User talk:Jmc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sockpuppetry[edit]

Just FYI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krshwunk.

Reverting my change due to grammatical error[edit]

I noticed that you reverted my change to Radio-controlled aircraft due to a minor grammatical error (due to my neglecting to delete a word from the previous revision. Perhaps you could read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. To quote the article:

"Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia."

Moreover:

"The first and foremost alternative to reverting when you find you disagree with an edit is to find a third version of the text that incorporates at least some of the elements of the prior text and the current text."

You could have fixed that issue by simply correcting the grammatical error, instead of reverting my entire contribution. Please try to be considerate in reverting people's hard work in contributing to Wikipedia.

An attack on my support for parentheses[edit]

Why did you undo my revision on the article Edward Elgar? ChristianGL 20:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(ChristianGL had revised "… Land of Hope and Glory, which … was also issued (with slightly different words) as a separate song" to "… was also, with slightly different words, issued as a separate song".)

… simply because the previous parenthesized version flows better, Your revision was more awkwardly expressed. -- Jmc 22:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree. I can't understand why you parenthesize everything, when there are other simpler ways to write an article. Watch your language, I do not think my revision were awkwardly expressed. ChristianGL 15:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't agree, Christian, but I'm afraid you must bow to my greater familiarity with English grammar and style. (In fact, it was not I who composed the sentence you amended, and I'm simply preferring their expression over yours.)
I simply can't understand why you should say that I "parenthesize everything" - this sentence and most in the article are not parenthesized.
Also, I don't appreciate being told to "Watch your language"! -- Jmc 03:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hatto[edit]

JMC, I know you have the best of intentions, but you broke 3RR. The anonymous user was warned, and so it's only fair that you also be warned. If that user is blocked he/she will have a valid claim to have you blocked. --Otheus 09:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: I saw the war brewing, but didn't take the time to read the point/counterpoints. But I'm nearly always available to help. --Otheus 09:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the above kindly warning, Otheus, but, with respect, I believe you are incorrect in saying that I "broke 3RR". 3RR states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period". The History of the Hatto article shows that I performed three reverts on the anonymous user's 'Morrison' insertion (21:33, 11 March 2007; 22:16, 11 March 2007; 23:05, 11 March 2007), following Stesimbrotus' second revert (18:06, 11 March 2007). So I went up to the limit, but not over it, I believe.
I do appreciate your offer of being there to help. -- Jmc 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Proposed deletion of ImgBurn article[edit]

The software has relatively few hits on Google, all of which are either from the manufacturer or simply link to downloads, etc. The software's existence does not make it notable.

Utopia, Limited[edit]

What "socialist propoganda"? Is this a quote? If not, the word "sport" is not encyclopedic. If so, use quotes, so we can understand the exact quote. Please clarify your edit. -- Ssilvers 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"socialist propaganda" (note spelling) is indeed a quote, and I've clarified accordingly. Thanks for your vigilance, Ssilvers. -- Jmc 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info you added. The name of the show has been written different ways. Look at the poster illustrating the opera in the article. Clearly Richard D'Oyly Carte and the authors thought that it should be advertised under this name, so this name is certainly authentic. It certainly does not have parentheses. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 20:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Much thanks to your useful instruction!

  • PS: I am not Atavi!(Addaick 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Criticism of Atheism[edit]

Well done, that's a pretty good compromise on that phrase. Just curious, do you have an opinion about this issue? DEVS EX MACINA pray 02:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your affirmative feedback, DeusExMachina. When I substantially (!) rewrote that section, back in August, I anticipated that there might be questioning of my use of 'substantial' - I was using it in the sense of 'having substance, not trivial', but I could see that it could be taken to imply 'important, deserving respect', and thereby edging away from NPOV.

Your deletion (clearly explained, thank you!) has made me reconsider it and come up with a wording that is less ambiguous. I'm glad you see it as an acceptable compromise!

