User talk:JCDenton2052

Notice: Feel free to discuss, but any posts that violate WP:AGF or WP:NPA will be reverted in accordance with WP:TALK. Any further wikistalking will be reported.

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (JCDenton2052) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

GT-R

Hello, I noticed you undid my removal on the Nissan GT-R article of the "baby Veyron" comments. I feel this addition creates bias in the article, and do not feel that media outlets (and the forum you've linked) qualifies as sources that should be included in an encyclopedia here.--kb (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. I can understand your objection to the NAGTROC forum as a source, however it is a scan of an Evo magazine article that has yet to be published online. Do you think that the scans have been altered in some way? However, I don't see any reasonable objections to Autocar or Top Gear. Both are well known sources in the automotive world. Remember, I wrote that reviewers had compared the GT-R to the Veyron, labeling it a "baby Veyron" and then I provided reliable sources with reviewers writing just that. I didn't frame it such that the article claimed that, so there isn't any bias. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

BRD

Have you seen WP:BRD or WP:EW yet? Typically speaking, it is ok to make bold edits. However, if you get reverted by another editor, in good faith, it is never appropriate to re-insert the controversial new material. If you want the new content to go in the article, you need to go to the talk page, make a proposal for your changes aruging why you think they are beneficial and in line with policy, and see if there is community support (consensus) for your proposal. Twice you have re-added material that I have reverted in separate articles. And in my opinion, these edits seem to be made in (put bluntly) ignorance of wikipedia guidelines (which is fine in and of itself. Everyone is new, and everyone can learn from others. however, when you edit war to add material that goes against guidelines, I have to try to communicate the problematic nature of these edits, hopefully in a kind and polite manner). Have you read WP:CAT or WP:ALSO. For Jonathan Archer, categories are not like myspace interests. We don't add them indiscriminately to articles. Categories are there to pull out the most basic and important aspects of articles. For people, they are there to highlight why the individual is notable. For fictional characters, they are there to associate them with the most important and notable aspects of those characters. If the article does not mention a single word about Archer being a space pirate, it has no business being a category. What's worse is it seems you are supporting this claim based on a single episode. How many episodes of enterprise were there? 98? so something that represents only 1% of the character is not notable enough to work as a category here on wikipedia. If you were to describe Archer in 3 sentences, would "space pirate" come up in that description?

As to the see also section, links that are already included in the article, and links which actually redirects are usually to be avoided. Since misogyny is mentioned in the first sentence of the misandry article, it seems like it is prevalent enough in the article to not be needed in the see also section. Violence against men redirects to violence. Since someone looking for information on "violence against men" would be redirected there, the link is of little help for them. Would you consider adding simply the violence link to the see also section? probably not because it doesn't seem that related to the topic of misandry.

I hope this explains why I have reverted some of your changes (twice now). I don't mean to be too harsh, but I to get across the point that the best way to get disputed new content into articles is to initiate discussions on talk pages and avoid edit warring. On top of that, make sure your edits are within basic wikipedia guidelines. I honestly hope this helps, and if you have any questions about any of this, or wikipedia in general, I'd be glad to try and help.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not noticing that 2 months ago you proposed adding the space pirates category on Archer's talk page. Going to talk first is commendable, and we do have a silent consensus sort of view of things. However, now that there is at least one party who disputes the category, it should remain off until we can discuss things a little further.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. That was some informative reading. I think I now have a better understanding of when to add a page to a category.

I was just trying to make the Misandry and Misogyny articles more parallel. I assumed that since Violence against women had a link to Violence against men that redirected to Violence, that was the normal practice. I have a couple of questions: Since Misogyny mentions misandry in the lead, should it be removed from the See Also? Misandry has a link to Female Chauvinism and Misogyny has a link to Chauvinism. Should that be changed to Male Chauvinism or should they both just be Chauvinism? Otherwise, I think the See Also sections look good now. What do you think? Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 16:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

