User talk:Jons63

Josep Colomer

The two persons you mention have NOT the same name and last name. For the former mayor of Barcelona his last name was 'Porcioles', as he was generally known. Please learn about names and last names in Spanish (and in Catalan and the other Latin languages). For the mayor, given name: Josep M., Last name: Porcioles, Mother's (kind of a second last name or maid name in English) Colomer which nobody uses. For the professor in the article: given name: Josep M., Last name: Colomer, second last name (mother's) that I didn't even bother to include: Calsina. So no confusion is possible. I can assure you that nobody will look for the ex-mayor by 'Colomer' (neither for the professor by 'Porcioles').

Please clarify what you mean by 'lack of in-text citations'; I think the external links are pretty good.

Also, the article seems highly 'wikified' with eight internal links to wikipedia articles in which Colomer is cited.

Blanca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanca.heredia (talk • contribs) 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim Duncan

What exactly are you setting out to achieve? By reverting me, in the spirit of 3RR or whatever, in the face of apparent errors (which have since been elaborated on the article's talk page since you insist), you are merely perpetuating a dimunition of the quality of the article. Which many people have spent many hours putting together, only to be undermined by someone who wants an edit in that cannot be justified. I repeat, the errors are self-evident, and the talk page further evidences the bases of the errors. Please do not engage in counterproductive behaviour -- why I should allow a bad edit to stand when it should fall? Chensiyuan (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Claudine Barretto

Why did you delete this portion? Are you refering to these things as LIBELOUS? I might not have a proper source but the article I added was extremely fact. Are you a Filipino and do you know something about Claudine Barretto? --Fetch dickson (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ive already deleted the Controversies portion in the Personal Life section in Claudine Barretto's article as you might point this as libelous. Moreover, Love Affairs and Marriage portion were moved to Biography section of the said article. Wish there's nothing wrong about it anymore. Thanks.--Fetch dickson (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the section is Controversies which is unsourced. There is a description of her controversial breakup, also unsourced. I wouldn't object to the Marriage, but someone else objected to it. When I added a unferenced tag to that section, you deleted it. You are already in violation of the three revert rule as I explained also already. You also talk about someone else and downward spiral which is controversial and unsourced. Jons63 (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Claudine Barretto? How come it's unsourced and libelous, considering that most Filipinos knew about that controversy? The word "controversial" sounds negative to you, isn't? Well, "controversial" would also mean, much talked-about, famous, popular. Right? Thanks anyway. --Fetch dickson (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I also edited the Love Affairs section, renaming its title to Relationships and changing the statement: Later on, the two broke up after the downward spiral in Mark's career and personal life . to Later on, the two broke up due to personal reasons., wishing this would be acceptable by now. Thank you. --Fetch dickson (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Also edited the statement: Their broke up in 2002 was so controversial, following Rico's death due to acute pancreatitis in March, few weeks after their box-office movie Got 2 Believe. revising it to They ended their affair in 2002, following Rico's death due to acute pancreatitis in March, few weeks after their box-office movie Got 2 Believe.

. Thanks.--Fetch dickson (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Poole (surname)

Hi Jons. Poole (surname) has new entries that may need descriptions. If you have the time, please take a look. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Pls do not vandalize my page. WRCurtis (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

See reply on WR Curtis talk page Jons63 (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Crossfit: Criticisms

I deleted a sentence because the citation didn't support the statement, and you reverted my edit saying that it did. Had you read the talk page, or actually read the citation, you would have understood why and how the citation didn't support the statement. From what I can tell on this page, you have a habit of making edits without a full understanding of the topic at hand.

Please read the discussion page before making an edit to an article; you may find earlier discussion of the point you wish to edit, and find guidance there on the best way to proceed. That, I believe, is the purpose of a discussion page.

Walrus 3d (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your earlier message:

Now I understand the issue. I'm going to repost your message so we're both on the same page.

I did read the whole linked article. You, (I assume it is you, since it was an IP that actually removed it) removed some info which I reinserted. You claim I don't understand the topic at hand. Well let's see if I do understand. Removed statement:

   They say Crossfit workouts are so intense that participants risk injury or even death from rhabdomyolysis. At least one CrossFit trainer has been the target of a lawsuit.

The referenced article says:

   "Lawsuit alleges CrossFit workout damaging"
   "The lawsuit, filed by former Information Systems Technician 1st Class Makimba Mimms in Prince William County, Va., Circuit Court late last year, seeks $500,000, as well as punitive damages, in connection with the permanent disability Mimms allegedly suffered as a result of performing the CrossFit workout under the direction of a trainer at a Manassas gym."
   “Several [experts] in the sports medicine field (military and civilian) have addressed a concern that the program has the potential for causing an increased incidence of musculoskeletal injuries and even muscle breakdown (rhabdomyoloysis) and therefore is not supported by [Navy Center for Personal and Professional Development],”
   "The lawsuit is part of an emerging body of evidence that CrossFit may be damaging to participants’ health, perhaps even causing death — a possibility acknowledged by its founder as early as 2005."

What part of the removed information is not supported by the reference information I have provided? Jons63 (talk) 06:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem: When I initially edited the page, I thought I had only removed the second sentence, which stated that a crossfit trainer was the subject of a lawsuit, which was inaccurate. I inadvertently also removed the first sentence, which wasn't inaccurate, but which was redundant, as that statement was already made in the introductory section of the article.

The statement I initially intended to remove states that the trainer was a "CrossFit trainer", which would mean that he was CrossFit certified, and in fact, the article states that he was certified by "Ruthless Training Concepts", which is not CrossFit-affiliated, as I stated in the CrossFit talk page. The error is in the implication that a CrossFit-certified trainer was the subject of a lawsuit. There may be one, but that article doesn't support that particular statement. I rewrote the statement to make it an accurate representation of what is stated in the article, to wit, "at least one personal trainer has been the subject of a lawsuit after administering a CrossFit-style workout," which as I understand the article is exactly what happened.

Walrus 3d (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)