User talk:jlwoodwa

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Edward-Woodrow (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Bare references

Why are you adding this template to the articles where there is no such citation. If you continue, your edits would be problematic for you Egeymi (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you talking about my edit to Albert Reich? If so, notice that {{webarchive}} states:

This template is intended for external links. It is not designed for use as a citation template.

WP:BURL also describes URLs that have some additional information, but not enough to be a full citation, as still being "bare".

If you still disagree about the applicability of this template, then I think we should move this discussion to either Template talk:Bare URL inline or Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs. Regardless, I hope we can remain civil, and remember that both of us just want to improve Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Brand_(grand_cru)

listed for speedy deletion because it "redirects" to a draft of the page. I tried to do a standard move from article-> draftspace so I'm not sure what happened there. It has happened before with a draft page reachable from Google so please let me know what has gone wrong there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbenjamin (talk • contribs) 09:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

June 2023

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Talk:Kim Kardashian/Archive 1 did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button.

And don't mess with other's signatures in your copyediting unless something is specifically broken on the page. Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I know what went wrong with the signatures – I must have pressed Edit on an older revision of that page, prior to User:MalnadachBot's linting. Sorry, and I'll be more careful to avoid this mistake in the future. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Historical top 20 companies by market capitalisation

Hello, I'm a student, who is currently writing a mathematics paper on the stock market, and finding an "optimal" strategy to beat the market consistently. To do this I need the exact same information that's in the Wikipedia article, "List of public corporations by market capitalization", but instead of the top 10 from every year, I need the top 20. I figured I'd ask you seen as you seem to have edited the article more than anyone else. Where would I find this information?

Thanks and sorry if I've done this wrong I don't know how Wikipedia really works. FinstaWiki (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Gabrieli Pessanha moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Gabrieli Pessanha. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because your article is too short, please see WP:HOW to see how to write better pages. Please use the sandbox if you want to do any more test changes. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Wafflesvarog (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Jlwoodwa,

We have hundreds of thousands of old User pages and 99.99% of them are not eligible for CSD G13 deletion. Please review WP:G13 so you understand what features have to exist for a User or Draft page to be eligible for CSD G13.

We have bots that publish daily lists of pages that are G13 eligible so it is very unlikely that you will come across a page that the bots haven't listed. Actually, if you intend to do more deletion tagging, please become familiar with all criteria at WP:CSD. Some of them are a little tricky but they are all very specific and limited. Some of the criteria only cover main space pages while others only cover other pages like Redirects or Categories.

If you have any questions, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you for your contributions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, you will find it very useful to start to use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion. It has a lot of very helpful features that allow you to report vandalism, tag an article for PROD, open an AFD discussion, post notices to User pages. Just be sure to set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creators" so that any time you tag a page for deletion, the page creator is notified. This is an important step in the deletion process. Try it out! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: If someone makes a draft and then blanks it, doesn't it become "Userspace with no content", meaning {{db-blankdraft}} (WP:G13) would apply? Normally I would use {{db-blanked}} (WP:G7), but that doesn't apply to userspace. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Piped link

Template:Piped link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hello, Jlwoodwa,

Please do not be moving other editor's User pages around. You made some pretty obvious mistakes. And you are still an inexperienced editors, learning about Wikipedia policies and practices. Above all, I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate another editor coming into your User space, messing around with your pages. This is true even if an editor isn't currently active. There are just so many other, more productive uses of your time, becoming a better editor, than going through other editors' User pages. Please stick with improving articles or learning about counter-vandalism. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, you really need to use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion. Especialy for reasons like G13, page creators need to know that they have made a copyright violation. Half of your work as an editor is educating other editor's about Wikipedia policies. Posting takl pages notices is a way of a letting other editors know that they have created pages with problems. Please start leaving these notifications every time you tag a page for deletion, if you don't use Twinkle, which will do this for you, then leave a personal note that you've written or find an appropriate template. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Chinese. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Advice about redirect categorization and {{R cat shell}} on its own

Hey, I saw you added {{R cat shell}} on its own at Milton Sirotta, with the edit summary of "+rcat shell". Unless your goal was to leave it for another editor to categorize, this shouldn't be done; redirect pages don't need to be categorized or have {{R cat shell}}. In general, if you're going to add it to more articles, I would recommend actually trying to categorize the articles yourself first before placing it and leaving it in Category:Miscellaneous redirects, as most aren't that hard to categorize (WP:TMR is extremely helpful for this). If you don't think there's a suitable category, don't add the template. Cheers. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

"William Herbert Hobbs Distinguished Professor of Geography" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect William Herbert Hobbs Distinguished Professor of Geography has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 23 § William Herbert Hobbs Distinguished Professor of Geography until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Changes to Erik Olssen article

Hi there, thanks for the changes you made to the Olssen article. I am confused as to why or how you linked all authors, so now many of them show as red in the references because they don't have wikipedia pages. Are you able to look at this please.Realitylink (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

County town

Just a question as I do not understand it. Why is the hatnote about American county seats inappropriate at County town? The Banner talk 09:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited U, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's rude for one of the participants in an edit war to {{uw-ew}} the other, but I'll assume you're just trying to start the conversation.

Preservation potential and preservation bias are significant, non-trivial, frequently-invoked and -discussed concepts relevant to several historical sciences, including historical geology, archaeology, and paleontology. Currently Preservation bias is a redirect to Taphonomy § Taphonomic biases in the fossil record, but as the concept is used outside paleontology, there should properly be an article about the general concept rather than its application to paleontology alone. A discussion of preservation potential/bias could give context such as survival bias. Per WP:REDYES: Create red links whenever a non-existent article with more information would help a reader understand the content of the article in which the red link will appear. An easy example is a technical term that merits a treatment beyond its dictionary definition, to help support its role for its existing context. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A happy frog for you!

	A happy frog for you!
	Thank you for creating various useful redirects. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Initials

Template:Initials has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Please document new templates

When you create a new template like {{Nbhairsp}}, please add a documentation page with information about the template, including a Category for the template. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

And again, with {{They're}}. Please provide documentation and a category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Also {{Redirect-for-distinguish}}. This is becoming somewhat disruptive. You are making work for other editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I've added documentation for {{they're}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

And now {{Weren't}} and more. Please stop this disruption. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Prods

Jlwoodwa, you're proding quite a lot of articles for obviously notable subjects that haven't/hadn't been sourced, e.g. Frederick Dunlap (American football). A more productive approach be to post of list of such BLP articles missing references at a relevant WikiProject, e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. I'd appreciate if you could slow down with the prods so we can catch up and get these articles sourced before any get deleted. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Please stop nominating articles for WP:BLPPROD in such quantity. Today alone, you have nominated around 400 articles (!!!). Many of these articles have had sources that were removed through vandalism, and some aren't even BLPs! Curbon7 (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Wait, which weren't BLPs? I thought I'd been very careful to avoid articles about bands and such. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Victor-François, 8th duc de Broglie is dead, for one. As I stated, many of these articles were also at one time sourced, but the sources were removed through vandalism. For clarification, the issue with nominating such a huge number of articles at once is that it becomes physically impossible to check each article for sources, undermining the entire point of BLPPROD. Curbon7 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I thought WP:BDP implied that people born after 1908 needed a reliable source to be established as exempt from WP:BLP (hence the existing tag) and by extension WP:BLPPROD. But [i]f there is any doubt to the applicability of this procedure to the article, then it is preferable to use another deletion process, so mea culpa.

