Jump to content

User talk:I JethroBT/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Cill Mhaighneann

Hi Jet ..... thank you again for assisting me in putting up the article on Saint Maighneann ..... while tje painting of saint Maighneann which you removed from the article was problematic ...... the image of Cill Mhaighneann recently removed from the Kilmainham article is perfectly illustative of the area and the Church of Saint Maighneann and is imformative and relative to the article Saint Maighneann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Maighneann and no other image of it exists. I would be most grateful if could add the Cill Mhaighneann image to the Saint Maighneann article........ Many Thanks Michael Msriposte (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Jet ... Iwas wondering if you have a chance to read my message above.............atb .michael ........176.61.105.51 (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Msriposte: Hi Michael. I'm not going to independently add the image to the article considering multiple editors have objected to its inclusion. I also have some reservations about its inclusion as well. My primary concern is on accuracy and a lack of information about the area. You argue that the image (File:Cill_Mhaighneann_700_AD.jpg) is "perfectly illustrative". While I note two rivers in your image just as sources describe where the church was built, there is otherwise very little discussion of what the area looked like in 700 AD either in the article or in sources after I've taken a brief review of them. How are we to verify that this is accurate? If there are sources that can support how you've visually represented Cill Mhaigheann, I'd be more willing to support its inclusion. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi! JethroBT ..... thank you for your reply ..... I note that you agree that the sources concur that the church of Saint Maighnean was situated on a ridge between two rivers the Camac and the river Liffey. I have included both of these in the painting and both rivers still remain in situ as is the high ridge between them on which Maighneann's church was built. It is also recorded and well sourced that both Kilmainham Castle/Priory and The Royal Hospital Kilmainham have been built of the same site. All of these facts confirm the toporaphy of the land which I have illustrated in the painting. It is unreasonable to ask for further descriptions of an otherwise rural scene dating back fourteen hundred years ... few if any places in the world are that well described dating from that era. Undeniably the image presented is my visualisation of the scene .... but no previous image or photograph of the area from that area exists and any new image can only be a visualisation.
The question then is who is qualified to make such visualisation. No such image could ever be made now, or in the future if the artist concerned was required to be already world famous and several hundred years dead. As for the style of the representation .... I would expect that any editor de-barring a painting from being attached to a Wiki article on the grounds of style alone would need to be an expert in that field.
In this case, this painting is now permanently installed in the Municipal Library in Kilmainham and a respected illustration of this famous and historical area's history, containing as it does Kilmainham Gaol and The Royal Hospital Kilmainham.
Finally, I am requesting that the image be attached to the article on Saint Maighneann .... and not to the article on Kilmainham where it was previously(and which is now truncated doing no credit to Wikipedia)
... many thanks Michael Msriposte (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm continuing this discussion on Talk:Kilmainham. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sacred Twenty

The DYK project (nominate) 06:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia LGBT

I just wanted to bring Wikimedia LGBT, a proposed user group and thematic organization that promotes the development of content on Wikimedia projects which is of interest to LGBT communities, to your attention. I am sure you are so busy with your current projects, but I hope you might be able to direct people to this group if they are interested in LGBT content in any way. Of course, you are also more than welcome to indicate your interest/support, if you wish. Hopefully we can get some LGBT-related GLAM/Education/etc. projects up and running in the near future. Best, --Another Believer (Talk) 20:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Debashis Chatterjee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Economic Times
Nora Newcombe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Nativism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Taiko

The article Taiko you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Taiko for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChrisGualtieri -- ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sidney Riesenberg

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jethro, I am working on building the Constitution Party of West Virginia page and would like to add our state party logo and other images. They are just little jpg files. Where am I supposed to upload them to?

