User talk:Jr8825/Archive 2

Your feedback is requested at

Hi. I just wanted to say thank you for the cookie. You made an honest mistake, but I'm glad you acknowledge it. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 09:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jr8825. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Plan of Castle Bank.jpg

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cefnllys Castle/archive1

Good luck with this; I do hope to join in, but I'm going to sit back and see what others say first! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thanks for your message, I'm looking forward to addressing any issues that are brought up, and hope to hear your thoughts again soon. Jr8825 • Talk 22:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For tackling the previously unaddressed issue of poor GA/FA icon prominence. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Sdkb, it's much appreciated! Jr8825 • Talk 03:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

DYK for Cefnllys Castle

On

Edward I's conquest of Wales? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cefnllys Castle. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cefnllys Castle), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hunter Biden

Hello. I have undid the revert and edited to include the original source which is Fox News and the actual interview so that Ratcliffe himself in his own words is the source therefore there is no conflict.Thanos5150 (talk)

Update (added to discussion): I edited the relevant section to include Ratcliffe's comments regarding this not being a Russian misinformation campaign ect. It was reverted because the sources used were said to be unreliable despite the fact there is no dispute this is what Ratcliffe said. I then undid the revert to include the link the original source which includes the actual video. Of course, this was immediately reverted. Ratcliffe is the DNI of the United States and his statements are what they are regardless of whether the interview is made on Fox Business of CNN therefore the source itself is irrelevant as Ratcliffe is clearly the verifiable source of the comments themselves which we can see and hear for ourselves. This is clearly an abuse of Wikipedia rules to censor a duly appointed official whose claims differ from the opposition narrative.Thanos5150 (talk)

Hi @Thanos5150:, I'm just about to sign off for tonight but just wanted to quickly reply so you know I'm not ignoring you. I can see you've raised your concerns in the right place on the article talk page. I suggest you engage with the editors there, most of whom are more familiar with the topic than I am, and see if you can reach a consensus over whether to include Ratcliffe's comments. I have seen other editors express doubt on Ratcliffe's personal reliability as he's an ally of Trump and his comments are rather nebulous, which makes it unclear how significant they really are – there isn't a consensus that Fox News is reliable for political claims, so comments made on Fox, especially relating to such a contentious issue, need to be backed up or seriously commented on in other, more trusted sources so their importance can be properly judged. I recommend you find coverage of his comments in reliable sources (you can find a list at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) and express your viewpoint patiently (engaging in discussion will take time, and more media coverage may appear over the next days anyway). Also, I suggest you remove your accusation on the talk page that editors are abusing Wikipedia's rules, it's unlikely to get you far. Assuming good faith will give you the best chance of finding common ground. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 04:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These concerns over Ratcliffe's personal reliability are irrelevant as he is the DNI and this is what he said therefore it does not matter what the consensus of Fox News's reliability is. The clear bias is that if anyone in Trump's orbit contradicts something said by those who are against Trump then therefore they cannot be trusted and likely not telling the truth. But of course it could never be the other way around. Surely you can understand the lack of objectivity with this logic.

If the interview was on CNN, whose coverage of Trump is 93% negative, that's ok but if its on Fox news, who is not reliable why exactly, then it can't be included? Regardless, no mater where it is he said what he said therefore he himself is the source. And if we are being honest, the same could be said of CNN in which again 93% ^[1] of their coverage of Trump is negative and the article cited to support the conspiracy theory this is a "disinformation campaign" gives once again anonymous and dubiously accredited sources. At any rate, I will continue the discussion elsewhere. Good nightThanos5150 (talk)

@Thanos5150: His personal reliability and Fox News' reliability do matter, as the concern I see expressed on the talk page is that reporting his comments verbatim could give undue weight to the idea that the emails are reliable or that his statement reflects the views of the intelligence community as a whole. On the other hand, he is a senior political figure. It's not clear-cut. What matters is whether we can trust sources to make reliable claims, not whether they politically lean one way or another. For that reason, reliable, non-neutral sources are acceptable (you may be interested in this essay: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content). As I mentioned above, I'm not a topic expert, so it's best to continue this conversation on the article talk page. I can see there's now a serious discussion going on among other editors in the section you started about including Ratcliffe. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 16:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. ^ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/28/cnn-now-officially-the-hate-trump-network/

Happy (Pharrell)

Hi, thanks for the welcome. I've been editing for years but just can't be bothered to log in.

