User talk:Jcheckler

| ==Welcome!==

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (Jcheckler) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

If you are interested in California-related themes, you may want to check out the California Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to California related articles you may want to join WikiProject California (signup here).

San Jose California population estimates

Editor, please do NOT include the California Department of Finance estimates for San Jose's population. This has been discussed at length, and the consensus was to use US Census figures only, in compliance with guidelines on WP:USCITY. If you disagree, please make your case on the discussion page, as inclusions will simply be reverted otherwise.--Louiedog (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MY REPLY

WP:USCITY specifies that US Census figures should be used whenever possible, but that supplemental figures from other reliable sources can be added if it contributes to the article information or integrity. The CA DOF population estimates or any other state or local agency, could quite possibly be more accurate than Census information and there is no reason not to include it. The U.S. Census is almost certainly not as accurate. The methodology utilized, and the voluntary nature of the Census, allows for the inherent flawed system currently in place. Individual states, localities, counties, municipalities, are much better suited to count their own populations more accurately; even with the (allowed and possible) potential bias for receiving Federal or state tax revenues.

Jcheckler (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

Thank-you for your contributions to 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion however the external Links you have been providing violate our content guideline on WP:External Links specifcally WP:ELNO and WP:SPAM. In addition please review our WP:LAYOUT guidelines for proper placement of External links below the reference section. BB7 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article San Jose, California, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Altering US Census results for San Francisco Bay Area Combined Statistical Area

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, I'm sorry I offended you. I understand that the word "vandalism" implies ill intent, and of course I had no way of knowing the intentions behind your edits. I used the standard template out of laziness, not out of a desire to upset you or turn Wikipedia into a "police state". I apologize for my laziness. Who you are or what you've given to Wikipedia is not the issue here. In your future edits, please preserve the verifiability of facts which are verifiable. This means updating the reference every time you change a fact to contradict the cited source. Sincerely, —Stepheng3 (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Thanks Stephen. I appreciate the sentiments. Almost every one of the people who commented on my talk page or has "corrected" or reverted my edits, (seriously) had that juvenile power tripping mentality. These kind of people don't belong on WP. This will not be tolerated. Many "kids" or immature adults editing WP are including a personal bias toward their city, their state, their other special interest etc. and that has no place in an objective encyclopedia. That was not the intent of the WP creators.

These people need to get out of their Mommie's house more, and get a life. Someone who without doing their own research to verify or enhance someone else's work (and without discussion [or gathered consensus] as needed), and who blindly reverts edits, discounting and nullifying all the time and effort someone has put into editing an article, makes the original editor want to give up doing anything with WP again; effectively driving away people who may have a lot to contribute to WP. Many of these people make no (or very few) useful, informative edits themselves. They simply try to "correct" or police other people's edits. They actually detract from WP. I have no time to argue with people. I will not get into a reverting war. Time is precious. Time is money, and WP editors are giving freely of their time and efforts. Every edit I make has a basis in fact, and will be properly referenced whenever and wherever possible. I will not tolerate WP users/editors attempting to include their irrelevant personal biased information into encyclopedic articles.

As for individual articles: Just about everything on WP, -templates, guidlines etc., are not written in stone. They are "guidelines" to follow as much as possible, as closely as possible, and whenever possible. WP is a living, breathing, contantly evolving, online encyclopedia. It is not a static statistical book. That is the power of it. It evolves as time, life and societal change evolves. The spirit of WP is: if I made an edit that fails to cite a reference, rather than calling me a "vandal" and reverting it, you should verify my edit, and add the reference yourself if you can find a reference. That is constructive and adds value to WP. I have done it numerous times. If I read a statement which to me sounds questionable and fails to cite a reference, I will try to verify it and find a reliable source. Then I will add the reference to the article. If I read a sentence, statement, or "opinion" true or not, that has no business in the article, -I will delete it and explain why I did. I am here to improve WP; not to detract from it.

All of the edits I have ever made (thousands since 2005), generally followed Wikipedia guidelines and the various WP templates. Occasionally I have failed to cite my references on a few edits, for a variety of reasons:

1) A link to a "reliable" reference cannot be found on the internet. The idea behind WP is to make available free, reliable, trustworthy, information to the masses; and to cite as many verifiable references as possible. Not every statement, or sentence (of purported fact) requires a reference after it; nor is it possible. Thousands (possibly millions) of references cited on WP may not be reliable. There is much knowledge and information complied over the milennia, and much of it is not on the internet (which is barely 20 years old). It may not be readily available in published book form either. That is no reason not to add potentially useful, factual information to WP. Not adding the information would retract from the utility of WP and from the common knowledge of mankind. It would be better (in many cases) to simply put the WP notation ^{[citation needed]}.

