This is an archive of past discussions with User:JBchrch. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi JBchrch, you are probably already aware of this, but I'd like to make sure that these notices have been added to your talk page (per WP:AWARE).
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 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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.
Feel free to remove this message especially if you already knew, and sorry for the inconvenience.
From time to time, there is a kind of civil discussion and respectful interaction on Wikipedia that could be honored with a barnstar, if a barnstar wasn't an inanimate, cold object unsuitable to represent the warmth of friendliness. Hence, I'd like to give this kitten to you instead.
I understand that the content that I posted may require improvement (would love if you could help) but it's complete removal is very uspetting. I am very aware that there are many fans looking to promote the subject with non-researched bias and speculative statements, so I understand your concern. However this was not fan content, or promotional material. I encourage you to verify this yourself instead of censoring useful information under blanket statements.
The sections added are useuful for investors looking at the page and are not unduly reported. the investing style and tools that Keith Gill uses are very particular and this is of great interest to small investors who are trying to compete in the market due to the ongoing democratization of financial access. I do not belive it should be promoted unduly, but it is very important that readers who are looking to find more information on this topic can have access to it on Wikipedia and learn about what makes Keith Patrick Gill a unique investor. Although he has risen to fame due to the adoration of the reddit community,and the congressional hearing after, the content that he has recorded prior to his rise to fame and the congressional hearing is a most valuable contribution and entrirely not a speculation. By removing it you are actually participating in making his rise to fame on reddit and newsprint on the gamestop controversy wave the sole facts people should know about him, which in my opinion is an unduly portrayal of the subject.
Costantino12 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Costantino12, thank you and I understand your concern. Please note that I have watched these videos a few weeks ago and found them very informative myself. However, our source material must remain what has been reported by WP:RELIABLE, WP:SECONDARY sources. When a biography of DFV will inevitably be written within 5-10 years, we will be able to see how important and relevant his investment strategy was to the whole story. Also, I beg to differ regarding the importance of this information to retail investors: I think, on the contrary, that describing his tools in WP:WIKIVOICE gives out the false impression that retail investors can beat the market make money by stock picking, which, according to the vast majority of the scientific literature on the subject, is not true. Retail investors who believe this generally lose money. So I would be very careful before making these kinds of advice available to everyone...unless they are covered by reliable, secondary sources of couse. Anyway—I answered to you on the talk page and I hope some editors will participate in the discussion.--JBchrch (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough explanation. Agree that this should not be misconstrued to show that small investors may beat the market following his methods!Costantino12 (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Mark Beetroot
Hello young man, I think we may have gotten off on the wrong foot. So basically what happened was i was searching through the internet and I realised that i could not find any information of my favourite music artist. I am sorry for disrupting your page. I hope I haven't caused too much of a conundrum. Please can you help with my ambition of making a page of my favourite music artist JP, not your JP by the way (the better one).
Hey I Wrote On Brendan Rodgers Page And It Was Removed I Would Like To Know Why Bc This Said Nothing Bad This Was Just Saying How Brendan Left Celtic And Blowed 10IAR I Would Like To Know Why It Was Removed LFPThomson (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi LFPThomson, when adding information about living people to Wikipedia, editors have to follow a policy known as WP:BLP. The most important rule of this policy is that editors cannot add information that is not properly sourced. This is why I had to remove your edit.--JBchrch (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Tangentconsultant, once again: you need to cite a reliable source when you add content to Wikipedia article. If you want to know more about what a reliable source is, you can check this page: WP:RS. If you need help on how to cite source, you can check this page: WP:CITE. JBchrch (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I don’t understand how Essex police & the DVLA are not reliable sources ?
Thank you very much Mathglot. Hopefully, it was just one "episode" and we won't see this editor again. I'll make sure to notify you if I see it happening again. And, thankfully, I have a thick skin 😁 --JBchrch (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.