- Jeff Becker (Lexington62) Secretary, CPWVa

Lexington62 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lexington! Before I answer your question, I do want to alert you to Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest editing. The important thing is that, as someone in a leadership position in your organization, it's important to understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, and the community is generally uncomfortable with editors creating and making substantial changes to articles to which they have an invested interest in (not necessarily just commercial or financial). That said, The article you've written looks somewhat neutral and sourced, though I've attempted to touch up a few things. I'd advise to be careful about future edits you make to the article, and be sure to provide reliable soruces to back-up information you add in about the Constitution Party of West Virginia.
Bearing that in mind, adding in a logo is not usually considered problematic. You'll need to go to WP:UPLOAD and you'll probably want to upload the image as a logo for specific use on that article, unless you want to allow it to be used more liberally on Wikipedia, in which case you can release it under a free license. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
It is my understanding that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which strives to be as accurate and in-depth as possible. As someone who has been involved with this political party almost since its inception (over nine years so far), a past candidate, and currently serving as party secretary (2nd term), who else would be better to CREATE this Wiki entry than myself? If someone else more neutral wants to maintain it afterword, that is fine, but I have access to ALL of the original SOURCE documents. Everything that I have added has been factual and fully referenced where possible. As far as your edits to our party founding history terminology, please rest assured that I have the complete state party minutes documents and as soon as I can get them scanned and transferred to our own website, i will be linking them to the Wiki page to verify all of the referenced dates.
However, if you find any additional information, material, and/or references on your own, by all means feel free to add them.
Sometime early this week, I plan to write the Ballot Access text for that empty section. Again, I have files of official party documents both to and from the Secretary of State to back up those planned entries and plan to have them linked as references.
Also of note is that none of the other political parties in West Virginia have any references AT ALL and are all still Stub class entries, even the Republicans and Democrats.
In the mean time, I still can't see where I am to upload image files. Also, how are image files positioned on the page to have text wrap around them and how are captions added? That is all the help I need on this write now and appreciate any answers SPECIFIC to just that question. Thanks, - Jeff B.

Lexington62 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Does WP:UPLOAD not work for you? You can always Request an upload if your account is not yet authorized to do so (you usually need to wait a couple of days after you make your account to upload images). I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Davis Theater

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Davis Theater you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. 

Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HughD -- HughD (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Flow Newsletter - November 14

Hi. This is a brief note to let you know about an update to the Main FAQ (the addition of a large table of Components of the discussion system), and also to specifically request your feedback on two items: our sandbox release plan, and a draft of the new contributors survey. We look forward to reading your input on these or other topics - Flow can only get better with your ideas! –Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Ukiyo-e

You must have added that image after I copied the article into my sandbox. Do you see an appropriate place to stick it in? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll figure out a place sometime tonight or tomorrow. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Is there some reason its inclusion in the artis's article isn't enough for it to be featured? I know nothing of the Featured Picture process. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC) I guess I'm only saying that because it seems like a random choice to place in the article—there are so many "masters" who aren't even mentioned, let alone have an image in the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yashima Gakutei, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Koto and Embossing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Woman playing a large suspended drum (tsuridaiko)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Yashima Gakutei - A woman playing a large suspended drum (tsuridaiko) A set of five prints for the Hisakataya poetry c... - Google Art Project.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Need Your Assistance To Handle Vandals

Hello Jethro,

Thanks for dropping a line on my talk page, let me share something with you.

I'd like to know how to protect the contents of the page which is keep modified by anti-social elements, it's clearly noticeable that all the edits which they make, appear to constitute vandalism to a reputed person of our society.

Let me tell you in brief, I've been contributing and writing a matter for a page and for some reasons I couldn't spare time to contribute in last few months and few anti-social activists, spammers etc... whose purpose is just to write irrelevants matters, they deleted all the matter which I wrote and started writing issues which has no concern with that person, is it acceptable?

Yesterday, I spent couple of hours to read the whole matter which was written by them and went through all the references which were posted on that page and found all of them were irrelevant and straight forwardly shows someone wants to defame the person who belongs to that page. I found all the edits were unconstructive to Wikipedia, I reverted them to original page content and today again I found someone changed the whole page matter.

Now in this scenario what should I do, does that mean if I contribute my time, energy, efforts in good way and add value to Wikipedia and then someone or few spammers or people who are against of that person would create few accounts on wikipedia and delete all the matter of a page and write whatever they want to write. Let me also tell you as far as references are concerned someone can write a fake blog post and link to it as a reference to defame a famous person, in this case what's the solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devoutly (talk • contribs) 05:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll need some time to look into this, but it seems there is some contention over the nature of the changes to the article based on talk page discussion. Keep in mind that many editors here are not out to deliberately cause trouble, and that we are here to work collaboratively. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Pritzker's Name Change

The name change becomes official today. The new name is Pritzker Military Museum & Library. Can you help me fix where appropriate? TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Teri. Congratulations! I can do a little right now, and will continue this evening. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
@TeriEmbrey: I noticed the website has not changed yet, nor is there any visible announcement online of the name change. When will something be available to demonstrate the name change? I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Interview on your WLL event?

