User talk:Johnsoniensis/2019

WP tag

Happy New year. Thanks for your contributions. WP List doesnt appear like a valid tag. please fix it [1]--DBig Xrayᗙ 15:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in 2018

Your revision to Talk:Tropical cyclones in 2018 has been reverted as the article is not a list article. The article simply has not been fully fleshed out due to people not wanting to do real, hard research. The 2018 article is the parent article of the season articles. The systems are a big focus of the article, but not entirely what it is about. The goal of this article is to discuss the global conditions that led to/restricted tropical cyclone formation in various areas as well as the overall effects of tropical cyclones worldwide. Noah^Talk 18:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your article assesments

Hi again. I am assembling lists of articles to improve, but your rather stingy rating is actually getting in the way; because your constantly mark articles that are "full" (ie, have citations for every paragraph, multiple sections with headings, a good lead, an infobox, reliable sources, have acceptable grammar, and all known information about said topic is in the article - in other words little to no room for improvement) as "start" or even "stub" class, it is harder to find articles that are in genuine need of improvement. While article ratings are subjective, articles like Umer Adamanov are absolutely NOT start-class, and probably should have been B-class (a good example of what should be considered a start class article is New Zealand National Airways Corporation Flight 441; it's not a stub because it has multiple paragraphs and an infobox, but it does not have section headings. Sometimes, a portrait of a person will not exist, and some topics have far more information available about them than others. Most Soviet-related topics will naturally contain less information shorter simply due to less information that is declassified. But it really deters other editors when you label an 8000 btye article that does not have any obvious issues (like zero references, very poor grammar, etc) as "start"; start class articles are categorized on the Military history task force as "Need significant improvement" in the "Articles that need general work" section of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Open tasks, but in fact, the articles you classify as start rarely can be improved at all (and would be considered B-class by many other editors due to the length, quality, and lack of room for improvement). Please do change your way of assessing articles - it clogs up the maintenance categories with things that do not need nor can receive maintenance. While the article on WWII would be considered start class if it was 6,000 bytes, most other articles are not like that and would be fine with B-class at that point.

Thank you. --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

Hi, thanks for all your great assessment work. You've been showing up on my watchlist every single day for a long time, and I thought it was about time to say your work is much appreciated. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian (February 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mgbo120 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:GNG. Try adding more verifiable references.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mgbo120 (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 00:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think this article merited draftifying in the first place, given the sources present; however, one tip is to make sure there are inline sources for everything. That makes it a lot harder to miss them, and also helps others trying to expand the article subsequently. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian

@Johnsoniensis: Apologies for promoting that article instead of yourself. At WP:AFC, articles sometimes get deleted as the reviwers perhaps dont understand what almost 1000 years of history actually mean's as they cant find immediate sources on web. I think it would be gone in 60 seconds if nobody answered. I'm planning to expand the article using the French article at [:fr:Abbaye de Ninove]] as a source. If you fancy working on it as well, it would be cool. The French article is pretty big. scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

my reason for reverting

please consider the map, the lillies, or whatever... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_forests,_woodlands,_and_scrub#/media/File:Biome_map_12.svg - yes Australia. There many have been a reason - bit like the way Tasmania always get left of maps of Australia perhaps. But it would be interesting why you started and stopped - ecoregions seem to be extraordinarily badly project tagged, as far as I can see JarrahTree 09:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added WP Australia because I noticed a citn relating to NSW but then decided to base the WikiProjects on the Mediterranen area only.--Johnsoniensis 10:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well I have had chat with another editor - Hike395 [2] - and decided to add the countries that can be found on the map... cheers JarrahTree 10:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Latin syntax]

Thanks for rating my Latin syntax article as a B. But that surprises me, as it isn't very good! I am sure it needs rewriting. I have begun by taking out all the material on tenses and making it a separate article. I hope to rewrite the syntax article in due course. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rating my Latin syntax article as a B. But that surprises me, as it isn't very good! I am sure it needs rewriting. I have begun by taking out all the material on tenses and making it a separate article. I hope to rewrite the syntax article in due course. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Johnsoniensis. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for biographical information in Luda Kroitor. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editio princeps of Aristotle

Hi, I have added first printed edition to help anyone whose Latin isn't as good as yours. Do you know why the article says "The library once contained a copy"? Page 28 of the edition of Prickard in Google books (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=D00J2gHxvysC) says "Among the printed books is a copy".TSventon (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Lady Mary Trefusis

Hello, Johnsoniensis,

Thanks for creating Lady Mary Trefusis! I edit here too, under the username Nick Moyes and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Article needs supporting inline citationsand renaming to move 'Lady' from the title. Where's the bit about her being a lady in waiting? You should consider adding this as an external link.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Nick Moyes}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Nick Moyes (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Senegal. listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of cities in Senegal.. Since you had some involvement with the List of cities in Senegal. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Julia ☺ 23:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi, you're invited to an RfC discussion regarding Bruno Bettelheim article

As a past contributor to the article's Talk page, you're invited to a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion on the article's lead sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#rfc_7DDF8CC

A page you started (Sheridan Delépine) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Sheridan Delépine.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Looks good, but some additional inline citations will be needed.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Stevey7788}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

— Stevey7788 (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Allard (surname) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Adelard

Burlington Street drill hall, Manchester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Greenheys

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenheys has been amended; Adelard is best left as it is.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Martin, Looe moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, St Martin, Looe, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]