As for the point of BLPPROD, I thought it was that it's better to have no article at all than a wholly unsourced article about a living person. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your second paragraph, I'm not debating BLP and BLPPROD: that's all good and dandy, and we're on the same page. What I'm trying to say is that by nominating 400 articles at the same time, you are making the whole PROD system approach critical mass. Besides the fact that the articles are not deleted automatically by a robot (a physical admin has to check each article and click delete every time), a number of these article were at one point sourced (a small sample: Anosh Ekka, Quinten Burg, Spencer Collier, C. S. Puttaraju). Most of these nominations seems fine on paper, but it is simply the mass of them that is an issue. Curbon7 (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how a slower tagging rate would help administrators (they can take their time if they want to!), but I agree that some of those BLPPRODs needed more examination before submitting. I'm done for now (emptied out the wholly unsourced articles from Category:Unreferenced BLPs), but if it comes up again I'll be slower/more careful. Thanks for clarifying. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries; it was a little frustrating when I first saw it, but it's not a huge deal (for example, on Ashok Uike and Radek Vondráček, it was easy enough to revert back to the last clean version). Sorry if I came across a little rude at first! Curbon7 (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, I also plan to help find sources! I just thought it was best to tag first. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm but never again mass-nominate articles for any kind of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/TFD/MFD/etc.). It's easy with a click to tag an article for deletion but each one has to be reviewed by at least one administrator and often other editors review them as well. What can take you a few minutes to tag can take other editors hours to address. There are editors with years of experience who have done the same thing as you and have suffered a backlash for doing mass nominations so it is very murky waters for a new editor to plunge in and mass-nominate articles. Editors have gotten blocked from participating in AFDs for doing things like this

There is no hurry to delete these articles, most of them have been on the project for years, so please, don't nominate more than a dozen or so articles per day using any system of deletion we have. I don't say this as a policy guideline but as an administrator who spends most of my time on the project reviewing pages tagged for deletion. Luckily, many other editors have worked on these articles you have tagged and located sources but a week is not much time to deal with hundreds of articles. We still have 95 articles that due to be reviewed for PROD tomorrow. Please do not do this again. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

A few notes about WP:CITEVAR and other unnecessary or undesirable changes to articles

Amidst some helpful changes to H. G. Wells, your edits changed DMY dates to YMD dates, which is contrary to the {{Use dmy dates}} template that was in place, and contrary to WP:CITEVAR. The change also didn't modify the dates displayed in the article, so it was pointless. Equally pointless were your changes of page ranges in citation templates to use improper hyphens instead of the dashes that were present, per MOS:RANGE, and your lower-casing of template names. Please make changes that conform with WP:MOS and avoid making changes that are out of line with Wikipedia guidelines. There is a lot to learn here; please take some time to browse through MOS if you are going to make style-related changes. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Consistency (MOS:DATEUNIFY): Each article should use either DMY or MDY consistently, except that in references, the format used by the citation style chosen for the article is used consistently. However, the only all-numeric style allowed in citations is YMD.
— WP:DATEOVER

Don't these guidelines mean that, if citations in an article use a mixture of DMY, MDY, and YMD, it's encouraged to make them consistent – and that this need not be the same as the body's date format? (I'm not arguing, but clarifying and hoping to clear up any misconceptions I have.) jlwoodwa (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

There is more to that guideline, about the first date format used in the history of the article and about gaining consensus on the article's talk page. In any event, take a look at the citation that includes "What the War of the Worlds means now" before and after your edit. You will see that your changes to the dates did not modify the rendering of the citation dates. I recommend learning more about how citation dates work and more about MOS:DATEUNIFY before you make mass edits like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

List of skeletal muscles of the human body - Historical perspectives and Links

Mr. Jlwoodwa would you elaborate why you find that the timeframe in which the observation of the muslces are irrelevant to the article? and why it is irrelevent for people to meet the concept: that what muscles we have have changed over time and will change over time, in a list of human muscles?

As well as why a

• List of organs of the human body (as muscles are an organ)

List of distinct cell types in the adult human body(as muscles are made from Cells)

• List of human microbiota(as your microbiome effect is believed to affect muscle growth https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6933299/)

Will likely not be of relevance to people looking at a list of muscles in the human body? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPAb

Template:IPAb has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Messing with other editor's posts

...as you did with mine here is a breach of WP:TPO. Don't do it. I see you messed with a number of posts on that noticeboard not just mine and an editor has reverted you on all of them. If you do it again it will be a fast way to get blocked. DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nbhairsp

Template:Nbhairsp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"Please check ISBN" template

Hi – because you recently added {{Please check ISBN}} to a number of pages, I thought you might have something to contribute in this discussion I just started. Joriki (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Please note that when I added the reference, I placed the peculiar ISBN in double parentheses. This means that it has been double checked already. Thanks,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Have

Template:Have has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Weren't

Template:Weren't has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

WPBS ratings

When you add a rating to WPBS (e.g. [1]), please could you remove the ratings from each individual banner? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Prelude to Presents.

The R from avoided redirect reads, "This is a redirect from an alternative title for I Am Become Christmas, another redirect to the same title . Because double redirects are disallowed, both pages currently point to Lemon Demon." My underlining. As Prelude to Presents is not an alternative title to I Am Become Christmas then the template is not to used in this instance. Perhaps you'd like to see Category:Avoided double redirects to see which of us is supported in our opinions.

I have no intention of reverting you at this stage, and have earlier today given a pass to other examples while I think about it. Perhaps you'd also like to think about it, perhaps ask the opinions of other editors. Let's see if we can agree. Thanks Richhoncho (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: I think "alternative title" is just another word for "redirect". Template:R avoided double redirect § Purpose states:

Some redirects should target other redirects, but that is not allowed by Wikipedia software. A redirect that targets another redirect is called a "double redirect". This redirect category (rcat) template may be used to tag redirects from alternative forms (abbreviations, disambiguated titles, etc.) of titles that are themselves redirects to broader-topic articles (whether or not marked as redirects with possibilities). To avoid a double redirect, any alternative-title redirect must also target the same broader article, and must be updated if the redirect from the more specific title is converted to a separate article.

The song Prelude to Presents would normally redirect to its album I Am Become Christmas, but the latter is itself a redirect to Lemon Demon. This is precisely the use-case of {{a2r}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

You say I think "alternative title" is just another word for "redirect" but that ignores all the the other redirect templates which are for wikipedia maintenance, i.e. from other caps, unnecessary disambiguation, to/from diacritic, other punctuation etc.

You also ignore all the other avoided redirects being added which do not follow your example, 2000+ added in the last 5 weeks, some directed to the artist or discography because no album exists, but not with the r from avoided redirect added.