Hey IJethroBT, I was just looking over the post-event rundown for Meetup/Chicago 8. Great work getting it together, and looks like there was some good content added as a result. I'd like to do a retrospective on this fall's WLL events for the upcoming issue of Books and Bytes. Do you have any time in the next week/two weeks to do a short interview about your experiences? Can do it by email or video chat, your preference. Best, The Interior (Talk) 16:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@The Interior: Thanks for the invitation! I have some time this week, even this evening, if you are available. Wednesday is not good for me this week, but I have time on Friday and the weekend as well. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Also, I'd be happy doing a video chat in a Google Hangout or something similar (Skype has historically not been cooperative on my computer). I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Great! Friday is a good day for me. Do you mind sending an email to theinterior80[at]gmail.com, and I will put together a hangout invite? I'm on Pacific time, I assume you are Central. Let me know what is a good time for you, looking forward to digitally meeting you, The Interior (Talk) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

About the Marie Curie RfC closing

Hi, I was one of the editor involved in the Marie Curie RfC you closed ~ 3 weeks ago. As real-life events kept me away from wikipedia lately, I am a bit late to react, sorry. Still I would have liked to discuss the rationale for choosing "option 6" as the consensus version. From the discussion, it does not seem to me there was a consensus for this version. The editors supporting option 6 were mostly the one originally supporting the "pure-Polish" option 4 and for four of them had actually posted their choices before the RfC was published. I do not think a RfC conclusion is supposed to be based on number of votes anyway, but in any case "option 6" was only supported by half of the vote participants. I personally still think the new phrasing do not address the issues of the previous phrasing (inconsistent with WP:OPENPARA, inconsistent with most other biographies, does not reflect the fact that beyond being naturalized she actually spent all of her life/career as a physicist in France as a Frenchwoman). I also do not see that "Polish-born French" is more ambiguous than "Polish naturalized French". Although it is true I could not participate in the discussion in the past few weeks, and although I trust you tried to assess the consensus in a honest way, I feel that the opinion of several of the participants is not taken into account in the chosen phrasing. This was my first active participation in a RfC, so I am not very sure of what would be the correct way for me to contest this new phrasing. Would you mind giving me your opinion on this? Thank you very much. Tokidokix (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tokidokix. I'm sorry you were not able to contact me sooner, but know that I'm open to discussing any of my closes, new or old. I did read through the discussion prior to the formal RfC, which as you know, showed there was considerable disagreement on how best to describe Curie's background in the lead in reference to her nationality and heritage. Let me respond to your concerns:
First, I don't understand what you are suggesting about editors who changed their opinions or who had those opinions earlier. Second, many editors clearly thought that some inclusion of both her Polish and French background were relevant, in spite of WP:OPENPARA recommendations, and it seems that Curie's life and activity in Poland has had some nontrivial level of coverage based on the discussion prior to the RfC. MOS guidelines have occasional exceptions, and I see this as one of them based on the discussion. And you are correct-- I did not count votes because this was not designed to be a survey. I looked at arguments. There were objections in this RfC and in the prior discussion to "Polish-French" (on the basis that it could suggest mixed descent, which was not rebutted). Your arguments for "Polish-born French" (i.e. ...as I have argued it is the most consistent with most of Wikipedia biographies, and is also the version blessed by Encyclopedia Britannica was not particularly compelling (i.e. we do not need to follow EB's example just because it exists nor do we need to follow convention when other reasonable options are proposed.) The other argument for Polish-born French, "Although her Polish origins were important, the French should be emphasized more per WP:OPENPARA", was not compelling given that option six does not conflict with this sentiment. Conversely, the arguments for option six were stronger. It is unambiguous and it is neutral with regard to disputes on national identity, and furthermore, no editor made any direct objections to option six. JonRichfield's argument I think is particularly strong, was not refuted, and clearly many editors agreed with him. On a side note, the rest of that opening paragraph captures her work and legacy in France: She was also the first female professor at the University of Paris, and in 1995 became the first woman to be entombed on her own merits in the Panthéon in Paris.
That said, I still believe my close reflects consensus on the matter in terms of the stronger arguments, and so at this point, I am unlikely to reconsider. Closes by anyone can be examined more closely by an uninvolved administrator by making a request at WP:AN for such a review. I, JethroBT drop me a line 17:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

JethroBT,

Thanks for the advice on creating/updating the Solidoodle Page. I will pay close attention to the Conflict of Interest guidelines and will do my best to suggest page updates via the Talk Page. Thanks for the advice.

Cheers,

Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cervantes.samuel (talk • contribs) 20:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Davis Theater

The article Davis Theater you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Davis Theater for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HughD -- HughD (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 8#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Replacing title cards and logos with promo advertisements?

