User talk:Jim1138/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thankyou. I will ask for help any time from you. Regards Zianatin. Zianatin (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Chris Ross

Hi. You had converted an article to a redirect at Chris Ross due to notability concerns. I have reviewed the subject and determined that he appears to meet our notability criteria for musicians. As such, I've changed it back to an article. I've provided my reasoning at Talk:Chris Ross#Notability. If you have any concerns with my change, I invite you discuss them att he talk page. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for Clarification

Hi, Jim, can you explain what you believe was not referenced? Thank you. -fcorrales80 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.115.70 (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I am adding a link in the caption of the photo that links directly to the source. The building is the School of Human Evolution and Social Change. I am finding many errors on the ASU page and some inaccuracies that are causing quite a stir when I revise them for some reason.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The/the Beatles

Hi - your edit comment here drew my attention. The consensus since Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles is that we use "the Beatles" in mid sentence. Essentially, the close is in line with existing Wikipedia style guidance, which are also listed on that page. Regards SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Editor should have mentioned that in edit summary. Not sure why I reverted it; it's been awhile. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jim1138. You have new messages at AbigailAbernathy's talk page.
Message added 01:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 01:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sayyid article

Hello, I believe you have made a mistake. In anyway I do not consider myself vandalising, but I believe I am helping the various articles on Wikipedia like the Sayyid article which I have recently edited with my full attention and knowledge from various sources. There are many mistakes in the previous Sayyid article which I have fixed, but which you have changed. I do not believe in any way, my edits are in anyway what so ever ae vandilising Wikipedia. I too, am of Sayyid origins and I believe know about my people and their culture and beliefs. Friendly regards- Fizaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizaz (talk • contribs) 02:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't add "Reverted to last-known-good version following edit by Fizaz" when that is not what you did. Jim1138 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

George Washington Bridge

Hi Jim, I thought the info added by the IP was going to be unsourced again. It threw me off that I wasn't nearly as careful as I should have when reverting. Thanks for watching out.Equilibrium Allure (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think he actually sourced it correctly the first time diff. I reverted the IP too, I checked the ref and did not see the tab. The IP did aggravate a number of RCPs, including myself. I click the Huggle "Request edit summaries" often.. It doesn't seem to help much. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This kind of thing happens too often, but I don't think there are enough RCPs to handle it properly. Oh, well... Jim1138 (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Quit editing back stuff that you know nothing about

You obviously know nothing about russellville, ar so quit changing my stuff and everything will be fine thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.205.88 (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Udayar (caste)

Thanks for keeping an eye on Udayar (caste) and various other similar articles. One day, I'll get round to sorting them out properly but there are over 4000 of the things and too few eyes. Yours are appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision

You're 100% right. I should be more clear. Most medical organizations (just not the WHO and CDC) claim the circumcision prevents HIV idea is a myth. I believe this is a big deal and should be pointed out in the article. WIKIPEDIA is global, not just American. Apparently, only the WHO and American groups make this claim. Most believe it is a myth. Check these out...very interesting stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.142.31 (talk) 09:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay I will do it now. 99.55.142.31 (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

CHECK THESE OUT and please do not revert/delete. This is a serious subject to a lot of people.

THIS COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING: PLEASE CHECK THIS STUFF OUT JOURNEY OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN AFRICA http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9 http://jamespatemd.com/blog/?p=2153 http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html http://www.plusnews.org/Report/88790/MALAWI-Clinics-dispel-male-circumcision-myths http://voices.yahoo.com/circumcision-myths-exposed-these-articles-281256.html http://www.aidscirc.org/2012/07/circumcision-prevents-hiv-infection-is.html OTHERS http://circumcisiondoctorsaustralia.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/dr-normal-blumenthal/ http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Research_Publication-20839.phtml http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

Not everyone nor every medical organizations believes circumcision can reduce HIV. Many doctors and researches point out the following and this should be mentioned in the Circumcision Wiki Page (in my opinion.)

1 Foreskin produces smegma, which fights off foreign bacteria (where viruses live)

2 The US (where most males are circumcised) have higher HIV rates than places where most men are not circumcised (like UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Italy, France, Sweden, Spain, Norway, Japan, etc.)

