Hello, Professor JR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! - Cwobeel (talk)

Also note that there is no need to repeat "see also" wikilinks. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Professor JR! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm another contributor to Story, Wyoming, and I appreciate your work on that page. I wanted to let you know that I removed many of the links you added to the town's services. That's because we have no evidence for their notability. If you can find a reliable secondary source, like the Sheridan newspaper, that describes Story's fire department (for example), then we can add it. See WP:NOTRS for more information. Runner1928 (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Runner1928: Thanks so much for your 2015-06-27 edits pretty much eviscerating some 13,800 bytes of recent contributions to the Story, Wyoming article. Glad to know you appreciate the work of others contributing to that page, as you have so very clearly demonstrated by your edits.

The content, links and photo image you have removed were better sourced than, say, much of content in the Grafton, Wisconsin or the Grafton High School (Wisconsin) articles, for example. I generally try to utilize what time I have for this (don't have nearly as much free time on my hands, apparently, as some do) on constructive contributions, rather than focusing on really rather petty, disassembling, deconstructing efforts directed at the good faith work and contributions of other editors.

(By the way: If you happened to live in the fire-prone, heavily forested area around Story, Wyo. -- which has experienced years now of drought conditions and a lesser-than-normal snowpack -- you might not still be prone to opine that "Just having a fire department is not notable." (A couple of my friends in Story got quite a chuckle out of that assertion.) Also, just curious, how can it be that one claims to be both a "native of Wisconsin", and a "native of South Dakota"? (cf. Runner1928 User Page Userboxes).) Professor JR (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Draft:Denis P. Galvin, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://parksforscience.berkeley.edu/galvin.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorenSearchBot: Thanks. Greatly appreciate your review & input for the proposed draft Article. I have since totally re-written it, and cited numerous additional sources. I also responded to your concerns on the draft's Talk Page: Draft:Denis P. Galvin Talk Page. As explained there, I believe it now avoids even any appearance of violations, and am confident that it does not in fact contain any copyrighted material(s), nor any copyright violations as currently drafted.Professor JR (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CorenSearchBot: Tag removed after further addressing concerns it expressed. Again, thanks very much to CorenSearchBot for your consideration & assistance with this draft article.Professor JR (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Denis P. Galvin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Flat Out (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Flat Out: Thank you so much for your help in finalizing this article, and for moving it to 'publishing accepted' status. Rather than publishing it myself, I had hoped for further help cleaning it up, etc., prior to finalization, and I greatly appreciate having had the benefit of your experienced input and assistance. Again, thank you very much. Professor JR (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Professor, Thanks for the compliment on the article. I have worked on it quite a bit, but mostly in only certain sections. I am a novice editor (I've been doing it for a few years, but not very intensively). I think the article should be judged a "Good Article", but I don't know whether it needs some polishing first. Have you worked on any articles of that caliber? Do you think the Douglass article rates? Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmlieberman: It's a terrific article about a truly notable and great man! --- and yes, I agree that it deserves "Good Article" status. We can see about getting it there, and working on enhancing it further, if necessary. --- Professor JR (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLP: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

Professor JR, you have made wholesale deletions from this page, incorrectly concluding that Melania Trump's comments in 1999 to Howard Stern are tabloid-sourced (although Joyce Wadler's interview, which repeated the "not much" quote and elicited Knauss' own response to it, originally appeared in The New York Times, and Bloomberg is anything but a tabloid, although you removed that August 2015 reference entirely). I'm under the impression that any potentially unflattering insights related to Melania Trump and not already echoed on her own promotional website is unsuitable, in your eyes, for inclusion, up to and including the rather benign fact that she is raising her child in both English and Slovenian, and that she has been unavailable for recent interviews but both supports and intends to play a role campaigning for her husband. Believe me, I take WP:BLP seriously, but I feel like you are stripping the article almost to the point of non-utility, deferring to its bare-bones major source, which is Mrs. Trump's own promotional website focussed on her jewelry and caviar cold cream. That's a shame, because there are RS sources to give the article depth and balance, so it reads less like the PR copy which has previously been suggested for deletion. After a partial restoration of some of what you've removed, I'd appreciate moving the discussion to the article's Talk page (if you continue to object to what I've added) so that we can together find consensus. BTW and unrelated, I too am a fan of Martha Gellhorn and had the privilege of interviewing her many years ago. All best and thanks Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits to Sonnet 30: here and here. This article (among others) is currently the object of a class assignment where the students will get extra credit if they manage to improve their article to GA level, and I have been doing the GA reviews of their articles.