COI guidelines would seem to indicate external relationships not only with the direct subject, but also with any financially-linked organisations such as but not limited to FINMA, other regulators, Credit Suisse, Nomura, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, as well as private individuals linked to recent events. Magnovvig (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I did not intend to roll back a large part of your work: that was a mistake on my part using RedWarn (still, my mistake). However, what I have issue with is this addition to a caption: A supposed lowland anoa -note it lacks white markings, and thus cannot be a lowland[6]. This is strange to me: if you believe that this is not a picture of Anoa, why don't you just remove it from the article instead of introducing your own personal comments? JBchrch (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi, yes I saw the source. However, saying that the income of the company was $20 billion [7] is not factually correct. JBchrch (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Francis Bacon (artist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
You have already tried to add Campbell, Michael J. (2016). "Inevitability of Collusion in a Coopetitive Bounded Rational Cournot Model with Increasing Demand". Journal of Mathematical Economics and Finance. 2 (1): 7–20. to GameStop short squeeze and now you are now trying to add it to short squeeze. In both cases, you have tried to add this ref to pre-existing sentences that are properly sourced and central to the article, by only adding one or two words about "collusion". In both cases, this is a breach of WP:SYNTH, since the paper does not discuss Gamestop or short squeezes, as has already been explained to you. In both cases, you have also added (or requested that we add) to the § See also sections a wikilink to Econophysics § Basic tools, which, curiously, also references Campbell 2016. This sort of action can only be interpreted as a POV-push or as spamming. In any case, you should stop it. JBchrchtalk15:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a specific situation as is the situation with GameStop. I thought it would not be WP:SYNTH for a general situation as here, but from your feedback, it is. I did find another source that references the particular GameStop short squeeze as involving collusion among the WSB members here. It states "A more plausible possibility is that enough intentional manipulators colluded so that collectively they had the power to change the price. But what was the extent of collusion here? Suggesting to others on an online forum that they should invest in GME doesn’t appear a particularly strong form of collusion. If a group of intentional manipulators pooled their money and initiated the short squeeze as a group then, at that point, they look very much like the guilty institutional investor above. However, I doubt that such strong collusion took place." McConnell, Doug. "Ethics of the GameStop Short Squeeze". University of Oxford. Hopefully you can see from this reputable article that collusion can be an important element of a short squeeze. It doesn't have the theoretical strength of the previous paper, but is very relevant and does not violate WP:SYNTH. But I would like your feedback on the article before I attempt to post it, as you are more knowledgeable about these WP rules.2602:301:772A:E580:A4F0:1E53:E70D:98B8 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response. To me, the term "collusion" is very NPOV-charged, and I would prefer a source with a more substantial reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the field of finance than a philosophy outlet. In addition, it only mentions the possibility/hypothesis that collusion took place, without asserting it outright. Looking at top financial sources, it's difficult to find anything of substance. The WSJ reports that this is the opinion of Andrew Left [8], who was very much affected the whole thing. Two FT editorials bring it up only as an uncharitable interpretation of what happened [9][10]. Matt Levine mentions collusion as an "other miscellaneous theory" [11]. Here's a column by Mohamed El-Erian speaking about a "possible collusion". Unfortunately, this looks like a very niche interpretation of what happened. JBchrchtalk09:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Nice analysis. I agree that the word "collusion" alone, which has a negative connotation, is a POV. It should be qualified in the WSB case as "legitimate collusion". Even the financial blogger Edward Iftody avoids direct application of the word collusion, but intimates it in his statement "Wallstreetbets didn’t collude in secret, they discussed strategy in an open forum that can be read by anyone." He goes on to talk about how some people call it collusion, meaning the illegal sense, and others call it democratization. In the Wikipedia article collusion, the definition says "In the study of economics and market competition, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit." It does not explicitly say it is illegal. In fact below that it mentions "tacit collusion" which is legal. The investors in WSB and the "rival companies" are both called "agents" in the general sense of economic modeling. The investors are the "rival companies" in the definition. And I think it is widely accepted, from what I have read, that people consider WSB to have cooperated for mutual benefit. People tend to add the idea of "illegal market manipulation" to the definition when the word "collusion" is applied to something, and hence its negative connotation. However, "illegal