User talk:JustBerry/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Picasso Discussion

When you open a thread for moderated discussion, it would be helpful to state that you are acting as the moderator. Thank you for acting as the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I sensed the ambiguity after seeing your comment here. My original approach was to avoid DRN-like language, as the case filer appeared to be slightly off-put by being referred to as "the case filer" in the case, and focus on mediating the inter-editor conflict at hand. I'll certainly make sure to follow up with a statement or note to the effect you suggested. Thanks for your comment; I'll keep that in mind. --JustBerry (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You have a good point. However, the other editors need also to be considered. At the same time, the "filing party" really appears to be flailing and sort of desperate. They aren't helping themselves, and it isn't always clear how much we can help someone who is panicking the way they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Surely. I think an effective approach for moving the case forward is using mediation to carefully guide the content discussion/dispute/conflict. If the parties find it difficult to regulate themselves, maintain their composure, and avoid absorbing the content dispute personally, then, as you may have implicitly suggested, the discussion may not move forward effectively. --JustBerry (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JustBerry - I assume that you have read the mediation policy. The mediation policy gives the mediator full authority to move the case forward as you describe, and to instruct the parties to focus on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I am aware. Just giving you a general overview of my planned approach for the case. --JustBerry (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Korean_nationalism.23Article_issues

As far I can see Korean nationalism is not on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. Korean ethnic nationalism is another article. --Christian140 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Christian140: Thanks for reaching out. Although the RfC is not on Korean nationalism, a two-part RfC could be created for Korean ethnic nationalism, considering the participants in the existing RfC could quite possibly participate in this dispute as well. Since this appears to be controversial, the case has been reopened. --JustBerry (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Christian140 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Christian140: No problems. Feel free to reach out again if you have any other questions, comments, or concerns. --JustBerry (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Coming down too hard . . .

Hi, JustBerry! Yes, it's possible I came down too hard . . . the edit, though, [1], was an unsourced, obscenely phrased allegation of sexual activity between living-person brothers. So I was pretty sure it wasn't good faith ;) Was really surprised at the apology. It's the kind of edit that usually gets un-reverted, in my experience, but my experience is only a fraction of yours. For some reason I was sure that it would be a repeated thing, I don't think I've started at that level before, though sometimes I do start at level two when it seems pretty malicious . . . always grateful for feedback. Cheers! Chris vLS (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisvls: Thanks for reaching out! There's no doubt that the revert you made was, in fact, on par with antivandalism efforts. I was also surprised by the apology; by no means was I expecting you to expect that either. As far as the edit goes, yes--I wouldn't classify that edit as good-faith. Also, there's nothing against giving a level 3 warning on the first edit--as long as it's a less frequent habit. However, generally speaking, assuming no faith (good or bad), i.e. level 2 warnings, is a good way to avoid biting newcomers (I'm not saying you do in general or did in that specific instance). Even though blatant vandalism is "bad faith," I generally start with assuming no faith and going from there in such cases, perhaps keeping an eye on the user's contributions to make sure there's no continuum of vandalism (in which case assuming bad faith may be necessary). I just wanted to check in with you to see your reasoning and ensure it wasn't a regular practice--that's all. Thanks for your antivandalism efforts thus far, and have a great day! --JustBerry (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@JustBerry:Thanks! And thanks for reaching out, also led me to you page and to reading about editor retention, very cool and good stuff. Cheers! Chris vLS (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisvls: Wonderful--glad to hear! Feel free to reach out again. --JustBerry (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria dispute

Give it another 24 hrs and then I suggest closing if no further discussion is forth coming with whatever suggestions you feel are best. I have given my overview as in "interested editor" without taking sides. The topic should be handled with care and sensitivity as it could well become controversial. One of the problems of this type of issue is when those involved feel that others volunteering have little to no understanding of what is being discussed. This is counter to how I generally like to handle disputes, which is to see it outside the subject and more on just the participants finding common ground and stability returning to the article and talk page. In most cases, I feel the subject is secondary to how the individuals themselves are handling each others suggestions and reactions in the DRN or talk page discussion.

I am going to suggest a new addition to the volunteering process at DRN. I would like to suggest that volunteers may be allowed to add "Interested volunteer note" when they have an interest in the general subject or have had interactions with participants. These notes are to be added by only interested volunteers who have a general knowledge of the subject and history of the dispute and participants that may make them too biased in the eyes of other editors but still have value towards resolution.

