm not sure the content you added is actually contained in that reference. We're talking about the National Register pdf, right? I did a quick skim and I'm not seeing a lot of your content contained there.
In addition, your text had a ton of errors, such as misspelled words, incomplete sentence, and missing punctuation. These issues really need to be addressed if you'd like to re-add the content. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for editing my wiki page; Sandeep Sander

Hi Jessica

I just saw your editing of my Wiki-profile. Many thanks - my "Denklish" (Danish and English mixed) has been replaced by your proper English :-) Well done. I am curious to know if you are interested in doing more work. I have some important inout/contributions - and I need a "supporter" :-) Feel free to email me on sandeep.sander@sandermap.com Best regards from Silicon Valley Sandeep--SandeepSander 05:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SandeepSanderSanderMan (talkcontribs)

Thank you

Thank you so much for the advise! I know that it must be painfully obvious that I am still figuring things out.Brially (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries whatsoever - looks like you got it sorted out! I did condense the duplicate citations (you can see my edit here, in case it's helpful to see how I did it). The formatting here can be tricky, and sometimes one wrong character can really mess things up, which is why I always encourage the use of Preview. Keep in mind that you can always test things out in your sandbox, too (link at top right). Have fun, and if I can help with anything else, just let me know! Jessicapierce (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cupid

I ran across this article Cupid, in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and was simply going to fix some cite errors. But a closer look at the revision history and the page of User talk:Guardian212, indicates there has been previous issues. If you scroll all the way to the bottom, there is this oddity - This is a user sandbox of Cupid. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. And then there is additional references and sources below the external links. And I also got a 90.7% on a copyvio detection, seen here, and also saw a previous copyvio in the revision history. I honestly don't know where the last clean version of this article is to roll it back to, could you please take a look and see what you think. I noticed your warning on Guardian212's talk page and it appears they have ignored it. Thanks, I certainly would appreciate it. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for letting me know. I have that page on my watchlist but didn't get a notification about those recent changes, which are not an improvement. I've reverted the page to what I think is the last good version (I'll take a closer look in a sec to make sure). Cheers! Jessicapierce (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham B.

Sorry about the confusion. I realized that I'd removed a cite, by accident, and was going back through my edits trying to figure out what it was. I became totally confused because you'd addressed the error that I was looking for already and I hadn't realized that anyone else was working on it. I was trying to eliminate the non-Bolden elements of the article about him, and left numerous cn requests, in addition to the deletions. Activist (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for being diligent in noticing and reporting an issue with KolbertBot, I went through the list of potentially affected edits and you seem to have fixed them all. Enjoy a bubble tea on me! Cheers. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It was pretty easy, they all showed up in search results on a ref error I was looking for. I did check a handful of other recent bot edits, but I didn't find anything weird. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about redundant/unnecessary article

Hello, I'm unsure where to post about this, as this isn't something I've encountered before. I'm wondering why we need History of the Interport Police (whose title also apparently has a typo in the name of the organization), when we already have InterPortPolice. Shouldn't all the relevant content go there? If this needs merging/moving/whatever, I would appreciate it if the editor answering this question would do so, as this is pretty far out of my wheelhouse. Thank you for your time, Jessicapierce (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica, usually the best place to start is on the talk pages of the articles in question. It's possible the history article was created as a college class project, but I'm not certain. I do think the articles should be merged, as the original article is still quite short. (I'm leaving your help request active so you'll get more comments.) - BilCat (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll run point for you in a merge proposal if you're uncomfortable doing that. Some aspects of Wikipedia still overwhelm or intimidate me, and I've been here over 12 years! :) - BilCat (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any guidance you can offer on this would be great! It's only in the past few years that I've ventured beyond fixing grammar, and there are so many functional aspects of Wikipedia that are foreign to me. Jessicapierce (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I got a phone call in the middle of typing and should have been more clear. I should have said "if you'll point me towards how to propose a merge, I'll be glad to try and navigate that, but if you'd rather just do so yourself, I would appreciate either form of help". Jessicapierce (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could take a look at Wikipedia:Merging. If you feel capable of understanding and following the instructions, I don't want to take away the opportunity to learn. However, If your eyes glaze over after trying to read it from WP:TLDNR syndrome, or otherwise, then I'll propose the merge, though it won't be today.
Meanwhile, it looks like User:Mosterbur is the professor, and started the history article as a cut-and-paste of the original article. User:Scaloggero24 appears to be the students. How are you at personal interaction in problem situations? It's not really my strength. :) - BilCat (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you BilCat & Jessicapierce and my apologies for the delayed response (end of semester can be quite hectic). My student originally edited the InterPortPolice page and made the change to History of because he felt he had only really contributed to the history of the organization rather than its current efforts. He is learning and we both appreciate your assistance in that process Mosterbur (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Mosterbur[reply]
Thanks so much for the starting point. I will finish up a few (well, a lot) of things I'm in the middle of, and then take a look at that merging info. I'll get in touch again if it fries my brain. :) Jessicapierce (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a WP:BOLD merge - you don't need to formally propose a merge if one looks uncontroversial as in this case :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks very much Galobtter! I'll read up on how to do this myself, but I do appreciate you taking care of it. Also, thanks to you and BilCat for being super helpful and friendly about this - I've been snapped at a fair few times for asking questions, so I always appreciate civility. Best, Jessicapierce (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I did was basically just copy the main part of the History of the Interport Police over to InterPortPolice. Also, it's unfortunate that your questions have been met with incivility; you can always ask me if you need any help - and I don't snap :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stettheimer article and your deletion and reply comments

