User talk:JJPMaster

This user is a regular, and is indifferent to being templated. You may choose to template or not template her at your own discretion.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

A lonely userbox

vn-9

This user talk page has been vandalized 9 times.

Bibliography: publications about Orville Peck

Dear JJPMaster; thank you for your wiki-contributions. Just like yourself, I learn something new about Wiki-World almost everyday. Today you will learn about bibliographic articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies Please take a look at another bibliographic article, that I contributed to recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer_bibliography .

I respectfully ask you to restore my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_publications_about_Orville_Peck , so that other wiki-editors can contribute to improving it. This article will be listed/formatted as a bibliography article.

Thank you in advance, Walter Tau Walter Tau (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Tau: A few things. Firstly, I was not aware that bibliographies could be lists of publications about people before now, so thank you for that. However, your article still cannot be accepted (note that I have not deleted it; just declined it at Articles for Creation, so you can resubmit it at any time), for a few reasons:

Your article, as it stands, fails to demonstrate that it passes the notability criterion for stand-alone lists, since the only citations are the publications themselves. That criterion says that any list, including a bibliography, must demonstrate that the group in question has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (sig/cov). To quote from the guideline:
Topical bibliographies are lists of relevant books, journals and other references on a specific topic. The lead of a topical bibliography should establish the notability of the bibliography by citing at least two sources that demonstrate that relevant books, journals and other references on a specific topic have been discussed as a group. (emphasis mine)
In other words, you must not demonstrate that individual members of the collection have sig/cov, but that the collection as a whole does.
I stand by my decline of the article as violating What Wikipedia is not, since it appears that the list was compiled directly from some database, and includes seemingly every publication on the topic, including many duplicates. You have as yet failed to demonstrate that your article does not improperly use Wikipedia as an indiscriminate collection of information, as I alleged in my comment while declining the article.

However, I have partially reversed my renaming of the page after rereading the relevant guidelines. Either way, you can continue to make edits to the draft article, since it has not been deleted, and resubmit it if you wish. And if you wish for an impartial opinion, I suggest that you ask on the Articles for Creation help desk. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 15:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JJPMaster: thank you for getting back to me quickly. Today I learned, that there are notability criteria for bibliographic articles. A "list of his songs" would definitely meet the notability criteria (and it is provided in the article itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orville_Peck#References), but I am less sure about a "list of publications about him" would qualify.

However, I came up with another idea: if you scroll down this webpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga , you will see a "Literary sources" section. These are publications about Lady Gaga, which are not cited in the article. This list is limited to what the editor thought were the most important publications - it is not an exhausting list. What do you think about making a similar small "Literary sources" section for Orville Peck? Walter Tau (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Tau: That likely would be fine, and I advise that you be bold. However, if your addition is reverted, you should come to a consensus on the talk page (Talk:Lady Gaga). JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 18:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JJPMaster, Walter Tau: If I may ... that section at Lady Gaga seems to me to be mistitled. It's a list of book sources. In any case, the proposed list of sources about Orville Peck is entirely or almost entirely journalism/magazines/fansites. If there are any extended treatments of him in books that are in there and haven't been used as references in the article, they should be used that way, not simply listed; but are there any? Walter Tau has been bold multiple times. There's an existing section at Talk:Orville Peck (which I think is what you meant to link to, JJPMaster), where Walter Tau has responded once. Walter Tau, if you can find any good sources about Peck within that list of database hits that are not yet cited in the article, please list them in that section. Since not everyone has access to the databases, that would be really useful. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: I wasn’t aware of the prior talk page discussion, so thank you for showing me that. So, Walter Tau, please seek consensus on Talk:Orville Peck before adding any of these sources en masse. And if you end up adding it, please read our guideline on external links first, and please do not just copy your full draft in there, since my points about Wikipedia not being a directory still stand. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 02:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Prunus cathybrownae has been accepted

Prunus cathybrownae, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Isnamademecry (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where u from?:?? im from israel and pakistan wbu

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thanks for helping out across Articles for Creation - your work here never goes unappreciated :-). Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biased removal of content?

Hi how are you? I recently had an edit instantly removed by you as you claimed it was "Not helpful" the irony being it was a detailed breakdown on a conspiracy. Let me ask, were you the initial poster of the conspiracy? How is any claims referencing a memecoin to a government department allowed on here? I'd love for some rationality from your side. 120.22.151.155 (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do agree that there is no conspiracy like that, I removed it nevertheless. Three reasons:

You did not provide any reliable sources for the existence of this as a major conspiracy theory,
You wrote it in a very non-neutral tone, using loaded political language, and
Even if this were a real conspiracy theory and written neutrally, it likely would not belong in the lead of the article, as we at Wikipedia try to avoid giving undue weight to fringe theories.

Meanwhile, the part that you removed, namely, that DOGE is a backronym for Dogecoin, is undisputed. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, when i first started the edit the conspiracy was there directly stating it was a "pump and dump" so i addressed the statement and provided insight. Which is what i thought this place was about. "DOGE is a backronym" IT is not though, look at any government acronym and their names, do you mean to tell me FBI is a backronym for 'fining black individuals' ? If you check the edit history you will see somebody had wrote it was pump and dump, while i was editing you must have changed it to the doge backronym.

anyway appreciate your response, cheers. 120.22.220.169 (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find any edit alleging such a conspiracy in the page history. And as for DOGE being a backronym, that claim in the article is sourced, so you will likely need consensus on Talk:Department of Government Efficiency before removing it. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 03:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential misfire

I'm assuming that this was a misfire? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: Correct, I'm sorry. We've been dealing with a lot of one specific kind of vandalism ("Mario Thomas Barros" --> "Mario Luigi Bros") from IPs, so I instinctively reverted the edit without realizing that it was actually the reversion of the vandalism I thought the edit itself was. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 02:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Starid (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're really funny haha. Nice to meet you. You're my new Wiki Inspo, watch out xx

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]