2) The verifiable information is available to the user either on the same article page, or on another WP page which is very obviously linked, so if the user wants to verify it, they can simply click on the Combined Statistical Areas Wikilink in the very first sentence. That isn't an excuse for not updating the reference, and I intended to do it the next day. I needed to get to bed. Sometimes work has to be done peacemeal. I didn't even have that chance however in this case, because someone (you) "corrected" me, barely an hour after I had made the edit. That is what I mean about policing. There are many more useful things to do than "watch" a WP article and make it your baby by "protecting" it from so called vandalism. I am not specifically referring to you, but rather a whole group of people who have nothing better to do, possibly because they have nothing of real value to contribute. There are very few people in the entire world who desire to actually vandalize a WP article.

Again, the idea is to include the most up-to-date information as possible, just as published encyclopedias release a new version every year. The current SFBAY CSA article lacks that information. Are we going to wait until the next decennial census, until we update population statistics? That would be even behind published volumes.

So I know I have given a rediculously long explaination/dissertation on your talk page. If you actually read it in it's entirety, I thank you and commend you for taking my opinion into consideration. Feel free to delete it. I won't be offended, -but I will include it on my own talk page for people to read and comment on. I would like to gather consensus to see if most people agree with me. Almost every article has something wrong with it or could be improved, but that is no reason not to leave the article (and the information therein) generally, live on the site, and available so people can improve or modify it as they choose and as time permits.

I have nothing against anyone on WP, rather I simply want people to work together instead of taking a contentious attitude (that many times seems the pervasive attitude) towards other WP editors. I will never hold a contentious attitude except when and where warranted.

Kind Regards,

-John

Jcheckler (talk) 08:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Lorenzo Valley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castle Rock State Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected Disambiguation

I corrected the disambiguation and piped to the correct state park. Didn't realize there were two State parks of the same name in the U.S. Should have checked before assuming. Thanks (automated) DPL bot ;)

Jcheckler (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Jose, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Clara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of tallest buildings in Honolulu 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:

[city]] that currently contains over 470 [[skyscraper|high-rises]]. It ranks 4th among U.S. cities (after Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles, and just ahead of San Francisco, in terms of number

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eastridge 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:

* [http://www.greatamericaparks.com/eastridge.html Pictures and history of the mall.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people from San Jose, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bill Walsh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

about your page

You might want to make your home page, better than blank,

(Do do doggy 10:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC))

My Reply

If I had the time, I would. I don't.

WP is not about me or my homepage. It is about creating or improving factual encyclopedia articles.

Jcheckler (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2015 (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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not adhering to neutral point of view at John Birch Society

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to John Birch Society. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Please address ALL comments about your edit to the ARTICLE's talk page. 32.218.40.185 (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jcheckler. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jcheckler. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jcheckler. 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]

Wikipedia is not meant to be impartial

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:RS , particularly WP:BIASED. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your talkpage posts

Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopedia, and its talkpages are for collaboration to improve articles. Please don't misuse them for political speech about things like the "Communist Total Enslavement Agenda against Humanity", or Wikipedia being an "untrustworthy bastion of special interest Leftism/ Liberalism/ neo-Marxism", as you recently did at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Your own talkpage is also a Wikipedia talkpage, and not intended for political propaganda. Plus, no place on Wikipedia is appropriate for antisemitic dogwhistles about the Rothschild family, international bankers, globalists, and the like. I have removed those posts by you. Please don't re-add them, or other similar material. Bishonen | tålk 22:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Yes. It will be much better for you to not mention politics or religion anywhere. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed (and revision-deleted) your attacks on other editors. Any continued behaviour of this type is likely to lead to a block. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly and obviously I have never "attacked" anyone. But you know that already. Rather than discussing or debating my concerns on/ in an open forum and giving EQUAL weight to everyone's opinions/ concerns, you and the other Administrators are proving my contentions. Rather than correcting issues, you are deleting my replies ON MY OWN TALK PAGE, and are ensuring that Wikipedia/ Wikimedia will garner less Donations/ Revenue. I have recorded all of these conversations (saved Comments, WebPages, and Metadata) and will be posting them for the WORLD TO SEE on other platforms including YouTube, Blogger, Facebook, Twitter, etc. etc. etc. to easily and quickly prove my points that Wikipedia is a Discredited Partisan Corrupted Non-Impartial Website where Administrators Descriminate against innocent people who have donated and contributed to the site for Decades. Jcheckler (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Hi Jcheckler! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved, in this section. Thank you. Bishonen | tålk 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the discussion about? Am I supposed to be scared? Are you going to "frame" me with some unsubstantiated nonsense indictments? Jcheckler (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being clearly not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Daniel (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]