User talk:JQTriple7

Please post new messages on the bottom of my talk page, above the disclaimer. Thank you.

Thanks for the note. Lauren Lapkus challenged her fans to add comments similar to mine; just following along. Thanks for your input. --Gilley920 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Just remember in the future that edits like those aren't really for Wikipedia. There may be other websites where humor is appreciated, and of course there is always Uncyclopedia. Also, when adding to User Talk pages, please create a New Section with a Level 2 heading for your post, and of course sign your posts by typing ~~~~. In this case I've done it for you to keep my talk page consistent. Thanks for taking my feedback into account. --JQTriple7 (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think you have confused another edit with mine. My sole contribution to the article in question was stub sorting. I don't see how that could be an NPOV issue. Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I have legitimately made a mistake, but not yet realised it, but it appears to me that you wrote 'He is a dashing personality and the next superstar of Indian television', which does not seem encyclopedic to me. --JQTriple7 (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I have taken a closer look and realised that I have indeed made a mistake and noticed in the edit summary that the most recent edit removed that content, which existed in your edit, but was there even before that. Sincere apologies. --JQTriple7 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I am not Feuerstein, so this is not an autobiography. Everymorning (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was another contributor to the article with the username Feuerstein, and obviously I got confused somehow, If you saw what he did to the article... Anyway, for some reason I must of thought that was all along and I couldn't rollback. Sorry about that. --JQTriple7 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hello from dragonas74, the variations on the 2015 remix of the beatles' "free as a bird" can be easily heard playing the 1+ dvd, and comparing the 2 excisting versions ( the 1995 remix and the recent one).Since George Harrison sings a different line on the 2015 remix, his vocal must have been edited from a different take ( he sings whatever happened to the LIFE that we once knew on the 1995 mix and the LOVE that we once knew on the 2015 mix).Thank u very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonas74 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out to me. However, that does seem to fall under the category of Original Research, which isn't allowed under WP:NOR. If you can find a reliable source online, then your edit can be accepted. Also, please post at the bottom of talk pages, under a new section, and sign your comments. I have done these things for you this time, but in the future please remember that. Thanks, --JQTriple7 (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed I was marked for review for creating XHXM-FM (I'm on a Mexican radio crusade). I have autopatrolled rights (I'm not purposely marking my own pages for review). Why did the page come up for new page patrol? Raymie (t • c) 07:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't think of that. I was looking through the New Pages Feed and reviewing articles, And Page Curation marked it as Reviewed. Sorry about that! JQTriple7 (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. I do have a high article creation volume (I have created several hundred stub articles on Mexican radio stations this year alone), so I do understand the potential concern. Raymie (t • c) 07:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JQ,

I wanted to discuss some points about List of the oldest living state leaders-Bias. I am a fellow DRN volunteer and I came to the board after getting message about DRN. Please don't take anything i write as criticism. I actually appreciate the work you have done. I am only trying to help with ideas

1. The main article is about world leaders per se. Not any type of leader. So believe the designation of Elizabeth should simply be the current or last title held. That's it.
2. Anything mentioned on Wikipedia will have to comply with Biographies of living persons policy. Note that this mean that the article may have to be distilled down to the most neutral and verifiable version possible that avoids any controversy.
3. More as a continuation of above, I think there is lot of original research - through personal opinions - happening for this article. I think, again as the information is about living person, the discussion should focus on only whats verifiable.

