User talk:jlwoodwa

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a

 → 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

@

WP:G7), but that doesn't apply to userspace. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Hey, I saw you added {{

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think it's

assume

you're just trying to start the conversation.

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)[reply

]

A happy frog for you!

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Oh, I thought

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Amidst some helpful changes to

Consistency (

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...as you did with mine here is a breach of

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@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 "

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

a2r}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

@

WP:TFD. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

1. I created the redirect with {{
   r to album
   }}.
2. This is relatively unimportant, as {{
   r to album}} is merely a redirect to {{r from song
   }}.
3. Still, I think {{
   a2r
   }} is used, but it is still conceptually a redirect to an album.

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

No, {{

a2r}} to redirects you create, but you should not remove it from redirects. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

I don't dislike your suggestion. Please, go ahead and improve

a2r}} will still belong on Christmas Will Be Soon, as per its documentation. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

Christmas Will Be Soon would still be {{

WP:POINT. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

I notice that you also removed {{

WP:FOLLOWING me around? jlwoodwa (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Also, as I described in my edit summary on Rauna (genus), please review Rauna (crustacean). The latter redirect holds the categories

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, jlwoodwa,

You are tagging pages for "vandalism" that aren't obviously vandalism so I have reverted your edits. Please review

Are you really saying that creating a new page with "hi. the answer is pi 75...WOOO" does not count as

WP:G3 applies to every namespace. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(I hadn't seen your revision.)

Watch out for lists of

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Would this be a good case for {{

unref}}? Thanks for the recommendation. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {{

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:

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to Wikipedia articles on Biology.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Nice one, champ. This article has been deleted even though I submitted a

I initially tagged it as

WP:BLAR instead. This is not a deletion, and can be easily reverted by anyone. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]