User talk:Jcrook1987

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Jcrook1987}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. Thanks.

Archives

Archive 1

Thanks Joe,

That's one of the things I was trying to figure out how to do. I had hoped that the page would be created at the correct URL. Can you tell me at what point I missed making it that way?

Thanks again, Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downstrike (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Blank_FFFFFF_60x40.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 03:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blank F8FCFF 100x100.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blank F8FCFF 60x40.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jcrook1987, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. Any help would be much appreciated.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 01:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did that regex work? I'm not sure if it did exactly what you were trying to do, but hopefully even if it didn't fix it, you can figure out how to adapt it. Let me know if you need another look. Regular expressions can be fairly straightforward if you use basic symbols. The complications come when you start to think about greedy and nongreedy, and lookbacks/lookforwards. Shadowjams (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is 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 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 userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

We seem to be at the same stage with Sam786123. He seems genuinely commited to getting his tiger-eating-crocodile fact in but just doesn't grasp the refs needed part. I feel like I'm kicking a puppy every time I revert... danno 20:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. It looks like he has a book he is thinking of which does exist - I wonder if it is a reliable source? --Joe^Talk_Work 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to entice a couple of urls out of Sam which he wants to use to back up his crocodile/tiger comment. I can't say that I'd necessarily use either of them to support an assertion that I was making (one is largely in Chinese and the other looks like a privately operated site), but I'd appreciate your thoughts. Here's what he wrote me: Hello Danno I have provided a number of reference on wikipedia that include both website and from the books the first one was from http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict11.html it is clearly stated in this website that tigers crossing water are sometimes taken by crocodiles and wikipedia has got edits from this website in the tiger article and they just delete this claim.They should delete other articles as well if they are not accepting it.The second reference I provided was from this website http://www.tieku.org/272239/87.html it is a useful website all encounters written here are taken from reliable resources as famous tiger expert Kailash Sankhala and Valmik Thapar and also from T.v channels(Discovery channel and Animal planet)if these are not accepted than wikipedia is fake because these are authentic reports —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam786123 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is to go back to him, tell him to enter the fact (tempered as in "on very rare occasions.."), ideally spaced properly for a change, and show him how to cite these refs with the proviso that they may well not be accepted by the community at large. Would appreciate your thoughts though. Cheers danno 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. best to advise him of a way that at least has a chance of working. I don't want to get into an edit/revert war with him so (unfortunately) ultimately it may be worth reporting him to an admin for a temporary block. --Joe^Talk_Work 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you accept the edit that placed nonsensical text in the reference section? See TM_103 Beam 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I assumed that that text was meant to go in the 'Recorded Tracks' section and did not see that it was actually in the 'References' section. I've rolled it back to your last edit. Apologies, Joe^Talk_Work 21:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've been reviewing that article a lot lately. Beam 22:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing so many of the same articles come up for review again and again because they've been edited by an IP (usually the same people, and often genuine edits). I keep thinking, 'why can't you people just register?!' Haha. --Joe^Talk_Work 22:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started to leave a link to making an account on their talk pages. Of course we don't get paid to be admins as reviewers, but it can't hurt. Also, I've left messages at talk pages of articles in which I see repeated IP edits, encouraging the locals to reach out and gain new editors. Beam 22:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am notifying you as undid edits on Russia's article page but you have not provided any supporting facts on said sources^[1][2] and^{[3] [4]}

Please do not invert or undo edits if the edits are valid sources for the public to view.

If you have a problem use talk pages to dispute edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looked to me like those citations were simply removed by your edit; I did not see that they were valid additions. Apologies, Joe^Talk_Work 20:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought they were well written as sources for the article. Sometimes people will unedit but won't read the sources. I went to school at Oxford University, Oxford England, I know about valid sources such as this article for example as I studied the Cold War. Anyway glad you understand, thanks.--71.95.140.176 (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you accept this revision? What does BLP mean to you?-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not consider it to be a BLP because it is a group of people but of course it is still a BLP. My error. Happy to see it rolled back, Joe^Talk_Work 13:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that this particular issue is a concern because there are no reliable sources that give that individual's last name, and we've had an OTRS BLP complaint saying as much. A bunch of anon editors think they know the last name of this individual, but there is no evidence (which is why I protected the page in the first place), but I guess to someone not familiar with the situation, the edit could seem pretty tame. Just keep in mind that all information about BLP needs to be sourced. For example, if we claim that one individual was part of a swimsuit modeling group, when in reality it was someone else, we could damage their reputation if they don't want to be associated with swimsuit modeling. I'd urge you not to approve any unsourced additions regarding living people, even if it seems harmless or tame. Thanks for your communication and consideration in this matter. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Jcrook1987! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jcrook1987,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jcrook1987. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]