JamesEG

Program product

The redirect "Program product" does not seem to be appropriate. The links to it have nothing to do with patents... I'm not sure how to correct this. A redirect to Computer program perhaps? --Edcolins (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i was bothered by that myself. A slew of changes, and it should be much better now. JamesEG (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! --Edcolins (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terminus (1987 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hoodlum. 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) 08:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Underscoring

In this example, from one of your much-needed edits to Software patents under United States patent law#History, you include the underscore present in the slip opinions as available on the website, where the page number for the volume might differ from the compiled report (as I understand it).
Anyway, as your userpage says that you teach law, I assume that this was either an simple oversight or intended. Mostly I'd like to know because I was confused when previously trying to cite from the US Reports.
I can delete this when you answer, so as to keep your talk page clear. Thanks.
JamesEG (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't understand your question about underscoring. Do you mean citations like this: Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. __ (2014) ? If so, that is a customary way to cite cases for which the U.S. or F.3d report is not out in print yet. If you mean something else, could you please explain it at much greater length. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense; and, yes, that answered the question. JamesEG (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Idiocentric.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Idiocentric.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You morons. —JamesEG (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Chattar

(NOTE FOR READERS: A large passage of text, originally placed here, was copies of discussion from Talk:Chattar and User_talk:Sitush.) — JamesEG (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are doing here but effectively transcluding a mass of comments like this when it is all there in the history doesn't seem clever to me. Take your pick of canvassing talk page watchers, attack pages etc. If you must keep an aide memoire then either do it offline or, briefly, in a sandbox. If you have an issue with the underlying consensus then take it to WP:RSN, where you will be blown out of the water, or perhaps raise a general point at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Look, please delete this entire section and its subsections, give or take the sanctions thing. The alternative would likely be that I get an administrator involved or simply dump the entire issue of your behaviour at WP:ANI. There is no need for it and by chopping and changing my comments as you have done you are potentially causing things to be taken out of context. There are limits to what you can do even though this is your talk page and, frankly, this looks bad. I'm not sure whether it is cluelessness or trolling or IDHT or something else but, whatever it is, you're going about it in the wrong way. This is not helped by you deliberately opening a thread on my talk page when there was already one at the article talk page: you should have realised that you'd create problems, now compounded by the above.

If you have a problem with me then your recourse is as stated previously (WP:RSN / WT:INB), WP:DRN or WP:ANI. You'll get nowhere at the first three of those, which leaves you with the distinct possibility of a boomerang at the last. - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll read this here, but I'll reply anyway.

• You seem to think that I am doing this as part of some vendetta against you; it is not, and I have none! I copied text here because I thought that either the thread on Talk:Chattar or the entire page would get deleted as part of the redirection thing. I don't think anything is out of context — but nevermind that; see next point.
• Although I do not quite understand why anyone was so bothered by my collecting various remarks on this page, I did delete them as a gesture of goodwill.
• I did no such “chopping and changing” of any remarks — at least, I don't think I did. The page history makes it look like that occured, but I can assure you that it did not; such appearance is merely a result of the diff engine failing to recognize movement of a block of text.
• I started a thread on your talk page because the question was asked of you, and because I did not think that it concerned the original Chattar page anymore.
• I have honestly attempted not to appear like I was attacking you or anyone. Almost every single one of your comments came across to me as being angry or hostile, and it seemed like you chose to belittle me or my opinions rather than politely refute and discuss. I really don't think either of us should bother mediators when we should be able to come to an understanding — besides, I have not actually made any edits to the content on any pages which fall under the umbrella of those South Asian ethnic groups, so all we have to go on now is the debacle between the two of us.
• Eventually I will formulate a proper suggestion to a Noticeboard. At that time, it may be proper to request intervention so that discussions don't get derailed, but I hope that, prior to such time, you and I shall have resolved our conflict rationally and peaceably — if not amicably. — JamesEG (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sanctions info

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Is this any clearer? - Sitush (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk: Chattar

Dear JamesEG, I'm grateful to you for the kind suggestions you gave me regarding the "Chattar" article. As you must have experienced and felt that a certain group of editors is trying to monopolize the history and they are making it impossible for an ordinary reader or editor to say anything which doesn’t fulfill whatever interests they have. As I can see you also have been threatened with the topic ban which was awarded to me too. It is to be noted that I issued the similar ban to Mr Sitush but I cannot see any of such ban on his talk page which is rather wierd. I also noticed that Mr Sitush and his colleagues are quite active on the caste pages mostly hailing from Pakistan and they have completely disfigured quite a lot of articles. I am assuming Mr Sitush is from India as evident by his name and he is claiming to be the authority of the subject. I requested him to give me any proof of his research articles or books he wrote on the subject of Rajputs castes to assess his credibility, but he failed to do so. I am highly concerned and feel that a certain sect of editors is forcefully depriving readers of Wikipedia from the credible knowledge and research mainly done during colonial times due to political and cultural interests of the west. I am not very active editor neither do I know the protocols to call for help. I am still a toddler and do not know how to engage the neutral editors in this regard. It is my request to ban Mr Sitush and his team mates from vandalizing articles of historical importance and especially the castes hailing from Pakistan. I requested for mediation earlier on but still waiting for a genuine reply from other authors. It is looking ugly now and I do not want to indulge into wars without any reason. Please advise me that how long does it take to lift the topic ban and how can I do so. Also we must revert the vandalised article into orginal form. Kindly help me in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajarule (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is difficult communicating with certain editors, and I do sympathize with you in that regard — but I ought not make judgments on the degree of grace with which any other editors handle disagreements or even the appearance thereof. — JamesEG (talk)

So far as concerns the differences between the colonial English accounts and those of Aryan-Indian origin, I wish to re-iterate that I have no loyalties, favorites, or agenda for either at the depreciation of the other. My concern was for the concept of WP:Reliable_sources as pertains to historical matters. Eventually I will initiate a discussion on the noticeboard to that end, but let it suffice for me to say now that I think a large part of the problem involves confusing the urgencies of Wikimedia avoiding liability in the theaters of medicine, health, and safety, with the quest to study and ascertain the relevance of historical legacies to any discernable physical fact. — JamesEG (talk)

Pardon my [terse] verbosity. Anyway, I'll keep you informed so that you can throw–in your opinions when I do posit my arguments to the noticeboard. Cheers, and don't worry too much about it: people may not be the wisest thinkers on the planet, but they aren't yet a hopeless cause. — JamesEG (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JamesEG. 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)

File:Hildegarde Dolson Lockridge (photograph, taken by Bradford Bachrach circa 1966).png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hildegarde Dolson Lockridge (photograph, taken by Bradford Bachrach circa 1966).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. B (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Hildegarde Dolson Lockridge (photograph, taken by Bradford Bachrach circa 1966).png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Hildegarde Dolson Lockridge (photograph, taken by Bradford Bachrach circa 1966).png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hildegarde Dolson Lockridge (photograph, taken by Bradford Bachrach circa 1966).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.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JamesEG. 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)