I note you reverted my edit with "Added info doesn't match existing source" - can you elaborate? I didn't add any new information. --80.42.117.157 (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I apologise as my edit summary wasn't very clear. I was concerned about the information you removed, rather that your wording change. I checked the Guardian reference attached that sentence, and the text the result of the suspended sentence is that if another crime is committed in the next three years, then the punishments will be carried out was supported by the source. I can't see how removing this sourced information is necessary or an improvement. I hope this clarifies things. Best, Jr8825 • Talk 15:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is verbatim from the source. However, all that sentence does is define what a suspended sentence is. It's not information specific to the subject and neither is it a technical term that requires explanation - rather it is being [

over-explained]. That's why I deleted it and instead linked to the article suspended sentence

. The source going out of its way to define its terms does not necessarily require Wikipedia to do the same.

Another example of this term used without unnecessary explanation is the article Charles Ingram, quote: Both of the Ingrams and Whittock were given prison sentences, suspended for two years—the Ingrams were sentenced to eighteen months; Whittock was sentenced to twelve months—and each both fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £10,000 towards prosecution costs. --80.42.117.157 (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation, I may have been a bit overzealous. Please feel free to restore your edit if you feel it's an improvement. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 18:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. --80.42.117.157 (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I noticed your ping in IAGS open letter discussion. As I have accepted to not visit the article for the next 2 weeks, I can't reply there. I just wanted to say that I was not suggesting that cultural genocide isn't a war crime and I genuinely did not know that it was, I would be happy if you removed that part of your comment. —

Hi

CuriousGolden, I appreciate you reaching out to me. I will remove my comment as I trust your good faith. As an aside, I think it's a wise thing to avoid articles like that, it's always hard to stay cool when the issues are close to your heart. Jr8825 • Talk 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much. —

(talk·contrib) 19:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Beshogur (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Thanks for copyediting. Had to make some adjustment there before you published your edits, but didn't think it would've been a huge deal. Because it was previously interrupted by an IP edit. Cheers though. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Armenians call it Shushi, not Sushi. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum: – yikes! Not a pretty typo to make. Please feel free to correct any factual errors I make, I'm coming at this purely from a copy-editing perspective, although I'm doing a little research on the side to try and improve neutrality. I will come back to the rest of the article in a few hours time, so will remove the tag for now. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 20:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, I'm going to make more adjustments as I see any mistakes/updates. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article isn't constant with its spellings. Some words use American, while others use British spellings. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Solavirum: please change it to the style you're most happy with. It was already a mixture so I was going to standardise it to British spelling (but hadn't finished yet). If you'd prefer US spellings go ahead and covert them to that style. You may find the EngVarB script helpful. Jr8825 • Talk 21:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is routine administrative process. If editors issue these alerts only to editors they feel are misbehaving, they are using them improperly. Sometimes I don't bother when I see only a few edits by the editor in DS areas. Carry on. :) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm touched Mandruss. I've taken the liberty of removing the US politics alert as I've already placed a Ds/aware tag for that at the top of my talk, but as it's such a lovely blue colour I think I'll keeping that BLP box for posterity. Many thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 23:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Sorry, I have yet to train myself to look at the top, and I am now in violation of documented process. I opposed that as unnecessary complication, but I lost. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article talk pages on which you have chosen to advertise your AFD are concerning. Could you please try to be more balanced? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onceinawhile, influencing the discussion was not at all my motivation. The 2 notifications are at directly related articles, limited in scale, neutrally worded, non partisan and open, per the guidance. I was carefully following the practice of more experienced nominators I've seen at AfD, as I rarely participate there. I specifically chose those two articles (Israel, and Israel and the apartheid analogy) as they have far more watchers (2,366 and 479) than the other article I checked, Israeli occupation of the West Bank (71). If I left notifications at more pages I'd probably be at greater risk of running afoul of CANVASS from extensive cross-posting, and I presume that most editors in the topic area will be watching one of those pages. Jr8825 • Talk 10:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I forgot to ping you, Onceinawhile. Jr8825 • Talk 10:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier has reminded me of WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, and I've now left a notification there. Jr8825 • Talk 11:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current notification status seems to be two in Israel-focused articles, one in a neutral Israel-Palestine forum, but none in Palestine focused areas. I hope you can understand that this remains unacceptable, particularly given that the article topic is not in Israel.

