User talk:JGG59

This user may have left Wikipedia. JGG59 has not edited Wikipedia since November 26, 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome!

Hello, JGG59, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Qjuad 03:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Tierney

...i was just wondering how many 'notable roles' you feel are enough to capture the essence of an actor's work? --emerson7 | Talk 16:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the reason i ask is template:infobox actor kinda discourages letting the list get too long. though clearly no consensus has been arrive at, most seem to think three to four should be the limit. --emerson7 | Talk 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keeping in mind that wp is not a book, and that the intent of the infobox in particular is not designed for extended lists, you might want to consider adjusting that to a wee bit lower number. cheers. --emerson7 | Talk 22:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ThanksJGG59 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Gene Tierney. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. it might be more help to include a 'proper' citation rather than removing properly placed maintenance tags. emerson7 | Talk 20:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity

I'm familiar with Rev. Paul, but he very often uses the Bible in service, and I went to his Bible class. It's true that one can go to a Unity service and get little or no reference to the Bible in a talk, but I know of no Unity church that does not utilize the Bible extensively. I attend service weekly at Unity of NYC, and the Bible is very important to the point that the claim of not using the Bible makes no sense. I also teach Sunday school at the church and have given students Bible lessons selected by Gammy Singer. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanups to make it clearer to the general user. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Formally" or "formerly". --Scottandrewhutchins 13:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Tierney speculation

You might want to read WP:VERIFY#Burden of evidence. I've removed the first mention of the speculation, but kept the second in its original section with a ^{[citation needed]} tag attached. If you (or some other editor) can provide a reference, that's fine. Otherwise, after a week or so, I'll have to delete it. Clarityfiend 07:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the citation tag unless you replace it with an actual reference, e.g. book, author and page. See WP:CITE. Clarityfiend 18:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not sure how to reference. I am figuring it out.JGG59 20:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Thought: Please discuss and explain changes you make

It is wikipedia custom to explain one's edits. There is a blank line in the edit window for this purpose. Please explain what changes you are making and why you are making them with each edit. This helps the other editors understand what you want to see on the page.

You have been going through the New Thought article very quickly, deleting certain words every time you see them, with no explanation. This is not in the best interests of the article or of a cordial relationship with other editors.

Please post your ideas to the New Thought disussion page so that editors can reach a consesnsus.

Thanks. cat Catherineyronwode 05:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please source, and when needed discuss, the changes you make to the article. We have no way to verify your credentials, so we can't just accept what you say. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at those pages, but no matter what they say, there is just no way to verify identity on Wikipedia. Even if there were, expertise would not be enough, but only sources. No one here wants to drive away expertise, but I admit I've heard the complaint that that happens. It's just that we have a hard and fast rule that things have to be sourced or deleted. The rule sometimes works slowly, but it does work. On the page in question, I'm in the process of eliminating everything that does not have a source, so putting new unsourced material in the article only means eventual deletion anyway. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Healing page

Hi,

Thanks for your compliments on my work on the faith healing page. Your nice note encouraged me to go back and look at the page again and i have done even more with it. I have taken out all of the spurious linakges to the medical fraud practice of psychic surgery, re-arranged the "belief systems" sub-heads, and added some material on the Catholic aspects of faith haling (i am not a Catholic, but i felt the article would benefit from some better information regarding Catholic forms of faith haling). So take another look, and please comment on the page's own talk page if you think we need to do more work on it. Thanks! cat Catherineyronwode 20:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Church edit war - check

are you editing from IP addresses 24.215.255.192, 66.108.111.91 and 151.202.182.100, or is that someone else? --Alvestrand 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I use my JGG59.JGG59 21:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the reason I asked was that one of the IP-based participants signed one of his notes with "JGG" [1] - that name belongs to an active user, but not one who's active on Unity Church. --Alvestrand 06:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was this same JGG, Alvestrand. The others all IP block folks. See my further comments on the Unity talk page. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 07:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I amended it to include you. They were my words (not yours).I did not touch your personal communcation.JGG59 20:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

undid faith healing edits

I just undid your recent additions to Faith healing. I left an explanation in the edit summary, but feel that removal of verifiable good faith text deserves an explanation. A cursory scan of the denominations of New Thought that you added to the section did not indicate major differences in their approaches to faith healing (though I may be wrong). In the absence of such discussion, it is my opinion that linking only the movement is sufficient, and avoids overburdening an already clause-heavy sentence. Regards. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being deleted

Divine Science, Religious Science and related denominations need reliable sources cited in these articles. I believe that these articles should be retained, but they cannot be if people do not include references. Please see WP:RS and WP:V.-- Filll (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For guidance, see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and in particular note that "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." .. dave souza, talk 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Kindly cease and desist WP:EDITWARing to include unverifiable material into New Thought. Find a WP:RS for it then include it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Summer

With reference to your recent edits on the Donna Summer page, your edits lack sources. Please do not violate Wikipedia policies by adding contentious information without a source, or by deleting information just because you do not like it, as this will be considered vandalism. Thank you.79.66.19.56 (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close to my Heart