I'd also like to suggest that the Picasso filing editor may need editor retention help. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)(Maleko Mela)

@Mark Miller: I have posted a reply to your suggestions on the gender dysphoria dispute, as there seem to have been multiple discussions prior on this particular topic. Regarding the template, perhaps "interested editor" or "acquainted editor," i.e. an editor acquainted with the genre or general topic, may be two alternative templates to consider. All editors on Wikipedia volunteer their time, but the editor versus volunteer distinction might make the involved versus biased/slightly involved/involved distinction clearer. I have commented on the Picasso case. Thanks for leaving me a message. --JustBerry (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mark Miller, User:JustBerry - The comment about other editors being involved with a dispute is a useful comment. Some volunteer moderators state at the outset that they have no special knowledge of the subject and expect the editors to provide them with any necessary background information. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Elsevier account

Just stopping by to let you know that Elsevier emailed me on 3 January 2017 to give me an access code. They said they were busy over the holidays. Thanks for the help! Icebob99 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Icebob99: Thanks for letting me know. I reviewed the email this morning, but I wanted to give you a chance to see the news yourself before sending you a quick ping. Feel free to reach out if there are any general concerns, technical issues, or comments you may have regarding your database access. --JustBerry (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

thank you

hi JustBerry, thank you for your welcome message! Are you an admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnc3020 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cnc3020: Hello! I am not an admin on the English Wikipedia but on Beta Wikipedia. Need help with anything in particular? Or, just looking around? --JustBerry (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you JustBerry. I have been here and in other Wikipedias for a long, long time (wiki time, hehe). I'm trying to collaborate but this is too big... I've just added Wikipedia:Beta to my watchlist. I spend more time watching than editing. There are some "dangerous" places here and it's easy to make serious mistakes. Thank you again for your messages :) -- Cnc3020 (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cnc3020: Actually, Wikipedia:Beta doesn't refer to Beta Wikipedia. Beta Wikipedia is a part of this (mw:Beta Cluster). Also, what do you mean by "dangerous"? Feel free to reach out if you feel unsettled by something. Nothing should ideally feel "dangerous" on Wikipedia. --JustBerry (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

"dangerous" is not a good word, let's change it with "very, very big"  :) Cnc3020 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cnc3020: Ah, okay. The scope of Wikipedia can certainly be daunting at first, but we're here to help! --JustBerry (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 20:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

A problem with the script or template you're using

Greetings, I'm Exemplo347. You're probably not aware, but every single "Your new page has been reviewed..." notification that you've left on editors' pages has a major error. Have a look at this diff here and you'll see what I mean. I just thought I'd let you know! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Exemplo347: I commend you for reaching out to me. Often times, problems/issues/errors arise, and people don't always go through the trouble of notifying the user on their talk page. The ticket here shows the current progress on resolving this issue. Thanks again, though! --JustBerry (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's no problem. I knew it wasn't deliberate & I just wanted to make sure you knew! Exemplo347 (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer

Hello JustBerry. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent message

I think your message is incorrect - surely you should have used a level 1 warning?? Denisarona (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Please provide a diff, as I'm not sure which user talk page you are referring to. --JustBerry (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You left the message at 16:31 on 10 December on the talk page of 86.129.65.84, regarding edits to the Battle of Hastings. Denisarona (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Firstly, I truly appreciate you reaching out. To address my ping to you, I had pinged you to inform you that you had left another level 2 warning on the IP's talk page after mine in the event that you had not realized such. Of course, you are welcome to do so. Regarding your concern on which warning I should have used, I used a level 2 warning because they are "suitable for intentional nonsense or disruption," rather than a level 1 warning which is generally used for "unintentional vandalism/test," as highlighted here. Generally speaking, I give good-faith level 1 warnings to users who may be performing test edits or engaging in talk page conversation in the article itself. Quite frankly, I give editors the benefit of assuming good faith when possible. I disagree that this and this should be considered "unintentional." --JustBerry (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for help with "Cienegas"!!!

I left a message on my message page, i think. I find this whole "Talk" message the most convoluted thing i've seen in a long time. Thanks for any help you can give. Editorsproof (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Editorsproof: Oh yes, thank you for letting me know. Also, I definitely understand how such a system may be initially confusing to newer editors, but it can serve important functions once you understand it. Often times, it's best to use the ping template when replying to a message on your talk page so that the user you're replying to is directly alerted in their notifications. Or, you can leave a message on their talk page in addition to the message on your talk page alerting them that you have replied to their message (like you did here, and I got a notification at the top of my screen). Does this kind of make sense? Also, for the ping template, you can click the edit button on this section of the talk page, and notice how I included the ping template to notify you. Also, it's often best to click "Create New Section," rather than directly editing, on talk pages, i.e. if you're creating a new discussion. If you click to edit this section, see how I included the header message to resolve that issue. This article may or may not help, but hopefully what I mentioned should get you through the technicalities of some basic editor-to-editor interaction. Feel free to ping me on your talk page (or other talk pages) or leave a reply here if you have any further questions. --JustBerry (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JustBerry.

I hope this is what I am supposed to do. Email would be SO much simpler!!!

Thank you for your explanations and especially for keeping the new introduction to "Cienega" and adding links. I really appreciate it!