Jessicapierce - you commented on my request for a senior editor due to a complaint about deletion of my EXPERT ADDITIONS on the Florine Stettheimer article. However when you directed me to your "Talk" page, there is no archived former comments by you on the Stettheimer article so I've had to start a NEW section "talk page"

As I spent 3 hours writing corrected FACTUAL information on Stettheimer, correcting completely UNTRUE information that was on her site, which you deleted two days aga, and wrote yesterday (at my request for a Senior Editor Review Dispute) that I must add valid PUBLISHED SOURCE MATERIAL..PLEASE PUT BACK MY DELETED MATERIAL AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO ADD THAT PUBLISHED SOURCE MATERIAL!!!!

I was in the midst of doing so, but the entire information I added was deleted.

I apologize but the format for working - the "language" necessary for writing on Wikipedia - is so complicated and difficult to learn, that it would take me a month or more to do so, and frankly I don't have time to become fully conversant with it enough to correct the information. I don't know how ANYONE who is not a trained editor by Wikipedia can understand how to do all the formatting you require. I would GREATLY appreciate it if I could write all of the correct, accurate, accurate biography and description of her life and significance, development of her work in the entry, citing all the many relevant sources of COURSE, and have a trained editor at Wikipedia assist with the proper formatting as it requires an expert, not a scholar in content, not Wikipedia format to do so. Is that possible?? Also I feel it is my duty, as THE scholar on Stettheimer who is the ONLY ONE who after 20 years of work on her life and work, the person who dated ALL her works for the first time, who wrote the ONLY biography of her life, actually spoke to/interviewed for my biography in 1995 the only surviving family members, her lawyer, her extant friends, all of whom are now dead, co-organzed the first full retrospective on her work since she died in 1946, and knows and can identify every building and figure in ALL of her extent paintings, I feel it is my DUTY to write a comprehensive entry on Stettheimer in WIkipedia for future readers and scholars/students to use.

The problems are:

  • as I was writing and adding a great deal of new and corrected information to the Stettheimer entry, I could NOT CHANGE AND ADD NEW SOURCES/FOOTNOTES TO THE ENTRY!!! or EDIT THE ONES THERE THAT WERE CITED WITH FALSE FACTS!! Your editing function on Wikipedia does not allow that!
  • Also after adding a certain amount of information, Wikipedia editing shuts down and doesn't let me add anymore.
  • And then, EVERYTHING I HAD WRITTEN FOR THREE HOURS WAS DELETED!

'PLEASE REPLACE ALL THE NEW INFORMATION AND FACTUAL, ACCURATE INFORMATION I ADDED TO THE ENTRY AND ALLOW ME TO ADD THE SOURCE MATERIAL AND I WILL DO SO - I HAVE PUBLISHED A NUMBER OF ARTICLES IN THE LAST 10 YEARS IN BOOKS, ART NEWS MAGAZINE and HYPERALLERGIC ON STETTHEIMER THAT ARE SOURCES FOR EVERYTHING I AM STATING IN THE NEW MATERIAL I AM ADDING TO THE STETTHEIMER ENTRY BUT YOU HAVE TO ALLOW ME TO CHANGE THE FOOTNOTES THAT ARE FALSE INFORMATION AND ADD THE NEW SOURCES!!!Bold text

--Barbarabloemink (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Barbara BloeminkBarbarabloemink (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC) January 5 2018[reply]

Hello @Barbarabloemink:, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. It looks like you've gotten help from various editors on the article's talk page. You mentioned not being able to find your own account's talk page, so just in case this is useful, you will find it here. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Hi Jesse, I am Jwale2 and I edit here, I need your support. The reason why I need your is that I just want you to list yourself as a participant on my user page I tying to create a user group for my geographical area where i could train a lot more on how to edit on wikipedia but the unfortunate think is that members do no meet the standard requirement that would enable me get a user group for my community. Your support to my project of attaining a user group would key to develop members of my society and also ensure I promote the rich culture of my society. Thank you Jwale2 (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Lumberport, West Virginia

