User talk:JimZDP

Welcome[edit]

Hello, JimZDP, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Caper13 05:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome again[edit]

Hi, I'm glad we could come to agreement on the Marvin Heemeyer article. Unless you have a strong interest in that topic, I think it's a waste of time to spend much effort there. Most of what needs to be written has been written and what hasn't been written can be or should be left out. Mostly I keep that article on my watchlist to keep the "Marvin was a hero and a martyr" folks from inserting their POV. And usually somebody comes along at least once a month to do so but they get tired after being reverted a few times.

If you need any assistance or advice about Wikipedia, feel free to leave a note on my Talk Page.

Cheers and welcome to Wikipedia.

--Richard 18:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Hi, thanks for cleaning up vandalism in Red state vs. blue state divide. However, re: the talk page, don't bother. If we announced every time vandalism was cleaned up, the talk pages would become useless. ;) Don't mean to bite, just letting you know. Keep up the good work tho!!! — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Christian Right Page[edit]

Hi! I noticed you have shown interest in getting the Christian Right section on racism right. User:Hrafn42 and I have been working on that section (now beginning Attitudes on Diversity... ). I would appreciate your input in the discussion, if time allows. Thanks! --Anoop 74.192.49.12 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Need help?[edit]

You wrote:

Hi! I'm a licensed attorney, basically looking for something to do in what spare time I have. I'm interested in joining your Law Wikiproject. I have an extensive criminal law background (I was a prosecutor for 6 years, and in private practice I did some criminal defense work). I also have some transactional and civil litigation work. I took a cursory look at some of the topics, but was wondering if you believe there is something I might get on immediately, where my background will be helpful. Thanks JimZDP (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nice to meet you.

Thank you for offering to help. Yes, there is an area that needs the attention of someone familiar with the subject of law...

The organization of the overall subject of law on Wikipedia is incomplete.

One of Wikipedia's main contents navigation systems is made of topic lists. Some are designed like tables of contents, others are designed like indexes. The top of the topic list system is composed of two lists of lists: Lists of basic topics and Lists of topics. Law is included on both of those lists.

That's where you should start, at the top. Here is how the main navigation pages of Law are organized:

That box is located at the top of all the main Law table of contents and index pages, and in turn leads to all of Law's main navigation pages (including the portal and category, which are not a part of the topic list system, but are included because all the systems are complementary/synergistic).

I recommend that you start with List of basic law topics and Lists of law topics. Both lists need to be completed and refined. On "Lists of law topics" add missing lists, and improve the ones that are already there.

The lists need to be completed to reflect both the law-related contents of Wikipedia, as well as the structure of the subject itself.

As the lists become more complete, they will provide a better and better means by which to survey Wikipedia's coverage of Law -- by showing what topics have articles (links), and by letting you click on the links to skim/read the articles.

As you begin to see the big picture (of Law's coverage) on Wikipedia, hopefully you will notice what topics are missing, and what articles need the most work. But right now, it's access itself (the contents navigation system) that needs work.

I hope you find my advice useful, and if you have any more questions, please feel free to ask.

The Transhumanist 08:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work?[edit]

Is the article Back to the Future timeline a derivative work?

The Transhumanist 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you (been busy). I believe that one could make a very strong argument that the article is a derivative work. It would turn on whether or not arranging the material into chronological order, and comparing the alternate timelines brings it to the level of a "new work." It certainly is "recasting" it, and it differs substantially from the way the original material was presented. So it could very well be. That said, I believe that it is also a textbook example of the fair use exception, so long as appropriate credit is given for the source material (which with all those "citation needed" tags it may not be crediting the source materia adequately. JimZDP (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this. So, from a legal standpoint, it is safe for Wikipedia to keep it? The Transhumanist 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

I'm glad to see you are back. Still waiting on a response to my previous messages. ;) The Transhumanist 07:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes criticism section[edit]

You've left some comments on Talk:ITunes, according lack of criticism section in this article. Please help us with editing of this section in iTunes article. For details please see Talk:ITunes#Proposed_items_to_be_added_to_criticism_section first. Thank you. --Varnav (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:James Randi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Bubba73 (talk), 02:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a legitimate question. Perhaps you should answer it rather than call it vandalism. JimZDP (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages are for discussions on how to improve the article (see WP:TALK). I'm guessing that Bubba73 thought your comment was more soapboxing than discussion on improving the article.

If you have WP:NPOV concerns with the article, it would be better to give specific examples of what you'd like changed along with appropriate references. Please be aware that WP:BLP applies. --Ronz (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 I'm also guessing I might have had heartburn, jockitch, or diaperash, none of which justifies an automatic revert by Bubba73 on a talkpage.

October 2008[edit]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at James Randi. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that you're flirting with violating WP:3RR, which will result in a block. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]