User talk:Jesant13

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC) (from the talk page): Sherwood Dungeon Online should have a Wikipedia entry, since it is another popular mmorpg. While it may not be as popular as RuneScape or World Of Warcraft, it still is a great game for lots of players. I just need some help improving this page. --Jesant13 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had to delete the article, because there is at present nothing in the article that could indicate notability in the sense of WP:N. You need references to show it from reliable third party published sources. Please do not restore the article till you have them. Reviews in published game magazines, print or on line are the sort of thing needed, but not blogs.DGG (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Auslogics BoostSpeed, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auslogics BoostSpeed. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Richard Cavell (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your changes of "Born in the U.S.A." to "Born In The U.S.A." et al. are incorrect.

Oh. I didn't know Wikipedia had that sort of policy, I assumed the name capitalizations were because based on how the artist wrote them. --Jesant13 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesant13,

Items in bulleted lists don't normally end in periods unless they're complete sentences. Please see the last dot point under

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier today, I looked at the "

WP:BULLETLIST" page and I understand now that list items "...should not have a punctuation mark such as a period, a comma or a semi-colon at the end, except if a list item is one or more full sentences, in which case there is a period at the end." However, I came across this article

. I noticed this: "...often defined to indicate a grammatical unit consisting of one or more words..." I think that means there can be one word sentences.

I am considering starting a new section on this page to try to make it acceptable for any editors who want to put periods after the ends of one word sentences in bulleted lists. I think that would be a compromise as opposed to me trying to make it mandatory for all editors to put periods after one word sentences in bulleted lists.

The reason I was editing some articles to add some periods is because I sometimes like using periods as a "checkpoint". Here's an example:

• A serious bug was fixed which caused some users' browsers to crash.
• Added search bar
• Added partial HTML5 support
• Fixed a bug which caused random freezes

In the example above, I would read it as "A serious bug was fixed which caused some users' browsers to crash. Added search bar Added partial HTML5 support Fixed a bug which caused random freezes" versus "A serious bug was fixed which caused some users' browsers to crash. Added search bar. Added partial HTML5 support. Fixed a bug which caused random freezes." If I screw up reading something, I'd prefer to fall back to the next "checkpoint", which in this case would be "A serious bug was fixed which caused some users' browsers to crash." For me, reading through what I want to read might therefore take longer. I hope that makes sense to you. --Jesant13 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind. It took a while, but I changed back some of the changes I made. In some cases, multiple users had already done so, so I didn't need to do anything else. --Jesant13 (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries – the ability to change your mind is a sign of good character. In the example you give above, I think parsing could be made easier by re-ordering and re-wording the points:

• Added search bar
• Added partial HTML5 support
• Fixed bug which caused random freezes
• Fixed serious bug which crashed some users' browsers

There might be similar ways to improve real lists you see around the 'Pedia. Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jesant13,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Thank you for your recent changes. Is it possible for you to provide a more detailed edit summary than "I corrected an error", to help other editors to know what you changed. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  23:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can do that. --Jesant13 (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the last edit to March 23 warranted an accepted revision? I would just hope you make sure before you automatically accept. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 04:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure. I checked the article Wikipedia:Reviewing. Everything looked fine to me so I accepted the edit. --Jesant13 (talk) 04:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That IP user deleted the hidden comment; which was important. That person also added the names of two people without articles, possibly friends of the IP user. You might want to double-check that edit. Lighthead ^þ 04:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After I made my first response to you, I checked the edit and realized I had made a mistake. After you responded to my response, I checked again and realized that a hidden comment was deleted. It was tired when I accepted the edit, so I don't think I thought hard enough about deciding to accept it. I'll try to be more careful in the future. --Jesant13 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, we're not getting paid. There's nothing I hate more than people who think this is a job, and more, think they're your boss! Just try to be more aware. Sometimes those edits don't get discovered until a year later, or even worse, those edits just lead to the article going down a downward spiral into cheesiness (or just plain bad). People start thinking that those articles are a dumping ground for their vandalism. If you feel tired at a certain point, maybe the best thing to do is just relax and lay low from editing. Just a thought. Happy editing! Lighthead ^þ 07:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And from one Wikipedia editor to another, that IP user seemed to know what he/she was doing. For them to delete a hidden comment might say something as to how much knowledge they have about Wikipedia. I'm just sort of wondering out loud. That wasn't, in my opinion, just any vandalism. If you're new, you'll learn about that kind of thing later. Cheers. Lighthead ^þ 08:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary in Windows NT (diff):

I corrected part of a section.

Was not really helpful. I just spent wasted at least five minutes staring at the diffs before I finally realized that you'd moved a closing parenthesis from one place to another.

Since a lot of us watch that article, I imagine many editors had (and others will have) the same experience.

Could we please ask you to use edit comments that would be more helpful? This one should have been something like

moved a closing parenthesis to the correct place

And this could have been marked as a "minor" edit, too.

Thanks for considering this means of helping your fellow editors. Jeh (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you said. I will try to be more detailed in the future when it comes to something like this. Jesant13 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jesant13. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
Message added 07:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, I'm

As you can see from here [1] TMUS has over 800m shares. A parent or owner would own all 800m shares. Since they own more than anyone else, they are considered a majority share holder. They are not a Parent or an Owner. A parent means that another corporation owns 100% of the shares. An owner means a person owns 100% of the shares. Neither of those are the case. - Galatz^Talk 22:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the definitions here Template:Infobox company - Galatz^Talk 22:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the owner field part, but not the parent company part, per the

Parent company article. Also, the T-Mobile article mentions in the T-Mobile US section that T-Mobile US is a subsidiary of T-Mobile International AG. - Jesant13 (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

The parent company article clearly is lacking any mention of US requirements. What are you using to state that 72% meets it? The IRS wont let you consolidate without 80% ownership. - Galatz^Talk 15:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bloomberg, T-Mobile International AG does own T-Mobile US. Also, per Object Management Group (whose headquarters are in Massachusetts), "a subsidiary of which it owns more than 50 percent (50 percent plus one share)". Therefore, 72% would be more than enough. Also, T-Mobile International AG is a German company, not a U.S. one. - Jesant13 (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contributions to

I'm not trying to be a pain about your Ethernet over twisted pair edits. Your removal of spaces in 5-digit numbers made the numbers difficult to read so clearly that needed to be reverted. I agree that commas are fine but spaces are also fine. We're looking for editors to make improvements to articles. There are a lot of acceptable ways of doing things on Wikipedia and we resist changing from one acceptable way to another unless there is a good reason for doing so. ~Kvng (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. The thing is, I've found on Wikipedia that typically with numbers in the tens of thousands either no spaces without a comma or with a comma are used. The same goes for numbers ranging from 1,000 to 9,999. Having recently read the articles

TIA/EIA-568 and Category 5 cable it seems to me like it would be more uniform to use commas instead of spaces. - Jesant13 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

If the formatting is inconsistent within an article, it is definitely a welcome improvement to make changes for consistency. Consistency between articles is a much more difficult sell. If you have strong feelings, and more importantly, reasonable justification for consistency within a group of articles, you can make your case for it on one of the Wikiproject pages, in this case Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing/Computer_networking_task_force. ~Kvng (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turner Broadcasting System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division. 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) 09:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AT&T Mobility, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sprint. 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) 10:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jesant13. 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

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)[reply]