User talk:Jmc

Sockpuppetry

Just FYI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Krshwunk.

Reverting my change due to grammatical error

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

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

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

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

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

Much thanks to your useful instruction!

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

Criticism of Atheism

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Blanket Reversions

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 Gleaming^talk 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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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!

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)

Lead image reversion

Hey, John. Greetings. You reverted my replacement of the lead image on Radio-controlled aircraft. I am sure you have a good reason for this. But I do not find it in the reversion description.

Can you comment on the new talk section I've just created? I do not know your reasons. But I do not intend to put the lead image I used back. Instead I nominate other images of higher resolution and quality from the commons for replacement instead. The existing lead image is 240×320-pixels big. It has served its function for these years. Perhaps it is time to retire it.

Please opine. Thanks! Fred Hsu (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jmc. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Last Card

You didn't give an edit summary so I don't know exactly what the problem was, but I'm guessing the source on this revert seemed too tangential, being a weather article. But it was the best I could find to confirm that the game (a) exists at all and (b) is popular in New Zealand. (I couldn't find anything to support it being popular outside of New Zealand, which is what you've reverted it to.)

Without it, the article reads a lot like a hoax or one family's house rules for Crazy Eights. (It's probably an acronym that needs to be expanded, but I can't find any evidence that the "OBT Card Games" book currently given as the only source actually exists.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Your guess is correct, Lord Belbury. It seemed like such a highly tangential reference as to itself read like a hoax.

I've now added a much more direct and reliable reference as evidence that the game (a) exists and (b) is popular in New Zealand. On the other hand, as you say, evidence that the "OBT Card Games" book currently given as the only source actually exists is lacking. The reference to it could well be removed.

(I've copied this exchange to the Last Card Talk page for the info of other editors.)

--Jmc (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain me your edit

You edited my text about the required increase in forest territory for limit warming to 1.5 degree,from For avoid temperature rise by more than 1.5 degree, until 2050 forests should cover 10 million square kilometers(approximately the territory of Canada), more than they covered in 2010" to "For example, a 10 million km2 increase in forests by 2050 relative to 2010 would be required'. Square kilometers mean territory, so maybe it would be better to include this word? Also, for understanding the scale of change it will be better to give an example and Canada is exactly what we need, so maybe we should let it stay?

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jmc. 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello JMC: I noticed that you reverted my edits on basic flight controls for Radio Control Aircraft on the 18th of May. Could you please explain why you reverted them. Thank you Eparaqutam (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Dog Day (August 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:National Dog Day and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:National Dog Day, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jmc! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:National Dog Day

Hello, Jmc. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:National Dog Day, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:National Dog Day

Hello, Jmc. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "National Dog Day".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Celestina007 (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Answer

Excuse my English, I'm not an English speaker, but why have you deleted my edit? This is an objective fact, and if you do not want to read the sources, it is explicitly stated in the Wikipedia articles themselves. I don't understand your point. Armando AZ (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Armando AZ Please take discussion to the Talk page, as I requested in my edit summary. -- Jmc (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jmc I do not think that it is necessary to do "that", it is that there is nothing directly wrong with my editing. It complies with all Wikipedia standards other than being approved by the previous librarian, it's a waste of time

Armando AZ (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I put this here to answer you

I do not think that it is necessary to do "that", it is that there is nothing directly wrong with my editing. It complies with all Wikipedia standards other than being approved by the previous librarian, it's a waste of time Armando AZ (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

History of Atheism

You're kidding? ---> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#Revolutionary_France

That one person does not know about history does not mean that the others also, I have studied this subject and I know what I am talking about. In the part that mentions the French Revolution there is no mention of this, you can read it for yourself, champion Armando AZ (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Rule of the three reversals

Remember that there is a rule of three reversals whereby the same person cannot reverse more than 3 times. I do not want to start an edition war with you, you have 2/3 Armando AZ (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

A multiplicity of miscellanea

Hi, Jmc, several years ago you thanked me for an edit regarding a certain song cycle. Although I briefly had a look at your contribs, I was busy at the time and didn't contact you. We seem to have a number of shared interests. I started some topics on my talk page if you're interested. MinorProphet (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@MinorProphet Well, thank you for getting in touch and particularly for alerting me to your Miscellanea. All four topics are of considerable interest to me and I shall certainly be responding in due course. -- Jmc (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you personally believe in theistic evolution?