Yes, cienega should always have an accent over the first "e" and, yes, it is a Spanish word whether spelled "cienega" or "cienaga" and lots of other spellings, which are detailed in the next section I want to add to the article, if i can figure out the formatting and references.

BTW: What is the best way to learn how to format references? Thanks!

Also, in answer to your previous question about the American Southwest, cienegas are unique to that area of the United States and so the introduction is true.

I am not sure I understood everything you detailed in your explanations, but I will spend some more time with them, if I can find them again!

Thank you again for your help with my novice attempts at this. I feel less frustrated now. Editorsproof (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that talk pages can be confusing at first. Over time, with practice (like anything else), using talk pages becomes simpler. To start off, I would recommend the following article section regarding inserting references: Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference (if you're using WP:VisualEditor, see this: Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing_sources#VisualEditor). For a more in-depth understanding of Wikipedia citing, I would recommend referencing Wikipedia:Inline_citation. Regarding my explanation from before that you referenced, I think you may be referring to my reply to your message in either of these places: User_talk:JustBerry#Message or User_talk:Editorsproof#Welcome.21. Finally, I'm sincerely glad to see you're less frustrated. Thanks for all your contributions! --JustBerry (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Message from Ehtsham .23

Hey you added that there is no profe that moinuddin pur is from syed that true or not Ehtsham .23 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ehtsham .23: Did you just create a new account? Which edit are you referring to? Are you referring to this edit that I reverted? Without providing citations, information that you add to articles on Wikipedia is not verifiable by others editors and readers. --JustBerry (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Paul Massey Submission

Hi I was wondering why you pinged user SwisterTwister onto the Paul Massey Wikipedia page. This user just left a rather disheartening comment on my submission and I am starting to lose hope that I will not be able to successfully contribute to Wikipedia. Please let me know what I can do to successfully get my page online. Again, here is a link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_Massey_(2) and thanks so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Af398 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Af398: I'm sure User:SwisterTwister didn't intend to come across that way. He's just trying to give you realistic feedback so that you don't have issues with WP:AfD in the event that the article is published in the article mainspace. As a side note, I'd say this article is more of a "not quite yet" scenario. Especially if the politician wins, there will likely be an article when WP:Notability criterion are better fulfilled (more coverage, holding office, other political involvement, etc.) Why don't you, for now, reach out to User:SwisterTwister directly? --JustBerry (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister is semi-retired it won't let me contact him. And there is plenty of valid content to merit a page now (and I would get a lot out of adding to Wikipedia's community)...The user left no explanation as to how to get the page approved, I was wondering if you could — Preceding unsigned comment added by Af398 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Af398: SwisterTwister is not retired at all (see Special:Contributions/SwisterTwistertheir recent contributions). Also, I spoke with SwisterTwister over IRC just yesterday. --JustBerry (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Spin off doctor who companions

What surges are valid and are the comics valid 95.150.111.115 (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@95.150.111.115: Regarding your edits from earlier, please make sure your sentences have sources to ensure verifiability of the information you are adding. Also, I could barely understand your writing here and here. Finally, which film is Cindy Wu from? --JustBerry (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

she's from the 10th doctor comics from Titan 1st appearing as a frend of the main companion but becoming a full time companion from issue 2.7 95.150.111.115 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@95.150.111.115: Can you put that information in there with a source to ensure that other editors can verify the information that you add? If you need help adding a source or making sure that the source is reliable, feel free to reach out. --JustBerry (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Changes

Hello, I made changes to a page , I don't believe it is vandalism. I just saw you said it is not allowed. I did not say anything mean. And it is not a lie or anything. So, I did not intentionally mean to vandalize. I just added some information to clarify a sentence. Apologies Katers21 (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Katers21: Welcome to Wikipedia, and I certainly appreciate you reaching out. Reviewing your edit here, there are a few things that are slightly off from Wikipedia standards. Firstly, if you want to mark something as "not verified" or not verifiable, please use Template:citation needed. The second sentence in your edit is a speculation, perhaps one deduced from WP:Original research. Essentially, for the second and third sentences, please be mindful that all content should meet WP:Verifiability, i.e. be able to be verified by fellow editors, by providing in-line citations. Feel free to reach out again if you have any further questions, comments, concerns, need advice, or just need more help. --JustBerry (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Karrahlian Tercet (Poetic Form) -- New page sourcing issues

Hello, JustBerry.

I see your concerns about sourcing, including lack of results from Google search.

This is because I am the source for this material. I have created a new poetic form, and am attempting to disseminate the form via Wikipedia.

Does my lack of outside sources, or the uniqueness and novelty of the information, necessarily preclude my post from validity? I have met all other requirements of a Wikipedia post; by definition, I am the only reliable source for this information; and I am trying merely to introduce something new into the world via the most powerful medium I know.

Please advise.

Thank you.