3 MORE African countries have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS amongst the circumcised populations than the UNcircumcised populatoins (than the other way around)

4 Non-sterile circumcisions have been shown to SPREAD HIV/AIDS Just to name a few CHECK OUT THIS STUFF. Apparently, only the WHO and a small number of other organizations claim circumcision reduces HIV. MOST medical organizations claim it's a myth (like the circumcision prevents masturbation myth.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.142.31 (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

3RR

I see you and another editor are involved in an edit war with an IP editor. Though the IP looks clearly to be in the wrong, you should report him/her to ANI, or try discussing the issue, rather than edit warring. Cheers. TheBlueCanoe 04:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

List of terms used for Germans

Dear Jim, I typically do not go around editing Wikipedia articles as I have better things to do with my time. However, when I see an obvious mistake I take it upon myself to correct it. My correction was releated to the incorrect translation of the Russian word Fashisty (Russian: Фашисты) which was incorrectly translated into English as "Nazis" (Russian: нацизм) by whomever wrote this article. As a native Russian speaker, I feel qualified enough to make such entry without refencing a "source." A simple five second Google Translate search from you would probably have confirmed my revision. Reversing entries for reversal's sake is a bit silly. So much for trying to help this community.....this is the last time I'll try to correct some of the BS here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.161.56.16 (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

???? CQ by Roman Copolla

Hello Jim.

I realize that you wikipedia folks are extremely punctual about making sure facts and such for pages and what not all have something to do with one another. I left a note in the history summary for the page CQ about oh I don't know...THREE DIFFERENT TIMES that having a filmography for Frances Ford Copolla when it clearly states (not only on the DVD of the film itself, but all press materials: CQ is a 2001 film written and directed by Roman Coppola.)and it can also be seen all over the internet. If you were to look in the history section, 3 very OBVIOUS times I mentioned in the history as to why that content was removed. I gave my reason and even put the question out there in the talk section and it keeps getting put back. If you can explain to me how listing a filmography for Frances Ford, for a film his son directed has anything to do with the films' wiki page, then you might as well list all of Frances' films for every film his daugher Sofia has directed (Marie Antoinette, The Virgin Suicides, Lost In Translation etc) because even though he didn't direct those films, why not list his name and all his accomplishments on every page having to do with the work his children have done to be fair. I had no idea that removing something like that, which is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS if you were to look at the content that the ONLY thing in common with the film CQ and Frances Ford, is the fact his son directed it. Roman didn't direct any of his father's films so would one attach a list of his work to his father's page of accomplishments? I really wish sometimes you wiki police would just actually read through the content people edit sometimes without playing cops and restoring the obvious that needed to be removed. It is something so minor and obvious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.125.88.197 (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied on user's page Jim1138 (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Russellville, Arkansas

Hi, Jim. This is sort of a pro forma notice as I suspect you don't have an overwhelming interest in the elevation of this city. However, I did notify the other editor so I'm obliged to let you know that I've opened a disucssion at Talk:Russellville,_Arkansas#Elevation. As an aside, please be more careful when using HG to revert edits that aren't vandalsim. Perhaps you have had experience in this situation of which I'm unaware. I'm just offering a word of caution based on my prior experience. Regards Tiderolls 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hyun-a

Hello, could you explain to me why did you undo my changes after I added the nickname of this singer without a link/source, and the other nicknames that were already there had no sources previously stated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.17.121 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

per verifiablity. I reverted it again. Your link mentioned neither Kim Hyun-a nor Mlohava ChunAh. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please, ignore his edits... He adds Mlohava Chuna (from Croatian Mlohava Ćuna) meaning really nasty thing (it's related to penis, so...). The IP is vandalising everything. --Wüstenfuchs 21:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Nate Dogg years active

He didn't record any new songs after the first stroke, therefore not active!! I wrote it in Equilibrium Allure talk section, the edit summary and Nate Doggs talk section. Its different from recording and releasing or just releasing a song from the vault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.174.151.52 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You also removed the reference without explanation. Why was it removed? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it only shows a song being released from Nate Doggs/Bishop Lamont music-vault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.174.151.52 (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this with User talk:STATicVerseatide His edit summary: "He continued making music until 2011". Do leave edit summaries, they help others understand why you are making changes and can prevent this sort of thing. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have. If you check the source it also says "page not found". Thats why i removed the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.174.151.52 (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see a not found, but there is nothing on there about Nate Dogg. I'll leave this between you and STATicVerseatide. I really have no opinion on the matter. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sperm

CAn you reply to me on my talk page, what you think the sentence about sperm domination meant in the article, so that perhaps it can be re-entered. thanks. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

reply

Hi Jim... thanks for addressing this in a civil manner. The reason I responded harshly to the other user was because they made threats and were rude themselves. As for your removing it, that is OK, I think the other user gets my point and that is all I care about. Those who respect me I will reciprocate, those who address me with threats, commands and unexplained edits, I will reciprocate. But I do thank you for not taking that tone with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoriadorMexica (talk • contribs) 03:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

No, Qwyrxian was being quite civil with you. Jim1138 (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever dude... I made my point clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoriadorMexica (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page!  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jim!