I'm glad, too, that you ask if I have an opinion about this issue. I do - and quite a strong one - but I've always striven in my Wikipedia editing to make it difficult to discern what might be my own personal opinion about the matter under discussion. Seems as if I might be succeeding! -- Jmc 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Jmc, I have a need for a third opinion on one matter in the Criticism of Atheism page. Since you were in the discussion earlier, can you please provide your input on the New Atheists section in the Talk page? Thanks. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Jmc, glad you were able to put in your ideas in the talk page. The situation is resolved, but I appreciate you responding. By the way, I like your latest edit in the concepts section to the criticism of atheism article. I incorporated it in the main atheism article as it seems better worded and reflective of the contents of the sources. Good job. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings Jmc, I see you joined the Eller, Spencer source dialogue in the criticism of atheism page. Here is a link to Eller's anthropological paper [1] Ch.1. You can check it out and see the context and see what you think. I think this is one of the few reasonable papers on atheism, secularity, and religion to date. Probably because it is an anthropological perspective which is often ignored. In Ch.2, which you can read most of in the preview, discusses a few atheist religions & congregations on how some are trying to create secular equivalents of religious experience. Western atheists are usually not as empirical about atheism when they talk about it. Instead, imagination of atheism as secular or even irreligious is the most popular view.--Ramos1990 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:AUK[edit]

WikiProject Auckland This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.


Taifarious1 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Good call[edit]

Good call on this edit to Criticism of atheism, that fits the flow of the article much better. Sorry about undoing your earlier edit, that seems to the the Roman Catholic Church's opinion of atheism. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 03:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your positive feedback, Eldereft - and no apology needed! When I looked at the RC Catechism section more closely, it occurred to me that a reference to it could be pertinently incorporated in the 'Denial of the existence of God and gods' section, and I've just done so, -- Jmc (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're calling me a sock puppet?[edit]

What the hell, man? Would you like to review that statement? [2] I'm trying to fight this WP:POINT vandal same as you. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, Aunt Entropy, for my misguided inclusion of your username in my sock puppet list. I misunderstood your edit of 05:45, 27 April 2008. I've removed your name from the list. I shall check more carefully in future. -- Jmc (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pic-robert_lang-actor-2004.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Pic-robert_lang-actor-2004.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Meetup in Auckland[edit]

Hi there. We're having a meetup in Auckland shortly, and as you're listed in Category:Wikipedians in Auckland I thought I would call your attention to it. See Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 4 if interested. Richard001 (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Auckland Meetup 5 on 9 May 2010[edit]

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 5 on the afternoon of Sunday 9th May 2010 at Esquires Cafe, Ground Floor, Auckland Central City Library, Lorne St, Auckland. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 5 for details and RSVP. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - Linnah (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo Deletion in Immanuel Velikovsky Entry[edit]

FYI: an IP editor 109.65.14.16 in Israel has deleted the photo of Ellenberger with Velikovsky. Might you be up to doing a revert as you did in March? Phaedrus7 (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to restore, but someone else was keeping a close eye and has got there before me. Thanks for your vigilance, Phaedrus7. -- Jmc (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI: We now have at least two Israeli-based IP editors deleting the Seaside Heights snapshot: 212.76 and 109.186. The latter's perfidy was reverted just now. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, Phaedrus7. I'll remain vigilant! -- Jmc (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Non constructive edits[edit]

Hi You seem to just delete stuff that you dont understand such as in Radio-controlled aircraft RC model aircraft dont always use the same airfoil types as real aircraft KF type airfoil DONT work on real aircraft but are great on RC planes. Instead of just deleting information why don't you take some time polish it up. Can you please restore the information article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefmanzzz (talkcontribs) 09:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Blanket Reversions[edit]

Hi, you made a blanket reversion of multiple changes, some of which were specifically discussed on the article's talk page, on an article under probation against such disruptive edits. I ask that you self-revert on this and first discuss any problems you may have. Fell Gleamingtalk 11:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you might address much of that to yourself, FG. Nor do I think that some of which were specifically discussed on the article's talk page is honest - the bulk of your changes were major changes that you knew would be controversial and made no attempt to discuss in advance William M. Connolley (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks greatly for your support, William - much appreciated. You express perfectly my viewpoint on the multiple undiscussed edits by FellGleaming, which took no account of the lengthy (and sometimes intense!) past discussions on those aspects of the article that FellGleaming chose arbitrarily to edit. -- Jmc (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bates method. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read about our BOLD, revert, discuss cycle guideline. If you violate this, you are edit warring and can be blocked. You don't have to violate 3RR to get blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