Njallsson (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Njallsson: Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:No original research. --JustBerry (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Message from 2602:306:3266:3000:D569:2615:F93C:807D

i think you made a mistake

2602:306:3266:3000:D569:2615:F93C:807D (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Where? Are you referring to this revert? If so, please see Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines. Feel free to reach out if you have any further questions. --JustBerry (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Message from 24.144.37.147

This is why I hate Wikipedia. You add something and some anal OCD jackwad who doesn't even care about the article in question removes it...just to be bureaucratic. Never freaking mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.37.147 (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@24.144.37.147: Hello 24.144.37.147, I am very sorry that my revert or others' reverts may have made you feel this way. Since I see that User:SportsMaster reverted your edit here, I will let them chime in on the discussion too. Not to be too technical about the words you used to express your anger above, but I think it might be helpful to understand why editors revert edits in general. By the end of this somewhat lengthy message, I certainly want to explore what I can personally do to help you to have a more enjoyable experience in editing Wikipedia (and feel free to make suggestions). The reason why we may seem "OCD" is because Wikipedia is compromised of a body of users that are consistently and primarily screening for edits that may appear vandalistic, editing tests, disruptive, promotional/advertising, etc. Please do NOT get me wrong: your edit was none of those. Sometimes, during this "patrolling," editors may revert edits because they feel as though they are not verifiable, which ties into your characterization of reverting as "bureaucratic." As you already know, Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, in that it's constantly being modified by users globally. Without guidelines such as WP:Verifiability, then, how can fellow editors or readers readily verify the credibility of those facts? My reverting had less to do with your intentions on Wikipedia and more to do with making sure that when you (or anyone else) reads something on Wikipedia, you can see that the information is credible (editors' own observations, commentary, or opinions classify as WP:Original research, which is discouraged on Wikipedia, as it directly counters WP:Verifiability). Please don't be offended or upset, but do you see how the phrases "neither offense really able to establish itself" and "lowest total ever" may raise the eyebrows of passing editors or so-called "patrollers"? For all other people might know, this may be a user that was truly frustrated or thrilled after watching the game and decided to add such information, even though those phrases are not true because they are exaggerated (again, this may not be the case with you--your contribution may be completely factual--but I'm trying to offer you a perspective on the larger process). Do you understand what I'm saying? If not, please feel free to respond here and ask me questions and continue expressing your concerns and comments. To start off in helping you make the contribution you had intended to make, do you know of any independent news sources that support the contribution you tried to make? Please know that I am absolutely willing to help you any time you need (just reach out), even if you just want to reach out to express your frustration about any other aspect of Wikipedia. I'm more than happy to offer an open ear and help you step through any challenges--whether technical or content-based--that may arise in your editing. After writing this message, I hope you can see that we are ready and willing to help out. My apologies on behalf of those that may have frustrated you. I hope you have a great day! --JustBerry (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Helping.

I understand that you want the Pokémon info to be simple but I wasn't going to translate it long it was only temporary because somebody has to translate this for a website. Thanks for helpful theory though.--24.38.206.209 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@24.38.206.209: Are you referring to my revert to your edit here? I don't think I made any comments on the Pokémon article directly. But, regarding that edit, the contribution you made seemed ambiguous (and unsourced). What details are you referring to with "other things." We can, perhaps, add that information instead (sourcing it too). --JustBerry (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Message from Editorsproof

Hi, JustBerry.

Can you please help me with the "Cienega" article again? I thought I left you a message on the Cienega talk page, but as i've said before, this Talk system appears extremely convoluted to me. I hope this is the right place to reach you.

The word "Cienega" as the title of the entire article needs to have an acute accent over the first "e." How do I make that happen? It appears that I cannot change the title.

Whether "Ciengega" is spelled "cienega" or "cienaga" (and there are article pages for both), the first "e" should have the accent. In fact, that is the way they are shown in the link to Wiktionary.

Thank you so much for your help! Editorsproof (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Editorsproof: What are the sources supporting your change again? FYI, Ciénega currently redirects to La_Cienega. Moreover, not sure why La Ciénaga (disambiguation) redirects to La Ciénaga... You may need to request a page move here following the guidelines on that page. --JustBerry (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Cienega Article

Hi, JustBerry.

The "La_Cienega" disambiguation section to which you say the "Cienega" article redirects is garbage. It should be deleted. It doesn't say anything, and has no bearing on wetland cienegas (or cienagas, alternate spelling).

The whole subject and the titles of articles containing the word "cienega" or "cienaga" should be reviewed, in my opinion, in terms of what links to what. There are towns -- in New Mexico and in Dominican Republic, apparently -- named as such; and certainly those articles are great and valid. However, i really don't understand the disambiguation stuff. The two spellings of the word are valid, however, so I understand that it is a confusing issue.

The sources for the changes to the Cienega article are clearly cited in the References. The article itself is written by A.T. Cole who is renowned for cienega restoration work on his ranch in southwest New Mexico.