Hope this helps --Wikishagnik (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Gilliam (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The edits by Khairulash were reverted because they cited questionable sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources and self-published sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources Aricialam (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see I am not the only user to notice that there has been repeated vandalism and edit warring on this article. I stand by my decision I made some time ago to revert your edits and place a warning on your talk page. In future, also please put new messages at the bottom of talk pages. Thanks, JQTriple7 ^talk 22:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi JQTRIPLE7, can I ask that you assist in helping improve this article. Aricialam has persistently made it very difficult for other editors to improve this article. I think it is obvious there is room for improvement and there have been many attempts to improve it in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lampoon1983 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lampoon1983: I would be happy to help with this page, but unfortunately it has been fully protected for edit warring. I don't have the needed permissions to edit the article. If you can solve the dispute on the talk page, you can request for a decrease in protection level at Requests for Page Protection. JQTriple7 ^talk 06:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir. I saw you message and i admit, what i said wasnt nice and i wouldnt be suprised if you kept it as it was. However, everything i put down was true. He actualy did that, and i can think of no better way to descrie him other than evil. SO, in summery, i respect and understand you reasoning, and will not edit the page again, but i stand by the idea that eveything i typed was true. Thank you so much for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:C202:1440:919B:8433:2F3D:E42E (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, 2601:281:C202:1440:919B:8433:2F3D:E42E. Thanks for bringing this up with me here on my talk page. Thanks very much for agreeing not to edit like that again. Wikipedia does have a policy on Neutrality, particularly on Biographies of a Living Person. Also, any content added should be verifiable. Thanks for your understanding, JQTriple7 ^talk 05:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole privacy section is absolutely abysmal, and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. You cannot simply allude to the fact an article may or may not contain information relevant to the subject matter, the actual subject matter needs to be visible (excerpt, quote, etc.). I suggest you keep a citation needed, unless you want to go into that article and dig up what's relevant, because no one else will, and that is part of where Wikipedia fails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.254.156.232 (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I reverted your edits not because they were invalid points, but because you put some form of comment in article space, which is visible to the public. You can put comments in <!-- --> in future. JQTriple7 ^talk 06:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include "learning styles" in this page. It is not tied to adult education by any of the chief theorists in that discipline and the individual learning styles that you included is empirically contraindicated, as a modicum of research in this field would reveal. Lev Lafayette (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You removed cited content without giving an explanation. Your reasoning may be valid, but please use an edit summary explaining your changes in future. Furthermore, it's not really any concern of mine what happens on that article, provided it isn't vandalism. You may like to discuss it on the talk page. JQTriple7 ^talk 07:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. I am doing this for a final project for college and essentially I only need it up until the 20th of this month (December). I did not know that an edit summary was something I need to do, I'm new to Wikipedia, but I've completely changed my section and I will add a summary with it. I have no intentions of offending anyone and making any assumptions, I'm just trying to complete the project and still remain neutral. If you have any concerns with my new section please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcampbell30 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just use an edit summary in future. Other than that, I don't have a problem with it. JQTriple7 ^talk 07:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JQTriple7: The sources that are being cited either do not backup what is being claimed or are very partisan sources. Of note is the IP Address of those making the changes, see Request for Protection for more information Chad.huber (talk) 07:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	It's good to have you on the team ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As outlined in the guide, I am confirming here that I wish to sign up for the process, and that I have read, signed and understood the Privacy Policy and the Guide. My diff for the Identification Noticeboard is 14997962. JQTriple7 ^talk 09:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JQTriple7&: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JQTriple7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 23:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your restoration of material that was removed by the user who put it there in the first place. The material had all kinds of problems and a discussion of sorts was started on the article's discussion page. If you really think the material should be restored, please make the case on the discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's irrelevant to me what you people want to do. I merely reverted what appeared to me to be vandalism using an external, off-wiki tool called Huggle. Due to the lack of context (it may not be practical to check the talk page every time) sometimes myself and other patrollers would revert what appears to be vandalism but isn't, JQTriple7 ^talk 20:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we had an exchange a few months back regarding the "Mohammed" page (which has still not be resolved, but I've resigned that Wikipedia simply does not want it to be). there is another page which I have dedicated a lot of research to but is being challenged despite all the citations and sourcing. I'm requesting guidance from you to see if I have filed the request for mediation properly here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Italy I'd like to ensure this is "by the book" but as it is my first time doing so, I would like some assistance. thanks.Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Seedsforchange (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:S M Sehgal Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Reviewer, 

Can you please tell me a little more about which parts are not written correctly. I am very sincere in wanting to do this correctly. Any more advice you can give me will be greatly appreciated. Thank you!!Seedsforchange (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Seedsforchange (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:S M Sehgal Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Reviewer, I request your help please. I want to make this article fit the wiki criteria and I hope you can give me more guidance on how my article sounds like an essay. I am not a technophile by any means--but I am sincere in my intent. Can you give me any example of what parts are not appropriate. I looked carefully at other foundation pages (like the Gates Foundation) and thought I was following a similar format. Please helpSeedsforchange (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Seedsforchange (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My intention on Boeing 777 was to revert the edits of 2003:70:cf3d:bb01:cd2c:405d:1ab7:7f05. I guess I didn't see they were already reverted.Crboyer (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's all good. Nothing will come of it, it's gone now. :) JQTriple7 ^talk 10:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JQTriple7! Thank you for the opportunity that through the Teahouse I can write to you. I am very new here, I am working now on a 6 years old article that was not properly sourced, I am improving it, but I have almost no one who would help me a bit to control what I am doing. I found more than 40 new sources, I built them into the article, and now I am kindly asking you, would you take a glance to my work? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zolt%C3%A1n_Deme My other problem is that this tag "Find sources: "Zoltán Deme" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images" proved to be useless for reaching the sources of the 1960-1980 decades, especially the sources of the past communist countries in East Europe where most of the libraries very poorly digitized. For example "Scholar" gives 1 citation, though just with 10 minutes research I got immediately 20 citations! [[1]] page 65 [[2]] p.2 [[3]] p.23 [[4]] p.1 [[5]] p.289 [[6]] p.5 [[7]] p.2 [[8]] p.353 [[9]] p.35 [[10]] p.1 [[11]] p.46 [[12]] p.75 [[13]] p.63 [[14]] p.84 [[15]] p.64 [[16]] p.1 [[17]] p.48 [[18]] p.317 [[19]] p.196 [[20]] p.101. (Plus I got many items, as "required reading" in the universities, like [[21]] p.1 [[22]] p.1 [[23]] p.48 [[24]] and so on). For other example, Books, Google Books gives 3 items, while this site (and others) show the pictures and data of more than 20 items! [[25]] [[26]] [[27]] This misleads almost everyone, presents the subject non-notable with only one citation and three books, thus, I had to go over this problem and collect printed material. Would you kindly investigate the refreshed article, is my work now sufficient? I saw your contributions and you seem to me an expert of Wikipedia works with erudition, would you please help me a little bit? If you would have any advice, any proposal, any suggestion please let me know. Sincerely yours, Norbert (a Hungarian). 89.133.187.29 (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JQTriple7, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Why do you threat to ban people who add cited sources to articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheeseMasterX (talk •

Social Justice page does not have "proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published". The page is full of bias, and needs more criticism in the page. The whole page needs to revamped, and is super unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheeseMasterX (talk • contribs) 08:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, JQTriple7. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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, JQTriple7. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

Merry Christmas JQTriple7!!


Hi JQTriple7, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :-) The Anti-Harassment Tools team at the Wikimedia Foundation will start building these granular blocking tools in a few weeks and we've asked WMF designer Alex Hollender to help us make some wireframes so the tools are intuitive to MediaWiki users.

.

Hello, JQTriple7. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]