User talk:Jaydec

Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. I shall reply on your talk page.

Arsenal F.C. squad numbers

Hi there - thanks for creating & improving the page. A good reference for Arsenal squad numbers up until 2005 is [1], by the way - and I think there'll be references for other years around as well. Qwghlm (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sword of Truth Taskforce

Are you interested in joining the Sword of Truth Taskforce? I saw your recent edit to Richard Rahl and am glad for it. SADADS (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

resource room

Thanks for the lightening speed of cleaning up what was the messy page I tried to make. Impressive!

Jim Steele (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Censorship in Italy

Talk:Censorship in Italy--93.45.121.7 (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Parkstone Press USA

Hello Jaydec, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Parkstone Press USA) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

please help

Hello, You posted on ym page a while back when I first started here and sent me some helpful links as I created my first page. I believe I followed the procedure, when creating a page (resource room) adding not only references but tried to make it according the the WP format. Now it has been nominated for deletion for someone saying it is not long enough. Can you help here? I'm not only still new but out of my depth with people circumventing WP policy to delete people's hard work!

Jim Steele (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

LCA Picture

Dear Jaydec,

Thanks for the help - I've never tried a photo before. I'm going to change the caption to reflect more the subject of the page. Hope this doesn't become frustrating for you.

Best regards, AmesJussellR (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

resource room

Yes, must have been result of someone with an axe to grind? Meanwhile, I've been busy, in a "bored-and-nothing-to-do-unlike-some-poor-souls-who-seem addicted-and-waste-away-on-this-site" kind of way with A Perfect Day for Bananafish. Don't know if you're familiar with Salinger. My intent was to expand the article, in the process I ran into an angry experienced editor who seems very reactionary. Now the page is protected because of a 3RR. Anyway, it's kind of funny, because you can see on my page how angry this man is over this little page, and me this "rookie" editor. Kind of scary, actually.

Jim Steele (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

salinger

Thanks for the response and encouragement. I'm going to take a hands-off approach to this article for a bit. I invite you to edit once it becomes (unlocked). Your right-on about the quotations. Moreover, your more than capable than I am when it comes to this--and it's from my own, personal experience that the more "die-hard" the Salinger fan, the bigger the phony. Pit for the Fat Lady, pity indeed.

Jim Steele (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Stub?

G'Day! (or afternoon or evening) Any advice on how to remove the fact the Resource Room page is marked as a stub? I've added quite a few references. Can I unilaterally place it low-importance? You would know how and have been one of the few consistently friendly/helpful people on this site. Jim Steele (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DC Armory Entry

Just wondering where you are getting your marching orders from to change info on the DC Armory. You might try doing some homework as I have in the actualy ownership of the building. The Federal Govt purhased what few row houses that existed along the property in the 1920's and early 1930's. The rest of the property was already Fed property as it had never been given over to devlopers or private owners. The DC Armory was built for the sole purpose of housing and training the DC National Guard. Period. There is no deed/title on the building and has never been deeded over to the District of Columbia, ever. Lack of title/deed would of course show ownership to be the Fed Govt as the property was Fed property when the United States became a country in 1776. J.haffly (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DC Armory Entry

If you do your homework, as it shows you havent, RFK IS owned by DSEC while the DC Armory is not, there is an actual title/deed for that property. The Feds deeded it over in 1988. Do some homework, I have and can back it up 100%. DSEC does not have a leg to stand on in this.

Jim J.haffly (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My changes are supported 100% by the tax records

Not sure how you support what you are saying. Just because a semi-quasi govt agencey says they own the DC Army National Guard Armory doesnt make it true. Ask DSEC for a title, trust me, they cannot produce it. One does not exist. Never has. This building was built 100% with Congressional money. It has never been turned over to the District and never will be in the forseeable future. DSEC wishes it was their's and that's the simple truth. If you want to, contact the District's AG, trust me, they know what is going on.

Jim

J.haffly (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Latest Change

Just read your stuff. A good portion of what you have is correct. However, ownership has never been WACA's, ever. My research at the title office confirms this. The Armory was constructed soley for the training and headquarters of the DC National Guard. The dual-purpose was put in in-order to get Congress to sign off on spending the money for it. Normally, when a State constructs an Armory or other buildings there is a 75%/25% cut in the money. The Feds provide 75% while the State provides the other 25%. In the case of the District, there is no State. The entire amount was Federal. The land started in Fed hands with a few properties on the outlaying rim that the Feds purchased in the late 1920's and early '30's. All ownership issues stopped there. In fact, you can and I did, find the paperwork/title transferring RFK to the District with caveats as well as title/paperwork transferring the land where the Metro is.

Ownership of the Armory has never been transferred, no matter what WACA says or has on their website. I have correspondence from the AG's office to support Federal ownership.