I hope i answered your question.

However, you did not answer mine. How can i insert an acute accent over the first "e" both in the name of the article and in the text?

Thanks very much for your help! Editorsproof (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Editorsproof: Before making such drastic technical and administrative requests, I would suggest first seeking WP:Consensus on such change propositions. See WP:RfC as one of the modes to do so. --JustBerry (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

HSC-9 Edits

JustBerry,

I am new to Wikipedia edits and talking.

I was surveying the referenced page for some data and noticed that two proper names were misspelled and corrected them. In response to your citation query, both names are are statements of fact, not opinion or reference, and are common knowledge. I do not know precisely how to cite a reference for the spelling of a proper name that is in the public domain. Any assistance would be appreciated.

OpusF18 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)OpusF18

@OpusF18: Surely--thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with correcting spelling mistakes, and I certainly commend you for doing so. Since you seemed to be a serious contributor, I considered reaching out to you to help you improve, for lack of a better term, your contributors along Wikipedia's guidelines. One of Wikipedia's main principles is the verifiability policy, which explains why each piece of information added to the encyclopedia should have a source. The name itself doesn't have to be sourced. However, if you have sources mentioning that McDivitt ended their space journey with rides aboard HS-3 helicopters and/or Schweickart ended their space journey with rides aboard HS-3 helicopters, including a citation for that information not only verifies part of the sentence "Astronauts Carpenter, Grissom, Young, Collins, Gordon, Conrad, McDivitt, Scott, and Schweikart all ended their space journeys with rides aboard HS-3 helicopters," but also verifies the spelling of the names you have corrected. This way, fellow editors or readers can easily verify your correction, etc. Does this make sense? See Help:Referencing_for_beginners for a tutorial on citing sources. --JustBerry (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please hep!

@justberry my page "kris degioia" was deleted by Waffen77 and I have no idea why. It says he has been banned from doing anything on Wikipedia So how could he delete my page? I'm so confused, ( I don't even know if this is the right way to contact you ) my page wasn't even finished with all the notable references listed as links! It was just re created by someone (I didn't even know it was taken down by the same Waffen77 to begin with. I'm honestly very confused and I'm hoping you can help me ! Please! 107.3.202.41 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)kris degioia107.3.202.41 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Pinging deleting administrator of this page. --JustBerry (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I really don't know what your response means. I feel totally dumb right now for the fact I don't know how any of this works! I'm cited in mark washingtons NFL wikipedia page, and have tons of links (not PR releases but notable ones) mark wanted me listed as a clickable link from his to mine. Can you help us resolve this bc it's not paid, and it's not advertising it's just facts. --2601:482:0:81BB:616C:2E50:DD41:D792 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

kris degioia 2601:482:0:81BB:616C:2E50:DD41:D792 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@2601:482:0:81BB:616C:2E50:DD41:D792: Apologies for the ambiguity. I was simply pinging the administrator who deleted the page you had created to get more insight into their reasoning for doing so. If you visit this page, you should see this line (19:17, January 7, 2017 Mkdw (talk | contribs) deleted page Kris Degioia (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waffen77), which represents an article deletion log entry. --JustBerry (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks I did and saw my cite was deleted after my page was deleted. Mark himself did not deleted it. I looked at the sock Piet page and Waffen77 is banned from doing anything on here (from what I read) @justberry I really need your help bc I never made my Wikipedia page to begin with (as you can tell I do not know how to even write a simple message) then I did not know it was deleted untill mark told me. Then all of a sudden it's back but gets delete bc Someone I don't even know made one that was identical to the old one? I don't see how that's fair. I can send you sources that back up my notability. I never even asked for a winkipedia page to begin with and now I'm being bashed for no reason? I don't understand. Thank you. For your patience and understanding KDegioia (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

kris degioia KDegioia (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I tried to add back my cite after it was deleted tonight, my name was in mark washitons article for at least two weeks. KDegioia (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)kris degioia

@KDegioia: What do you mean by "mark washitons article"? Can you please provide the link to the article you are referring to? --JustBerry (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It was cited on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Washington_(linebacker) KDegioia (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)kris degioia KDegioia (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@KDegioia: I do not see any edits on that page made with the username KDegioia. --JustBerry (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@justberry I apologize I hoped by adding it back on there would help. KDegioia (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)kris degioiaKDegioia (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@KDegioia: Adding what? Adding "there"... where? Help what? --JustBerry (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It was there and when it mine got deleted, my band was deleted from his page also, which makes zero sense to me, then within the last hour I tried to add

My name back to mark washshintons page, and within maybe 3 mins it was gone again KDegioia (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)kris degioiaKDegioia (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@KDegioia: User:Melcous deleted your edit here. The information you added here was unsourced. Also, please see WP:COI. Didn't you mention that you were Kris? If so, you shouldn't be trying to add your own name to a Wikipedia article, as this is a conflict of interest. Not sure what you mean by "my band was deleted from his page also." Please be specific in what you're referring to. --JustBerry (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

my name (not band) was deleted from his page after my page was deleted. can you help me get my oage back? as you can see i have everything needed. once again im sorry i didnt know i couldnt or should not add my name to a page.