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia. I've been using Wikipedia for a few years now, mainly for checking things, and I got the idea of making an account so I could contribute. I would greatly appreciate it if you would start my talk page and give me the basic information I should know concerning rules and what-not. Leo 05:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory Palestine article should about Mandatory Palestine, not Jews in Mandatory Palestine !

I was deleting statements that had no references linked to them or the information in those statements were not found in the references sited. In addition to that, I am trying to make the article less about "how much were the Jews better than everyone else" because so far that is the direction that article has been taking. Jews represented but a small percentage of the population in Palestine it felt ridiculous reading this article. It reached an extent where it was no longer about Mandatory Palestine and simply about what the Jews were doing in Mandatory Palestine.

Please stop supporting biased an subjective statements, this should be an educational site, stating FACTS not opinions! And this certainly is not a place to practice and push a party's political agenda.

I am a regular donor to Wikipedia and I want to keep this place clean and clear, and what you are doing makes me feel my money is going to waste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.218.136 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Flu pandemic

In regards to my attempt to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic , there seems to be someone intentionally tampering with the introductory paragraph. I had attempted to fix this, but it appears that I was unsuccessful. I am not familiar with the editing process and probably would be a poor student, but in the interest of site accuracy I would be pleased to hear that you could undo the obnoxious spam editing. I did not check the entire page for errors, but the most obvious were in the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.195.104 (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

on Gender role article

Hey. You reverted my edits, because according to you, they are "not explained". However, all my edits are explained in the "history", and all of them are according to the rules and discussion on the discussion page. I also added alot of content, please don't do this. The article is clearly much better as is, not as a long list of stuff, but rather with short descriptions with links to the main articles. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the last five edits you made to Gender role were not explained in an edit summary. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, but the edits concern the Julia Wood material, which is discussed on the talk page. Maybe I should have mentioned that also in the edit summaries. The problem is that 1) the sectio is too long, longer than all of the rest of the article and the claimed sources have not been found. I put a "main"-tag to link two other wikipedia articles on gender and comunication. Also in the last 5 I think I took out some of the non-sourced claims in the Gender role theory section that had been marked as unsourced years ago. However, there also I put a "main" to another article that talks more in detail about the issue. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You can put your reason in talk and just add "See talk". I have no intent of undoing anymore of your edits to Gender role. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I though that it was obvious, but I should be more careful. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The article was very bad and needed a lot of work, however it is my opinion that 88s recent edits have made it even worse. For just a few small examples of numerous problems, a study is mentioned and sourced at the end of the paragraph, however that did not stop 88 from adding (more) "citation needed" tags. Or, for instance, this wording:

The process through which the individual learns and accepts roles is called socialization. Socialization works by encouraging wanted and discouraging unwanted behavior. These sanctions by agents of socialization such as the family, schools, and the media make it clear to the child what is expected of the child by society. Mostly, accepted behavior is not produced by outright reforming coercion from an accepted social system. In some other cases, various forms of coercion have been used to acquire a desired response or function. On the other hand, theories such as the socialization approach suggest that gender identification and behavior is learned by the child by rewarded for behaviors that are seen as appropriate towards their sex; in other words, gender is socially taught and acquired (Cherlin, 2010, p.86).

Was changed to this:

Socialization refer to people adapting ideas about social roles from other members of their society. Some theories of socialization emphasize how society sanctions what is considered inappropriate behavior, while other theories such as the socialization approach suggest that gender identification and behavior is learned by the child by rewarded for behaviors that are seen as appropriate towards their sex; in other words, gender is socially taught and acquired .

