User talk:Jr8825

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

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)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Jr8825. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

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 In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion.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)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hungarian irredentism on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia style and naming request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rajput on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Plan of Castle Bank.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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)

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)

@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)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2020 Bangalore riots on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by 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)

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)

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

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hungary in World War II on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by 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)

DYK for Cefnllys Castle

On 13 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cefnllys Castle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a dispute between Llywelyn ap Gruffudd and Roger Mortimer over the rebuilding of Cefnllys Castle was one of the factors that led to 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)

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

Your feedback is requested at Category talk:Basic income on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by 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)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by 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)

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)

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% 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)

References

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)

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)

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 . 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)

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)

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

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. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

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)

Thank you very much. — CuriousGolden (talk·contrib) 19:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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)

CE on Shusha

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)

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

@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)

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

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)

@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)

Discretionary sanctions alerts: AP and BLP

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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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)

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)

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)

Canvassing?

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)

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)

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

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)

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)