@2601:482:0:81bb:616c:2e50:dd41:d792: Requests to undelete a page can be made here Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion, or you can reach out to the deleting admin Mkdw (talk · contribs) directly on their talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Simone Ahuja

Thank you for closing the request. However, I am at something of a loss to determine what the requester wanted restored. There doesn't appear to have been a deletion. There does appear to be a conflict of interest issue because the requester appears to be working for Simone Ahuja, but I am not sure who Simone Ahuja is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Simone_Ahuja. Article: Simone Ahuja ^{(deletion log)} --JustBerry (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, as I said, the requester and her boss have a conflict of interest. However, second, the two options available are either Requests for Undeletion or deletion review, which are not the same but are often confused. Deletion Review is to request a review of the closure of the AFD debate. REFUND is to request that the deleted article be provided. Since it was deleted, it may or may not be refundable in user space or by email. In any case, thank you for closing the request. Where did you get the information that it was an AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The user appears to want the "section up and running," suggesting that the user may want to regain the content that was deleted (presumably to work on in a draftspace, userspace, sandbox, etc. or to request someone else to work on). Regardless, WP:DRV may be better suited to explain the user why the article was deleted, etc. To your comment regarding the possibility of WP:REFUND, though, the AfD discussion doesn't seem to suggest that providing a copy of the deleted article should be an issue, i.e. because of serious BLP issues, legal issues, etc. Regardless, I tweaked the closing notice ^(permalink). Regarding the AfD, I simply dug up the case filer's contributions and examined the article deletion log entry's reasoning. --JustBerry (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JustBerry - Thank you. The deletion was three months ago, and so deletion review may be a little stale. I think that the requester is likely to find that Wikipedia is more complicated than they were hoping for. We shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Sure. I saw you left a welcome template on Buckrun10 (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I'd be willing to reach out as well if the editor becomes active again. --JustBerry (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Rollback

@Justberry: Hello JustBerry, Could you please rollback User:Forrest Lesak's contributions on the Jackie Vernon (comedian) article since it breaks the Infobox images and also does not cite any dates? A would it also be possible for me to also have rollback rights? Thanks, Vistadan (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vistadan: Hello Vistadan. The edits do not appear to be blatant vandalism. Have you reached out to the editor on their talk page User_talk:Forrest_Lesak or the article talk page Talk:Jackie_Vernon_(comedian)? Often times, it is best to see if you can resolve the conflict with the editor themselves first before resorting to community discussion/noticeboards (or even think about using rollback for non-blatant vandalism). Please see Wikipedia:Rollback#When_to_use_rollback. As far as the user's contributions themselves go, though, I have removed the image-related parameters from the article infobox, as the image (uploaded by the same user) lacks copyright information. However, their edit to Jackie Vernon's birth date seems to be accurate. To improve the edit, I added a reference for their contributions. Moreover, I have left a personal message for the user on their talk page User_talk:Forrest_Lesak#Jackie_Vernon_.28comedian.29:_Thank_you.21.

For now, I would suggest that you use the user script WP:Twinkle's rollback for some time, following the guide Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism to start off. If you would still like to request rollback, please see Wikipedia:Rollback#Requesting_rollback_rights regarding understanding how rollback is assigned and what the expectations/requirements are. Please feel free to reach out again with any questions or concerns. --JustBerry (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Justberry: Hello JustBerry, thanks for replying and I have taken onboard what you've said. Thanks, Vistadan (talk) 11:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Vistadan: Sure thing! Feel free to swing by again. --JustBerry (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Polo Morin Biography

Wikipedia needs more people like you :) and I honestly thank you. about the twitter info i got it from the official page of la novela — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarMarBar12 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Replied at User talk:KarMarBar12. --JustBerry (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Classical Music Dispute, Part Two

I have placed the new classical music filing on hold until the WP:ANI thread is resolved. We don't have a dispute pending in two forums at the same time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Mathsci posted about the ANI case after my post on that case. I was simply verifying the preliminary criteria in preparation for further case handling. I neither accepted nor denied the case. Putting it on hold for now is fine. --JustBerry (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that you and I both did the right thing in leaving the case half-open. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Agreed, sounds good. Also, changed DRN case status to reflect that the case is  On hold. --JustBerry (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

DRN

On the Sri Lanka Matha DRN, can I jump in and start the discussion or do I need to wait for a volunteer to do something?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Ideally, involved editors should wait until the case has been opened by a (non-involved) volunteer to foster moderated discussion, i.e. the purpose of DRN. --JustBerry (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll wait for a moderator.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: Sounds good. User:Robert McClenon had initially made some comments on the case, which seem to be resolved now. --JustBerry (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I read....