There is nothing to stop you reposting when you have done so, but it's a good idea to make sure it's referenced first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Wonderful Urge

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of That Wonderful Urge, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.fandango.com/thatwonderfulurge_v113141/summary. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Your new Close to My Heart article is a serious copyright violation! It was lifted, word for word, from this website. I'm afraid this is not acceptable on Wikipedia. It needs to be rewritten completely in your own words, or it will be rightfully deleted! MeegsC | Talk 11:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Presley Keough

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Benjamin Presley Keough. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Benjamin Presley Keough

The article Benjamin Presley Keough has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Notability is not inherited.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lara 15:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Hepburn

FYI, normally a major edit like a split is tagged, proposed on the talk page, and discussed before making a change. Don't be surprise if your split is reverted by other editors.... Yworo (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is no valid reason for splitting this off. The article is not overly large, no discussion was first raised on the main article talk page for doing this and such arbitrary changes absolutely need to be discussed first. Changes such as this are consensus driven, not done without input. WP:ACTOR is considering the question of filmography splits and a guideline for when it is proper to do so. Meanwhile, the filmography contains all of her film work (you left behind television and other work) and her awards and when you removed it, you removed a huge part of her article. Please do not do this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did not realize I should have group consensus . I now know. But I have seen other pages which are about the same size which have a separate filmography.JGG59 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some older biographies with excessively long filmographies that were spun off by necessity. Someone pointed out John Wayne filmography as an example. It is so large because of the older studio practice where a star might have up to 10 or more films a year, and that's understandable. It isn't done as a standard practice and like I said, WP:ACTOR is going to work on criteria for spinning it off. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Benjamin Presley Keough

I have nominated Benjamin Presley Keough, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Presley Keough. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Lara 20:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image size

Please refer to WP:IMGSIZE, which says "As a rule images should not be set to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides this default)" and WP:Images#Forced image size which says "As a rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 180px default." Setting to larger sizes with one edit summary that indicated it was a preference isn't what is meant by user preferences. When you place a numerical size for an image, you override the incorporated Wikipedia default size, which is 180px. When you override the default size, then you take away the ability for users to set their own user preferences for image sizing. The images on Gene Tierney have none of the qualities outlined under MOS:IMAGES that would indicate a need for overriding the default. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain tome why this is not enforced in other articles? Such as the Audrey Hepburn are at various image sizes?JGG59 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gene Tierney. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Smith

Dear sir or madam: I do not know why you feel you can override the Texas Births, 1926-1995. Family Tree Legends Records Collection (Online Database). Pearl Street Software, 2004-2005 regarding Jaclyn Smith's birth name and year of birth, but you cannot, unless you can provide a more accurate source which contradicts the database info, which doesn't even seem possible. I am reverting your edits, therefore. If you engage in an edit war, which apparently you have done in the past on other articles, I will take this matter to an administrator. I am afraid that based on the above I can't assume good faith on your part here. Quis separabit? 18:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: You think TV Guide and People Weekly are more accurate than the State of Texas' birth registry??? Have you even visited the site? Quis separabit? 19:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First you don't know me and your aggressive tone is not appreciated and don't threaten me........ this is wiki for god sake. There have been many times on Wiki where the Official sites have been wrong and the fluff pieces as you call them have been right. If you would like to discuss further do it on the Jaclyn smith talk page. I did not leave article with out reliable references and to assume someone is lying Ms Smith or my self whom you don't know, get a grip.. I'm not that invested in being right. JGG59 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Cerebellum (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re:Storm & Grace

Hey, thanks for the note. I've restored the article, since it seems to me that it has received enough mentions in reliable sources to merit a Wikipedia article, but you might want to try and find some more sources to prevent it being deleted in the future. Thanks again, --Cerebellum (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added some new production information and references. I know you can write articles about projects in post production so I was puzzled by its removal.JGG59 (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for just stealing from my talk page. You flat out copied word for word from my Talk Page's article for the album. I do not appreciate that. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That information was originally from the LMP article which was then placed on your page.JGG59 (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the way it was worded JGG59. I re-worded it. Sources yes, the way it was written, no. And to boot, you took it from my article after I redirected it. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 19:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well first why was it redirect????? Second semantics... I'm glad you added to the article it looks great I'm have no argument with you. I just want to build a great article. BestJGG59 (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I've been told that in order for an album article to be up, it needs chart position(s). Otherwise, I've been told, it doesn't constitute WP:ALBUM so I was being followed what I was told. Secondly, thank you. I just wanted a thorough article for Lisa for once. I just wish I had been asked if something from my Sandbox could have been taken for the article. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 23:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome in the interest of wiki we also have to be careful it doesn't look like a fan sit ( Which I am a fan) that is something we have to keep in mind.JGG59 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Hence why I re-organized it into a much better shaped article, with more sources, tracklist information, etc. _{MusicFreak7676} ^TALK! 00:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unity (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) 11:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]