Separately, given your stated sympathy for the facts of the situation, why are you working hard to bury it? Do you disagree with my statement at the AFD that this is "the fundamental reason that the two-state solution has been impossible to agree"? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile Those two articles are Israel-focused, but ultimately so is West Bank bantustans, as it is an Israeli policy/policy outcome. My thought process was that "Israeli occupation of the West Bank" was the closest topic to the article, but as it had few watchers I would notify the Israel article. Then I notified the "Israel and apartheid" article as the most likely place to be watched by editors familiar with the bantustan description. Because of the number of watchers at both these venues I presumed that Palestinian or Palestinian-sympathetic editors would be among these. I'd have no issue discussing my political views on this topic with you but I don't want to do so on-wiki as I try to avoid direct political statements here and focus on being an encyclopedist as far as I possibly can (obviously I recognise this is only possible to a certain extent). If you'd like to have that conversation , drop me an email (although I'm not very prompt at responding to emails, so please bear that in mind). I'm not working with the aim of burying the issue. Jr8825 • Talk 11:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jr8825, are you planning to put Area C (West Bank) up for deletion in the same way? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I'd appreciate it if we could focus on the content, rather than me as an editor. Jr8825 • Talk 12:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Is it really reasonable to have an article focused on one part of the West Bank political divide but not the other? Sorry to say this but it all feels like unintended anti-Palestinian racism. Don’t these people have as much right for their situation to be properly represented in our project as their neighbors do? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes they do, but there are more encyclopedic, neutral ways to describe their plight than an article solely on 'bantustans'. An article focusing on all aspects of Areas A and B perhaps? Neutrally written, it would not reflect well on Israel. State of Palestine is the current counterpart to Area C (West Bank), and the Israeli occupation article is extensive, so it's not like we're purposefully excluding this. To suggest other editors are motivated by racism, or producing racism, isn't on. Jr8825 • Talk 13:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

