Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Jim1138/Archive 32) (bot |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
Yes, Thank you!!! I am slowly understanding it. I will work on it. J <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:1028:919D:664A:F835:DA47:7B06:6F1E|2A00:1028:919D:664A:F835:DA47:7B06:6F1E]] ([[User talk:2A00:1028:919D:664A:F835:DA47:7B06:6F1E|talk]]) 10:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Yes, Thank you!!! I am slowly understanding it. I will work on it. J <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A00:1028:919D:664A:F835:DA47:7B06:6F1E|2A00:1028:919D:664A:F835:DA47:7B06:6F1E]] ([[User talk:2A00:1028:919D:664A:F835:DA47:7B06:6F1E|talk]]) 10:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== About your [[WP:BRD]] == |
|||
Hi Jim1138. I have read what you've left on my talkpage. I have done my edits in [[Ahn Sahng-hong]] with definite reasons, I even stated my reason why I deleted a specific reference that I mentioned in the article's talkpage: |
|||
'''a.''' There were NO proper references to support the article (dead link, questionable sources, the Korean references were wrongly translated, the reference rather had an opposing information). |
|||
'''b.''' Had absolutely NO references to prove that some information were factual. |
|||
Suddenly Sam Sailor reverted my edit without even stating the reason why he disagreed, nor did he left anything in my talkpage or the article's talkpage. He just said "Restoring tons of deleted material." |
|||
Uh.. Is this a good reason to revert my edits? Without even telling me why my edits were unreasonable? I can see you're one of the members of the Subtle Vandalism Taskforce Team [[WP:SVT]], and are a recent changes patroller [[WP:RCP]]. I'm perplexed seeing you reverting my edits with [[WP:BRD]], which clearly states "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense," at an instant without stating the reason why my edits were unreasonable (you just said "this is reliably sourced") and agreed with Sam Sailor(who just reverted without stating any reason)'s edits. Why was it necessary for you to revert also the past edits and add new references which neither SamSailor or I were even involved, without stating the reasons of your edits? I don't think your revert engages in consensus building (See [[WP:Consensus]]), since you don't explain anything about reverting my edits and also restoring the past edits that none of us were involved in. This also applies with Sam Sailor. We need to be neutral. Please respect others' edits. Did you not realize that Sam Sailor reverted my edit without providing any reason? Leave the message, please. Thanks -[[User:Nellyhan|Nellyhan]] ([[User talk:Nellyhan|talk]]) 06:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:36, 27 October 2014
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Revert the article on Jekyll Island
back to the summaries included. Two edits ago. I'm confused as to why a plot summary of a 1000-page book is considered non-constructive; particularly since I came here specifically looking for one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.176.137 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Niger Armed Forces
Jim1138,
I have temporarily removed the text and I am presently reorganizing it in MS word because it is easier for me to do so. I will re-introduce it in few hours as soon as I am done...that is if you stop undoing my work...You can verify tomorrow and if the article is not improved, organizationally and content wise, you can then undo what I have done. But for now, please let me work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SonOfNiger (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
TT Quick
Please revert to TT Quick.net......the bands website for additional info.......also their Facebook page. By the way........are you a fucking jerk off or what........punk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mognj (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I DO NOT CARE.
DELETE THE PAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletebots (talk • contribs) 24 August 2014 05:19 (UTC)
hey can i now have your attention please!
I just abuse a guy why?bcoz i had created a page with my research,hardwork and time and he deleated my page with single click,My pain is reasonable and i can't bow down to a bully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paras27 (talk • contribs) 24 August 2014 07:02 (UTC)
Peugeot 301 (2012)
Hello Jim1138. I am writing to you as to the changes you have made to the Peugeot 301 (2012) article. I would like to point out that in mid 2013, the 301 began production in Wuhan, China. This is also backed up by part of the 301's article saying so as well as Peugeot's deal with other Chinese manufacturers. Also, just recently in this month, Peugeot signed a deal with Iran Khodro to build the 301 as well as the 2008 in Tehran, Iran. As I am also new to editing on Wikipedia, I do not know how to add the reason why you deleted part of the article. I would also like to add that it was basic research on where the 301 is sold as it is currently sold globally.