Hi Jmc, and thanks for your fixes to the article on theistic evolution. The article is a lot neater now. I'm curious, do you personally believe that evolution was caused by God? (You don't have to answer my question if you don't want to.) Thanks! Félix An (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Félix An Thanks for your thanks! As for your question, I'd first want to ask you what you mean by God. -- Jmc (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jmc I'm not sure. Which god, if any, do you believe in? Félix An (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Félix AnAh well, that's another question altogether. -- Jmc (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Bates Method

Are you at all concerned about the appearance of two new accounts[3][4], both interested in little more than Presbyopia and the idea that the Bates Method might not be 100% "ineffective"? ApLundell (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@ApLundell - [5] certainly made persistent attempts to have 'ineffective' removed, but met considerable resistance and now appears to have retreated. [6] is in a different league and appears to support the characterisation of the Bates method as 'ineffective' and the beliefs of its founder as 'erroneous'. -- Jmc (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

To make a same or similar article on Wikipedia

Dear Jmc: Nice to hear from you! I am the original contributor of AR Computer To Terminate Eyestrain And Myopia https://eyewiki.org/AR_Computer_To_Terminate_Eyestrain_And_Myopia All the contents on the website are written by myself. Could you please tell me what should I do if I want to make a same or similar article on Wikipedia?

Best regards and Happy Christmas

Crescentnz Crescentnz (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Crescentnz Your User talk page has a complete answer to your query. -- Jmc (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jmc!

Happy New Year!

Jmc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

"blatant inimical trolling"

Did you mean to revert me or the IP? Either way, that language is hostile. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

My abject apologies for a much too hasty and ill-considered edit. Indeed I did intend to revert the IP editor. -- Jmc (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I definitely understood the sentiment. Just when it was initially reverted, I thought it was directly at me and I was pretty confused! . -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

👍👍 Jmc (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moscow, Cheryomushki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decca. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Jmc (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for applications for position of Wikipedian-at-Large, Aotearoa New Zealand

Kia ora! The Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand User Group invites you to read about the call for applications for a Wikipedian-at-Large for Aotearoa New Zealand in 2024. Group members are happy to explain the process and discuss ideas with interested editors.

Sent by Zippybonzo on behalf of MurielMary using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 06:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Khrystyna Mykhailichenko has been accepted

Khrystyna Mykhailichenko, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Superboilles (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

revision 1174178545 for Immanuel Velikovsky

Hello, You undid revision 1174178545 by 31.217.12.202, because you need proper additional references for Paradigma publications. Please see: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1906833591 and https://www.amazon.com/dp/1906833508 I hope this is enough to redo the revision. Thank you Best regards Toh3000 (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Toh3000 Please follow the format of the extant bibliographic entries. Amazon links are not appropriate. The actual publisher (Paradigma) should be referenced (as, for example, Doubleday is for other entries). -- Jmc (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to an in-person meetup in Mohua / Golden Bay

Golden Bay Air are holding some seats for us until 21 November

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Curious

Happy New Year! - I am curious where I would find discussions about infoboxes on project Classical music. I remember some on project composers, and they date to 2016, for example. More recently, Mozart and Wagner were discussed, and not heated ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

And happy Bach-filled new year to you, Gerda!

One place to dive into discussions about infoboxes is Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Major discussions and arbitration case. There's quite a bit of heat, for example, in the discussion of Bullying and ownership concerns at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach and Sparrow Mass over the use of infoboxes ! But you know that, because you participated (unheatedly!) in that discussion. Jmc (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

We talk about 2013 discussion:: the Mass got an infobox the same year, and Bach not much later, and most Classical music editors I know don't enjoy any of these discussions. Once upon a time (2010), Composers had an RfC, to treat composers differently from other creative minds. Why? I don't know. Why should a person who composes not have an infobox, when the same person is also a conductor, or a writer? - The location for questioning the exception would be Composers, not Classical music. I won't, - I did it once.

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Leslie Wylde Moved to Draft Space - and moved back

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Grabup (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Totally without justification -- Jmc (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)