It's not an article that I work on and it would take a great deal of work to restore it to its previous state - which admittedly was not very good either. Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey that editor you mention is me. If you have some ideas concerning the article, come participate in the discussion page. A cn-tag is in place in my opinion, if that specific claim is not in the source article give in later on (with another sentecne). Otherwise I'd use "failder verfication". The part about socialization, I'd say is better (except for the typo verb infliction on "refers"). The original claims to know how socialization works, without sourcing that claim. In addition it is too long in my opinion. Why add claims about sanctions and other mechanisms if you don't have a source?88.114.154.216 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, just because you don't like some wording on one paragraph doesn't give you the right to revert 20K of stuff without discussion. I had also added alot of content, you know. I think that considering the above passage the best thing to do is to main-link the socialization article, and concisely discus it's relevance in the sociology of gender, so as to minimize redundancy. You should discuss this stuff on the articles discussion page so that the other editors could participate and give you feedback on your ideas.88.114.154.216 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Gandydancer is not the one who reverted you. I am. You keep talking about "discussion on the talk page" as if there is WP:CONSENSUS for your mass changes; there isn't. There's mostly you ranting on the talk page. And I had already checked it before reverting you. Your editing has indeed made the article worse -- it's a citation-needed tag mess, for example. Adding a lot of cn tags instead of one big tag telling readers that the section is unsourced or needs additional sources is ludicrous! You also need to read up on what WP:VANDALISM is. Reverting you, restoring the article to the WP:STATUSQUO version is not vandalism.

And don't bother leaving me a message on my talk page, since my IP address constantly changes and I'd have to reply to the message as a different IP. 220.255.2.103 (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How exactly do you think that the current article worse than the older version? We should try and find a consensus so that we can edit it together to suite us both. If you have a problem with the cn-tags then 1) why? is there some guideline which says that there is some limit to using cn-tags? 2) there are not that many 3) we can replace the cn-tags with a section refimprove-tag. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I fully support reverting 88's edits. The article was bad before 88 began massive changes; it is worse now. I have not interacted with 88 because I dread a long drawn out discussion that never gets anywhere. It is my impression that 88 means well, but I have been blocked for reversing an editor in a similar situation and have no desire to go through that again. Gandydancer (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I support your desire to revert all my edits, if you can justify it with soemthing more substantial than "i don't like it". I mean, my version has more sources, more links to other main-wikipedia articles, less unsourced wild claims and the structure of the articles is better. How can any one justify reverting all that? If you have a problem with some specific part of the version, I will gladly co-operate in making it better. No one needs to be blocked or anything like that. I will not also try to endlessly debate you one everyhing, just because I could. Cheers. The best way to continue would be on the talk page of the article. 88.114.154.216 (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Jim! I was wondering if you happen to be an administrator because i could really use your help. Please reply back when you have the chance, Thanks.--(Slurpy121 (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

No, I'm not. Email me if you want. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to repeatedly revert an admin/bureaucrat/steward especially without settling the matter first in a discussion. I wouldn't mess with him if I was an admin. Jimbo Wales next on your list? Be careful, please. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, althought i didn't quite get you when you wrote about reverting a bureaucrat, but i'll still keep it in mind, Thanks.--(Slurpy121 (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

Thank you Jim.--(Slurpy121 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

You're welcome. Hope it helped! Jim1138 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Xvon, again?

I thought we'd seen the last of him, but a couple of days ago, he went to Blake Griffin, Kris Humphries, Rashida Jones, and several other of those pages and outright removed all the African-American categories. He claimed there wasn't a reliable source for them being black, even though in a couple of them there clearly was. Either way, he's still fighting against a long-held consensus to categorize them as such. Please help me monitor the situation...I've reverted him once on the three pages I've listed, I hope I don't have to again. pbp 05:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoxby

Thanks for reverting that deletion. If you're interested in this article, could I ask you to have a look at a discussion on BLPN? I'd be grateful for your thoughts. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't even see the name of the article. I'm running wp:Huggle and just noticed that the removed content seemed well sourced and there was no edit summary. So, I undid the edit. Good luck on the BLPN. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A reply to your removing my external link from the Nikolai Medtner page

Hi Jim1138. Thank you for taking the time to look over my recent change to the Nikolai Medtner page. I do believe the external link to openclassical (https://www.openclassical.com/composer/Nikolai_Medtner) is very relevant, and should be restored. Please allow me to elaborate on this. openclassical's mission is the organization of classical music, of which there is over 1,000 years of highly varied and remarkable music. More than this, it also organizes existing internet media, providing a simple gateway for a visitor to browse and discover classical music. It is also free to use.

In the case of Medtner, openclassical has cataloged and organized his complete works, providing sorting and filtering tools, and the ability to actually listen to most of his works while browsing the score. Medtner's page has received the highest commendation from the president of the International Medtner Foundation.

For someone visiting Wikipedia wishing to learn more about Medtner, I think this is a very relevant external link. Can you please restore the link?