As far as I have seen only redirects to Lemon Demon have been categorised in the way you think is correct. Rather than a long-winded and ultimately futile discussion, would you like to take this discussion elsewhere where we might get a resolution? Richhoncho (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Richhoncho: I'm not ignoring anything. {{a2r}} is also for Wikipedia maintenance: for instance, if I Am Become Christmas is created as an article, Prelude to Presents will automatically be placed in the maintenance category Avoided double redirects to be updated. This is good, since I Am Become Christmas (if it existed) would be a better target for Prelude to Presents. That is the entire purpose of {{a2r}}. Even if other editors are not using it, I don't think their omission constitutes WP:CONSENSUS to remove {{a2r}} from existing redirects. If you think there would be broad support for that, feel free to bring it up at Template talk:R avoided double redirect or propose its deletion at WP:TFD. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. I have been adding and using R from song for the past 10 years+ and this is the first time I have had a problem where I have done nothing wrong. I could quite easily find editors to agree with me. So, as a solution that meets both our POV I will add the albums and the song titles back into the main article tomorrow and remove the r from redirects where appropriate from the redirects. Pls confirm this is acceptable. Thanks. Richhoncho (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

PS. I also note you are changing R from song, to r to album, on Christmas Will Be Soon which cannot be right as there is NO album. I assume typo, but nonetheless... Richhoncho (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

1. I created the redirect with {{r to album}}. You changed it to {{r from song}} at the same time as you removed {{a2r}}. When I undid your edit, it reverted to {{r to album}}.
2. This is relatively unimportant, as {{r to album}} is merely a redirect to {{r from song}}.
3. Still, I think {{r to album}} is correct here. Christmas Will Be Soon is conceptually a redirect to I Am Become Christmas; for technical reasons, it must redirect to Lemon Demon, which is why {{a2r}} is used, but it is still conceptually a redirect to an album.

jlwoodwa (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No, {{a2r}} would still belong on Christmas Will Be Soon, until and unless I Am Become Christmas is made into an article. You are not required to add {{a2r}} to redirects you create, but you should not remove it from redirects. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I cannot fathom your dislike of my suggestion, especially case, for example, Christmas Will Be Soon should be listed for deletion as there is no mention whatsover on the target page, or redirected to a more useful destination. IOW the redirect leads nowhere. All very pointless. If you don't like my suggestion, then the alternative would be to list all appropriate songs as unwanted redirects. This you can simply do as {{db-author}} and I can fully support such action. Richhoncho (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't dislike your suggestion. Please, go ahead and improve Lemon Demon. But {{a2r}} will still belong on Christmas Will Be Soon, as per its documentation. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

They wouldn't be A2r if mentioned in the article. As we do not appear to be making any progress on this I am now considering something I have been advised, not being mentioned in the article I believe falls under Wikipedia:R#DELETE, Richhoncho (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Christmas Will Be Soon would still be {{a2r}}, regardless of the content of Lemon Demon, since I Am Become Christmas would be a better target for that redirect if it were an article rather than a redirect itself. This is the clearly-stated purpose of {{a2r}}. Please do not delete contentious redirects just to make a WP:POINT. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I have offered 3 alternative solutions, taken advice from a third party and I am the one making WP:POINT? Richhoncho (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I notice that you also removed {{a2r}} from Rauna (genus). Are you WP:FOLLOWING me around? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Because it was in direct contradiction of your arguments above. Richhoncho (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

How was it in direct contradiction? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Let’s start again, Category:Avoided double redirects reads, inter alia, ‘This is a maintenance category, used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project. It is not part of the encyclopedia and contains non-article pages, or groups articles by status rather than subject. Do not include this category in content categories.

This is a tracking category. It builds and maintains a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself. They are not part of the encyclopedia's categorization scheme.'

In other words, only errors, mistakes, miscaps etc should be included and no redirects should ever be created to be included in this category.

Although my knowledge of Jurassic prawns is precisely zero, I suspect that the categories used for the redirect Cancrinos claviger are more in keeping for what is required for Rauna (genus). Hopefully they will give you more clues to more suitable catting of the redirect than you have been intent upon. I look forward to you finding better categorisation on this issue.

You will note on the Cancrinos claviger redirect there is an option for ‘printable’ which goes back to the days when a printed version of the encyclopedia was mooted. Song titles are by default all unprintable, because, ultimately 99% of them are clutter, unlike, I think, rauna (genus).

When we have a consensus on this, perhaps we can find a consensus on those song titles. Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What part of that category description says only errors, mistakes, miscaps etc should be included? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that is is admininistration category and not part of the encyclopedia. Richhoncho (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrative categories are often placed on pages with encyclopedic content. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Exaample? Richhoncho (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

A brief sample of Pages that link to "Template:Maintenance category" in namespace "Category":

• Category:All articles with suspected copyright violations
• Category:All articles to be split
• Category:All articles to be merged
• Category:All accuracy disputes
• Category:All Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes
• Category:All self-contradictory articles
• Category:Sports stubs
• Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates from November 2023
• Category:All articles to be expanded
• Category:All pages needing cleanup
• Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical from December 2023
• Category:All articles with style issues
• Category:All articles needing copy edit
• Category:All Wikipedia articles needing context
• Category:All Wikipedia articles needing clarification
• Category:All articles needing rewrite

Despite containing article pages, these are maintenance categories, because they group articles by status rather than subject. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, as I described in my edit summary on Rauna (genus), please review Rauna (crustacean). The latter redirect holds the categories Category:Penaeidae and Category:Monotypic decapod genera. In general, each taxon should have a single canonical location for its categories. If a taxon doesn't have an article of its own, the best-named redirect should be considered canonical, and any alternative title for that taxon should be marked with {{a2r}}: both because the redirect should be changed if the taxon is given its own article, and as a beneficial side effect, to guide editors to the canonical redirect. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Examples. I did mean redirects, which is all we have been talking about in this long thread. I am pleased to see the correct removal of A2r on your Raunu (genus), and happy to accept you have chosen the correct new cats. Richhoncho (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

PS. You have not explained clearly why a song by artist must be a direct from an album of that artist. There are 1000s of article where that is not the case. Richhoncho (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Category:Redirects to acronyms
• Category:Redirects from acronyms
• Category:Redirects to initialisms
• Category:Redirects from initialisms
• Category:Redirects from numeronyms
• Category:Redirects from Bluebook abbreviations
• Category:Redirects from ISO 4 abbreviations
• Category:Redirects from MathSciNet abbreviations
• Category:Redirects from NLM abbreviations
• Category:Redirects with old history
• Category:Redirects from other capitalisations
• Category:Redirects from modifications
• Category:Redirects from plurals
• Category:Redirects to plurals
• Category:Redirects from adjectives
• Category:Redirects from adverbs
• Category:Redirects from common nouns
• Category:Redirects from gerunds
• Category:Redirects from proper nouns
• Category:Redirects from verbs
• Category:Redirects from alternative spellings
• Category:Redirects from transliterations
• Category:Redirects from American spelling

None of these are errors, mistakes, or miscapitalizations. All of these are maintenance categories. I could continue down {{R template index}}, but I got bored after 23.

As for Rauna (genus), note that it still possesses {{a2r}}, and that the correct categories were already on Rauna (crustacean) before you started this conversation. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Your proposed merge of Portuguese man o' war and Physalia

When 2 or more articles have to be merged together, the editor who proposes the merge has to start a discussion about the merge on the talk page of at least one of the articles. Not doing so may delay the merge or lead to rejection of the proposal.

I have started the discussion on both the articles' talk pages.