the above thread, Message from 24.144.37.147, with great interest. The time and effort you took to try to retain an upset editor is commendable. It kind of fits into a personal WP journey I am on to retain editors one at a time, individually, editor to editor. In a recent discussion w/ isaacl he said; I encourage anyone to think of tasks you can do yourself or with a small core group, and try them out—if you succeed, great; if not, re-evaluate, and try something else. So, I tried an experiment yesterday to incorporate his new challenge with my old WikiKnights idea. I realized that rather than wait for someone to come to me....I would go to them...and just interject myself into there "scuffle". I went to Recent changes and scrolled down looking for any hint of a disagreement. I found one and with a little reading and minor vetting it seemed like a good fit for a test run. Check it out @ [2]. The next diff shows the WER Welcome which I thought was good to use in order to bring it out of mothballs. Way back (7-8 yrs ago), when I first thought of WikiKnights, I knew not to create something that would take alot of managing or time. In and out. Retain the new editor without upsetting the veteran editor, hopefully, and get out. Always interested in your input. Check out User talk:North Shoreman#Finkleman for some background. Buster Seven Talk 21:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: Thanks for noticing, and your efforts to appease tensions for Ettercap18 are certainly underappreciated. Also, what do you mean by Wikiknights? Thirdly, for User talk:North Shoreman#Finkleman, are you asking for input on how to handle that situation? Or, have you already done so? --JustBerry (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 1)User talk:Buster7/Wikiknights. An old idea. 2)The "finkleman" mention was just so you could see background for Ettercaps predicament. I thought Noshoreman was a little "bitey" but, if you notice, the WikiKnight concept is to just soothe the new editor and not to engage the veteran editor. My idea is not to worry about the situation other than too explain it in a more mentoring fashion. Buster Seven Talk 22:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: Ah, okay. Just created a new section here on that talk page to eliminate possible confusion. --JustBerry (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: To add to my reply, I'd certainly say there's been a certain void of personal connection on Wikipedia (more so recently). Just yesterday, I dropped a user a message here (after they had faced multiple blocks prior). The user replied here. Having volunteered at WP:DRN myself, DRN isn't equipped for emotional/behaviorial struggles or disagreement/alienation from Wikipedia's policies. WP:ANI and the edit warring noticeboard deal with behavorial struggles when they heighten, laying out conditions, rules, and administrative actions against users. WP:AfC gives comments on articles but (somewhat frustratingly) often tosses articles into the rejection pile without much more support. IRC helps users, but not everyone is aware of the help channel on IRC. If users try to reach out to a user on their talk page, they're re-directed to read policies in templated messages without substantive explanations. Some people have autism. People get frustrated if their IP is blocked. At times, falsely accused socks don't know how to defend themselves, leaving them to create other accounts, which get them into deeper trouble for socking up front. Recently, I've decided to reach out to users that have filed unblock requests to help them understand their block in context and inform them why their unblock request is not complete (so to speak). People don't know how to best contribute to Wikipedia always, and they also don't always have the time to gain the experience to do so. --JustBerry (talk)

@Just Berry: As an administrator I know and respect that you are much more involved in the machinery of WP. But many times that machinery chews up editors before they even have a chance to evolve into the potentially positive editors WP needs to survive. As you and I assuredly agree, the human touch works. Buster Seven Talk 22:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Buster7: Human touch is certainly the goal. --JustBerry (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Talk page removal

Haha, ya, didn't even notice I did that myself. Was going fast. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@ArsenalFan700: Ah, I see. Yeah, the bug is being tracked here. I have just contacted a Mediawiki dev over IRC to discuss the issue. --JustBerry (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

hi my page has recently been deleted

hi my page has recently been deleted. i request you to tell me the reason. and i need my material which i have typed for hours. my page Krishna prasanthi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutansai (talk • contribs)

@Nutansai: Which page? --JustBerry (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Krishna_prasanthi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutansai (talk • contribs)

@Huon: Pinging deleting admin. Please note, Nutansai, Wikipedia is not a webhost for storing written works. Please refer to WP:WEBHOST. Also, it is important to note that your article may not be undeleted (for instance, via WP:REFUND), as the article was deleted for unambiguous advertising per WP:G11. I apologize for any inconvenience, but do feel free to leave any further questions below. --JustBerry (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

no no i just need my material back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutansai (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nutansai: I apologize for the inconvenience. However, let's wait and see what Huon says. --JustBerry (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

thank you justberry, just HUON is not replying — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutansai (talk • contribs)

@Nutansai: Please be patient. Huon should reply within the next day or so to this discussion. --JustBerry (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Kent Westlund

