User talk:Jukeboxgrad

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jukeboxgrad, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Thanks for the positive comment on my user talk page. It certainly is a lot easier to edit an article when you and (most) other editors are sourcing pretty much everything, and where there seems to be a general agreement that this is a very interesting story and needs to be clearly told. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus

You made many good points on the Seamus talk page. I replied to your comments. Debbie W. 11:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you should start a new section to discuss this addition: [1] especially because, although WP:BRD advises this step, I wouldn't count on Arzel to initiate the discussion. He just likes to revert [2] and hope it'll go away. There are some good points in favor of it already on the talkpage, but they are scattered and may not gain traction. I haven't read all of your posts there about the ASPCA etc, but from what I've perused I would respectfully suggest that you follow a bit of good advice from WP:TL;DR: "take an extra few moments to distill your thoughts into bite size pieces." El duderino ^(abides) 06:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, two things: I notice that you replied to another vote at the current (2nd) AfD [3] but you didnt vote yourself. I hope you're planning to weigh in there. Also, don't get discouraged about the AsPCA thing yet, there maybe some way to work it in even if another RS doesn't mention the ASPCA directly, perhaps other expert opinions which can be connected. And I disagree with Arthur Rubin that the source has to be commenting at the time of the incident. Contemporary analysis of past events may be allowable. I'll do some research later and reply on the talkpage. But again I would just caution you to try to keep posts there short-ish and more in regular paragraph form. Your comments often seem longer than they actually are because of the unusual formatting (skipped lines). Others won't want to read through "walls of text" as they say. Just my 2c. El duderino ^(abides) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seamus (dog)

I noticed that you have made edits to the Seamus (dog) article. There is a survey to determine whether the Seamus article should be kept, renamed, merged, or deleted. Thank you. HHIAdm (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Talk:Seamus (dog)#Consolidated survey[reply]

Including references on talk pages

Hi there. There's no way a new editor could be expected to know it, since many very experienced editors don't, but when you add content to a talk page, and that content includes anything between an opening and closing "ref" tag, ie <ref> and </ref>, you'll want to add the following, just after your post that does so.

;References
{{reflist|local=yes}}

There are two reasons this is important: First, it makes your references actually show up on the page. Second, and perhaps more important, even if you don't care or even don't want your references to show up, is that unless you do so, any refs included in the text you add will show up in the local references for other sections of the talk page. If you don't do this, in other words, "your" refs will "bleed over" into any reference displays that have been created elsewhere on the page, in wholly unrelated sections.

Besides these reasons, doing this will impress everyone with your esoteric knowledge of the "wikitext" markup language. ;-) I mention this because you did add refs to the talk page for the Seamus article, and "your" refs interfered with those in other talk page sections. No worries, though; I've fixed the problem and, as I said, there's no way you could have known. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OhioStandard, thank you for noticing the problem, and for fixing it, and for that very patient and courteous explanation. I always appreciate a chance to learn something new, so thank you for that. If now or later you have any other suggestions, I would be grateful to hear them. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my pleasure. Thank you for your very gracious response. The markup language, aka "wikitext" really can be quite vexing to learn; it's my understanding that a WYSIWYG editor, more like an actual word-processor, may be in the works for some future release date. If you have any questions though, please do remember the help desk. The volunteers there are usually quite experienced users, and very patient, as well.

One usually gets an answer to a post there within 15-30 minutes, also, which is very pleasant. I must have posted a question there every other day or so for two or three weeks, when I was just starting out, myself. I'd also be glad to try to answer any questions you may have in the future, although I can't promise to reply so quickly. Just drop me a note on my talk page, if you like. Best regards, --OhioStandard (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep those tips in mind, thanks again. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney Straw poll

It is my opinion that the extended discussions, and retorts to opposes have done little to help the cause of moving forward, and improving the article. I hate to assume bad-faith, but this is possibly due to some types of strawmen, red-herrings, and filibustering. We had 8 supports to 3 opposed, and we were well on the way toward concensus, still might be. Perhaps if we could stay focused, and try not to bog down the poll with redundant discussion that is really attempting to win over few, because as I said, most have already made their minds up. — GabeMc (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. My concern is that when various kinds of bogus claims (e.g., "he was never disciplined by the school for the jokes") are allowed to stand, readers (who haven't yet voted) assume they are true ('silence is consent') and this potentially influences their votes. When I speak up, the person I have in mind is that silent (so far) reader, not the person who made the bogus claim. I know the person who made the bogus claim is not going to move. Also, when bogus claims are tolerated, I think this encourages even more bogus claims to emerge, and this influences future votes. "We had 8 supports to 3 opposed, and we were well on the way toward concensus." I think there are a few people who are deeply committed to blocking this edit by any possible means, including filibuster. So if you're waiting for those few people to adopt a different position, you'll be waiting for a long time.

BTW, notice what happened in the AfD discussion. Many false claims were made, and they were mostly unchallenged. When false claims are unchallenged the result usually isn't good. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, and you make some good points, but try to see this as baby steps, the first goal is to include the notable and verifiable aspects of the alledged incident, that's it, all the other battles need to wait, as we cannot take on so much at once. The prolonged discussions, i.e. badgering of the opposes, just makes it look like the community cannot decide, but as I said, we were 8 to 3 for inclusion, and well on the road to consensus, but the extended disussion looks like we are not in as much argreement as we are. Do what you want, but IMO, your repeated comments to opposes are not enabling the improvement of the text. And not furthering your goal of a fair and impartial inclusion of the debated material. And anyway, have you changed one person's mind in 10 days? Don't worry about every accusation/claim made on the talk page, lets worry about the article's content, and our task at hand now, which is to decide how to best include the material in question, i.e. the Lauber incident. Anyway, this is all playing right ininto the hands of those that oppose inclusion, so if you are pro-inclusion of the Cranbrook incident, then please consider being more helpful. Just one editor's opinion. Cheers! — GabeMc (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, BTW, if you look at Sandstein's closing commets for the AfD, you will see they agree, and Sandstein went so far as to say they skipped over the extended discussion, and advocated brevity. In short, the walls of text bludgeon the process, versus moving it forward. Its okay to allow someone to oppose without argueing every single point of contention, and in fact its best to do so in some cases, lest, as has now happened, the discussion gets bogged down and no progress is made. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair enough. You've convinced me of the importance of what you're saying. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

		A beer on me!
		I like the way you think. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Yerushalmi

Hello - I think you make an excellent point on the Talk page for David Yerushalmi. Why not add the content to the article? guanxi (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm just too busy right now. I would be perfectly happy if you decided to do it. Jukeboxgrad (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was just making sure there wasn't some ongoing dispute about the page that I wasn't aware of. I don't have much time myself, but I'll see what I can do. Thanks. guanxi (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4 proposals

There are 4 proposals for change being considered on the Mitt Romney dog incident page. Feel free to comment. Talk:Mitt_Romney_dog_incident#Four_Proposed_Changes 71.125.70.107 (talk) 01:25, 8 July 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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]