Please always use WP:TWINKLE to create merge proposals, since it automatically starts the discussion, gives a textbox to add your reasons for the merge, and also gives an option to add the discussion to talk pages of some or all of the articles. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 11:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that Twinkle had a merge option. I figured it would be in XfD, like RM is, but it's actually in Tag. Thanks for letting me know. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Redirect-for-distinguish

Template:Redirect-for-distinguish has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:They're

Template:They're has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Stale UAA accounts

Hey - I just processed a few of your recent reports at UAA. They weren't invalid - they were all policy violations - but I wanted to drop you a note about productive ways to spend your time. The accounts I looked at hadn't edited for months, even years. All their promotional contributions had already been deleted, they appeared to have given up, and in all likelihood they would never have edited again. In essence, I don't really know how you came across these accounts, but if you were spending time looking for them, please be advised that there isn't really any benefit to the project in chasing them down - your time is probably better spent elsewhere. Please take this in the spirit it is intended - I appreciate the efforts you've gone to, I'm just not sure that it's necessary here. Best wishes, Girth Summit _(blether) 21:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I came to make the same comment, Jlwoodwa, about tagging User pages CSD U5 when the editors have stopped editing years ago. I'm sure these User pages are out there but this is not an urgent need for action. There are more productive uses of your time than going through old User pages. We could use your talent in other areas. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

"+wpbs" edits

Hi, My watchlist is flowing over with your edits to talk pages marked "+wpbs". I take it that you are not aware that Cewbot is busy adding these "WikiProject banner shell" templates, so you don't have to waste time on that. However, at the same time you've been changing assessments. In one case, you re-assessed an article with an image, an infobox, multiple sections, 13 references, and one external link from "C-class" to stub, also adding a stub template to the article itself. I started going through your edits and reverted some, but there are way too many and would take me hours, so please have a look at our assessment criteria and then clean up this mess. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"Luigi board" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Luigi board has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § Luigi board until a consensus is reached. 2601:883:C383:6120:0:0:0:A59B (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPAs

Template:IPAs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nardog (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, jlwoodwa,

You are tagging pages for "vandalism" that aren't obviously vandalism so I have reverted your edits. Please review WP:CSD, carefully, so you understand the criteria, intimately, when they apply and to which namespaces they apply to. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you really saying that creating a new page with "hi. the answer is pi 75...WOOO" does not count as Wikipedia:Vandalism § Silly vandalism? And WP:G3 applies to every namespace. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Overtagging

Hi, how does This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations not cover unreferenced ? The eternal links can be considered as references Atlantic306 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Lacking sources entirely is a more specific problem than merely lacking inline citations to those sources. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Its not lacking sources entirely as the external links can count as references such as the two reviews Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

(I hadn't seen your revision.)

Watch out for lists of general references that someone has incorrectly listed under ==External links==. If the link leads to a reliable source that supports some article content, then that website is a reference, not an external link.
— Template:Unreferenced/doc#When to use

In that case, I agree. I suppose I should check, when I come across an apparently-unreferenced article with {{no footnotes}}, that the external links are not in fact suitable references. Thanks for explaining. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I came by to say that I just replaced an unref tag that you added a while ago with {{Third-party}} and {{No footnotes}}. If there's a URL on the page that seems at all relevant, then it's not 100% unsourced (it's just poorly sourced). I particularly wanted to recommend {{Third-party}} to you, as I think it encourages editors to add sources that have a chance at demonstrating notability and promoting a neutral article. A lot of shorter articles could be cited to a business's own website, but that's not really what we want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Would this be a good case for {{third-party}} over {{unref}}? Thanks for the recommendation. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

More overtagging April 22, 2024

What is the utility to the Wikipedia project of putting "Old prod" templates onto talk pages? Especially for a decade-old discussion, already identified as a "prod" on the talk page. This is usueless page clutter and makes talk pages harder to read; it is as bad as all the bot chatter that used to litter talk pages. Heven forfend someone has a useful comment ona talk page, it wil be buried under all the pretty templates. Useless Wikwanking, I think. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wtshymanski, that template helps a couple of scripts, including Wikipedia:Twinkle, work correctly. The scripts can't understand ordinary discussions, but if Template:Old prod is on the talk page, they'll prevent an editor from mistakenly re-prodding the article. Although this may look like useless clutter, it is actually useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are adding "pp|small=y"

...to user pages, article talk pages, user talk, user talk archives, etc. Perhaps I am mistaken but I thought this was an action reserved for admins. Please explain if you don't mind. - Shearonink (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shearonink: {{pp|small=y}} doesn't protect pages. It adds a small, inobtrusive badge to mark the page as protected, and adds the page to a category. Every page I added {{pp}} to was already protected -- if it hadn't been, it would have been automatically placed in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates instead. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

See I knew there had to be a good reason. Thanks for your reply - Shearonink (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Came here to ask the same thing about this edit. Edit summaries prevent other editors from having to waste their time figuring out what you're doing. Valereee (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with the edit summary +pp? It uses the common abbreviation + to mean "adding" and pp to mean {{pp}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

People sometimes add edit warnings if they're trying to keep others away. When I saw the badge go on, I thought it might be something like that and took a look. Maybe 'add badge to protected page' or something?

Is this something a bot missed? Valereee (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Ayten Gökçer

One of my mistakes writing the Ayten Gökçer article was peacock language. Subsequently you added a template message saying so. I have tried to correct these mistakes and was wondering if you could take that specific template about subjective matter off. Although I have probably left a word or so that still deserves the template so if you encounter any please reply stating the words so I can edit them. Thanks, Fewsnake Fewsnake (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Fourth wall

I am bothered by your addition of hatnotes about Wikipedia's internals. But in the case of Tilde, I see that all you did was change what was already there from {{Self-reference}} to {{for}}. As I've always understood policy, it should never have been there in the first place. The documentation for Template:Self-reference says explicitly

In most cases, references to the Wikipedia project are discouraged, and the valid uses for this template are rare. Consultation of the list of Self-references to avoid is advisable.

Your conversion to {{for}} doesn't change the principle that it is largely deprecated practice. So what confuses me is that you have spent time doing so many, no doubt in good faith and for good reasons. Have I missed a change in attitude to "breaching the fourth wall"? Something else? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid § This Wikipedia article discusses ..., While Wikipedia is not a ..., Edit this page ...:

If mentioning a policy is necessary to disambiguate article titles or subtopics, hatnotes can serve that purpose.

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid § Self-reference tools:

Many hatnote templates that do contain helpful preset text and linking, such as {{for}} and {{about}}, support a |selfref= parameter that gives them the same functionality as {{Self reference}}, making them better options in most circumstances.

Since some people who go to the page Tilde are looking for the explanation at Wikipedia:Signatures, I think it's good that we mention that with the other hatnotes. On the other hand, we don't put a hatnote on Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right leading to Wikipedia:Two wrongs don't make a right, and we definitely shouldn't put a hatnote on Transformers leading to Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers. I don't think there's a good essay laying out the criteria, but this feels right to me.

Regardless, I'm not adding hatnotes about Wikipedia's internals at all – I'm just converting suitable uses of {{selfref}} into {{for}}, {{about}}, and {{redirect}}. This actually helps with WP:SRTA, I think! Anything that can't be converted like this is less likely to be a good selfref. For instance, the first article in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Self-reference is now Outline of biology, whose {{selfref}} looks very dubious indeed:

This doesn't serve to disambiguate anything, so the self-reference is unnecessary – it should probably be converted into non-selfref lead text, or else deleted. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

G7 and userspace pages

Hello. I noticed that you've tagged quite a few userspace pages under G7 because they were blanked. Please note that the "blanking = deletion request" custom does not apply in userspace. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for letting me know. Sorry for the bother, and I'll untag those pages. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Article Tag Question

Hello! I Noticed that you have marked my article, Draft:Fuller GT Magnet Elementary as dead. I personally think that this is not dead yet, and I am asking on how I can remove this tag.