Thanks. D clef (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A few issues with adding links like this. The article is about Nikolai Medtner, not about supplying links to his music. See wp:linkfarm If the link supported the page by allowing access to information on Medtner, it might be acceptable. The second is that openclassical.com supplies access only to Amazon.com. This would open up the article to other purveyors of Medtner's music. Not a good idea. And, the links to amazon.com supplies more information then is needed to link to the specific music item, suggesting a profit motive; i.e. wp:spam. I would advise against adding this and similar links to Wikipeida. Please add new talk to the bottom of the talk page where people expect it. It's likely to be missed if put elsewhere. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Please let me outline my perspective on this. I think openclassical has related goals to the IMSLP project, which is also an external link from Medtner's page, and most other composers. IMSLP does not provide much information about the composer, but focuses on his musical works (like openclassical, it links to Medtner's Wiki page for those wanting to read his biography). IMSLP also has amazon integration.

I think that someone wanting to learn more about Medtner would definitely want to learn more about his music - without his music, most likely there would be no Medtner Wikipedia page. As illustration of this, I note that around half of the text on his Wikipedia page discusses his music.

I would also like to note that, like IMSLP, our Amazon integration does not suggest affiliation with Amazon, nor is the visitor forced to use it. openclassical is a free resource, whose mission is to make the discovery and hearing of great classical music easier.

Does this address your concerns? I am very happy to discuss, and make changes to openclassical if necessary, since first of all I understand it is a new project (we launched it this year), and I am convinced that many people will find it very useful when learning about classical music.

Thanks D clef (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied on D clef's talk Jim1138 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

About my removal of content

I just removed extra AD's from the page, I didn't remove information. Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lupus Bellator (talk • contribs) 23:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you look at papers and sites that have years between 1-100 AD, most of them put AD next to all of the dates ranges often excluded. I personally find it hard to see a two or three digit year as a year without the AD (or BC). Also, two digit years make one wonder if they are AD or BC. I would recommend not removing the extra ADs. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Park Chung-hee 2

Strongman (politics) I know that Ex-pres. Park. was dictator & strongman. But pro-japanese Koreans keep trying to remove him from wiki list. I want justice. All the rest of world know that Mr.Park was dictator. And some Koreans denying the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systec7 (talk • contribs)

Answered on Systec7's talk page Jim1138 (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

thx 4 ur concern on this issue. references http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2130969,00.html references http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60E17FB345F12728DDDAB0A94D1405B8084F1D3 references http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/asia/park-geun-hye-nominated-for-south-korean-presidency.html?_r=0 references http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5040964.stm references http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18778847

Thank you. I've read ur message. I'll try to keep cool from now on. Thx again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Systec7 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim! Most of us have better things to do than censor and baby-sit. Who died and made you the arbiter of civility?

Ronald Guillermo Herbert Hermosillo | Surrey, British Columbia | [email protected] 06:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgherbert (talk • contribs)

Thank you muchly

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For warning 101.63.65.9‎ several times before I had the chance (albeit for different edits). :) Don't you hate it when Twinkle doesn't work? — Oli OR Pyfan! 08:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hockey Pucks Hi jim im the guy you edited on hockey pucks and i was still working on it but thank for erasing it i needed to start over. thanks'

    anounamous  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.153.115 (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 

Vandal

Hey Jim,

Thanks for cleaning up this mess. The vandal's been blocked. Best. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Parenting

Hi, Jim1138. I'm not the editor that you reverted on the Parenting article, but I saw your revert and decied to tell you that WP:ELREG applies to external links, not to links being used as sources to support text in the article. Many Wikipedia articles, especially Wikipedia medical articles, have such sources supporting article text. 220.255.2.99 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There should be many sources for such a claim and no need to use a source requiring registration. A WP:RSMED citation should be readily available. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dokidoki! PreCure

Sorry to bother you here. Actually it's been a problem that this article and other relevant articles were not using avalable source, and I've been warning about it. But someone seems to neglect it without discussion, which can be seen in the revision history. I'd like to know how should I deal with it. --Doracake (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here. If you've seen this message, please try to know what's really going on and make correct disposals, or I don't know whether I should neglect a so-called "warning" from you. --Doracake (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

When you have two people who think they are right, edit warring never ends. This is where edit warriors often end up: WP:ANEW and you can see the results there. You can ignore my warning, I have no authority to wp:block you. wp:3RR was written into policy to reduce the problem and set procedures for dealing with EW.

A question: Does it really matter? WP:DEADHORSE It would be great if everything on Wikipedia were properly sourced. I, personally, have my priorities and articles about media (films, tv shows, music) are near the bottom. If you want to use your time on this, I would suggest familiarizing yourself with policy and procedures. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution might be a good place to start. You should be able to find more through the Dispute resolution page. Best of luck. Jim1138 (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)