Hi I JethroBT. I noticed your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 8#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Replacing title cards and logos with promo advertisements?:

There really isn't any support for the proposal; I think formal closes make sense when there is some ongoing disagreement that a close would help resolve, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

I generally list such discussions for closure for several reasons.

A close could help serve as a baseline for future discussions by explicitly recording the current consensus.

I have observed some topics being repeatedly raised. An uninvolved editor's close would firmly establish that the consensus is for or against a proposal, more so than a lengthy unclosed discussion.

I view RfCs like XfDs, which are always closed. An editor considered the subject important enough to start a formal discussion, so the discussion deserves a formal close to give its result finality.

Just sharing my thoughts about why I include these discussions in my closure requests. I've implemented the consensus at one of your closes since no one else had restored the image. Thank you again for your closes! Cunard (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have observed some topics being repeatedly raised. An uninvolved editor's close would firmly establish that the consensus is for or against a proposal, more so than a lengthy unclosed discussion. Sure, I have observed this as well. When there is evidence that repeated, similar proposals are not reaching consensus, I think a formal close would be helpful there to "put the nail in the coffin" as it were (at least, until consensus changes-- also, if we continue with this metaphor, "raising the proposal back from the dead" makes me laugh). I suppose the basis for my statement is at the top of WP:ANRFC: Please note that most discussions do not need formal closure. In the case of the title cards, I just didn't see evidence that this was a persistent proposal, and I also believe that involved editors were more than capable of reading that consensus and act accordingly on their own. It's true that there is no real harm and that there can be benefits from doing a formal close that reflects consensus. Still, I think there are cases when editors do not need an uninvolved editor to read into consensus, and I thought this might be one of the few. That said, thanks for giving me opportunities to practice reading into consensus, and for implementing my closes.  : ) I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Morris (news presenter)

Hi I JethroBT - Just a quick update to say I have added considerably more references - now numbering 70 altogether - to the Article awaiting review. As you said, it is difficult to track down news stories to list from the BBC archive that can be accessed only on their database in London that at present isn't on the internet. The hundreds of film and video stories that I covered around the world between 1972 and 1989 are listed on the BBC News card index that I understand is still being digitised. And I do, as mentioned previously, have VHS/DVD copies of all the television broadcasts listed in the Article. During the past few days since you sent your message I have unearthed more references - from TV, books and newspapers - to harden up the Article and hope that will help to finally achieve publication. Thank you Sirromhc (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sirromhc: Thanks for the additional sources. I've cleaned up the article a bit and have accepted it for publication on the article space. You can find it at Christopher Morris (news presenter). Thanks for all your hard work! I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT - Many thanks for cleaning up the Article and for your invaluable advice and guidance in finally getting it published. One question that, hopefully, you can resolve : Christopher Morris (news presenter) now appears in the various listed Categories but in the wrong alphabetical order. The name is currently appearing under the christian name "C" instead of the letter "M" of the surname in all the Categories listed at the bottom of the Article. Can this please be rectified? I will, of course, continue to fine tune the Article as suggested. Thanks again. Sirromhc (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sirromhc: You're welcome! Good catch on the categorization issue-- that's not something I normally check. I'm not entirely sure why it was sorted there, but I used Template:DEFAULTSORT to force it to sort by his last name. Looks like it works on the few categories I checked. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi I JethroBT - Good to see you were able to resolve the categorization issue. I've added a few more references after ploughing through magazine and newspaper archives to back up citation requirements. These added through the Cite Templates. Hopefully, I'm not planning any further additions to the Article and that the clean-up of the past few days is an improvementSirromhc (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GA Thanks

This user has contributed to Davis Theater good articles on Wikipedia.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your editorial contributions to Davis Theater, which recently was promoted to WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tony! I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse- How do I find questions?

Hi there I JethroBT!

I just joined the Teahouse hosts team, and I am wondering how I could answer questions that Teahouse users ask. I installed all of the listed scripts, including the Teahouse Host Navigation Box script. I have bypassed my browser's cache, and no 'Teahouse Host Navigation Box' shows up on any of the Teahouse pages. Any ideas?

Thanks! Newyorkadam (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam

WAIIT NEVERMIND I found it :D It's at the bottom of the pages! I'm going edit the script page to mention that it shows up at the bottom. Thanks!

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...
Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement

Hello, I JethroBT:

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection.