In the first diff you revert the editor's removal of the repeated lines of the poem. This edit was most likely made in response to feedback in the GA review that the repeated lines do not add much value to the reader. That also reflects the rough consensus of the Shakespeare WikiProject for the sonnet articles (all 154 of them use the same format as part of a series).

The second edit referenced above removes the "Edited By Katherin Duncan-Jones" heading from the infobox. That text is there as attribution (and doubles as citation) because, I believe, the students literally used the text from the Arden edition of the sonnets (which was edited by Duncan-Jones) for the article. The previous version had the original-spelling version (which, again, reflects the consensus of the Shakespeare project, and avoids the inherent copyright and other issues of using a modern spelling version), but I don't wonder that the students found a modern-spelling version more palatable. Almost all the class assignments have added or replaced the original with a modern-spelling version. I'd been planning to take a look at that and what to do about it (possibly also seeking input from the project, if needed) once their assignment is well over.

In any case, I imagine that the students are quite anxious to pass GA (as mentioned, I believe they get extra credit if they succeed), and I'd like to encourage them to keep working at it without too many detours, so I'm going to revert these two edits of yours. If you feel strongly either way about those two points we can discuss it on the article's talk page, but, I would suggest, best done at some later point once their assignment is over. Wikipedia is confusing enough as it is for those not used to it, and I fear a discussion like that going on while they try to address the GA review feedback will scare them off the project for good.

Irrespective of that, I'm glad to see you take an interest in the sonnet articles. Most days it seems as if only the big controversial topics on Wikipedia manage to attract large numbers of editors, while dry and dusty stuff like Shakespeare is a wasteland where editors are few and far between. The Bard and his works is surely worthy of some care and attention too. --Xover (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful message. I concede all of your points, but one (which was likely made by you ironically, I would grant) where you quipped: "while dry and dusty stuff like Shakespeare is a wasteland..." It is, of course, as I am sure you would agree, hardly 'dry and dusty', or a 'wasteland' (except, perhaps, in the view of the preponderance of young Wiki editors) and there is really, I'm sure you would concede, nothing 'like Shakespeare'. Rather, his incomparable poetry is still very much verdant and alive, and a land laden with inexhaustible treasure there for the discovery by the young minds such of these students with their class project some 400 years(!) after the poet's death, as they delve into and unearth the rich ore of his sonnets.

BTW (as they say in this era of 'texting') - I always maintained to the students in the classes I once taught that, while Milton indeed wrote 'the greatest poem' in the English language, Shakespeare was unquestionably 'the greatest poet'. What do you think?

As for the Duncan-Jones attribution, I've tried converting the previously somewhat puzzling at first glance, large-font attribution heading the InfoBox, into a small-font parenthetical note, slightly more expanded by way of explaining what it's doing there. See what you think, and feel free to revert, if you wish.

Again, thank you for your message, and for your care and attention to the Bard.

Regards. --- Professor JR (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must hasten to add that I meant that the articles on Wikipedia related to Shakespeare are a wasteland, for lack of active editors to water and tend them, and not the works themselves, nor even the field in general. I obviously feel the works are as rich and as relevant today as ever, and the Shakespeare field produces more scholarly and popular works than ever before. But attracting editors to work on Wikipedia's Shakespeare articles has proven fairly challenging. As I quipped above, I put this down to the subject being somewhat "dry and dusty" by modern standards, and more tempting topics (politics, popular culture, etc.) lure away those who might otherwise be inclined to water and till the Shakespearean field here.

As for the relative merits of Milton and Shakespeare I believe it would be imprudent for me to comment. My ear for poetry is scant; I'm just barely able to appreciate the Bard's works in any kind of depth, and would be woefully ill equipped to compare his to Milton's in this sense. My approach to the subject is more from the biographical, historical, and historiographic side (spurred in no small measure by Schoenbaum's marvellous Shakespeare's Lives). However, to the degree I feel confident venturing an opinion, I feel Shakespeare's sheer variety of settings, characters, and plots, combined with his remarkable insight into his characters and the human condition in general, is unique and, to me, uniquely attractive.

I found your latest change to the article to be an excellent compromise, addressing the concern you brought up without stepping into the pitfalls I alluded to surrounding it. As mentioned I'm planning to take a look at this and a few other issues with the sonnet articles at some later date, and would then very much appreciate all the input I can get (lack of feedback tends to be a much greater problem than a multitude of opinions for the Shakespeare articles).

