User talk:Jhawkinson

This user participates in the Filmmaking task force.

Sandbox

User:Jhawkinson/Sandbox

Todo

(untouched since Feb. 2008, whoops...)

1. Add picture to Cue mark
2. Convert List of motion picture film stocks to tabular form; still waiting on feedback.
3. Update something for MP Photographic processing: ECP-2D, ECN, etc. Even E-6 process could use work... (List of photographic processes, Category:Photographic processes
4. Telecine -> Telecine (piracy)
5. Address rampant confusion in Surround sound
6. Three-phase electric power#Color Codes issues, more
7. Film perforations, table of dimensions
8. Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking/Assessment list-class and other template omissions, Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#List class?, Template:Grading scheme, Template:WikiProject Filmmaking, Template talk:WikiProject Filmmaking
9. Cues disambiguation?
10. Cue sheet rename? --- what a mess!
11. Contact print and Contact printer expand for MP
12. dolby stereo/dolby surround/sr/a/nr/etc.
    • Dolby SR: Dolby Stereo SR, Dolby Analog SR
    • Dolby noise reduction system: Dolby-B Noise Reduction, Dolby-B, Dolby A
    • Dolby Laboratories has overviews of all pertinent
    • Dolby Stereo has mergetags, discussion: Dolby Stereo 70 mm Six Track
    • Dolby Surround has mergetags
    • Dolby Pro Logic has mergetags
13. Telecine / motion picture film scanner merger?
14. Universal film leader, Countdown, Leader blah!
15. User talk:Green451 in re 16mm film
16. User talk:Wahiba in re Film stock and 9.5mm film
17. Talk:Windowbox (film) in re irony
18. Talk:Coded_Anti-Piracy#"piracy" as a biased term?
19. Trailer cleanup and Teaser trailer. merge tag fixes.
20. Foot-lambert lowercase issues via User talk:Ian Strachan
21. PDFbot issues via User talk:Dispenser
22. Platter (the horror!)
23. National Electric Code, Electrical conduit
24. deluxe's FCT(tm) CAP
25. Template:Comparison of video formats navbox, incorporating res/etc. info for formats in Template:Home video and perhaps also Template:AVconn
26. Liaden universe booklist updates, &c.
27. Rename Template:Home video
28. Issueskid's surround edits
29. Tobermori's perforation edits

Thank you

Thank you for the advice regarding what to do with dead references. I will apply that convention to my future editing. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

uw-v3

Well, shit happens. It is just too many fake death news in wikipedia celebrated by paparazzi recently, so I overreacted. It looks like I have to re-read WP:AGF before goind to bed next time. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Heymann

Thank you. David in DC (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Thanks for the tip on adding ref links. As for most recent changes, please feel free to re-add as you think best-- I'm not really sure what to do with the whole USSC section, aside from omitting the claim that anonmyous is a nuclear-armed. :) --09:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HectorMoffet (talk • contribs) 09:51, 26 January 2013‎

Student newspapers

Reliable sources are published materials with a reliable publication process or written by authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. While some student newspapers may meet the first qualification, the one question [1] does not as the article's capitalization ("...residents of the bay state..."), factual ("Markey, a Democrat who has represented Massachusetts' 5th district since 1976..."), and grammatical ("Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) is currently the only person to have officially declared candidacy for the 2013 Special Elections") errors make it's reliability questionable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz talk

“Dervorguilla, do you mind if I wrap your comment in this part of the Talk:Aaron Swartz page in a divbox so it's more clear? […] jhawkinson (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)”

Motion to wrap comment is ALLOWED. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edward R. Korman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prescription (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) 23:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Weaponized indeed

Our mutual friend has filed a weaponized complaint, though at AN3 instead of your recommended venue. Though perhaps that's coming down the pike as well. This is a bore. I'd welcome your advice. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I never thought of the time difference. Thanks for the correction! – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Birth date and age

Hi. Just wanted to mention that I responded to your comment at Template talk:Birth date and age#Comma or semicolon instead of parens?. I also included a work-around via Template:Age that could be used until such time as your suggestion is implemented. -- Zyxw (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

infobox Adrian schoolcraft

Hi, i must have had the page open from a time before you added the info box. i don't know how to add it back in and its a good addition, so please do add it back in to the current version of the page (copy and paste from your version?)

