User talk:Jj137

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave a message.
Please don't forget to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~).

Reply from Jonathan

Hi... do you think you could help explain to me how to use/run WP:TW? I'm new to it and can't seem to figure it out. Thanks! -jj137^Talk 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see a few buttons below your username? That's TW. Here's a quick list of the terms:

User and user talk pages
- ARV (Report a vandal)
- WARN (Warn a vandal)
Images
- DI (Delete image)
General buttons you see everywhere
- CSD (Request speedy deletion)
- LAST (Last edit's diff)
- RPP (Request page protection)
- XFD (Anything for deletion)

There you go, and I hope that helps you! See ya around! Jonathan I like to eat science textbooks. 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with that! I was just thinking those were new editions or something. Once again, thanks! -jj137^Talk 21:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob! Jonathan I like to eat science textbooks. 21:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have another question hopefully you can answer. Whenever I click any of the "new" buttons, they don't seem to work. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks terribly so for your time and patience. -jj137^Talk 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it has been cleared up. -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 21:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TW

Hi, I've seen you revert vandalism with TW, and I have a question you hopefully can answer. I have it 'installed', but for some reason whenever I click on the 'new' buttons, nothing happens. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks! -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 21:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which browser do you use? Last I knew, Twinkle was known not to work with Internet Explorer. — TKD::Talk 21:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh...I feel so stupid...I have Internet Explorer. I need to read the directions next time. Thanks for the help! -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 21:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The number of nice JavaScript tools that do not work with IE is the reason that I mostly use Firefox for editing Wikipedia. But I still keep IE (as well as Safari) around to check for compatibility issues. — TKD::Talk 21:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Test edit?

Here you said I made a test edit, however I was actually reverting a test edit... Huh? CoJaBo 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh I hate when that happens. Terribly sorry about the misunderstanding! (You can remove that earlier message I gave you) -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Page

I like your user page. Cool style! -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment!! Just changed the page this afternoon, thought it needed updating. Eddie6705 22:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw it in the recent changes and thought 'Heck that's cool'. -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 22:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Eddie6705 22:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal articles

Good luck on your editing spree. I may try to help (assuming I remember). -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 22:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jj. I hope to begin tonight. I'll need to stick to my goal, though, because I have a tendency to just get off-topic at anytime. Soxrock 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have to agree, it is very easy to get off topic. -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Also, I ask this; Do you remember the B-R bullpen? I just ask because you've been inactive since the day you origially came. Soxrock 00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha yes, I do! I guess I've spent more time here though fixing up the baseball articles. -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 00:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I've recently gotten my 8000th edit there (last Saturday) Soxrock 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! I don't even have that many edits here (around 5300). -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 01:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of an idea. While you try to work on all of these articles, would you mind if I got started on some of the game logs for them? -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 03:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. I mean, the game logs hold no copyrights, you can model them after the 2007 game logs (whats so funny about the whole controversy anyway is that what is the difference between the MLB team schedule and an NFL one? Catch my drift? Soxrock 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand. What you mean is that the game logs aren't really required, but they're interesting. -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 15:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda, but that wasn't what I was getting at. I was saying that game logs are do not require special permission from the MLB. My comparison with the NFL ones is this: Look at 1985 New England Patriots season. Game log there for 4 months, right? No questions about it? But the 1993 Marlins game log was deleted hours after it was created due to potential copyvios. But talking with Sean Forman of B-R, he confirmed that they are NOT copyrighted. Just a note, I'd actually create the logs on the article, and, when finished, then put them in a template, so if it got deleted, you could easily get the log back. Soxrock 16:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thanks for the help. -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 17:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, so it got deleted for copyvio even though there is no copyright on it, right? Also, possibly because it wasn't a template. -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I may have you confused. At the time (07/23/2007), Jaranda deleted it citing "copyvios." On the 16th of August, I talked with B-R, and it was confirmed that Jaranda was wrong, that game logs are perfectly allowable (if you have e-mail, I can forward you the message).

Now, the 1993 Marlins article was not deleted, the 1993 Marlins game log was. Thanks for the help Soxrock 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I get it. Thanks!-jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 64.40.108.168

Hi, I saw you gave 64.40.108.168 about a million last warnings. In that case, you should probably report the IP to a sysop. Thanks! -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 17:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did report it to DerHexer. Interestingly, nothing was done about it. Pats1 ^T/C 23:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Sorry, I didn't know that! -jj137^{Talk • Contribs} 00:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrictramp RFA

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. --Fabrictramp 16:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo hoo!! Congrats on becoming the newest admin. -jj137 ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

530 in poetry

Hi. Don't mind my asking, but is there really much prospect of us finding any poetry that can be shown to have been written in 530. Wouldn't it be better to just have decade or even century articles when you go this far back? Deb 21:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I'm not sure yet. If you look at List of years in poetry, you will see there is an article for almost every year, and just about every one of those have at least one event. Chances are, eventually something will be added. I'm pretty sure WP:POETRY is trying to get an article and have at least one event for each year. I'm just trying to help by making some of those articles. Thanks -jj137 ^{Talk • Contribs} 21:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I realise I'm picking on 530 at random. It just seems funny to have the poetry year articles going that far back when there isn't even one for literature. Deb 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there will be eventually... :) -jj137 ^{Talk • Contribs} 22:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oley Hills site

Hi,

thank you for capitalizing Oley Hills. I would like the title to be "Oley Hills site" but don't know how to change the title. The term Oley Hills refers to a geographical area and would need a disambiguation page if used for this stone site, too.

