User talk:JPxG/Archive3

@80.115.138.140: The reason I reverted that is because it was taking out a source. If you found that the source said something different than the article claimed, it'd be better to just edit what the claim is (rather than remove the citation entirely). jp×g 03:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no!!!!! Fixed. jp×g 03:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On

Extremely Online? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Extremely Online. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Extremely Online), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Your hook made our list of pageviews over 5,000! Yoninah (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What an extremely online thing to happen. I'm so happy! jp×g 03:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thank you very much for reviewing my edit on the Earache Records Wikipedia page (^[1]). My apologies as I'm a new editor, so I just wanted to understand where my justification for deleting the section may be wrong, and whether you may reconsider allowing the deletion of the section.

I removed the Criticisms section in line with the following justifications:

-The section was placing undue attention on a negative viewpoint, and thus negates Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View (please note that Wikipedia itself notes that sections of this type are unwarranted on such pages: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints."^[2]

-The section itself is trivial and questionable in relevance with regards to Earache Records history and progress as a label - the matters mentioned do not characterise the label's work, and also veer towards criticisms of an individual rather than the business.

Other smaller justifications include: one of the references is a personal blog(^[3], Repulsion were signed to Necrosis Records (^[4].

Thank you for your time! SpiderPlant109 (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SPS sound troubling and probably ought to be taken out; however, blanking the entire section seems excessive, which is why I reverted. jp×g 03:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

oh no. fixed jp×g 03:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words at DYK, as you approved LaVon Mercer. And yep - what a story! There seems to be an under-current of anti-IP bias with some, and DYK - unfortunately - unlike the article creation process (Article Wizard), unfortunately doesn't allow a smooth method for an IP to nominate an article. Thanks again. --2604:2000:E010:1100:310B:4D30:7AD4:EE64 (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2604:2000:E010:1100:310B:4D30:7AD4:EE64: Glad I could be of help. It was a fun article to review, too... jp×g 03:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gateway Generating Station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that while the Gateway Generating Station was completed without controversy or setbacks, it was later the subject of a lawsuit over endangered butterflies? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gateway Generating Station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gateway Generating Station), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 00:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yeah. jp×g 03:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me a heads-up. jp×g 03:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!!!!!! jp×g 03:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jp×g 03:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On

2021 Somali presidential election was originally scheduled for 2020, but was delayed by concerns of famine, war, pestilence, and civil disorder? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Somali presidential election. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Somali presidential election), and if they received a combined total of 416.7 or more views per hour (ie, 5,000-plus views in 12 hours or 10,000-plus in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sad but true. jp×g 03:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello JPxG, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, csdnew 01:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply ] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks! And you too. jp×g 03:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not again!!!!!!!!!! jp×g 03:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Uzbek presidential election, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the results of the 2021 Uzbek presidential election are expected to mirror those from 2016, which were widely considered illegitimate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Uzbek presidential election. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Uzbek presidential election), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy. jp×g 03:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you did nominate this in plenty of time, but you should have posted at

WT:DYK to let us know that this needed speedy handling. As it is, a new hook will probably need to be suggested after the election. Yoninah (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Yoninah: Oh no!!!!!!!! There's no way to promote it sooner at this point? jp×g 18:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on the nomination template about the hook wording. If you can get to this within an hour, I'll ask for an administrator to help promote it. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, right in the nick of time. Thanks again. jp×g 03:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Ecuadorian general election, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lenín Moreno, who was elected president of Ecuador in 2017, is not seeking re-election in the 2021 general election? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Ecuadorian general election. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Ecuadorian general election), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding. jp×g 03:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie woopsies!!!! Fixed. jp×g 03:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Simp, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Archie Andrews has been described as the "simpiest of the simps"? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Simp), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wowie zowie! jp×g 03:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

On 12 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article WhopperCoin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that WhopperCoin attempted to turn a burger into an "investment vehicle"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/WhopperCoin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, WhopperCoin), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hell yeah. jp×g 03:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of appearing to be one, I bid you congratulations on your "simp" hook. The article received 8,898 page views while the hook was on the Main Page. Accordingly, it has been included at DYKSTATS January. Keep up the great work. Cbl62 (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Majestic! Thank you for the lol, and thank you for the good news. I'll wear this one on my sleeve... jp×g 03:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

