User talk:BubbaJoe123456/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

October 2021

Hello. I did check your message on my talk page. I'm actually new to Wikipedia hence, I was just trying to contribute to Wikipedia pages based on my research. I'm not a paid advocate. If there's anyway you could help me understand better I would be really thankful. Also I did understand that we should create articles via the Articles Creation process. I will keep that in mind. Do let me know when can I start creating articles as you said not to make any edit further before replying. Thankyou so much. Annaspencer13 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Florida A&M University. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Donald Albury 16:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Sara Ganim

Thanks! I didn't know how to get the citation to look right on the page.

Methodologicalisationalistics

Just a minor language point. Quite a few scientists get asked to write about their methodology in grant applications, even though they don't really aim to study methods, they really only aim to use methods to study something more concrete (like a population). The methodology article explains the difference reasonably well it seems to me. I'm not blaming you :), you only used it on a Wikipedia talk page, not in a journal article submitted for formal peer review.

I've now coined methodologicalisationalistics as an even higher form of the study of the study of the study of the study of methods (or something like that) - this is for really really high-level scientists and philosophers of science - although I do tend to worry that the article may be weak in terms of WP:RS and notability. Boud (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Quique discussion

Hey BubbaJoe. Just curious what the status was of your going over the talk page on Quique. No rush, just curious what the status was. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

UK places

Hi BubbaJoe, I've noticed your edit to the Greater London article, in which you reinstated the wording "Greater London is an administrative area and ceremonial county" in the first sentence of the lead, which was introduced by Jonnyspeed20/86.14.189.55. I assume you became aware of the situation here from this ANI report filed by the user. Several editors have reverted the user's edits on this page - this is because there is no such status as "administrative area". The user has made a series of incorrect edits to this page, including by describing Greater London as an administrative county. It is, of course, an administrative area in that it forms a set of administrative boundaries, but we don't explicitly describe every local authority district, county council area, etc, as such. The London Government Act 1963 indeed established it as an "administrative area" to distinguish it from administrative counties in that the Greater London Council was not a county council, and to outline the purpose of the newly-created area. The link used takes you to the article about non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties, which Greater London is not. You might want to revert this edit - it's complicated stuff, I know, but Greater London isn't a metropolitan or non-metropolitan county. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a metropolitan or non-metropolitan county, but if we have an RS, plus the actual text of the law, saying that it is an "administrative area," then why not describe it as such? The non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties article discusses Greater London as an administrative area and exception from the non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties system.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Because every set of boundaries used by government bodies is an "administrative area" in the same way - it just so happens that this is the way in which it was described in law when it was formed. The fact Greater London as a region is the area governed by the Greater London Authority makes it an administrative area - this is already mentioned in the lead. Local government across England has been reformed several times since 1965, when the LGA 1963 was implemented. Administrative county status has since been replaced with non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties (so no need to distinguish from administrative counties which covered the rest of England as there was in 1965), and Greater London is now governed as a government office region, which includes the City of London (outside the ceremonial county of Greater London) - these are the GLA's administrative boundaries. The administrative area is therefore larger than what is currently described as such. Hope I haven't confused you too much! PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So, the term "Greater London" refers to both (a) the ceremonial county of Greater London, and (b) the current administrative area, governed by the GLA, that covers the same geographic footprint that used to be covered by the counties of Greater London and the City of London. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you've got it. The administrative area which consists of Greater London and the City of London (known as both Greater London and the London region) has the status of government office region. You're putting Greater London and the City of London in the past tense, though. These still exist as separate entities (both as ceremonial counties), and still exist for administrative purposes (unlike historic counties). PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Good. Well, the Greater London article certainly doesn't make it clear that the term refers to two different legal entities (a region and a ceremonial county) with different geographic footprints. I'll think about how to reframe it. With that said, the ceremonial county of Greater London clearly appears to be genuinely ceremonial, while the region is the actual operating government entity. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please Help me to comment and fix this Bio page Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana and comment on Talk:Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana

There has apparently been long-term massive deletion and content removals made by User:HiChrisBoyleHere on Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana page. Please stop his disruptive edits by deleting major references and replace it with Instagram links as a reliable reference, as he did on [1], [2], [3], [4] and more on article page history. He keep on rejeecting himself to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines before started adding Instagram links as the main source of references. That is why I have to escalate this Issue, please help me to fix the page. Thanks before...--Canny Yeohmanly (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sparekassen Sjaelland Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sparekassen Sjaelland Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 15:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Robin Hemley article: UPE notation, April 2019

Hi, BubbaJoe: I've been working on the article on writer Robin Hemley. I'm a volunteer editor and a university professor. In April of 2019 you inserted a banner saying, "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments." I'm wondering about the basis of that claim. The article seems to me to be straightforward and unbiased. If anything, it needs to be updated and developed further. This is an author whose works I enjoy, and I plan to propose inviting him to my campus to give a reading. The claim of impropriety involving money makes me nervous because my colleagues may read the Wikipedia page. Would it be okay for me to remove the

at this point? Chain27 (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, fine. I removed the tag. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leechjoel9 (talk • contribs)

Removal and replacing pew religious data source

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Leechjoel9 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

    I thought I should let you know that I have just submitted my first article to sandbox which might be of interest to you and which I have entitled Tom McGrath, RTE;

    It is possible the article will be headed Tom McGrath (Producer).

    Baile Atha Cliathach (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Baile Atha Cliathach

Orphaned non-free image File:University of South Africa logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:University of South Africa logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

25stargeneral (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Varsity College Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Varsity College Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Removal of new info

Not sure if this is the correct way to do this, but why was the addition I made today removed please? Was on the page below,

Order of St. Gregory the Great

Duncangwhyte (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

In general, to be included in a list of recipients like this, a person needs to be "notable" by Wikipedia standards, which typically means there's already a Wikipedia article about that person. If you look at the current list, every name on it is a link to that person's article. So, the process would be to write an article about the person, submit it to articles for creation, and then add them to this list. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. So the recipient happens to my father, but one of his close colleagues is already on the list from about 2008 (would have to go and check), she held a similar position in the church of Scotland. I did notice she had a wiki page. He's notable enough to have received this award last night. This is not an award that's given out very often and felt it justified the recognition on here. Is there no way to include him on this prestigious list without having a wiki page? I used a citation to the official church of Scotland website published when he retired last year to show he is a real person. I thought that would be enough. It would mean a lot to him and to the rest of our family. Duncangwhyte (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that it would mean a lot to him, but he really needs an article first. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Venessa Ferns promotional / non-neutral disruptive editing on Chetan Bhagat. Thank you. AP 499D25 (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Howard Law School

Hello. They're not enough information on the web to update this page. I just emailed a colleague at the University, and I will add the updated information as soon as I receive it. Kioumarsi (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

ReferenceExpander

Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Revert question

I noticed that you reverted my edit to List of University of Iowa alumni with the reasoning: "rm non-notable per WP:WTAF" even though I linked to an already existing page, (Although Jeffry Life is currently nominated for deletion), why is that? Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 23:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You had linked to Jeffery Life, which doesn't exist, and the name didn't come up in a search. I see now that it's Jeffry Life, so I added the link. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh my bad, thank you so much for catching that error Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 14:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Southern University Law Center

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Southern University Law Center, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Concord Law School Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Concord Law School Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)