Thanks! Geophile 01:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, I moved the page. I just clicked "Move" at the top of the page and filled that out. Thanks -jj137 ^{Talk • Contribs} 01:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page move

Thanks!Geophile 01:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! If you have any questions, feel free to ask, I'm always willing to help. -jj137 ^{Talk • Contribs} 01:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification

Hi - please note that it is not helpful to mark articles such as Danny O'Connor (politician) or Gunnar Ekstrand as requiring Wikification, when they are already Wikified. While they would benefit from expansion, or perhaps from the addition of sections, infoboxes, etc, should you feel these issues need addressing, they have their own tags. Warofdreams talk 00:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. Guess I scanned a bit too quickly there. Thanks for the notice. -jj137 ^T/_C 00:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - thanks for replying so quickly! Warofdreams talk 01:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monobook.js

Hi, your monobook is turning up in Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion. John Vandenberg 02:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK...I have no idea why it is there. -jj137 ^T/_C 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a little help here? My monobook is the speedy category and the only way I can figure out how to get rid of it there is to add <nowiki> to my monobook but then it basically makes everything else there null-and-void. Thanks -jj137 ^T/_C 02:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right, nevermind, I got it worked out. Thanks -jj137 ^T/_C 02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural oil polyols

Is there something in particular that you want cleaned up in this article? I have just started writing it and I find the clean up tag a bit annoying. Additions yes, but clean up? Silverchemist 03:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article looks great. At the time I tagged it it may have needed a bit of work, but it looks fine now. Sorry about how long it took to get back to you. -jj137 ^T/_C 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Glad to hear you think it looks okay now. I still have some material to add. Silverchemist 19:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure- very seldom do you ever see a new article look that nice. It shows you must have put a lot of work, effort, and time into it. (That's probably something I should try harder at in the future). Best of luck with it. -jj137 ^T/_C 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theopoetics

Just a heads up. This article was a blatant copy vio, not a cleanup. Do you check Google? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. It looked a bit suspicious, but I wasn't really sure. -jj137 ^T/_C 20:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter, as long as it goes. If the wording looks like it may be an article, I usually check. In my experience CopyVios tend to get booted more quickly. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're sure right there. -jj137 ^T/_C 21:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Plains Conservation Center

My friend and I are working on the article this minute. It's not about nothing. We were just in contest to see who would make it first. We're writing the content right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heero Kirashami (talk • contribs) 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I tagged the article it did not have enough content for an article. -jj137 ^T/_C 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boo1210

Do you plan to add info to this? Just wondering. -jj137 ^T/_C 22:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Did. I want to have info on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boo1210 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't nominate it for a speedy. If you wish, you are always allowed to recreate it as long as you have enough info to keep it. -jj137 ^T/_C 22:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

Hey there! As you are no doubt the top contributor to sports related articles, I have a suggestion. I recently applied and was granted "access" to AWB (anyone with 500 edits can get it) and have been using it quite a bit the past few days. I've found it really speeds things up when you are trying to add/subtract/do whatever with a mass amount of articles...I thought you of all people would probably benefit from it the most. Well, just a suggestion. All the best...and nice background. jj137 (Talk) 02:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As you are no doubt the top contributor to sports related articles..." To be honest, I'm flattered by that comment. Anyway, Ksy already suggested the idea to me, but I'm not sure how I'll use it now. Tag all articles with seasonal templates? I'm just saying, how do I use it at current time? And thanks for the comment on the background, but it's probably just temporary. I'm tinkering with new ideas to the page. Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you really can use it however you want. For me it just makes things probably go 2-3 times faster which is just great. Unfortunately I think it takes some fun out of the "regular" editing style but it makes tasks much easier and faster. You don't have to use it, I generally still edit here and if I see a large task that needs to be done, well, that's where AWB comes in. Also, you really are the top contributor to sports articles; if I click on the history of any random baseball article (that's generally where I stay), 90% of the time, there's Soxrock with several edits at the top :-). jj137 (Talk) 20:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roots (Everly Brothers album)

Hi. :) I just wanted to point out to you that the above article actually did have a reference when you placed your "unreferenced" tag on it here. The reference is in the infobox and can be traced by following the "link". When I first started working on albums, I was confused by this as well, but this is the standard placement as developed by consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. I also wanted to note that the article had the "inuse" tag at the top of it at the time you edited. Of course, it is only a request that other editors not edit the article while the tag is in place, in order to avoid edit conflicts, and you were well within your rights to ignore the request, but it is a nice gesture to hold off while the article is under active construction to see how it develops. You may already be well familiar with that template, but since you're on new page patrol I thought I would point it out to you in case you were not. :) --Moonriddengirl 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before I say anything else I would like to apologize for the confusion (and sorry about how long it took to get back!). I have generally always hesitated when tagging album articles with unreferenced tags, because I realized there must be some reason hardly any of them cite no external links or references at the bottom of the page. However, I am very familiar with the in use/under constuction tags because I am in the NP Patrol and use it myself when creating articles sometimes. The reason I tagged it was because I saw it was in use, and realized that you must still be working on it, and if you saw the tag, you would add references. (That's where I made the mistake.) I never paid enough attention to the music infoboxes to notice that one link would be the references. Thanks for the notice…and I now have my confusions clarified. jj137 (Talk) 22:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. :) As I said, when I first started working on albums, I was also confused by the apparent lack of sourcing. I still sort of think they should be on the bottom myself, but that's consensus for you. --Moonriddengirl 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks for the help. jj137 (Talk) 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPWatcher

Your NPWatcher application

Dear Jj137,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Jmlk 1 7 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Jmlk 1 7 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Opinion

i dont think this is vandalism so i am going to say it: i just wanted to tell you the red sox suck--75.82.16.153 03:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you go for the Yankees? It's not a bad thing if you do. BTW... that wouldn't be vandalism, just stating your opinion. jj137 (Talk) 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]