Posted by: Northamerica1000(talk) 18:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:IMAGINE Part 2: The Opinionized Editorial

Put that fine piece of work up on the auction-block. User_talk:Mark_Miller#WP:WER_op-ed. You got any more where that came from?  :-)

  p.s Also, as always of course WP:REQUIRED applies and this is only a suggestion, but would you mind becoming a sock exactingly following WP:MULTIPLE, and creating User:Jethrobot User:JethroBot User:JethroBT and the corresponding talkpages? They can then #REDIRECT to here at your official uid, and you can afterwards get the redirects full-page-prot by some handy admin, so they won't be vandalized someday.

  Reason being, my non-positronic brain is weak, and I keep dropping the I_ prefix or trying to comma-ify the uid like the book-title, plus wikipedia has no useful uid-search-mechanism (typo just takes you straight to a redlink slash errmsg). As a bonus, if you do one day decide to become a boht master... as opposed to personally embodying a positronic robot... you'll already have the appropriate secondary account ready to go, without needing to WP:USURP. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad it's on the auction block and not the chopping kind. Thanks for speaking so highly of my essay, though I only learned those ideas from John Green and DFW. I'd be happy to expand upon it for the purposes of an OP-ED. I don't have any other immediate ideas for essays right now, but do have some things I could write about Wikipedia in an OP-ED format. As for creating multiple accounts, I think I'll hold off. I don't have any interest in creating a bot either now or in the foreseeable future (it's just not my skill set). I'm generally reluctant to create multiple accounts. I think close usernames are automatically denied at registration; I remember trying to register "IJethrobot" some years ago to prevent its creation and it told me it was too similar to I Jethrobot, so I'm not too worried about impersonators right now. That said, I'll keep the idea under consideration, as it may be more relevant next year. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Re; adding the Cill Mhaighneann Painting

Thanks again Jethro...... re your concern about the Celtic Cross .... the shaft of a 10th Century Celtic Cross still remains in situ on the site as can be seen here http://www.irishmegaliths.org.uk/zKilmainham.htmin Bully's acre which is on the ridge where Maighneann built his church. Many thanks or taking time over this.

A photo of the unveiling of the painting in the Library can be seen here http://kilmainhamtales.ie/ on the Kilmainham Tales Site which is owned by Kilmainham Gaol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msriposte (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please post comments on the article talk page at this point, not on my talk page. It's inconvenient to have this discussion going on in several places at once. I also do not really have time to devote to this matter any further. I'd like to see more participation on whether this image should be included, so I'm asking participants in WikiProject Ireland to weigh in on the issue. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Holiday Cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

You're invited: Art & Feminism Edit-a-thon

Art & Feminism Edit-a-Thon - In a city near you! - You are invited!
The first ever Art and Feminism Edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, February 1, 2014 across the United States and Canada - including Chicago! Wikipedians of all experience levels are welcome to join!

Any editors interested in the intersection of feminism and art are welcome. Experienced editors will be on hand to help new editors.
Bring a friend and a laptop! Come one, come all! Learn more here!

Happy New Year I JethroBT!

Happy New Year!
Hello I JethroBT:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Minor point

One trivial point in your close of the discussion here: the "possible structures" were proposed by Diego Moya, not me. I actually opposed them as I wanted to keep the discussion on focus, and found the suggestions poorly thought out.
And thanks for closing the discussion, by the way. Though I'm unhappy with the result I appreciate you taking the time to close the discussion thoughtfully.--Cúchullain t/c 19:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I misread the signature there. I'll get that fixed up. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the close at Alejandro García Padilla

Man, I wish most people would be so explicative on their closures. Thanks for the hard work, I know it's not easy to read a lot of mumbo jumbo and to provide an opinion on a matter you are unfamiliar with. Have you considered becoming an admin? We need people like you. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your kindness. I have given it some consideration, and it's likely you'll see me on RfA sooner or later. One of the hard parts is finding a week I think I will be available to answer questions. I, JethroBT drop me a line 00:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki-PR edit warring

I do not know your "position" on Wiki-PR, so this is not a canvassing attempt. I would just like more eyes on the edit dispute taking place here and specifically here. I get the feeling that (as usual) Smallbones and Coretheapple are tag-teaming to keep a particular "revenge" POV in Wikipedia about paid editing, to the detriment of a wider NPOV perspective. Do your own analysis of the situation, and please weigh in on whatever side your conscience dictates. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@I'm not that crazy: Sorry I haven't checked into this yet. I'll see if I have time tomorrow. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Good closure

I just wanted to let you know that this was one of the best-worded closing rationales I've seen. StAnselm (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Hey, thanks for the kind words. Evaluating and closing RfCs takes a good chunk of time! I do my best to make it clear what arguments did and did not inform my close rather than just saying what consensus was. The way I saw it-- even coverage said that the famous teenage pregnancy was, say, Juno MacGuff's, the fact that it "wasn't real" wouldn't make a lick of difference. (And sorry the RfC didn't go your way. I thought would be interesting to see if there are indeed sources that discuss Mary in relation to the current attitudes surrounding teenage pregnancy. However, after I closed the discussion, most of the ones I found were pretty exclusively focused on motherhood more than anything else.) I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue

Books & Bytes

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:

Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

how did i do on my first edit?