Thanks, cooldudeseven7 Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not the draft that's dead, it's the link in the second reference. If you control-f for "dead" on the draft, you'll see "[dead link]" in superscript after the second reference, which links to Wikipedia:Link rot to explain the issue. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, Thank you! I will fix this link when I get the time, As I do know where it is supposed to lead to/ redirect Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Davidmartinbluffton

Hi jlwoodwa, this POA's userpage had already been deleted by the time you commented on my report at UAA, but from the userpage it was clear that it refers to a law firm named David & Martin from the city of Bluffton. Best, Air on White (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC) edited Air on White (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Medical Submissions

I think that you and I started reviewing the submissions in user space at the same time. I moved two of them to draft space, and tried to move two more of them to draft space, but the titles were already in use in draft space because you had moved them. I have given them Student welcomes.

I will be asking the educational noticeboard whether they are familiar with this class project. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Arnold Eugen Reimann

Could you please move Arnold Eugen Reimann back to the old title (or another one) since Arnold Eugen Reimann should be a disambiguation page? As mentioned in the article, Arnold Eugen Reimann (bank manager) has the same name, but you had already moved the article before I had time to create the disambiguation page and now I can't move it back.Ramblersen2 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

You actually spelled it Arnold Wigen Reimann (bank manager) – if that's correct, then "Arnold Eugen Reimann" is unambiguous. Or was that just a typo? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

His name is Arnold Eugen Reimann (bank manager) as you would have seen if you had checked for other people by the same name. Ramblersen2 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Hinagahime

I saw you declined my draft and asked wether she was real or not. She was a legendary figure from Japanese mythology. For future reference ask before you decline an article. Camillz (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

My decline didn't depend on your answer, though. The draft simply doesn't demonstrate notability or provide sufficient context. I asked the question because the way to improve the draft depends on whether its subject is fictional or not. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah alright, apologies. Camillz (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of nonmetal (physics)

Nice one, champ. This article has been deleted even though I submitted a contested deletion. Makes a nonsense of the contested deletion process if articles are deleted before the creating author has a reasonable amount of time to to contest the deletion. Could you please undo the deletion for the reasons set out in the contested deletion? And next time how about giving the creating author a reasonable amount of time to to contest the deletion? The only thing the deletion has achieved is to disrupt an FAC development process. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I initially tagged it as WP:A10, but I realized that this did not apply, as Nonmetal (physics) is a plausible redirect to Nonmetal. Therefore, I took down the CSD tag and did a WP:BLAR instead. This is not a deletion, and can be easily reverted by anyone. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Confusing edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mayday_(Myriam_Gendron_album)&diff=next&oldid=1228359429 How in principle could these categories be improved? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Same here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utopia_Now!&diff=next&oldid=1228246718 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

See the subcategories of Category:Albums. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I made most of them. Which categories are these two articles supposed to be added to? What are you talking about? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Categorization and don't place spurious tags like this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I see now that there's general consensus not to directly categorize most albums by genre, etc. I'll assume that you meant "spurious" in the sense of "unnecessary" rather than "disingenuous". Most new articles with only two categories are undercategorized (except for subtopics like Economic history of Canada). My general procedure is to tag such articles with {{improve cats}} if I see anything in the infobox or text which isn't reflected in the categories. I'll keep in mind that albums also have a "natural subtopic" structure. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not think you were being disingenuous, no. And Mayday (Myriam Gendron album) has 4 categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Moving to draft

Hi @Jlwoodwa, While reviewing new pages especially lists, do not speedily move them to draft because of sources as you did here]. Now the article you requested the redirect deletion has been restored into 2024 African Fencing Championships by the author. While we usually wait is to give the editor time as the article may still be in creation. Pls next time wait at least an hour (60 minutes) before tagging as unreferenced or thereabout. Then after a day or more, feel free to move it to draft. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. In retrospect I agree that draftifying didn't help here. I see plenty of other editors draftifying after less than 24 hours, though. Is the difference that this article had no other issues beyond being unreferenced (e.g. notability, BLP, COI)? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

In a case like that, you can speedily tag for deletion, a copyright work, an observable non notable article or purely advertisement. While if the article seems like an important one, then wait for the creator at least an hour before tagging (like no source, uncategorized, orphan, etc). After this, wait for a day or more and if you see the article still doesn't make sense, take a great lump and quicky draftify it. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Close connection with its subject"

Hi Jlwoodwa, thank you for reviewing my article about Lycée français de Séville. Since you mentioned that "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", we removed with my students several things to maintain the neutrality of the article. Can you please review it again and tell me what we need to do to get the message removed. This is my first contribution on Wikipedia, I appreciate the advice. Clara953 (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Surprised with a user requesting a speedy deletion

Good evening, Jlwoodwa. Currently an article I wrote is being nominated for speedy deletion. OK, maybe I did not write it correctly, or whatever. But I am surprised with a fact: there is the user:CarmenNozal64, who seems to have appeared on Wikipedia with the only purpose of contesting this article (and another related to it). Further, CarmenNozal64 placed not one, but three templates requesting deletion, including one "as hoax" (which I consider excessive). And I would like to have some extra time to edit/rewrite. Please, could you be so kind and take a look at it? Thanks in advance. Regards, Fadesga (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

My most cordial greeting, the reason why I placed the promotional ad and deleted the page is because according to what I researched on Google about "Carlos Javier Jarquin" it is objectively seen that he is not a relevant and encyclopedic character, logically, the article is promotional , and I refer to the following tests:

1. The media in which Jarquin collaborates advertise his "works" with excessive promotional language.

2. All articles published in virtual media about Jarquin are made by friends of Jarquin (see Google)

3. Jarquin's books are self-published by Amazon.

4. Holding a virtual event on poetry is not considered of encyclopedic relevance, and then if so, can everyone who makes a couple of self-publications on Amazon and disseminates them in virtual media where they collaborate already appear on Wikipedia? I think that goes against Wikipedia's relevance principles.

5. Please read the discussion about the article, there I highlight an investigation that I did where the same user who created the article "Carlos Javier Jarquin" is a poet and is a friend of Jarquin and has been published by him in the media where he collaborates (you can search on Google).

In short, I do not do it with the intention of affecting Jarquin or anyone but with the intention of maintaining that encyclopedic principle of Wikipedia. If the person who created the article wants a page for his friend, he can make a web page without necessarily having to host his friend's biography on Wikipedia.

Kind regards. CarmenNozal64 (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"Close connection with its subject"

Hi @Jlwoodwa, thank you for reviewing my article about Lycée français de Séville. Since you mentioned that "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", we removed with my students several things to maintain the neutrality of the article. Can you please review it again and tell me what we need to do to get the message removed. This is my first contribution on Wikipedia, I appreciate the advice. Thanks! Clara953 (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in the June 2024 backlog drive! You scored 9 points while adding citations to articles during WikiProject Reliability's first {{citation needed}} backlog drive, earning you this cookie. Thanks for helping out!

Pichpich (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

You deleted my sandbox that I created an hour ago...Why? Let me learn

That was insanely crazy and weird. I just created the account about an hour ago and I am reading and learning as I go along in the "sandbox" environment. Why would you delete my "sandbox" where I am supposed to learn as I read the articles and learn what to do? I just learned how to make a heading and paragraph. Give me a moment to learn. Enigmainkwell (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This page was last edited on 12 July 2024, at 02:49.

Enigmainkwell (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I responded at User talk:Enigmainkwell § Speedy deletion nomination of User:Enigmainkwell/sandbox. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you stop with the script based "link unpiping"?