I think you've made it clear at this point that you intend to cross the line of

@IHateAccounts: If you had read the section directly above this one, you'd see that talk page was one of three that I commented on after being specifically linked there by the Feedback Request Service bot. I apologize if you felt I was singling out your comment as incivil, but this accusation comes across as extremely bad-faith. jp×g 19:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Albany Hill, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. I had to rollback 26 pages because you clicked the wrong button in Cat-a-Lot. If you pull this crap again I'm reporting you to the Bozo Committee!!!!! jp×g 04:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit for a good reason, which I explained in the edit summary. You have undone that edit, and accused me of not explaining it. I see that a huge proportion of your edits are reverts, made at such a rate that you cannot possibly be checking what you are doing. If you want to undo edits, have the courtesy to look at them before you do so. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

recent-changes patrolling, sure; when doing this, I look at the diff for every edit on Special:Recentchanges that scores high enough on the ORES classifier (i.e. a neural network has determined them as pattern-matching more strongly to potential vandalism or error than the rest). The majority of the edits I revert don't take very long to identify as problematic, and I use a variety of tools to minimize legwork (i.e. manually navigating to users' talk pages). As for your edit, you've been repeatedly removing an entry from List of entertainers who died during a performance without an edit summary; your initial removal said that "no English article = not notable". Material in Wikipedia does not need to be referenced with specifically English-language sources (if it did, it's hard to imagine how we could write articles about things that happened in non-English-speaking countries). Since there was an inline reference in the entry you removed, I restored it. jp×g 23:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I have not been repeatedly removing that entry. I removed it once; my edit was undone by an account used purely for disruption. You undid it a second time; I restored it a second time.

And you have misunderstood the edit summary which I left. You obviously did not so much as glance at what I took out. The problem was not a non-English source. The problem was that the person being mentioned does not have an article on English Wikipedia. Thus, they are not notable.

I was unimpressed by your careless revert. I'm even less impressed by your attempt to justify it with false claims. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BIO1E guideline either. jp×g 00:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You should not have undone my edit; you should not have accused me of not explaining it, when I had done. Everything you are saying now is entirely beside the point. You made a mistake. You should admit it, apologise, and we all move on. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@37.152.231.40: I undid your edit because, as I just explained, you removed content from an article that wasn't violating any guidelines by being there. If you'd like I can open an RfC. jp×g 00:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, beside the point. If you can't even admit that you were wrong to accuse me of not explaining my edit when I clearly did so, then I do not believe you are acting in good faith. 37.152.231.40 (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage with this further. If you'd like to open an RfC, let me know, and I'll do it. jp×g 03:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Bless the Bad Jokes section. You're doing the Lord's work keeping the silliness of Wikipedia alive, even though it is to be paved over and replaced. Keep on rockin', little buggy. Okomot (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Okomot: Thanks!!!! I am glad someone besides me is getting some enjoyment out of it. jp×g 01:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely made a correct claim. Youre mentally ill Hgoldberg92 (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hgoldberg92: Your edit added "The chart is encompassed of Authoritarian Left (top left), Auth-right (top right), Libertarian Left (bottom left), and Lib-right (bottom right), with centrism in the middle of the spectrum." Given that the original form of the chart, as depicted directly next to your claim in the article, has "libertarian" at the top and "authoritarian" at the bottom, might this have belonged in a separate section about derivative charts? jp×g 07:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hello JPxG Thanks for reverting the page. It was an intentional edit. But I soon realized that it takes lot more effort to do a good edit. I also realized that older pages were better in explaining. Since I amnot fully aware of the entire history, I decided not to touch the page anymore. But I feel the article needs a re write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.212.35 (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@47.185.212.35: Don't sweat it! I'm glad you did your part to help. jp×g 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

On 22 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2021 Chadian presidential election, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to Amnesty International, pre-trial detentions, bans on gatherings, and censorship have occurred in Chad in the lead-up to the 2021 presidential election? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Chadian presidential election. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 2021 Chadian presidential election), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up but true. jp×g 03:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the beer! I will drink it in your honor. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

post

Mattiematical (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattiematical: Thanks! jp×g 09:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)