With that said, WACA manages the events they have here at the Armory but they do not and will not ever own the Armory itself and do not and will not ever manage the Armory.

James Haffly Cultural Resource Progam Manager Distric of Columbia Army National Guard J.haffly (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RollCall

Just wanted to add a line I just read in your RollCall ref...

"The authority manages the sports and entertainment use of the Armory as well as the surrounding festival grounds. Additionally, the authority owns and manages RFK Stadium — which is next door to the Armory — as well as Nationals Park and the Washington Convention Center."

The article states, correctly, that they MANAGE the sports and entertainment use of the Armory. That's it. No ownership is conveyed in managing the Armory.

Thanks,

James Haffly Cultural Resource Manager District of Columbia Army National Guard J.haffly (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay....

I have removed the statement about a citation being needed as it is WASC that needs to prove ownership, NOT the Federal govt. Trust me, this is impossible as there is no title or deed since the property was Federal when the construction of the Armory began and has never changed hands, UNLIKE where RFK stands. The RFK transfer is documented and I of course have copies of it. Since no deed exist, never did, the ownership of course stayed Federal. No transfer of ownership has ever taken place and just because WASC says they own it, means nothing. In fact, the conflict is on their end as the articles you sighted basically state their plan. In order to fulfill that plan, the y MUST own the Armory, which they do not and trust me, they never will. An Act of Congress will have to happen for that to be, since the building is in fact Federal property. As I've stated before, the Attorny General's office of DC sides with the DCARNG in this matter. No 2-bit outfit such as WASC is going to say otherwise.

There is no conflict of interest on my end as it IS MY JOB as the Cultural Resource Manager to maintain the historic fabric of the building. I know the history of this building better then anyone I have met.

Again, no citation is needed for the Feds to maintain ownership. Just so you know, and I hope you do, the land the building is on is in fact Dept of Interior, managed by the Parks Divisison, just as the land RFK sits on as well.

Simply put, WASC manages ONLY the events they schedule in the Drill Hall. They have no authority over the building at all. None. Fact is, the military mission is first and foremost over anything that WASC has scheduled. If the DCARNG needs the Drill Hall for some military purpose and WASC has an event planned, guess what, we can and will remove them from the Drill Floor. It's that simple. The DCARNG is a Federalized unit housed in a Federal building.

Jim J.haffly (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Frank G buildings

I noticed that you support spinning off the building section of the Frank Gehry. I have started work on List of Frank Gehry buildings in my User:Oldag07/Sandbox. It would be greatly appreciated if you could help edit it before it is public. I think I will put it up sometime this Saturday. Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

NP. Thanks for the input. Oldag07 (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Whitespace

I notice that you have been rearranging photos of some aircraft articles to reduce whitespace, such as Embraer E-Jets. I don't have a problem with you doing that, but I have checked the articles, both before and after your changes and don't see any whitespace problem either way on either Firefox or Google Chrome running on Linux. I was just wondering which browser you are using? - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Yeah I suspect that you are right - I was testing IE8 a couple of days ago at discovered that it renders a lot of webpages wrong, but then it is a non-standards compliant browser and Wikipedia's pages are standards compliant, so that isn't surprising, really. Perhaps you could check the same pages in Firefox and see how they look - it might save you a lot of work if it is just an IE problem! Just a thought, but you might want to try out Google Chrome - it is standards compliant, includes spell checking and is very fast loading pages compared to both FF and IE. Our house has all switched to Chrome. - Ahunt (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey that is great - what you were changing didn't hurt the pages at all, but it seems like a lot for work to try to make up for the fact that Microsoft can't design a browser that works right! - Ahunt (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Italics in citation templates

Hi there, I noticed you doing some good disambiguation work! Just to let you know, that when you add italics to a citation template, it may have the opposite result from what you expect. The "work" or "newspaper" parameter automatically uses italics, and when you specify italics, it cancels them out. See the effect of your edit here for example. Hope that makes sense! Regards, --BelovedFreak 09:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Arsenal F.C. squad numbers

I have nominated Arsenal F.C. squad numbers, 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/Arsenal F.C. squad numbers. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandman888 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to use one of your photographs

Hi, Jaydec, I'd like to use one of your photo's in a TV show I produce and credit your real name, instead of your username. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StageThree (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagging of "unreferenced" articles

I see that you tagged Susie Porter as being unreferenced. It clearly has two refs in the Ext links section, so better, more informative tags to use for articles like that are {{No footnotes}} and {{BLP sources}}. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! Mike Restivo (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations Jaydec, your image Image:Maple Leaf Gardens, east side.JPG was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this:

Random picture of the day

Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto

Image credit: Jaydec (talk · contribs)

Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:The Doldrums Josh Pyke.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:The Doldrums Josh Pyke.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

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) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jaydec. 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)

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jaydec. 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)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Doldrums Josh Pyke.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Doldrums Josh Pyke.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)