market manipulation" is not mentioned in the definition, and I don't think it need be there for collaboration to be called "collusion"; rather it is simply another term for "coordination". So, I think that if the word collusion is used here, to avoid POV it should be in the form "legitimate or illegitimate collusion". I like your suggestion to seek out more articles in finance, and I will do that and get back here on what I find. This is an interesting case because this type of "legitimate collusion", in my opinion, is uncharted territory and may not be fully resolved as legal or illegal until some court cases have finished. In any case, at this point it can be considered "legal", at least for the members whose impact on the market is negligible, since nobody in WSB has been arrested or charged with "collusion".2602:301:772A:E580:A1E6:8E66:4B26:CCD1 (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lohn Estate you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Modussiccandi -- Modussiccandi (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
The article Lohn Estate you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lohn Estate for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Modussiccandi -- Modussiccandi (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Congrats and DYK
Congratulations on bringing Lohn Estate to GA status! Since this is your first GA (please bear with me if this is not the case), I wanted to encourage you to nominate the article for an appearance at WP:DYK. It's a fun process and it does feel good to see one's article on the main page. I would offer to co-nominate but the process is fairly simple to navigate and you deserve all the credit for the article. As ever, instructions can be found on the page linked above. All the best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review Modussiccandi! It was great working with you, and you really helped improve the article. I will most probably submit a DYK for Lohn Estate this week. I already have one nomination under my belt (forthcoming on June 15) so fortunately I'm already a bit familiar with how it works. JBchrchtalk00:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
DYK for September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market
you have done a thing to an edit I made but I didn't make an edit to the Wikipedia article Dhadakebaaz i was doxxed a while ago so I don't know what happened but I am sorry about any thing that happened in the Wikipedia article
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Got it, thanks. I thought that it may have been overly bold. The issue was resolved on the talk page afterwards. JBchrchtalk18:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Concerns about an editor
I recently had some issues regarding an edit by user:Magnovvig. That led me to an attempt to engage in conversation on the editors talk page which went nowhere. The recent block spurred me to look a little closer and I am concerned about what I'm seeing. One of the things I read was your long and detailed summary of concerns at ANI. While I tried to keep up with goings-on at ANI, I did miss this discussion when it was current. On the one hand, I want to commend you for writing a thorough and courteous summary of the situation. I will also note the very limited involvement of admins in the discussion. If I might offer a suggestion which might sound like a criticism but please treated as an observation by someone who has literally read thousands of these items. My observation is that many editors wish to raise an issue feel that it's important to write an exhaustive summary of all salient points. One problem with an exhaustive summary is that it can be, well, exhaustive. Sometimes other readers will feel they should not comment unless they've read virtually everything, and that might be more than they're willing to take on at the moment and then they never come back to it. May I suggest that a better approach is to pick two or three key items, and present them. Obviously, if others engage ask for further information that can be supplied.--S Philbrick(Talk)20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Thank you very much this thoughtful message. It really does not surprise me to see that this editor has been indefinitely blocked. The request in question was my very first foray into ANI (both as a reader and as a "contributor") and I indeed learned after following the noticeboard for some time that it was not really in the "style" of effective ANI requests. So naturally I accept your advice, and I will keep it in mind if I ever need to make another request an ANI. I've had to make two ANI requests since then, and both of them were dealt with very effectively, so I think I'm making some progress 😊. JBchrchtalk23:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch, I did not search for those, but glad to hear you learned from your own experience. As much as anything, I want to make sure you knew that your concerns were not falling on deaf ears. I note that you are interested in working on finance articles. It's my observation that we need more editors with finance expertise and interested in writing about something other than cyber currency. I have a bit of finance background but have not ventured into the area because it felt more like work, but maybe someday I'll revisit some topics given that I'm now retired. S Philbrick(Talk)00:53, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick:, yes I spent a lot of time over the last few months trying to figure out how I could be useful to the project, and at this point I think it's possible that maybe my calling is to improve finance articles, which deserve way more attention that they have gotten. Fortunately, finance is not my primary occupation (which is law), so it doesn't completely feel like work. But your language "feels like work" expresses very well why I don't intend to work on law articles! In any case, looking forward to see you "come back from retirement" if you ever feel like it. JBchrchtalk23:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