State of Palestine is not the counterpart at all; that is the Palestinian conception, and relates explicitly to the whole West Bank including East Jerusalem. This article is about the land area of the West Bank allotted by Israel for its Palestinian population, both currently (A and B) and intended (the various peace plans). It is not focused on the term bantustan, nor any particular analogy, and it is not intended to be. That is why the article gives four different names, and tries to use them throughout: bantustans, cantons, islands/archipelago and Areas A+B. Unfortunately there isn't an official name, and bantustan seems to be the more common one used (I am open to being proven wrong on this). If you deleted the word "bantustan" from the article, there is nothing in there which would bother anyone. As to the anti-Palestinian question, I don't consider it the motivation, but it is the effect - this situation is their past, present and future, and in trying to save the blushes of someone else we propose relegating our description of the Palestinian land area to the footnotes. I think it is important to treat all peoples equally in our project. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I gave the wrong link there, I meant Palestinian National Authority. As I said, I think there's scope for a separate article on Areas A and B, but the bantustan article isn't it. We don't see eye-to-eye here, so I suggest we wait for the outcome of the AfD. Jr8825 • Talk 15:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the equivalent counterpart either; see [1]. I would like to continue this discussion precisely because we don't see eye-to-eye; not to change you mind but to try to understand how to solve the underlying issue. So far all I understand is that people don't like the word bantustans, but noone has been able to provide a single explanation of what is wrong with the article or the sources. Not one. It is just "bantustan = no" over and over again. We are agreed that A+B is obviously fine. But I think it is important to have an article on the territory proposed by Israel for Palestinians - that is not A+B, as even the most extreme Israelis realize that 165 separate islands is not acceptable. Do you object to such an article, and if not, what would you call it? Onceinawhile (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not ignoring your message, I will get back to you tomorrow. Jr8825 • Talk 02:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onceinawhile, I've finally got round to typing up my thoughts and have responded at the AfD. I want to step away from the AfD as much as possible at this point and let newcomers offer their thoughts – I think I've made my take on things clear. If (and I don't want to prejudge the AfD outcome here) it ends with deletion or draftification, I'm more than happy to work with you on recreating an article with broader coverage of Areas A & B. I expect you will disagree with the points I've made, but please raise any points there, rather than here. If I think a further reply to others' feedback on my comment would contribute something new to the discussion I'll respond there as well. Otherwise, I'll leave it be for now and let others decide. Jr8825 • Talk 23:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears, and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Gog the Mild, it's really appreciated. I'm delighted to come out the other side of FAC unscathed, and here's hoping I'll find the time to bring another article to FAC in the foreseeable future. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 15:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good. It would be nice to see some more of your well written articles at FAC. Got any topics in mind? By the way, one of the contributors to the review is a professor of Medieval history specialising in late-Medieval fortifications! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Glyndŵr Rising or Tintern Abbey, would be the most straightforward. It's always nicer to write from scratch, and we could do with an article on the Industrial Revolution in Wales (a counterpart to the Scottish one), while the History of Wales should be brought to GA. Broader again, the Industrial Revolution is a delisted GA I've had my eye on, although I tremble at the thought of diving into that 19,000 word mammoth. Closer to my actual degree subject, there are a bunch of short popular vital articles on political theory topics, such as Executive, Legislature or Parliamentary system. Who knows whether I'll do any of this (and I spend quite a lot of time trying to keep current affairs articles tidy), but fingers crossed! Jr8825 • Talk 16:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Glyndŵr Rising or Tintern Abbey. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the tips, I'll definitely bear them in mind. :) Jr8825 • Talk 19:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I saw your response but unfortunately I can replay as admins think I am creating more problem for others by providing references and challenging information that is one-sided or bias. thanks for contributing and making the NK-2020 topic more balanced. Mirhasanov (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mirhasanov, thanks for your comment. I think the problem is that while it's valuable to point out places that are one-sided, we also need to work together as editors to find common ground on the content (not just pointing out when we think the other side is wrong). Anyway, the issue is out of my hands (or Rosguill's) and it will be carefully looked at by many uninvolved admins at the noticeboard. I do think the best thing to do would be to practice working on less controversial areas. All the best, Jr8825 • Talk 13:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jr8825 thanks for your balanced approach again. I always said that the article must reflect only truth and shouldn't be product of propaganda machine neither Armenian nor Azerbaijani side. If you would need any help, advice or information that you are not sure about Azerbaijan, I will be more than happy to support you. Sincerely, Mirhasanov (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix your signature to no longer use invalid markup. You can do this by changing your signature code in Preferences, to replace this:
     [[User:Jr8825|<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#6F0000">Jr8825</font>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="#4682B4">Talk</font>]]
with this:
     [[User:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#6F0000;">Jr8825</span>]] • [[User Talk:Jr8825|<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS'; color:#4682B4;">Talk</span>]]

The longer you use markup that hasn't been valid since the 1990s, the more you add to the

Hi SMcCandlish, thanks for the heads up. I've now adjusted it. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 14:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankee. :-) I'm glad I ran into your sig; in the process of looking again (for the first time in a long time) at the pages I referred you to, I realized that they were very poorly interconnected, so I've resolved that with a bunch "See also" links and other cross-references.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit! To be honest, the whole set of Help: and Wikipedia: info pages are poorly interconnected. Yesterday I used one the more uncommon Twinkle welcome templates to give a proactive new editor a more advanced set of links, and, seeing that a bunch of these were overlapping, redirected or have been replaced by better tools over the last decade, ended up cleaning out the whole template. It sure wasn't pretty. Jr8825 • Talk 16:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jr8825. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.
Message added 21:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding Armtura's actions that you may be involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Armatura. Thank you. — Mirhasanov (talk) 08:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mirhasanov. Your topic ban means you shouldn't be discussing editors' actions within that area, so the discussion you've started at the admin noticeboard is inappropriate. I suggest you follow the advice you've given on your talk page very carefully, including the instruction to strike out your post at the noticeboard. AE sanctions are strictly enforced and if you don't take action you will end up being blocked. Jr8825 • Talk 14:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jr8825 I decided to leave anyway as writing in wikipedia is not more than frustration for me. Hence, I already asked for Vanish request from admins. If I can't even talk about the topic I am interested here, there is no reason me to stay. Mirhasanov (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

