User talk:DJac75

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
Read the article describing how to edit a page and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
When editing pages, use the preview button before submitting and try to fill in the summary box for every edit.
Eventually, read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
If you need help, post a question at the Newcomers' Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Death Penalty '72 vs '73

Nice catch on the ACLU article! Sdedeo 20:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

You are doing a good job dealing with the defamation specialists at Joe Sobran, etc. Let me know if you need a hand sometime. I've been watching the Sobran article and other, and have seen numerous atempts to insert POV content into them for the sake of some PC agenda. Dick Clark 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to keep an eye on it until the cavalry arrives. TY for the support. DJac75

wethechildren.com

I can't find any agenda on this website, When Are We Crossing A Child's Sexual Boundaries?, that appears to me to be weird, radical, or controversial. They appear, at a casual review, to be an anti-spanking/child abuse group. What did I miss? -Will Beback 05:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Parenting classes for welfare mothers seems to me to be a non-weird, non-radical proposal. It might be inappropriate, for one reason of another, but it isn't weird. I don't know that I agree with the exact formulation of "don't touch one's child's genitals past age two, even to apply medicine", which seems a bit strict, but that does not seem to be the core of their message. Are they well-enough known to be controversial? I figured them for a few do-gooders with a website. Who is ETAY, and how are they related to this group? Cheers, -Will Beback 07:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Joe Sobran

Thanks for the note, I appreciate it. I'm not sure if you saw the note that I left on his talk page, but after I reverted him, I looked through the edit history and saw that there was a conflict going on — and thought I'd take my hands off, since I don't know the first thing about the subject of the article. I'm bad enough when it's an article I do think I understand. Hope that you all can get it worked out; let me know if I can help in any way. Tijuana Brass 18:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backmasking

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. TheJabberwʘck 00:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the wording of the article? I reverted it pending your explanation. Thanks, TheJabberwʘck 00:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Do you have a source for this? Because most Beatles backmasking was never proven. TheJabberwʘck

Again, there needs to be a source if you want to put a message in the Deliberate section. You are probably aware that the Beatles backmasking is pretty controversial - just look at how many alleged messages of theirs there are - and I don't want to endorse the belief that they did backmask without evidence. I moved the message to the alleged section pending a source. TheJabberwʘck 22:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my apologies, I didn't see that message on the talk page. Thanks for getting the sources. TheJabberwʘck 03:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo! St. Jimmy 15:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again ([1])! I keep forgetting about your citation. I'm going to add it into the table. Λυδ α cιτγ^{(TheJabberwock)} 02:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alias?

It can be somewhat confusing, or even seem misleading, that you appear on edit comments (I suppose automatically) as DJac75 but sign on Talk pages as StJimmy (or are there more aliases?). Perhaps it would be better to make up your mind about the best Wiki-pen name. Fastifex 11:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I am violating any wikirules by using a pen name that's different than my login. One would suppose that if wiki didn't want editors to do that, they wouldn't have set it up so we can. St. Jimmy 21:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is misleading. Skinnyweed 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are you blind, ignorant or what?

claiming cop killer was never released. hello?! get ice t's book, read it and then come back and edit body count articles. --80.134.161.156 00:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bought the CS on June 29, 1992. It was entitled "Body Count." It was always entitled "Body Count." Sorry, but that's the way it is. St. Jimmy 00:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Creamy Army

The Creamy Army wants you!!Creamy Army WikiProject Change your name to something Creamy. Creamy4 (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello DJac75! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 146 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Shalane McCall - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DJac75. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DJac75. 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]