Some of these are okay, but many are not appropriate. It's often quite deliberate to link to a specific page title that is different from the link text, even when the link text, taken as a title, happens to incidentally redirect to the same place. Page titles and targets of redirects change regularly, and wiki authors should intentionally point their links at the title which is most clearly relevant to the intention of the link, which is not always the same as visible link text. Scripts should not be automatically second-guessing those choices without human attention.

If you want to make this kind of change it should be done deliberately with careful human checking and thought about each one. Just automatically converting these does more harm than good. –jacobolus (t) 10:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Jacobolus: I know it's been two months, but I want to thank you for this well-explained warning. After disabling the script and stepping away for some time, I've come to agree that I was using it much too broadly, quickly, and carelessly. I think in the future I'll only use this script on an article after I've edited it enough to have a sense for the context of the piped links, so I can better tell whether the script's proposed edit is an improvement. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! –jacobolus (t) 20:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Duplicated citations

Hello! How did you know which articles to tag with {{Duplicated citations}}? I was trying to find a bot that did that task. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I just notice them as I read Wikipedia. I fix it myself when I can, of course, but it's pretty hard on mobile. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User talk:Fergus Group

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. The page User talk:Fergus Group has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Daftar hermes69

I reported them to UAA, you declined it. I don't understand why. The account was making promotional edits (in a different language), and translated to that language the name is:Register for Hermes69. How is that not an issue? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't decline it. I'm not an admin, and only admins should decline UAA reports (except false-positive bot reports). I just commented on the report, and Pickersgill-Cunliffe later removed it.

With the new information you provided about the username, I agree that it violates the username policy. Since the report didn't stay up for very long, I think it would be alright if you make the report again – this time, including that context. Admins don't always take the time to "dig around" for reports like these (and I don't think they should have to). jlwoodwa (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Contentious topics

For contentious topics, do I have to wait until 30/500 to edit? How and where do I gain earlier access? Ogundareibrahim123 (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The extended confirmed restriction isn't in place for all contentious topics; currently, it only applies to the Arab–Israeli conflict. The extended confirmed user right can technically be requested, but is only granted in rare circumstances that don't apply here. In short, you cannot gain earlier access. In the meantime, you should make sure to get a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies and standards; creating hoaxes in a contentious topic, like you did at Gaza Metro, is likely to get you blocked. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Laughter Chefs – Unlimited Entertainment

Hello, I am glad to be a Wikipedian, thank you for your warm welcome. I need little help from you. My recent contributions to Laughter Chefs – Unlimited Entertainment have been disallowed by an edit filter as they did not appear constructive. The edit filter disallowance was a false positive, and is already reported to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives, unfortunately no action were taken. I was only reformating the weekly summary table which had multiple issues, and after hours of editing when I tried publishing it was in vain due to the same issue. Here's is the draft user:天使ウイス/sandbox. Please resolve my problem. 天使ウイス (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue has been addressed at Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives and has been resolved. Tenshi Uisu (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for your message on my talk page! etaoin shrdlu(cmfwyp|vbgkqj) 22:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Twinalpinist

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User talk:Twinalpinist requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jdcomix (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

TCFH Orphan Article

Thanks for pointing this out. I am new to this and happy to learn. I created some links from related chemistry pages on HATU, HBTU and tetramethylurea to the TCFH page. Are these the kind of links that address this issue? Aldol732 (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Nekolim rejected

I recently created Draft:Nekolim, which you rejected. That's fine, but I wanted to make it clear on your talk page that I was trying to establish an English translation for the Indonesian article, hence the draft, because there is a pretty substantial Indonesian version of the article with lots of citations/press coverage without any translations to other languages (https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekolim). I agree the draft I submitted is insufficient for its own article, but I mostly wanted to get the ball rolling so that Indonesian-speaking editors could help translate the Indonesian article to English. What can I do to get a rough draft of the translation published given I'm not an extended-confirmed permission editor so that other editors can expand on this draft? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to be extended-confirmed to create new articles, just autoconfirmed (which you are). Articles for creation has a slightly different approach to notability – drafts typically need to demonstrate the notability of their subject, while existing articles are usually kept as long as {{sources exist}} (even if the article doesn't show it). So while at this point you could just move the draft to mainspace yourself, I'll still encourage you to add those lots of citations/press coverage – both to make sure it doesn't get deleted, and to help others expand on the article. Note that non-English sources are accepted here. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. I'll expand the draft and move the draft to the mainspace once it's in a better spot. I appreciate your help. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Dafydd Rogers

H - there is something strange going on that I hope you can explain/resolve with me. I noticed some time ago that the entry David Pugh and Dafydd Rogers had been changed to David Pugh and Rogers had been deleted from the record completely of their shared production partnership. Following Wikipedia guidelines I corrected this in the entry now called David Pugh (Theatre Producer) adding Rogers back to the shared productions and supporting with verifiable and sensible sources. I then created a draft article for Rogers. Some of the content is of course similar because of their shared career (which went on for more than 20 years). It was declined due to similarity. I then updated Rogers' article with more sources that highlight his own participation, as well as emphasising his career before and after the partnership. Upon submitting the article for creation a second time, I noticed that there were redirects from this new article to Pugh's. I then tried to undo this in order to emphasise that these articles were distinct, but with some digging also note that someone has even redirected the name Dafydd (Welsh for David) to David Pugh's page. Surely there is some manipulation going on that will unfairly impact the review process, making it seem that David Pugh is a more important and original entry than Dafydd Rogers when in fact the historical truth is that the two men had an equal partnership that was the bulk of their significant contribution with distinct pathways before and after their collaboration. I am concerned that someone is manipulating Wikipedia and that this is resulting in their bias being imported into the review process. I am leaving this to all the users involved in the redirect. I am new to Wikipedia so please do explain if I;ve missed something important and many thanks! Theatrebuff1989 Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors are human, and often make honest mistakes; you should try to assume good faith when you encounter problems. I don't really understand the issue here, especially since the article Dafydd doesn't seem to have ever been a redirect to David Pugh (theatre producer). If you have questions about your submission and its review, you could ask at the Articles for Creation help desk. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm totally in good faith - I was just asking why you thought that it was important that Dafydd Rogers entry had to redirect to David Pugh since you made that edit? I was trying to give some context or background by highlighting what previous editors to the David Pugh page have done. When I clicked on the "what links here" link at David Pugh, the entry "Dafydd" is listed there. I have put a question at Artiles for Creation on this topic too! Thanks, Theatrebuff1989 Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

What edit are you talking about? Looking at Special:History/Dafydd Rogers, I've never edited it at all, let alone redirected it to David Pugh (theatre producer) in particular. jlwoodwa (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi - if you look here you can see the changes you've made: [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Dafydd_Rogers&action=history Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the draft. I thought you meant the redirect at the title Dafydd Rogers. Anyway, I made two edits to Draft:Dafydd Rogers:

1. In Special:Diff/1241536372, I moved it from Draft:Dafydd Rogers (Theatre Producer) to Draft:Dafydd Rogers, because the (Theatre Producer) part was unnecessary disambiguation. Removing unnecessary disambiguation helps to make titles more concise.
2. In Special:Diff/1241536601, I restored Dan arndt's decline notice that you had removed. As the notice says, Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. You are free to resubmit your draft without removing the notice. I also just noticed your edit summary (removed the redirect to David Pugh). The AfC notice is not a redirect; you might want to read the Wikipedia project page on redirects to understand better.