NFTs
Sorry, I did not want to make a controversial edit but I think there are a few improvements to be made (actually many need to be made) in the Non-fungible token article. I have been going through the article trying to make improvements but I am happy to discuss first on the talk page to iron out any differences before adding it to the article. --hroest15:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Hannes Röst: Absolutely no problem, it's good to be bold 👍. I really do not see the "undo" button as an expression of anger (or similar), just an expression of disagreement, and I am very happy to discuss on the talk page. JBchrchtalk15:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m new to reviews, I just reviewed Big Time Wrestling. Is the review I submitted acceptable? I would actually like to see ALT#6 on DYK, but I believe the nominative has given us mostly bare-links. If my review is not up to scratch, please let me know. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Aussie Article Writer, thanks for asking. However as a random guy with only 1 DYK and only 2 reviews, I have absolutely 0 legitimacy to give you any sort of advice! Gerda Arendt, would you, by any chance, have the time the provide Aussie Article Writer with the feedback they are seeking? JBchrchtalk13:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your trust. I think you did well reviewing. I believe that it's normally a better match when an experienced reviewer reviews the nomination of someone new, and a new reviewer the work of an experienced nominator, but why not both "fresh". I'd limit the choice of hooks to three by striking all others, and asking the nominator for their preference of those, and a citation for that one. ALT6 is too wordy for my taste, but I'm not the reviewer ;) - Quite generally, keep in mind that the Main page reader has no context when hit by the hook. We have an open nom saying that a person is the niece of someone that most readers will not recognize, - such a thing doesn't work. Big Time Wrestling could be a book, an event, an album ... - Good luck. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
David Sadeghi at Iteris, Inc., thanks for the reminder. Since making this promise, I've gotten a bit more involved in the edit request process on wikipedia, and I've now learned that there are outstanding requests that are 3-6 months old, and still unanswered. Unless your request is urgent, I think that these old request probably need attention more quickly than yours, which dates from early June. However, please note that I am still committed to implementing your request, and that I will circle back to it once I the backlog of old requests has decreased a bit. I hope you understand. JBchrchtalk17:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you closed the edit requests I'd made over at Talk:Mike Sievert. Several of the items in that request were unfinished – are you rejecting them? Or is it OK if I reopen to receive a review for those items? Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@MaryGaulke: sorry about that, I did not understand that. May I ask you to open a new request with the requested changes that are oustanding, so that I am clear on what needs to be done? I will make sure to take a look at them shortly and that you do not have to wait 3 months once again. JBchrchtalk14:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I see you warned this user about paid editing in April and then reverted your warning 15 minutes later, can I ask what made you think this was a paid editor rather than a general COI account? I'm only asking because I've seen that the user has now made a page about the lawyer Chris Farnell that has been tagged as being promotional in tone, and is editing almost exclusively in promoting this man. It might be worth having an experienced user like yourself to analyse this account and try to suss out whether it has a COI, or not. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:E835:40F8:D535:B207 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi IP. Thanks for your message. I had reverted my own edits because this user had two edits summarized as "Removing the content that seems advert" [12][13] and has removed a spammy link [14]. I also noticed that they did not attempt to remove the assault and perjury allegations that are present in the article (which would be defensible under WP:BLP), and that they were also working on other articles. This is not the behavior of the typical COI/UPE editor. By the way, there's no real reason why I chose the UPE warning over the COI warning, it may have been a confusion on my part.
It may be worth noting that my general philosophy about removing promotional content is that a lot of it is obvious: as a result, it is generally not be a productive use of time to fight the subtle/controversial stuff when you could be removing content that uncontroversially promotional (and trust me there's already more than enough work dealing with this type of content). This is why I did not investigate this user any further. However, this page is on my watchlist, because it's a very strange page indeed.
