User talk:JesseBHolmes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, JesseBHolmes! My name is Ryan, aka Acetic Acid. I noticed that you were new and haven't received any messages yet. I just wanted to see how you were doing. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it uses different formatting than other sites that use HTML and CSS. In the long run, though, you'll find that the WikiSyntax is a lot easier and faster than those other ways. Here are a few links to get you started:

There are a lot of policies and guides to read, but I highly recommend reading over those first. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your name on Talk Pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? :)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a nice day. Sincerely, Acetic Acid 05:35, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi JesseBHolmes, I noticed your edit on the Malad City, Idaho page. I too noticed the Welsh emigration per capita claim by the city of Malad a while back and tried to determine if in fact Gaiman, Chubut, Argentina did have a higher Welsh demographic. I have thus far been unable to find a demographic breakdown of Gaiman that tops Malad's reported Welsh ancestry of 23.1%.
Although Malad City reportedly has the highest Welsh descent per capita outside of Wales, BBC Article Idaho State Journal I have yet to find anywhere where the city of Gaiman, or any other source makes the same claim.
Gaiman may in fact be higher than than 23.1% but I have not come across it. I know it has a significant Welsh population. I also have read that in addition to Welsh ancestry, Gaiman presently has British, Irish, and Spanish ancestry along with the Argentine native population. What Welsh descent percentage of Gaiman have you found and will you provide a link to it? Thanks, DL 500 22:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Risch.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Risch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
That's only true for federal government images. State government photos are copyrighted. —Chowbok ☠ 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
For it to be considered "free" on Wikipedia, it must be free for any use—including commercial. —Chowbok ☠ 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
We can use logos because they can't be replaced with free images, unlike with this photo. The photos of Winfrey and Frakes can indeed be used for commercial purposes, at least in the many states that don't recognize publicity rights. —Chowbok ☠ 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Granholm

We already have an adequate free photo of Granholm, so adding a fair-use one is not necessary. —Chowbok ☠ 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a reasonable position to take, but I disagree. My experience has been that people are much less likely to find a free replacement for an image until the fair-use image is deleted (or under threat of deletion, at any rate). The governors photos are a good example of this. In many cases, free photos of the governors have been available for years, but nobody ever bothered to add them to articles in place of the fair-use promo photos until I went around and tagged them for deletion. Suddenly we had several people finding photos at federal-government websites like the Biographical Guide to the U.S. Congress for public domain photos. —Chowbok ☠ 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pelosi

I'm watching the election right now in the House. She hasn't won a majority yet...and hasn't been sworn in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JasonCNJ (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Talk Page

The following is a comment you left on my talk page: Please don't summarily remove portions of articles and expect those changes to stick (as you did with Shelley Sekula-Gibbs). You should give some prior warning on the talk page and try to achieve some sort of consensus; this avoids the sort of edit war I'm seeing in the article's history. And if that consensus, or something close to it, can't be achieved, maybe the edit shouldn't be made!--JesseBHolmes 15:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC) My response: I have no idea what you are talking about. However, to list the specific number of days that she served is information that is not encyclopedic and it is non-notable. Please attempt to focus on the rules of Wikipedia, if you will. And if I see that again, I will remove it without discussion. It does not warrant it. Have a good day!--Getaway 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is one more unwelcome comment you left on my talk page: The length of Sekula-Gibb's term is office is worthy of note (and of inclusion), as it is unusually short. Don't take it personally, but the consensus seems to be that you are mistaken in your view; I believe an administrator would agree with this consensus. --JesseBHolmes 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC) First of all, I want to point out to you that there is clear Wikipedia rule about threats and you have violated that threat with this comment, "I believe an administrator would agree with this consensus." You can contact an admin if you want to, but your threat is unwelcome and a violation of Wikipedia. Second, I have no problem with listing the dates of her service as a recent version of the article does, but stating "59 days" or whatever is inappropriate and I will remove it if I see it again. If you list the dates of her service then a reader can do the math. But to list it as "59 days" is clearly POV and I will correct that POV. Third, I don't really want to talk to you, therefore, I ask that you stop leaving comments on my talk page.--Getaway 22:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The following was is one more unwelcome comment you left on my talk page: There isn't much more to talk about, so you needn't bother responding, but you should adopt a less confrontational style. This isn't a personal confrontation; it's a disagreement about a Wikipedia article. So don't take it personally. --JesseBHolmes 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC) My response: Just in case you missed my point for some reason or other I will repeat: I'm not changing a thing. You don't agree with my opinion you have a right to do that and I have not said anything for which I must apologize. And once again, just in case you missed it before please don't talk to me any more I'm not interested.--Getaway 22:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Police

By finding or createing free images.Geni 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession box for Tony Blair

Hi Jesse, I reverted your restoration of the succession box for Tony Blair as Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds. Please see Talk:Tony Blair#Chiltern_Hundreds_succession_box for an explanaton. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)