This was just routine maintenance, and doesn't imply that I thought it was important that Dafydd Rogers entry had to redirect to David Pugh. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the note, I'm still learning the ropes. I definitely wasn't trying to delete the feedback from Dan Arndt but was trying to separate the two pages as I do think that the redirect is misleading. Appreciate your clarification. Is it possible to keep the feedback without the redirect? Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help. I think it's important to keep the two pages distinct in your head. Dafydd Rogers is a redirect in mainspace. Draft:Dafydd Rogers is a draft. If it's accepted, Draft:Dafydd Rogers will be moved to the title Dafydd Rogers (replacing the redirect that's currently there), but for now, they're two completely separate pages. When Dan arndt declined your submission of Draft:Dafydd Rogers, he added a notice to suggest that its material could be added to the article David Pugh (theatre producer). The redirect from the title Dafydd Rogers existed before Dan's notice, and nothing we've done to the draft has affected it. Conversely, changing the redirect will not affect the notice. Does that make sense?

As for the redirect itself, I agree it's a little confusing now that David Pugh and Dafydd Rogers has been moved to the title David Pugh (theatre producer). If you think the redirect is more misleading than informative, you could nominate it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks that all makes sense. I do think that the redirect is problematic as it assumes that the David Pugh entry is the original reference when in fact it was the joint page that was original. I suppose if that was the reason the entry gets declined again it would be good to sort it out before rather than after - what do you think? Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm also finding the directions for the redirect discussion a little confusing as I am not sure where the problematic redirect actually is? any help or advice appreciated! Thanks Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Submissions Question

I have just done something with my article after alot of article editing. You were the AfC reviewer, And I would like to ask if my Draft Article, Draft:Fuller GT Magnet Elementary is good for submission now.

Thank you, Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 15:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Jlwoodwa, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft categories

Hello, and thanks for your work on commenting draft categories in AfC.

Could I ask that in future you use the full template name "Draft categories", rather than the shortcut "Draftcat"? There seems to be a bug somewhere that makes the drafts still show up in Category:AfC submissions with categories, even after you've helpfully wrapped them with "Draftcat". Thanks again for all your work on this. Wikishovel (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Huh. I double-checked on Draft:Butylamphetamine, and it's true. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'll stick to {{draft categories}} until that bug is fixed. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

1924 Howard Bison football team moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to 1924 Howard Bison football team. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphan article Seatylock

Greetings, Today I de-orphaned this article by adding a link at Seatylock article, Accessories section.

Help to de-orphan articles.

1. WikiProject Orphanage - working to reduce the article backlog.

2. Wikipedia:Orphan - the complete How-to Guide for Orphaned articles.

» De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web.

Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not an article. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Säm

I took the liberty of editing the box you left at Draft:Säm. The language the draft is written in is Estonian, not Finnish. JIP | Talk 20:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. My phone said it was Finnish (and that it couldn't translate Finnish), and I assumed that it was correct. In the future I'll stick to Google Translate, which seems to be more reliable for identifying what language something is written in. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Something to consider

Since your reply to me regarding a file I nominated for deletion, I did a casual perusal of your contributions, your talk page, and your user page—I'm mighty impressed! For a new-ish user (<20 months!), you've made a heckuva impression. In the near future, I hope you actively consider the RfA process. Thanks for everything you've done thus far! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Mil Mi-8 DuplicateReferences (Sept 8th)

Hey, Jlwoodwa! I've endeavoured to address the duplicate references issue in Mil Mi-8. If you agree it's fixed, you may do the honours of removing the maintenance template. Jeminids1 (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree that it's fixed, and I've removed the template. jlwoodwa (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Re:Redirecting rather than PRODing

Sorry for the mistake. Yeah, I agree: maybe someday an encyclopedic article on Ritsuko can be written, but for now it's better a redirecting. Thanks for the contribution. I'm very grateful. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

conflict

You just messed up my edit that was going to fix everything. the conflict resulted in my edits being completely lost Create a template (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that happened to you; I agree that edit conflicts are frustrating. Do you want advice on how to prevent edit conflicts, or how to deal with them without losing all your work? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I overreacted and should've known how to prevent conflicts. I got angry from losing everything and took it out on you.

as for the year of the award, isfdb, sfadb, and wiki use a different year standard for Nebulas than the nebula website does. Create a template (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphan article 2024 South Sudan floods

Greetings, Today I de-orphaned this article by adding links at two articles.

• South Sudan, Climate section, with "See also" hatnote.
• 2024 Sudan floods, add "Distinguish" at lead because Sudan is diff. country than S.Sudan

Normally most de-orphaning is pretty straight-forward, but this Orphan article was a bit more complex.

Help to de-orphan articles.

1. WikiProject Orphanage - working to reduce the article backlog.

2. Wikipedia:Orphan - the complete How-to Guide for Orphaned articles.

» De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web.

Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Poppy Playtime Chapter 2 & 3 PlayStation Ports

Here's a source for the PlayStation 4 and 5 ports: "Poppy Playtime Chapters 2 and 3 coming to Xbox and Playstation this Friday". Can you please add it to the Poppy Playtime page now? 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:2438:E60E:32AB:A69A (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Never mind. It's been put up now. 2603:6010:8B00:44FF:D66:A52D:9963:2BFC (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Tag at GPT Store

Hello Jlwoodwa, I am the author of the GPT Store article. I did not use AI to write it. I wrote it first in eswiki and then used help from the automatic translator to translate it to English. Marcocanol (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Jlwoodwa. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Elli (talk | contribs) 15:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Good work.

I welcomed you to the project a year and a half ago (under a different username) and now you're successfully a new page reviewer and page mover, with no big controversies that I can see. So may I say... well done! Cremastra (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Bruce Hall (musician)

@Jlwoodwa: Why did you move this article out of draft, when its never been referenced correctly since it created. Did you do a WP:BEFORE on it? scope_creep^Talk 18:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

As I said to Haymrsapceman:

Per WP:DRAFTNO, articles that were created more than 90 days ago should not be boldly moved to draftspace. If you think that the article should not exist, you can nominate it for deletion.

This was established in a 2022 RfC. I think it's analogous to page blanking, which shouldn't always be reverted, but in most cases should. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia article creation request: Japanese Let's Go and Phoenix SC (YouTuber)

Japanese Let's Go

But because Thai educational show about Japanese which was starring by Eric Filatov and Neeracha "Mai" Filatova and also make SVG logo.

Phoenix SC to First German Sport Club Phoenix

But because Phoenix SC was a YouTuber info.

2001:44C8:4446:6194:B18C:8D55:27F3:3921 (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you want help using Articles for Creation? jlwoodwa (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Help / edits

Hi @Jlwoodwa :) , we need help to translate Moslem Kazemi ->مسلم کاظمی 's article to make it more complete, thank you Moslem Kazemi1 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Moslem Kazemi1. I'm sorry, but I don't know any Persian, so I'm unable to help you translate that. There's a list of translators at Wikipedia:Translators available § Persian-to-English; maybe one of them can help you.