Thanks for the notification Wehwalt. I'm excited to see this happening quickly and look forward to making some tweaks to the blurb. Jr8825 • Talk 15:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your edits on the N-K War. I don’t really edit the page - I dunno how to spell it! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a pleasant surprise! Thanks very much Destroyeraa :) Jr8825 • Talk 02:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! What's up? Just wanted to notify you that I've nominated Battle of Shusha (2020) to GA. As an editor who've copyedited the article and made major tweaks, I thought you might've wanted to take a look at it. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solavirum, thanks for the heads-up. I've just had another glance at it and can see a few grammar issues & bits that need cleaning up. I'll try to get round to this soon – although I don't think it's particularly urgent as there's a large backlog at GAN. Jr8825 • Talk 02:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, whenever you want. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum

Hello Jr8825,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the

redirect whitelist

.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	talk )	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Lovely to see this on the front page. The first always has a buzz! Congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Cefnllys Castle, "about a largely forgotten medieval castle, once a crucial frontier outpost in the most volatile part of the Welsh Marches, now reduced to rubble on an isolated ridge. My curiosity was piqued after coming across the stub a few weeks ago, and I was surprised to learn that the castles (there were in fact 3 successive castles, spanning 400 years of history) played a major role in English attempts to subjugate the independent Welsh princes. The strategic location made it a focal point of the conflict, and the building of the final castle at Cefnllys – following a Welsh siege which had destroyed the second – helped cause the final conquest of Wales. Its later history, and the failed castle town, also provide an insight into the social history of the Marches."! - lovely company to two DYK I have there, coming with good wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 & Gerda Arendt, thanks for your kind messages! Wishing you both a happy Christmas/New Year, Jr8825 • Talk 01:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

medieval history in England

Thank you for quality articles about medieval history in England such as Cefnllys Castle, for exquisite edit summaries, such as "cut down a little bit of excess repetition", fr improving Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, requesting reliable sources, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

The file File:Welcome to Wikipedia splash screen.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Admin help

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Hello, I’m looking some advice (and ideally a pair of fresh eyes) regarding my report at AN/EW, which appears to be languishing at the top of the page and risks being archived without a response, despite the four reverts. I expect this is because the 3RR violation is muddied by a content dispute on a hot topic (Turkish nationalism) and unsurprisingly nobody's keen to invest their time and energy into digging to the bottom of it. However, I believe it's also a case of subtle (but upon examination, unambiguous) disruptive editing given the context (an image cropped from an actual historic item, mislabeled and removed of its context so that it serves a false narrative). The difficulty is that while the Commons deletion process may be the technically correct way to remove the image from the project (as the image has also been inserted across multiple Wikipedias) it's not a good place for drawing much attention from neutral, uninvolved editors, and the issue of removing the image on the English Wikipedia is probably best resolved here at en-wiki.

I'd greatly appreciate it if someone could review the 3RR violation before it's archived. It would be good to have someone take a look at the content issue itself, but if the patrolling admin who answers isn’t enthusiastic about doing this, I'd be grateful for suggestions for how to draw attention to it and the best forum to take it to. Would mechanisms like