HTC TyTN merge

You need to show the multiple merge notice at the top of the HTC TyTN article as well. If you wish to reply to this message, please post your reply on my Talk page, as I am not watching this page. Thanks.--Mak Allen (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the tip. JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help someone with a WP resume like yours. If you have a chance, could you weigh in on a requested merge debate we have going? See talk:Family register. If you reply to this message, please reply to my talk page. cheers,--Mak Allen (talk) 05:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello! :) I noticed that you have been editing alot of "feminism" and "women's rights" articles. I thought you might be interested in this. Check it out and add your name under "Participants" if your interested. Have a nice day! Keep on making good edits, like your doing! --Grrrlriot (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the compliment! :D JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome! :) I have seen many of your edits around. It's good to see a new Wikipedian and you have made good edits, considering your new. --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I'm going to work on the "men's rights" type articles, which seem to be in worse shape. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! :) Yes, The "men's rights" articles do seem to be in the worst shape. --Grrrlriot (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I did note my changes in the edit summar

As the title above indicates, I did note my changes in the edit summary. On the Domestic Violence page specifically, I noted several unreliable sources. Since I noted my changes in the edit summary, I will reverse your reverse. We can chat about this further in the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You removed sources that might not have met WP:RS along with sources that did. Additionally, you replaced newer research with older research. JCDenton2052 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Karl Rove

Hi JCDenton2052;

I reverted your edit here [1] Please take a look at my edit summary. Rewrite if you wish and incl. a reliable source. Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:TALK, this should be on Talk:Karl Rove. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is not such rule at WP:TALK (unless I just missed it) and is rather a matter of interpretation. My intention was to point you to the revert in question so you won't miss it as I clearly was in favor on it's bases. Rather then say nothing I thought it would be nice doing so on your talk page. It wasn't meant to be offensive and I apologize in case you took it this way. Regards --Floridianed (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken and I didn't mean to offend. Are the new source and phrasing alright? JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

They're both perfect. Thanks for asking, --Floridianed (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Update! It was perfect for me at first sight but not for WP-guidelines, So:

Please take a look at my edits at Karl Rove.

Citations/references were missing so I made some changes. I searched for simple references to confirm what you wrote (to take the easy way out) but couldn't find any that would "work" but if I do find anything worthy I'll let you know as I would be pleased if you let me know what you think about my edit. For sure it isn't and shouldn't be the final draft (in my opinion). Important for you to know: I had to take out W. Bush, Rove and McCain regarding direct membership. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I only added the bit about him leaving the country, but good work on finding sources for and rewriting the country club bit. I'm not sure if scrutiny is the right word, but I don't know what would be better. I would consider controversy, but from my experiences working on other articles, there is a very high bar to call something a controversy.

Actually, it appears that John McCain has had fundraisers at several country clubs. [2] JCDenton2052 (talk) 04:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this [the source] out. I'll try to get back to it when I have the time to get it right in the first time [preventing a reverse and possible warring] what I can't just do "on the side". I'm sure you understand my point. --Floridianed (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I'm not a "full-time" Wikipedian either. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

tagging

Hi JC, I just want to drop you a line about your use of tags in regard to situations like this[3]. You've used {{who}} and {{cn}} for a statement that is not unsourced. The first two sentences are sourced to Alice Walker's book. The sentences in question might be badly formed but the tagging you've used is not the best option. For instance the sentences could be restructured to state:

Alice Walker and other Womanists pointed out that black women experienced a different and more intense kind of oppression from that of white women. They point to the emergence Black feminism after earlier movements led by white middle-class women which they regard as having largely ignored oppression based on race and class.

This reword may not be perfect but it is accurate.
It is not uncommon that more than one sentence is sourced to a single reference. Sometimes whole paragraphs are. Tagging in these cases is not always the best option - sometimes questions on the talk page may be better--Cailil ^talk 14:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It did not seem, from context, that the first sentence was sourced. Such a POV statement needs to be clearly sourced and needs a clear subject. Fortunately, your edits fix both of those issues. I'll keep that in mind for future editing. JCDenton2052 (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Marc H. Rudov article

Please see my talk page comments here: Marc Rudov talk page LuisGomez111 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend reading WP:OR and WP:RS. JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

unbalanced template on reproductive rights page

I noticed you put an unbalanced template on the history section of the reproductive rights page, but didn't leave an indication of what you think is unbalanced. It helps to have a comment on the talk page explaining what the difficulty is so other editors can contribute to fixing (or disagree, or whatever), and so the template can be removed once the issue is dealt with. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I added an explanation on the talk page. JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

3rr

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.