User talk:Jimi 66

Hello, Jimi 66! helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply ] Getting started Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page

Thanks for the help on 36-line Bible; it's not too shabby. Ecphora (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

— Jake Wartenberg 03:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed links to the discussion you started. It seems inappropriate to be attracting more attention to the plant's location by opening up a wider discussion. I have emailed the oversighters to look into the matter, and I have myself removed as much obvious mention of the plant's location as I could find.

Our existing guidelines provide us the ability to remove all contentious material that is not adequately sourced, so we do not need an extra policy. I personally feel that it would be irresponsible for Wikipedia to keep details on the location available in the page histories as reliable sources take pains not to reveal the location, so I do hope the histories will be cleaned. However, the decision is not mine to make, and there may be considerations that I am not aware of. Depending on the response to my email depends on if it would be appropriate to raise the issue of adding a clause to WP:Oversight making clear that any unsourced and sensitive information that would have a detrimental effect on property or wildlife should be suppressed from Wikipedia. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 13:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message re lady's-slipper and for your removal of various mentions of the site. Yes, I was aware that by mentioning the location I was paradoxically creating more publicity, which was exactly what I didn't want to see, but it seemed a gambit worth playing. I';d be extremely grateful for any updates about the decision the oversight team comes up with.Jimi 66 (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current oversight criteria do not cover incidents such as this. There would need to be a discussion and a consensus decision to allow the oversight team to add such "public interest" criteria. I think there would be some support for adding "public interest" to the criteria, so it would be worth starting such a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Oversight. It would be worth wording it carefully before starting such a discussion. There would be no need to go into real locations. And there would need to be a convincing argument why we should remove information that is not actually illegal. It could only work if no reliable source had published the information.

The argument would be along the lines that:

• information which if published may be harmful to a person, property, endangered wildlife or plantlife
• and/or is not in the public interest
• which is not adequately cited to a reliable source
• so if harm is done, it could be seen to be Wikipedia's responsibility
• should be removed completely from Wikipedia.

I suggest you draw something up in your own userspace before starting the discussion. I'd be quite happy to look at what you have written and give advice. And I would support your proposal. SilkTork *^YES! 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such a proposal too. Please drop me a line if and when. --JN466 16:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my comment about using

As suggested, I've drafted a proposal for the Oversight talk page. It's on a sub-page of my user page. All comments very gratefully received.Jimi 66 (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added this proposal to the Wikipedia talk:Oversight page, but haven't done anything else to bring people's attention to it. Is there anywhere else you'd recommend I mention it? ThanksJimi 66 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it on CENT, and I've left a notice on the Village Pump. You may leave a neutral message on the talkpage of people you feel might be interested in such a discussion. Oversighters themselves would have an interest in such a discussion, and some insight into the process that would be valuable. Wording such as A proposal to add a new "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause is neutral. SilkTork *^YES! 10:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've spammed all the oversighters and related people. SilkTork *^YES! 10:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight I should have initiated the proposal. People are being side-tracked because of the association with you and the sensitive wildlife proposal. It's a shame, because it's clearly a sensible idea and should be considered seriously. SilkTork *^YES! 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) I wanted to thank you for your work on King's Library. While it is obvious you were not finished, the original article had come due for deletion due to copyright infringement, so I have used your draft to replace it. Hopefully, it will be expanded by interested contributors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from

]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I've just tried to create a sub-page of my user page to work on an article, but may have given it the wrong URL, hence the above message. If the page is in the wrong place, I'd be very grateful if someone could either (a) delete it and let me know how to create a sub-page or (b) move it so it is a sub-page of my user page. Many thanks! BTW, I am familiar with basic HTML and page creation on a number of other platforms, but I'm afraid I have to say the only instructions I;ve found for creating sub-pages on Wikipedia baffling.Jimi 66 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take a look, hold on. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, it should now be at

User:Jimi 66/Vermeer virginals in progress. What had happened was you created an article named "En.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimi 66/Vermeer virginals in progress", however the article was created, you didn't need to include the URL parts, you could have started with User:... -- it was easy to find when I looked at your contribution history

. Yeah, subpages are handled a little strangely by Wikipedia. One other thing that may be helpful, if you go to the bottom of the Contributions page that I just linked, there's a link called "Subpages" which will list all of your current subpages. Useful for cleanup.

I've also made two changes to your article draft, both of which should be undone when that goes live. We usually comment out the categories (userspace drafts shouldn't appear in normal categories, not until their live), and mark drafts as drafts (which helps prevent Google from indexing them and some other useful things).

Please drop me a line on my talk page if I can be of any help! Welcome! --j⚛e decker^talk 20:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Saint Praxedis (painting) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• with_Proceeds_to_Benefit_the_Barbara_Piasecka_Johnso.pdf Saint Praxedis by Johannes Vermeer (press release, Monday 9 June 2014] accessed 10 June 2014</ref> The painting is a copy of a work by

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, Jimi 66. 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]

Hello, Jimi 66. 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

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)[reply]

Hello, Jimi 66. 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

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)[reply]