Jessicapierce, thank you for your time viewing the page of my small town. I did not realize that I had not listed my source when I added the information so thank you for realizing my mistake. On the account of errors in the page, I was mostly just typing whatever my source had written while adding my own play on words here and there, and seeing as how my source was over 40 years old and I am from an area with different ways of saying things, the source was just written for the view of whoever lived around the area. I appreciate your eye for these problems, while being a bit upset that all my hard work was deleted instead of someone just mentioning it on the "Talk" section of the page. Thank you.

Gouldilocks 53 (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gouldilocks 53:, and thanks for getting in touch. The reasons I removed your addition to the page were explained on your talk page here. These problems remain unaddressed in your recent contribution of the same text.
As I said on your talk page, while other editors can always fix minor errors, at some point you're asking too much of others. Your submission is thick with errors; I mentioned several specifics such as capital letters in subject headers, and incorrect punctuation, which you have not fixed. Also, it's still largely unsourced. You say in your edit summary that "a reference for everything up-to 1976 and from there is of my own accord of being raised in and living in the town." Your own experience is simply not considered a source; neither is "ask any citizen of the town". I'm seeing perhaps two references in this entire large history section. There are just too many claims made here, without any sources given, to be acceptable within a wikipedia article.
In addition, I'm sorry, but some of this content is simply not what wikipedia considers noteworthy, such as the closing of the local video store.
I hope you better understand why this text is not acceptable as it currently stands, and why I am removing it again. I am more than happy to work with you on improving and adding to the article, but please gain a better understanding of what wikipedia expects, in terms of writing style and content. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moore

I notice that you have reverted a number of my wikipedia edits on topics of which I am a scholarly expert. I am just wondering why Wikipedia prefers to cite non-experts and censor the work of actual experts on topics relating to sexuality? Some of my edits deleted refer to correction of inaccuracies and the editors have chosen to maintain the inaccuracies. I cannot continue to support Wikipedia if all my efforts to ensure greater veracity and expertise on it are continually sabotaged by its editors! Best, Dr Alison Moore, research historian at Western Sydney University Spidersquad (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spidersquad:, I'm afraid I will need some more information before I can answer your questions, as I have no idea which articles or edits you're referring to. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as others have mentioned on your talk page, I would really advise you against adding your own work as a source, as that's a conflict of interest and is likely to be removed. Please read the info about COIs posted to your talk page. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spidersquad, read WP:EXPERT. Read WP:Editorializing and WP:Synthesis. You have already been pointed to WP:COI more than once. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Keep up the good work! BilCat (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

jassicapierce

hey, i need one favor from... Goutam kumar meher (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi Jessica, I haven't seen you editing in a few weeks. I hope all is well with you and yours.

BilCat (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BilCat:, thanks for the message! All's well, I just decided to spend less time editing Wikipedia around the new year (it was helping me stay sedentary) and the habit sort of stuck. I definitely want to get back into it a little, if only to get rid of about a million notes to self. Hope you're well too! Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I totally understand. I'm doing fairly well myself, thanks, except for allergy issues related to Spring in the South. - BilCat (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you on that... I'm in Atlanta, and something in the air these past couple weeks has been making me sneeze like crazy. It's doing the same thing to the horses I work with, which is, in a word, gross. Jessicapierce (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Elgon, Jack Maumbe Mukhwana Lanie Banks

volunteer cite sources and improve

congratulations for editor of the week,jessica sorry about last time on Arua i was sooo new to wikipedia ,but now i need yo help in improving these entries below, Mount Elgon,Jack Maumbe Mukhwana and Lanie Banks . thanks in Advance

Elizabethfoundationn (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting changes to Kakrapar Atomic Power Station

Hey there. I noticed that you revered my changes to the article Kakrapar Atomic Power Station. It was my mistake that I didn't add an edit message. However, I did preview my changes in the Visual Editor (couldn't view through the preview button since I hit publish by mistake). However, the changes I made were mainly to update the articles and remove incontinences with ground realities as well add better sources. I'm not sure how disputed work on Wikipedia but I urge you to reconsider your decision.

PS: I am relatively new to Wikipedia and not sure how 'User Talk' works or it's ultimate purpose. I'm not sure if it appropriate or within standards or guidelines to point things like this in User Talk. However, I saw no better way of contacting you on this.

Hey Jessica,

thanks for the edits! I still struggle a bit with the citations since I haven't really figured out how exactly this is working. But I am working on it! Thanks for your help!