Thank you for your help with this, and for your other edits on the articles in WikiProject Shakespeare's scope. Very much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover: I knew what you meant by 'wasteland', etc., and I certainly agree with you. Am getting rather tired, myself, of all the 'edit-warring' that goes on over articles on politics, pop culture, & the like --- with scant attention given to the truly encyclopedic quality entries . Glad you think my Ducan-Jones compromise proposal might suffice for now. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. If you have a cite for the Proust addition to Sonnet 30 that would be helpful for potential future expansion of the article. --Xover (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover: The internal Wiki-links to other articles I inserted along with my text would suffice, I felt, for purposes of citation ( here & here, for example ) but we can also footnote the Sonnet 30 article if you deem it necessary. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not needed in the "citation needed" sense. But it would make it easier for future editors working on the article if the specific source for the information is given. Cuts down on the detective work, and editors on Shakespeare articles are not necessarily versed in Proust scholarship. No big deal; just if you happened to have it to hand. --Xover (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Zach and I'm a reporter for National Journal. I'm writing a story on political wikipedia editors and I'd love to talk to you for it. If you're interested, shoot me an email at zmontellaro(at)nationaljournal.com. I'm also happy to answer any questions you have! Zach NJ (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fairmont (Manassas, VA) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you read the template page differently than do I; I take it to refer to someone who is specifically known for being a "a soldier or military leader" as opposed to someone who was, but not notably so. Loggia was known as an actor. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 10:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ATinySliver: Hello, TinySliver. I'm not wedded to keeping the template for Loggia, but it is included in Wikipedia for many other veterans who are better known as actors, politicians, etc. See, for example: Paul Newman, Lindsey Graham, etc., etc. And, I feel like it is appropriate, and nice, to recognize all those like Loggia who have served. --- Professor JR (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the sentiment, by any means. I do, though, find its placement within the articles of someone who served, but is not known therefor, possibly undue. It dilutes the template's intent (in my own humble opinion) to honor those for whom it is a badge of notability, so to speak. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 11:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re Novella, Novellete, short novel etc. We've had this discussion in the past, it's a novel! See the talk page. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mighty Antar:OK, thanks -- have changed the link to 'novel', but it is certainly a "short" one descriptively (easily read in one sitting), and almost always referred to as such by academics, scholars, booksellers, etc. (only 27,000 words, 140 pages, and very small & short pages at that). Appreciate your having referred me to the earlier 2005-2011 TalkPage discussion, which I was unaware of. --- Professor JR (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any Barnstars, or other such items, received by Professor JR are found here.

Some of the "Thank You's" received by Professor JR can be found here.

Archived material from this page can be found here: Archives/Dustbin

I must thank you for acknowledging vandalism in the article and changing it, and standing up for my edit. Just wanted to say a late thanks! 174.45.128.124 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I remember you told me you might be interested in working on more Wyoming-related articles. I am working on Walter E. Cosgriff, whose father James E. Cosgriff is probably sufficiently notable to have his own article. He raised sheep and became a banker first in Rawlins, Wyoming and later in Salt Lake City, Utah. (His son later became a banker in Las Vegas, Nevada.) I have added some referenced info from an obituary from Newspapers.com. I am sure we could find more references. I've just looked up 'Cosgriff' on the catalogue of the local library and there is nothing, but it might simply not be catalogued. Are you interested in pursuing this? Please ping me here or reply on my talkpage. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Professor JR. Planned Parenthood, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 03:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are you interested in helping me expand We Are Afghan Women: Voices of Hope please?Zigzig20s (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 April 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Planned Parenthood, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Planned Parenthood was conceived 100 years ago in Brooklyn when Margaret Sanger (pictured), her sister Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell distributed birth control plus advice, and were soon arrested? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Planned Parenthood. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Planned Parenthood), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Fairmont (Manassas, VA), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Professor JR. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Fairmont".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —MRD2014 T C 14:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Professor JR

My name’s Chris, and I’m a reporter with The Washington Post. I’m working on a story about edits being made on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s Wikipedia pages during the 2016 presidential race.

I saw you’re an active editor on Clinton and Trump's and 2016 presidential campaign page and was wondering if I could talk to you about your experience editing. Please let me know if you’re interested in participating. If you are working with anyone who you think I should talk to, feel free to pass my contact information along. You can find more information about my project here.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Cheers, Chris

Hello, Professor JR. 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]