I'm finding the WP code editing to be somewhat confusing or i would try to so it Myself. I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjk (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi John. I didn't intend to remove any info box. I'll check on it. (re Adrian Schoolcraft) Thanks for the note. jjk

update - someone fixed it. if it was you, you have my thanks. Jjk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjk (talk • contribs) 16:11, 30 November 2013‎

Hi john, hope I'm in the right place this time. Thanks for the update. jjk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjk (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

NY Times

The edit in question was the only one ever made by editor I.D.'d only by IPN, this January 13th. I suspect vandalism. Please erase this post. Activist (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge Tall buildings/references

When it comes to references I am not the best. Hertz1888 usually cleans up my work. As for the building heights in these studies, these are the best that are available to me at this time. Once I am back in the states I plan on spending a day down in Cambridge digging through archives of city planning records to get the numbers straight on a lot of these buildings. Expect revisions to most of the buildings on this list after that. For the mean time, this is the best I can get off the internet and from archboston.org. If you have additional leads, please let me know. Mountainfister2015 (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Categorization of Richard G. Kopf re: Category:United States magistrate judges

• I am somewhat puzzled as to your reversion of my addition of Category:United States magistrate judges to Richard G. Kopf. I would imagine the vast majority of all members of that category are former and not current magistrate judges and I have always been under the impression is that this category is for anyone who has ever been a magistrate judge, regardless of whether they are currently holding that office. Indeed, the vast majority of incumbent magistrate judges fail the inclusion criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, both as to WP:GNG and the judicial inclusion criteria, which limits inclusion to Article III Judges, Article IV Judges and Article I Judges who sit on notable courts. Thus to limit the category to incumbent magistrate judges would result in a virtually unpopulated category. Also, the category itself makes no mention as to its inclusion criteria, which would make the assumption that both current and former magistrate judges are included. Anyhow, I will wait to hear your thoughts on this and I will not revert at this time. Safiel (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• @BD2412: I am inviting the category creator to give his thoughts also. Safiel (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have this discussion on Category talk:United States magistrate judges. I don't disagree with your logic about the inclusion criteria for magistrate judges, but the category should be assumed to mean its plain language meaning, not "current and former" unless there is guidance to the contrary. I also suspect there are a lot more than 86 former magistrate judges with Wikipedia pages. jhawkinson (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it would not make sense to require subjects in this category to be current magistrate judges. By comparison, every other category of judge includes both current and former judges in the category. For example Category:United States Supreme Court justices contains both current and former justices, including those who held other offices after being a justice. Sonia Sotomayor is categorized in both Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Category:Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, despite not currently being in either (as are all current and former judges of either court). Randall Ray Rader is categorized in both Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Category:Judges of the United States Court of Federal Claims despite having left the Federal Circuit, and not having served on the Court of Claims for 25 years. A large proportion of judges currently in the magistrate judge category are former magistrate judges now serving on the District Courts (Claire C. Cecchi, Michael A. Shipp, Leo T. Sorokin, Lonny R. Suko, Michael F. Urbanski). bd2412 T 23:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• I have adjusted the category description accordingly. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:21, 11 July 2015 (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) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jhawkinson. 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)

File:Screenshot from p.332 of MIT SP303 SoMA filing.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screenshot from p.332 of MIT SP303 SoMA filing.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Remember...

The onus is on the person seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Well done for starting a Talk page discussion, we'll see how that plays out. Guy (Help!) 19:21, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

econlib.com, openborders.info, etc.

Do we know of any admins who are familiar with, and/or sympathetic to, libertarian views, and therefore would be aware that these are not spam sites? If we can get an admin to remove those sites from the spam blacklist, that seems like the easiest approach. If not, then I guess it needs to go to someplace like RFC, but that's going to probably start a lot of drama. I don't think the current state of affairs can be allowed to stand, though. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No I do not. jhawkinson (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)