In my opinion, it's entirely possible that this user is one of these "offbeat" users that are putting a lot of work into strange areas of the project that no one else finds compelling. But it's also possible that it's a COI user. In any case, I think the question you asked on their talk page is legitimate and it will be interesting to read their answer. I would just recommend to remove the last sentence though, because some admins might consider a it to be a legal threat. JBchrchtalk21:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Citation needed
I have, for some time, considered Citation needed to be an unnecessary article on Wikipedia. Now that we cannot even give a cursory history of the article (mention my name or even username!) I'm seriously considering that this article is surplus to requirements and am thinking of putting it to AFD. Whilst the article does make me popular at parties, do we really need it? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Aussie Article Writer: I have no issue with the article mentioning your former username, sincerely: credit where credit is due! I only had a procedural concern because IMO disclosures on the talk page are valuable. The only remaining "issue" on my end is the real world name, which I think it would be appropriate to source (as discussed on the article talk page). Would you think any differently of the article if someone expanded the article with the sources mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citation needed (4th nomination)? JBchrchtalk22:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Not really, it makes sense now. I still consider it to be self referential. In fact, I always have (no disrespect to the editors of the article, incidentally). I don't want to seem pointy by nominating it. And in fact, I suspect I would not be allowed to under WP:COI anyway, when I think about it. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Aussie Article Writer: I have been trying to find it but I cannot: isn't there a way for you to get the WMF to link your old account with your real world identity? It would be a wonky source, but a source nonetheless. JBchrchtalk18:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
On 10 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lohn Estate, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that official guests of the Swiss Confederation stayed at the Lohn Estate, a manor in Kehrsatz, in the Canton of Bern, between 1942 and 1994? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lohn Estate. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lohn Estate), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi JBchrch! I was inquiring about the Garlicoin logo/svg I uploaded to wikimedia commons and you said to reach out to you here if you hadn't replied by the 5th.
" Hi again ItsOkayImHere, I moved the discussion to your talk page so as not to bother other people at the WikiProject.
Regarding the logo, it's a somewhat complicated process, so I'll have to get back to you with a small explainer about this stuff. Please write me a reminder on my talk if I haven't done so on 5 July (in one week). JBchrch talk 15:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)"
Hi ItsOkayImHere, thanks a lot for the reminder. So strap in. Basically with logos you have two options: you can either upload them as a public domain image to Wikimedia Commons or you can upload them as a faire use file on en.Wikipedia. In other words, you can only upload them to Wikimedia Commons if they are in the public domain, which means that they are not copyrighted. If they are copyrighted, you have to upload them to Wikipedia, and your file will be subject to the restrictions of WP:F and WP:FUC.
Now, how do you know if a logo is copyrighted or not? Well, that's where the lines get blurry: for American logos (I'm not going to address logos from other countries at this time), you have to apply the threshold of originality according to US copyright law.
Looking at the Garlicoin logo, I would say (but this is not legal advice btw, only an intuitive indication) that it does not meet the threshold of originality of US copyright law, and therefore it can be uploaded to Commons.
Now, shit's not over yet, because now we have to choose a copyright tag to add to the image, otherwise the Commons admins will delete our images. For logos, you will generally have to use the {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}} tags. I will not go into details about how you do that, however, if you run into problems, please let me know and I will be happy to help. JBchrchtalk09:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back @JBchrch: - I think I figured it out, commons deleted my first version because I didn't add a license tag right away. I found a better source here: Github Grlc Logo License which included a GNU license that has a prebuilt tag I could add while uploading {GPLv3}. Hopefully that should allow it to stay up this time! ItsOkayImHere (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hi JBchrch. 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, Rosguilltalk20:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corina Apostol until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
I would like more comment about this revision. Do you want to provide information about WAX network being notable or those games? It's not like I care about this to be included, but it's not like FLOW and Tezos is so much more well-known (provided sources briefly mentions them). I originally wanted to update "Games" section, not just include WAX, but the whole article seems little bit outdated as NFT is fast growing sector lately, so there should be done a lot of work anyway. --GreenZeb (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi JBchrch. 