Hey,

I did my first edit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churches_affiliated_with_Australian_Christian_Churches

let em know how I did and if i can do anything else or can you make recomendations for me for other edits/adds


thanks :)

Jimvegas Jimvegas (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jimvegas: Your first edits look pretty swell on this article at first glance. I'll look at this more tomorrow and get back to you with suggestions. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Chaminade High School

Two questions:

1. You noted that you deleted "honorifics" that are not used in Wikipedia; however, these are not honorifics but ecclesiastical titles that distinguish the holders as members of a religious order. Would you list Pope Francis as just "Francis" or a Rabbi or Protestant minister by their common name, instead of calling them Rabbi Shwartz or Reverend Jones?

1. You cited the removal of what you considered to be a promo - but the number of those who graduated from the school is reported in the school's annual report not as a promo but as a statement of fact. If Harvard University stated that it had graduated over 500,000 alumni would it be deleted as a promo or just accepted as fact? (and not necessarily because it's Harvard).

Built1905 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Built1905Built1905 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Built1905: I'm sorry, but I've never made any edits to this article, and so I do not know what edits / views you are referring to above. I asked you to clarify this you contacted me about this article almost a year ago, but I never heard from you. I, JethroBT drop me a line 03:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Meetup 8

I just noticed how successful Meetup 8 was.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: Hey thanks! It was a great time. I want to do it again next year! I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Priscilla McLean/life

Hi. Please note that the correction to this site has been made, and the laudatory comments are now identified as a quotation. Please have someone remove the warning bars at the top of this article. Thanks for your help. PriscillaAnne (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi PriscillaAnne, thanks for contacting me. I've removed the tag on the basis that neutrality issues have been addressed, but I think there is some evidence that you do have some connection with the subject, so it may be necessary to have a similar warning on the article's talk page. I've made such comments there. If you do have a connection with the subject, I suggest you be up-front about it, because it does matter. For instance, I do not write on the article on the University of Illinois at Chicago because I work there, and I say so on my user page. In principle, it's best to avoid writing articles on topics for which you have a close personal or professional connection, even if you think that topic should have an article. It's often too hard to write about those topics neutrally. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, I JethroBT. You have new messages at Talk:Priscilla McLean.
Message added 18:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

ArtAndFeminism

Hi Jethro, I am writing up a story on the ArtAndFeminism meetups from last week for In the Media in this week's Signpost, and was wondering if you could give a brief comment on how it went/future plans with it/success or failure/etc. I am pinging several users in hopes that one will reply by the deadline, which is likely some time tonight. Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! 19:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: Heya! I know this message comes too late, but I'm glad to hear you're interested in writing on the event. Unfortunately, it completely slipped my mind because I had thought the event was later in February than it was for whatever silly reason, so I completely missed it! Sorry I couldn't be of greater help to you. I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please join WikiProject Women artists!

Hello I JethroBT/Archive 10! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women artists. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women artists, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women artists on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women artists page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

SarahStierch (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English

Hi I JethroBt. Thank you for your detailed, eloquent close at Talk:Li (surname)#RFC regarding multiple Chinese surnames transliterated to the same surname in English (permanent link)! This was certainly not an easy read, which was many editors decided not to close it themselves. I hope your close will resolve the long-standing dispute about how to distinguish the different transliterations of the Li surname from each other. As a side note, I mentioned you here at User talk:Gaijin42#A Barnstar for you from Armbrust. Thank you again for your consistent quality work at WP:ANRFC! Best, Cunard (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cunard! It's really quite kind of you to read over the closes that folks are doing, and I appreciate it. : ) I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Raising Shrimp deleted

I am sorry I missed the discussion to delete the Raising Shrimp documentary film page I created. Was it because of poor citation? I now have new citations that should help with the validity of this page. I have rewritten the page in my sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vezzerina (talk • contribs) 11:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter


MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I_JethroBT/Archive_10&oldid=1168301789"