User talk:Jcrook1987

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Jcrook1987}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Likely, California

Thanks Joe,

That's one of the things I was trying to figure out how to do. I had hoped that the page would be created at the correct URL. Can you tell me at what point I missed making it that way?

Thanks again, Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downstrike (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blank_FFFFFF_60x40.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Blank_FFFFFF_60x40.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 03:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blank F8FCFF 100x100.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blank F8FCFF 100x100.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blank F8FCFF 60x40.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blank F8FCFF 60x40.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II

Hello Jcrook1987, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. Any help would be much appreciated.

Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 01:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reg ex

Did that regex work? I'm not sure if it did exactly what you were trying to do, but hopefully even if it didn't fix it, you can figure out how to adapt it. Let me know if you need another look. Regular expressions can be fairly straightforward if you use basic symbols. The complications come when you start to think about greedy and nongreedy, and lookbacks/lookforwards. Shadowjams (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tigers and crocodilesHi, We seem to be at the same stage with Sam786123. He seems genuinely commited to getting his tiger-eating-crocodile fact in but just doesn't grasp the refs needed part. I feel like I'm kicking a puppy every time I revert... danno 20:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Aye. It looks like he has a book he is thinking of which does exist - I wonder if it is a reliable source? --Joe^Talk_Work 21:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I've managed to entice a couple of urls out of Sam which he wants to use to back up his crocodile/tiger comment. I can't say that I'd necessarily use either of them to support an assertion that I was making (one is largely in Chinese and the other looks like a privately operated site), but I'd appreciate your thoughts. Here's what he wrote me: Hello Danno I have provided a number of reference on wikipedia that include both website and from the books the first one was from http://www.lairweb.org.nz/tiger/conflict11.html it is clearly stated in this website that tigers crossing water are sometimes taken by crocodiles and wikipedia has got edits from this website in the tiger article and they just delete this claim.They should delete other articles as well if they are not accepting it.The second reference I provided was from this website http://www.tieku.org/272239/87.html it is a useful website all encounters written here are taken from reliable resources as famous tiger expert Kailash Sankhala and Valmik Thapar and also from T.v channels(Discovery channel and Animal planet)if these are not accepted than wikipedia is fake because these are authentic reports —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam786123 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] My first thought is to go back to him, tell him to enter the fact (tempered as in "on very rare occasions.."), ideally spaced properly for a change, and show him how to cite these refs with the proviso that they may well not be accepted by the community at large. Would appreciate your thoughts though. Cheers danno 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I agree. best to advise him of a way that at least has a chance of working. I don't want to get into an edit/revert war with him so (unfortunately) ultimately it may be worth reporting him to an admin for a temporary block. --Joe^Talk_Work 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Review of TM103Why did you accept the edit that placed nonsensical text in the reference section? See TM_103 Beam 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Ah. I assumed that that text was meant to go in the 'Recorded Tracks' section and did not see that it was actually in the 'References' section. I've rolled it back to your last edit. Apologies, Joe^Talk_Work 21:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]No worries, I've been reviewing that article a lot lately. Beam 22:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I keep seeing so many of the same articles come up for review again and again because they've been edited by an IP (usually the same people, and often genuine edits). I keep thinking, 'why can't you people just register?!' Haha. --Joe^Talk_Work 22:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]