User talk:Jfitts

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

snoyes 17:12, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I always have wanted to discuss this as I knew that it would be controversial. Also I have ridden DART and it is very nice! First of all it is not my intention to obliterate the Southwest or all references to it. The four regions should come into play only when broad generalizations are necessary. Otherwise their should be a listing of the states or parts of states that apply. If the meaning southwest was broadened to include California, as it sometimes is, then DART was not the first light rail in the southwest. Even if Texas were placed into the four region system, Atlanta would still have beaten it by two years. It was however the first light rail in Texas and therefore I changed it to Texas.

Now as to the history of US regions the southwest region, as it is applied on WP, is not historic but came into vogue in the mid-twentieth century. As late as the 1940’s both Arkansas and Louisiana were considered “southwestern states.” In many of the Articles include Nevada, Utah, and Colorado as southwestern states. In it’s broadest sense the 19th century included: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah. This came about as the traditional boundary between east and west in 19th Century geography was the Mississippi River. All except about a fifth, including Baton Rouge and New Orleans in that eastern fifth, of Louisiana were west of the river. The concept of the “West” region as it is portrayed here is not even in context with the southwest region. By looking in any encyclopedia that has this display you would see that the “West” region is subdivided into the Mountain and Pacific regions. In this scheme it is likely that the south would be called Southeast and occasionally Kentucky and West Virginia would be place in the Mid West while Virginia would go with the Mid Atlantic states.

Also the South Central region is not listed and what of the Pacific Northwest? If WP keeps this current grid of regions soon people will start carving and gerrymandering, the map to create new or should I say old regions. These regions are set in stone, there is no debate about who goes where because the government has already decided. If we decided to use the regional statistics the Census Bureau compiles, we would find we couldn’t because the southwest has been carved out of the South and West and New England (which if any region is historic it is this one) and the Mid Atlantic are carved out of the Northeast, the data is worthless.

I’m not saying that these regions should be deleted, but should be treated as unofficialregions that in some instances share cultures. However they should be listed with other regions that the state is or was in for example.

Texas is a state in the US South. Texas is some times considered in the Southwest or South Central Regions. In the 19th Century Texas was briefly part of the Trans-Mississippi Region.

If Wiki adopted this it would be easier and more accurate for everyone. Please post on the US states disscusion page concernig this topic.

If you didn't know that I had already posted a disscussion please feel free to join in there!

JCarriker

Yes we are going to keep the references! I unforunately forgot to put it in. I have since also corrected the Vermont example to reflect that. I have also posted a proposal to consider what states are considered in what region and how frequently exct. at the strategy page for the project. Given that these are highly subjective, I assume it will naturally change often, but still I want some consensus before we make any formal proposals.

I propose that next the project should:

1. Notify the US States Project of our referencing suggestions and move forward with implementing them.

2. Move the current articles to the U.S. and American designations and change the current article such as U.S. Southern States to redirect page.

3. Also I have proposed a template for the offical regions article. I would like your opion on it. I would like to bring the official four, under it's guidelines when we move them to the new designated page.

Jay 22:13, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Regions Template Modified

I have answered questions about the template and infobox at Official Region Template and Infobox. Please review it it has been modified. I apologize for not notifying you earlier but the server went dowen and I accidently skipped over your link when I posted notifications.

Jay 00:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Davodd has completed the maps, and the U.S. South is now using the template and infobox. JCarriker 04:43, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Regions Update

U.S. South, U.S. West and U.S. Northeast are now all using the infobox. The protype articles format has reached completion but the text is in dire need of additions. Please feel free to edit the text as you would any other article, but please do not make a change to the format with out explaining why on the discussion page. You can find the prototype article here The Non-Official infobox has been proposed please review it and post your opinons on it's talk page. You can find the proposal [[ Non-Official Region Template and Infobox| here.

Also ther is a list of WikiTexans; thought you might want to add yourself

-JCarriker 19:34, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

U.S. Regions Proposal

Please review my proposal at the General Talk Page.

-JCarriker 21:40, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

US Regions Page Rewrite

I have rewritten the project page and made some clarifacations and renamed some terms. To avoid editing conflicts please do not edit the pages until everyone has had a chance to review it. I have archived the talk pages, so please post your comments there, or at least acknowledge that you have viewd the page and had no comments. Since there were no objections to the non-official (now Non-Census Bureau) regions infoboxes or Davodd's parentage proposal, I have included them in the page.

Please review the page as soon as convenient.

Thanks -JCarriker 21:11, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

WikiProject U.S. Regions update proposals

I have posted some proposed changes to the project on it's talk page. Please review them as soon as is convenient and let me know what you think. -JCarriker 12:04, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

The policy has been discussed and is has been drafted. It is now up for a vote on talk. -JCarriker 06:45, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Please sse the new US regions maps

There is a proposal at WikiProject U.S. regions/Maps to replace the current grab bag of U.S. maps with a standardized style. The maps also remove the always, sometimes, and rare categories, in favor of a core area always in a region highlighted in red, while states that may or may not be included in a region are shown in pink. Please comment on the talk page. If approved or revised by participants, I'd like to make the transition within the next two weeks. Thanks. -JCarriker 19:08, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Dallas7.jpg

I have tagged this image as {{GFDL-presumed}}, because you live in Dallas and I think it rather obvious that you took this picture yourself. Please clarify on the image page. Thanks, Ingoolemo ^talk 19:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrytown, Nebraska

Where did you find that Terry Carrpenter was mayor of Scottbluff? The congressional bio says he failed in becoming mayor.--Rayc 16:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Dallas7.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Dallas7.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:37, 18 March 2009 (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, Jfitts. 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, Jfitts. 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]

Winchester Castle

Thanks for contributing to the article Winchester Castle. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]