Hello jim,
How do I source my info on Jarvis cocker correctly. The info is true, I know the man who trained him for his job, he worked on the market for Ron Hayes, with his colleague Ashley Dent. This article also refers to his job http://www.uncut.co.uk/jarvis-cocker/jarvis-cocker-on-south-bank-show-news
Thanks in advance
Max — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdixon93 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
TB
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Galaxy Airlines Flight 203, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sole Survivor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Fortuna Düsseldorf
Jim, I"m sorry, I don't know who you are or why you have removed every piece of information I added to the Wikipedia entry on Fortuna Düsseldorf. I have updated the information on the previous two seasons, corrected grammatical mistakes, and added information on Fortuna's history. The information I added was factual - wins, losses, etc. - which is available to anyone with access to a computer or a newspaper. Could you please restore the information I added. Thank you. Best regards, Thomas Jakobsh109.43.48.243 (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Jim, I'm sorry, but your reply was both patronizing and pointless. Did you even read any of the changes I made? Obviously you did not read the existing article on Fortuna Düsseldorf. It covers more than 100 years of history - and it includes a total of six footnotes. Six! A lengthy discussion of Fortuna's history through the entire post-war era through to the 1970s contains not a single footnote. Perhaps all of this shod be removed as well? What I did was to update the existing information - which ends two years ago - with a careful and factual summary of the last two seasons. I also improved some of the English (which was obvious written by a non-English speaker). If you think this entry is stronger and that Wikipedia users are better served by a page that ends two years ago, I have to disagree with you. My changes were constructive and helpful; yours were destructive and idiotic. Best Regards, Thomas Jakobsh109.43.48.243 (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
How to answer?
Sorry, I am absolute beginner. How to contact Jim 1138? Thank you for a help! bulldog.bobik@seznam.cz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:919D:664A:F835:DA47:7B06:6F1E (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Enchrito
I worked at Taco Bell in the early '70's as a Senior Restaurant Manager and can verify the posting I made regarding the Enchrito. 68.60.66.69 (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
ask for a help
Coul you help me please with changes on my page, I still do not understand many things an need to ask for it - here? Where? Thank you Jindrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:919D:664A:F835:DA47:7B06:6F1E (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
An ask
Thank you for answer, anyway it is still for me a big problem, I am primitive e-mail generation. Please, how to open Teahouse? Jindrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:919D:664A:F835:DA47:7B06:6F1E (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Acupuncture wording
Hi Jim, nothing personal, just restoring wording agreed upon after much discussion (diff of wording here, and for discussion see here and links therein and sections preceding). Ordinarily you'd be right, and I would support the simplified wording, but this is an unusual case where the RCT's highlighted weren't part of the dataset, so changing the wording changes the meaning in a nearly 180-degree way. Doc James had the same concern which I addressed here; see his comment "I do not see the justification for..." and my reply under it.
Here's the source; see for yourself, pp. 761-762. The majority of reviews Ernst looked at were actually positive, i.e. showing real > sham; but they were full of caveats.
As I mentioned in a recent comment at talk, the only way in which "real acupuncture was no better than sham" is a "finding" of Ernst '11 is in a very hazy "spirit of the law" sense, insofar as he predicts the trend of future research as methods improve. But our job is to get both the spirit and the letter right without screwing up either. And we can do that by instead using sources that are based on more recent and better research, and find unambiguously for lack of clinically meaningful efficacy vs. sham, and thus can be summarized in a simple manner. QuackGuru is the one who has been insisting on keeping Ernst '11 there for whatever reason.
Cheers. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Feel free to join discussion of better sources for lede here: Talk:Acupuncture#Better_sources_for_efficacy_in_lede.3B_MEDDATE. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 09:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Jindrich
Yes, Thank you!!! I am slowly understanding it. I will work on it. J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:919D:664A:F835:DA47:7B06:6F1E (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
About your WP:BRD
Hi Jim1138. I have read what you've left on my talkpage. I have done my edits in Ahn Sahng-hong with definite reasons, I even stated my reason why I deleted a specific reference that I mentioned in the article's talkpage:
a. There were NO proper references to support the article (dead link, questionable sources, the Korean references were wrongly translated, the reference rather had an opposing information).
b. Had absolutely NO references to prove that some information were factual.
Suddenly Sam Sailor reverted my edit without even stating the reason why he disagreed, nor did he left anything in my talkpage or the article's talkpage. He just said "Restoring tons of deleted material."
Uh.. Is this a good reason to revert my edits? Without even telling me why my edits were unreasonable? I can see you're one of the members of the Subtle Vandalism Taskforce Team WP:SVT, and are a recent changes patroller WP:RCP. I'm perplexed seeing you reverting my edits with WP:BRD, which clearly states "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense," at an instant without stating the reason why my edits were unreasonable (you just said "this is reliably sourced") and agreed with Sam Sailor(who just reverted without stating any reason)'s edits. Why was it necessary for you to revert also the past edits and add new references which neither SamSailor or I were even involved, without stating the reasons of your edits? I don't think your revert engages in consensus building (See WP:Consensus), since you don't explain anything about reverting my edits and also restoring the past edits that none of us were involved in. This also applies with Sam Sailor. We need to be neutral. Please respect others' edits. Did you not realize that Sam Sailor reverted my edit without providing any reason? Leave the message, please. Thanks -Nellyhan (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)