• Editor who inserted the image across multiple Wikipedias
• Commons deletion page
• Article history Jr8825 • Talk 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The original report was archived and the user resumed reverting, prompting me to open a second report (with the same name). Jr8825 • Talk 23:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick note that you can use Template:Do not archive until to prevent a thread from being archived. No comment on whether it's a good idea in this particular case. 78.28.44.187 (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive427 § User:𐰇𐱅𐰚𐰤 reported by User:Jr8825 (Result: ) for the curious. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rotideypoc41352: thanks for the link now that it's been archived. Asking anyone here: should I restore it to the noticeboard? Jr8825 • Talk 06:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's no use; the report wouldn't get actioned at 3RRN since it's now stale. At the same time, I also believe the image is highly suspect so I've removed it. If I were you, I'd try to find and contact an admin with some knowledge of the topic directly. 78.28.44.187 (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I see you marked my help request as resolved, but I haven't had an answer as to where the best place is to raise the content issue, do you have any suggestions? I have to say it doesn't inspire confidence that nobody is willing to take action against such a blatant 3RR violation, it sends the wrong message – the user in question reverted for a 5th time yesterday (they once more re-added the hoax image when a user tried to remove it). I opened a new EW report yesterday following the 5th revert and it's again sitting unanswered. Jr8825 • Talk 21:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for admin help in multiple places is not appropriate - you now have a 3RR report open. I too had a lengthy delay getting a response to an edit warring report, but eventually it did get answered. Please be patient. Add any further diffs to the report as they occur. Don't wait. By the way, you removed the image 4 times so you too have been edit warring.— Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Respectfully, I think you might've gotten the wrong end of the stick here. I had a long think about my fourth edit and went ahead after giving thorough consideration to 3RR. I re-read the rule carefully and considered that, as my original edit summary was "removing hoax image", my action was countering disruptive behaviour (I don't believe this is a genuine content disagreement). I agree the disruption is not as obvious or clear as other forms of vandalism, which is why I adhered to the 3 revert rule with my reverts (besides, after they demonstrated that they were going to disregard the warning I left on their talk page and revert past 3RR, there was no point in trying to prevent it). I'm not sure why you think I asked for admin help in multiple places, I opened this up when it became clear the original report was going to be archived without action, as it was. I opened the second report at AN/EW after the user started reverting again, but I didn't close this thread as I was still hoping I'd get an answer to my main question here (what's the best forum to take raise this at?) – I still haven't had an answer for this. I do hope you're right about the EW report getting a response this time around. Jr8825 • Talk 22:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You've already got it at two forums - the Commons and the 3RR report - so I guess I don't know what the question actually is. I am re-activating the admin help template. Perhaps someone else can help you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reopening my question. In the meantime I'm going to see if I can find an admin with knowledge in the topic area and if I succeed I'll close the template myself. I'm not sure Commons is the right place for two reasons. Firstly, I'm not convinced editors with knowledge of the field are likely to be commenting there, and secondly the scope there is different (i.e. does this image have any educational value? – although I personally don't think it does, it's not clear-cut given that it's an an extract from a real historical object). On Wikipedia the issue isn't just the false title/caption, it's also truthfulness & verifiability (is the image used in such as way as to promote a hoax narrative?). Jr8825 • Talk 23:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as answered as I've received advice on next steps from an uninvolved editor knowledgable in the field (take it to ANI if the image is edit warred back into the article again). Jr8825 • Talk 00:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jr8825. If you are talking about this AN3 case, it is now closed with a warning to the other party that they can be blocked if they revert again. The term 'hoax' perhaps has some baggage, but it is easier to see this as a question of the other party warring to add unsourced material. And it doesn't depend on whether Commons decides to accept the image; it's a question of enwiki standards for making unsupported claims about history. The mere existence of a souvenir map, with unknown authorship, doesn't prove the intentions of the British government one way or the other. A question like that one needs actual RS. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, EdJohnston. I thanked you because you saw things more clearly than I did and got to the heart of the issue, verifiability. Levivich, who I'd asked for a second opinion just before you responded, offered similar advice. I appreciate that hoax is a loaded term (the caption was factually incorrect and unsourced, so, being charitable, it's SYNTH/OR). I saw it being pushed onto multiple wikis and jumped to a hardline stance. Whether or not the image has been manipulated, you're completely right that the real issue remains lack of sourcing for the extraordinary claim. Jr8825 • Talk 05:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've came across your comments about the BBC Azerbaijani's content. Though I can not directly comment there, because of obvious reasons, I can reach out to them personally. I've got some acquentices working there, and I can tell them what's your complaint is, and they might resolve the issue. As for you no getting a response, I'm not surprised as mailing isn't that popular around here. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solavirum, just a quick note to say I've seen your message and will hopefully have time to respond here later today. You might prefer to follow up by emailing me directly though, as I'm not sure whether discussing this on-wiki would violate your topic ban. Jr8825 • Talk 09:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will wiki-mail you. I'm bit alien to the whole conception of 'topic ban' so I'm not that aware to its (non-existent?) boundaries, though I'd be happy to give a hand. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 11:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hi Jr8825. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Redesigning the featured, good, and article assessment icons. Pbrks (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed for finding that! A very helpful addition. KJP1 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message KJP1, my pleasure. Looks like you're doing great work there. Jr8825 • Talk 22:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It has come along quite nicely. But I need to do some more on the lead, and on the medieval fabric of the castle. Not really my period..... but yours? KJP1 (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: I'd be happy to help. Not sure whether I'll get round to it today or over the next few days. The castle is touched upon in a couple of books I have on native Welsh castles, but its early history looks quite muddled so I'm not sure how much I'll be able to add. Jr8825 • Talk 13:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be excellent. And no hurry, I’m not planning to take the article further at present. The Cadw listing entry is oddly brief. There’s a bit in the Pevsner, but not that much on the early work. Anything you can unearth would be greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found a snippet in Kenyon. But even he doesn't say much - beyond noting that the medieval history is "notoriously difficult to interpret"! So you're in good company. KJP1 (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking on the Gatehouse Gazetteer, it looks like the most relevant and recent journal article (Stephenson, David, 2007, Powis Castle: A Reappraisal of its Medieval Development, Montgomeryshire Collections Vol. 95, p. 9-21) is unfortunately not available online. I was able to find Dr. Stephenson's email, so I dropped him a message asking if he'd be kind enough to provide a copy of the text. Whether or not something comes from that, I have a couple of the listed books and can get hold of a few more from my university library, so there are a few promising leads. Jr8825 • Talk 15:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That looks wonderful! Really excellent addition on the Early Powis. Thanks so much. KJP1 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: thanks for the message. I'm hoping to add more to it over the next few days, depending on how busy things are. Jr8825 • Talk 20:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I will connect the Doullens Conference with this story, and I will fix the date problem. I have a second story to submit, and was hoping to get this one out of the way soon. Is it possible that you can review it in a day or two? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Milner (talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