Also, your username makes me think you might be the subject of that article. If this is true, you should read the guideline on autobiographies before you translate an article about yourself into the English Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa Yes sir, I understand. I just said this article to translate it and make it more complete. Please (check) the same. The article needed something, tell me, don't worry about anything :) Moslem Kazemi1 (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Edits to List of non-standard dates

Hi - what was incorrect about the edits I made to this re Excel? (I wasn't logged in at the time BTW.) E.g. the 1900 leap year bug is well-known and you can easily verify it for yourself. Thanks Ben Finn (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm very sorry Bfinn. I often come across an LTA who introduces deliberate errors related to leap years (e.g. Special:Diff/1241716767), and I thought your edits were of that kind. I must have misremembered the "exception to the exception" rules at Leap year § Gregorian calendar, because your edits were correct – 1900 was not a leap year. I apologize for being too quick to think your edits were subtle vandalism. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem, thanks. Ben Finn (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

Dear jlwoodwa, I write to you asking for a question... I saw an article about currencies and most of them doesn't have pictures of banknotes/coins to be displayed as pictures. Are there specific reasons why currency pictures are not uploaded? Why other currencies (and I mean actual banknotes, not historical ones) are allowed to be uploaded on Commons to be displayed properly?

Is there a way to be uploaded under Fair use on WP upload page instead of Commons? Adding the word 'Specimen' and with a medium quality could really help? My regards. Searcher200 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello Searcher200! I agree that articles on currency are significantly improved by having images. Commons only allows public-domain or freely-licensed images, and different countries have different copyright laws for their currency. For example, Albanian currency is public-domain and can be uploaded to Commons, while Algerian currency since 1958 has a non-commercial license and cannot be uploaded to Commons. However, the article on Algerian dinar can still have an image, since it's uploaded locally (i.e., to the English Wikipedia) as {{non-free currency}}. If you want to better understand how that works, I recommend reading Wikipedia's guideline on non-free content. I'd be happy to answer any more questions you have after that.

As for your last question, images should usually not be watermarked, and I'm unsure if there's an exception for currency. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics – somebody there should probably know. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi again, I have read all the links you gave me, and well, the thing is I want to upload Peruvian Banknotes. According to Commons:Currency, banknotes are not exempted to copyright, but they can be uploaded under Fair Use. According to this Wikimedia talk in here, it wouldn't violate the law of counterfeiting, which is not related to piracy. Also, the pictures would not be in high resolution, but similar sizes like this picture. Low-res would not be a problem, besides, the BRCP (Peru Central Bank) uploaded pictures of examples of peruvian banknotes, with the difference that the banknote code was a file of zeroes. Searcher200 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that all seems correct to me. When you're ready to upload the picture, you can use the upload wizard. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I am reuniting the pictures, but first I need to know what are the right templates for the pictures (to place at the file's feet. First I need a template which specifies the resolution justification, another related to currency permission, and the fair use one. Thank you! Searcher200 (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I would use {{non-free currency}} along with {{non-free use rationale currency}}. The resolution should be no greater than 0.1 megapixels; a bot will automatically reduce its resolution for you if necessary. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

At first, I thought the resolution should be nor more than 1 megapixel, but when i reread your comment, I realized that it says '0.1 megapixel' What are the maximum dimensions of that? Does a bot will correct that while I'm uploading or will make the corrections once after it's uploaded? Thanks! Searcher200 (talk) Edit: About the non-free use rationale currency template, I checked it and have not clear what should I fill with in the fields... 05:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Stop a this!

Hey, stop saying that Digital Circus is an adult animation, you dirty guy! CroakyGames2010 (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Why do you do this when it's not an adult animation! CroakyGames2010 (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Jlwoodwa for accumulating at least 100 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

		Geneva mechanism Award
		This award is given in recognition to Jlwoodwa for accumulating at least 25 points during each week of the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Jlwoodwa. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Fastily 23:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

User:ReMonetary on bugger

Hello,

I'd just point out that you were right to revert ReMonetary's edit, but he reverted back with a nonsensical explanation - an unsubstantiated claim that the source is not reliable and that the information in it is 'false' and 'racist', neither of which is true. The source is a normal etymological dictionary, any other etymological dictionary gives the same information, e.g. [3], [4], and neither the author nor anybody else today is suggesting that the Bulgarians really were 'buggers'. This is just nationalist censorship of reliable information because of wounded patriotic feelings (and an insufficient sense of humour). And it was somewhat successful, because the article stayed as he wanted it for 8 days; if I hadn't happened to read it and then check its history, it might have stayed like that for 8 years, too. Now I have reverted it back, but if ReMonetary continues his efforts, the article may need the attention of more than one vandal patroller or, alternatively, to be protected.

Greetings, 62.73.72.3 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hemanta Kumar Jamatia

You added the {{AI-generated}} tag to this article a few months ago. Do you remember why? It's not immediately clear what in the article indicates it was AI generated. Apocheir (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph of Hemanta Kumar Jamatia § Biography was what made me suspicious. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Im Sorry

so i was the one to edit the page about ceramic and papyrus, im sorry, i just did it for funny, but now i regret my decision, do you accept my apology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:5401:9A20:54FC:F697:39BA:D223 (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It's alright, no harm done in the end. A couple silly edits don't disrupt Wikipedia all that much – they're quickly caught and quickly reverted. It would be more of a problem if you kept it up beyond those first few. Anyway, speaking of funny, maybe you'd enjoy WP:UNUSUAL? There's plenty of fun to be had on Wikipedia without vandalizing it. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Kalman Meir Bar and other drafts

Please don't turn off redirect creation when moving a sandbox draft into draft space. The redirect doesn't do any harm and might be useful. If another editor tries to review the sandbox, and there is no redirect, they get an error rather than being redirected. Moving a sandbox isn't one of the situations in which redirect creation should be suppressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/Draftify § redirect defaults to not leaving a redirect. This makes sense to me – if a redirect is left, then I end up being the "creator" of the next article they draft. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a point, explaining some of the stupid G13 messages I have gotten on drafts that I had nothing at all to do with. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Charli XCX

Hi, thanks for starting a clean up of references but note your recent edits removed the reference with archive copies detailed and kept the reference without archived copies.

Please also check other parameters such as dates, title, publisher, etc, as these also differed between instances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charli_XCX&diff=1254791685&oldid=1254167281 shows the before and after. --80.47.44.141 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Jlwoodwa! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Jlwoodwa. Thank you for your work on Condylocardia. Another editor, Tavantius, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for making an article on Wikipedia! Have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Tavantius}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Tavantius (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Prehistoric cetacean categories

Hi Jlwoodwa, just wanted to ask about your replacement of Category:Monotypic prehistoric mammal genera with Category:Monotypic prehistoric placental genera on a number of pages on extinct cetaceans recently. Was this change discussed anywhere? Thanks in advance, The Morrison Man (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

For context, I'd been going through Category:Prehistoric mammal genera and moving all the monotypic ones to Category:Monotypic prehistoric mammal genera. After finishing with the A's, I noticed that I'd already doubled the size of Monotypic prehistoric mammal genera, so in anticipation of all the other articles to come, I proactively diffused what was already there.

I thought it was pretty uncontroversial – Category:Prehistoric placental genera already exists, and (e.g.) Category:Prehistoric cetacean genera is a subcategory of it. And it's standard practice to diffuse taxonomic categories. So I didn't discuss this particular change anywhere – I just boldly did it. If you have any questions or issues with the change, feel free to start a discussion – either here at my user talk page, or somewhere like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life if you want broader input (ideally pinging me in that case). jlwoodwa (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I was just curious because I saw it happen to many pages at once, but have no further issues with it. Thanks for responding so quickly! The Morrison Man (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Gratitude

Thank you for moving the page.

பொதுஉதவி (talk) 00:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)