JustBerry, I am leaving you this message to alert you that I have responded to your message on my talk page.Kent Westlund (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting. I have replied on your talk page. --JustBerry (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've replied with more information. Kent Westlund (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As an FYI, your talk page is on my watchlist. No need to reply here. --JustBerry (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Arlopes98

Hey, you select my page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Rita_Lopes for speedy deletion. I'm sorry for creating a stupid page, i just want a friend to see it, and i will delete it myself as soon as he see it. Thank you for keeping wikipedia a trusty website :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlopes98 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Arlopes98: Ah, I see. Thanks for being honest and expressing your gratitude. --JustBerry (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from 107.77.215.218

You said it only in squash matches and just cause you use the move once or twice as a finisher doesn't mean it's a finisher when he always uses the move as a signiture move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.215.218 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@107.77.215.218: Thanks for reaching out. However, I'm not quite sure exactly what you are referring to. Which edit? Which article? Which talk page? What did I say? What is "it"? Which squash matches? Which move? What do you mean by "finisher"? --JustBerry (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Surprise=Surprize

Hi JustBerry, In the 18th and early 19th Century, English spelling was in a state of flux. One can find the same vessel, such as HMS Surprise, also being referred to as HMS Surprize. I try in my articles to use both names because if one is searching for info one might have to look under both variants. So, no typo, just normal for the times. (And that doesn't even begin to touch on the problem of the "s" that looks like an "f".) I have seen commanders experiment with different versions of their own names as well. If I may quote Abe Lincoln (I believe): "It's a pretty poor mind that can't think of more than one way to spell a word." Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: I was just about to undo that. Thanks for letting me know. --JustBerry (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin:  Done --JustBerry (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. And then there is "Rein Deer" and "Reindeer", "Rifle Man" and "Rifleman", and "Ring Dove" and "Ringdove", etc. It's kind of interesting to see the language evolve and standardize. That said, when I am done with an article I can't read it for typos - I know what should be there and so just don't see them. I therefore do appreciate it when people swing by and clean up in my wake. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: Not a problem. If you'd like, I could do a basic sweep of articles you have edited. --JustBerry (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That would be great. I bow to no one in my ability to generate typos. Acad Ronin (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: I have completed a basic sweep of all of the articles you have edited thus far. --JustBerry (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I was stunned to see how target-rich an environment I had left for you and am appreciative. I will revert one change though. Curacoa was a contemporary but now obsolete Brit name for Curaçcao. Actually, I will just link the name to avoid anyone else fixing it. Again, many thanks and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: No problems. Yeah, the wikilink would have definitely helped, as I was convinced that the change needed to be made. --JustBerry (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

AWB rules of use

Hi JustBerry.

Recently, you've been using AWB in a manner that violates the rules of use. The rules of use prohibit insignificant/cosmetic-only edits. This includes moving around whitespace or making any change that doesn't affect the rendered output of the page. Running just general fixes is almost always a violation. Further, you've been editing at speeds that far exceed what would allow you to reasonably review each edit you're making. This violates WP:BOTASSIST, part of our bot policy. If you're not reviewing each of your edits, then you must file a request for bot approval for that task.

Example: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Those are all from a one minute time period. If this continues, your AWB access is likely to be revoked. Thank you for your attention to this issue. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Thanks for letting me know. I spoke with User:Samwalton9 earlier about this issue. --JustBerry (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

While I trust that you understand why those edits were in violation of rule 4 after I explained to you earlier, there is also the issue (that I didn't notice at first) of the speed. That many edits per second shouldn't be made with AWB; you need to check each edit manually when using it. Sam Walton (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Update: I have discussed this matter with Rob over IRC. I started off by clarfiying my intention: helping pages achieve the following guidelines (by convention): categories should be separated from the rest of the page/category page content, duplicate categories should be removed, categories should be added below templates, and categories should be moved to the bottom of pages. Rob has helped me better understand how a high rate of such changes can dilute countervandalism efforts and use substantial server resources. I mentioned to Rob that I had been editing faster when making changes that were identical from page to page. Rob has prodded me not to exceed 15 edits/minute moving forward to avoid diluting recent changes. We also discussed whether or not template modifications such as Template:cn --> Template:citation needed were allowed, which seems to be under discussion at the moment. --JustBerry (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Slight edit conflict above. Hopefully that message addressed your reply. --JustBerry (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Curteousy ping to Rob as well. --JustBerry (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, doesn't BOTPOL recommend that the rate of editing for non-urgent tasks is six per minute, not fifteen? Enterprisey (talk!) 21:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It does, yes, but bots and semi-auto aren't really the same. 15 edits is a very upper limit for a small volume of very simple edits. More complicated edits should be done at a slower rate. High volume edits should be done by a bot. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

My watchlist I had several edits such as this show up which are disallowed as purely cosmetic or which don't create any change. We all make mistakes (God knows I have), so please be more careful next time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: My apologies. If I could (per rights and policy), I would delete those edits. --JustBerry (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)