BullRangifer, your edit warning seems altogether egregious! I added a NPOV par to the Bates method article, my edit was undone by Ronz on the basis that it was advertising, I reverted with the explanation that it was not (which a careful reading should have shown) - and you accuse me of edit warring! The only warring here is coming from you, BullRangifer! -- Jmc (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear on why I think it looks like advertising and should be removed. The source is self-published and promotional. This has been discussed at length on the article talk page, and websites that are regularly added in this manner are blacklisted, as visionsofjoy.com just was Talk:Bates_method#Black listed. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely not advertising - my use of '[sic]' and 'claims' should've shown that - but later in the week I'll open a discussion topic on the Bates method Talk page to clarify and (hopefully!) get consensus. -- Jmc (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb87! Much appreciated. -- Jmc (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of E.M.G. Hand-Made Gramophones[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on E.M.G. Hand-Made Gramophones requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Alex discussion 02:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Radio-controlled aircraft[edit]

Dear JMC, Did you actually look at what you so blithely said was an "irrelevant link". Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen () 20:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Or we could put in text to this effect: At least one large radio controlled model of the A-380 has been built and flown in a model air show in Switzerland.[1]
  1. ^ Schlemmer, Michael. "Huge Remote-Controlled Airbus A380" (Video). Switzerland. Retrieved 17 March 2014. 

7&6=thirteen () 20:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently your self professed adherence to WP:1RR is more honored in the breach than the observance. 7&6=thirteen () 13:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Chris else-090213.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Model aircraft[edit]

I noticed your revert of my edit on Model aircraft. I was correcting an error to the spelling of manoeuvrability. After your revert the error is still there. If you insist on using British English the least you can do is get the spelling right. Perhaps you would like to correct the error yourself now that you have reintroduced it. Jodosma (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I see it's corrected. Well done. Jodosma (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Rosemary Brown[edit]

I appreciate your help, and am sure that you just want to see Wikipedia be as good a resource as I want it to be, but you have twice removed the fact that I added to the article on Rosemary Brown (spiritualist) where I simply named two pianists who have recorded her work.

As I said when I restored the information: the fact is readily verifiable from a quick search of Google, YouTube, eBay, Discogs, Amazon, or other websites.

If you think the information was in the wrong section, then feel free to move it. But you surely can't be disputing the accuracy of the fact?

Just deleting a fact doesn't help make an article any more interesting or accurate, or Wikipedia any better a source.

And I wonder why you appear specifically to object to the fact that I have included, when so many other facts in the article - much less readily verifiable - remain unchallenged? Examples would be (just in the first sentence alone) that Rosemary Brown was English, or that she was born and died on the dates asserted. Where's the proof?

I add information to Wikipedia when I know something that other users might find interesting, or that I myself would have found interesting if I hadn't know it already. It seems that all too often there's a knee-jerk reaction to remove any new piece of information because it lacks "citation", when merely a small amount of common sense or research on the part of the deleter could verify the information— Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.10.136.114 (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Re your reversion[edit]

I'm pretty sure an article is likely sometime (viz evidence at Draft:Gareth_Powell). Cheers, ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 10:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I wouldn't have reverted if the draft had been referred to in yr edit summary ;). Restored. - Jmc (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Social impact bond[edit]

I have re-worked your addition to the above article, as the material was copied from http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/social-bonds-new-zealand-pilot. Unfortunately the CC-by-4.0 is not a compatible license. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa Thanks for your vigilance. I wasn't aware of the unacceptability of the CC-by-4.0. -- Jmc (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
It's okay for images, but not for prose. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion and advice on this touchy topic of criticism[edit]

Navigating to the right boldness, methods, timing, and approach to expression on this tough topic is taking some work. There is a lot to take in at once. I appreciate every bit of advice and direction you've been providing. Keep it coming.

KSci (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

KSci (talk) 16:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Jmc. 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)