User talk:Jkaharper/2023/January

On 11 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article George Pell, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Sandstein 10:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Charles Simic, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 18:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article José Evangelista, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Annette McCarthy, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jim Molan, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 17:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jkaharper. Thank you for your work on

Thanks for creating this article! Hopefully you will write more articles! Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPNI doesn't "dictate" policy here; the policy is

The clue is in the name

WP:BLP = biographies of living persons. The list isn't a living person. There are thousands of lists on Wiki and I've barely seen a single one where references are thrown in for lifespans, provided that the subject has a clickable page of their own. Sources for birth and death years should be clearly displayed on the individual's page itself. As for IPNI being a general source for the lifespans on that page – all references on Wiki should be clearly defined and aligned with the information it is sourcing. Blanket sourcing isn't appropriate. So you either source every single lifespan or none at all. Floyd's death was sourced on his page anyway. A very quick check from you and you would've realised that yourself. We're here to build an encyclopaedia. Reverting edits that add information that is already sourced is not constructive editing. --Jkaharper (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

On 29 January 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Álvaro Colom, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 21:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you're very experienced editor. Please double check death news before inserting dead notices. Egeymi (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Egeymi:, yes I am, and I read your message on the revert, and I don't appreciate your tone. I never added the entry to the Deaths in 2023 page, but even then I still translated the source before updating the individual's page. The translation of the death notice gave me no reason to believe that they weren't the same individual. So it wasn't the fact that I "didn't check" or "wasn't careful", it was a very understandable mistake. There are 1000s of members of the Saudi Royal Court and many of them have similar names. Absolutely no reason to stamp this on my talk page. I read your revert and understood it. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to make you unhappy, I just wanted to let you know the case because it was you who added this to the page of the person. Again sorry to bother you. --Egeymi (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you posting on my talk page. I do have a problem with someone suggesting I wasn't being careful or checking, as I always do this. Anyway, enough said on this. Thank you for reverting the page and correcting it. All the best. --Jkaharper (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]