original research). Jr8825 • Talk 23:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I will do that. I will change the names to "meetings", and add other sources (the meetings were secret, but they were very important so I know material is out there). However, I don't know how to change the title of the writeup from 'Conferences' to 'Meetings". Could you possibly assist? Sincerely, Lord Milner (talk)

@

HELP:MOVE? All the information you need should be there, let me know if you have any specific questions. Also, to sign your messages on talk pages just type four tildes (~~~~) and it'll automatically generate for you. All the best, Jr8825 • Talk 04:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

All changes have been made and additional sources were added. The word change from "Conferences" to "Meetings" is not a problem. However, for historical accuracy, experts on the subject prefer the term "Conferences" due to their significance. True, these experts died decades ago. However, they left their mark, and despite the terms being used interchangeably, "Conferences" may be the most correct term. It doesn't matter to me, but someone may want to change it later. By the way, thank you for your help. This draft is much better today. Sincerely, Lord Milner (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Lord Milner. Which experts are you referring to who describe the events as conferences, are they cited in the article? If so, I'd be grateful if you could you point me to the page numbers where they describe them as conferences. If they're paper copies you could provide a quote, the book citation template has a parameter you can use for this, simply add |quote= inside the reference template. I'm a bit cautious as I think it could be easy to mix up these meetings with other meetings/conferences which took place at similar locations but on different dates. The online sources I've checked don't place much emphasis on these meetings and don't indicate notability, but it's possible the offline ones do. Jr8825 • Talk 20:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. It's a very active WikiProject and you'll probably be able to find someone to look over the draft with you. I'm sure there are editors there who are far more knowledgable than me about WWI history and better able to help you with the subject's notability. Jr8825 • Talk 20:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The experts" were old men in the early 1970's who made a BBC "World at War" special about on War I. I'll try WikiProjects. Lord Milner (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Milner: although written text is preferable, you can still cite a BBC documentary if you're trying to attribute something that an expert in the field says during the program. Use Template:Cite AV media and make sure to use the | time = parameter to add the timestamp at which it's said and the | people = parameter to identify who's saying it (so their expertise can be verified). Good luck at the military history wikiproject! Jr8825 • Talk 03:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

Hi. Could you please have a look at: [2] We have another user who joined this discussion, and third party opinion would be useful. Thank you. Grandmaster 09:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grandmaster, sorry for the slow reply. I don't have anything new to add to that conversation as I think I laid out my view adequately in my initial response. My opinion hasn't changed (I think some of the other editors are wrong to assume it's a good source) so I'd just be restating what I've already said. Jr8825 • Talk 16:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks very much. Grandmaster 08:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 3 reviews between October and December 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space