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, Rosguilltalk16:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Hey JBchrch, thank you for checking my edit to the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-fungible_token page! I'm referring to your "removed promo sourced to dubious and presumably non-independent coverage" edit. You state that the sentence was a promo and I would like to offer a different opinion. In my opinion the sentence regarding YourTicketProvider is a perfect example of recent adoption of the NFT ticketing usecase and would therefore fit the subject. How do you see this? You're also stating that the coverage might be non-independent, perhaps a better source would remove doubts? Love to hear your thoughts, thanks! Jeronemoo (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Jeronemoo and thanks for reaching out. In my view, the sources I removed were all repeating marketing material and corporate language provided by YourTicketProvider, without offering any independent journalistic coverage (like the NY Times or the Financial Times would in such instance). They all read like press releases. In this field, news outlets do not have very high moral or ethical standards, and will often just reprint whatever the companies say about themselves, in order to churn out content. I think we should avoid it when we see it. See also WP:SIRS for an exploration of this subject in the context of notability. Obviously, if you can obtain consensus on the article's talk page to keep this passage I won't interfere. Cheers. JBchrchtalk21:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jeronemoo: Talk page discussions are an informal and pretty open-ended process: generally, we just wait for people to comment on the proposal to get a rough sense of the consensus. There are way of escalating disputes to more formal processes: see WP:DR. The most common way to escalate a dispute if you are not satisfied with the outcome of an informal talk page discussion or wish to get the input of the broader community is through the Request for Comment process. Let me know if you have any questions! JBchrchtalk16:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
New Page Review queue September 2021
Hello JBchrch,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
@Haseebmirza306: You articles are not fine. You keep on re-adding unsourced and poorly content, and have received many warnings about your behavior, which may turn into a block at some point. Please consult WP:RS and WP:NGEO to understand how you should go about sourcing your articles about places in Pakistan. JBchrchtalk19:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't redirect this article
--Sagheermirza (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Sagheer Sir previously this article was not redirected. You have now redirected it. Most of the places in this area have falling rains or google map references. The names of many places mentioned by the government are not on the official website. I can show you my ID card which has Chakri written on it.
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
--Sagheermirza (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Sagheer I want to tell you that this is my own account. These are the ones I told you about in our village and the surrounding villages. I saw that you have redirected our Chakri, Jhelum village article, so I created an account on Wikipedia to fix it.
Please check other articles no government references
I think you jumped the gun a bit too early on that. I was just getting started. But no big deal, I will expand in time.
FYI, take a look at the Italian version on which this will be based, and will see how substantial it is, as I said on the talk page. There are also German, Spanish versions etc. As for "notability" there are books, books and more books on the subject. Just do a Google books search. I will expand it a bit then, move back, or ask for another opinion. Even better, you can move it back yourself. If you study the subject and you may see what the Stendhal syndrome means when you think of the museums there. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ode+Joy: Well I'm glad to hear that because that's exactly what the draft space is for: working on articles until they are ready for the mainspace. I think you should finish a first draft of the article while it is in your drafts, and then move it back to the mainspace once it is more or less ready. Then you could add a {{Under construction}} while you are still working on it. Please note that as a new page reviewer, 99% of the articles I review are in their "finished" state and it's impossible for me to know that an article is still being worked on unless I see the aforementioned template. Cheers and happy editing. PS: The Red and the Black is one of my all time favorites and I've visited a large number of the museums you plan to write about, so i'm all for it. JBchrchtalk22:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok, no big deal. I mentioned that I was getting started on the talk page, but did not know about the under construction flag. So please keep an eye on it, and when it has reached the "stub" level, then we move it. I do not think I can reproduce the Italian page by myself, so the stub flag will suggest to others to come and help improve it via the Italian version,which in itself is so long that it can cause a "mini Stendhal syndrome" when one reads it. But I think we can agree that the topic is "notable" for sure. So the "speedy delete" flag should be removed. It is best if you do that, so it will not be viewed as my objection. Thanks. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ode+Joy: Don't worry about the deletion of the main article, it's a purely technical process: moving articles—as I did, from Museums of Florence to Draft:Museums of Florence—automatically leaves a redirect behind, and that redirect has to be deleted because we cannot redirect mainspace articles to draftspace projects (WP:CNR). But once the article is ready, we can move it back there no problem. Anyway, let me know when you have worked on the article and I'd be happy to take a look. What I suggest is to include a list of the museums, as in List of churches in Florence and Theatres in Florence. Best. JBchrchtalk00:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch: Well, I have now added some text and good references. The questions to ask are thus:
1. Is the subject "Notable"? Undoubtedly, due to the many, many books on the topic.
2. Is the current text well referenced? Certainly.
3. Can stub level articles get started in Wikipedia? Definitely, as evidenced by the thousands of the stubs that get started, and are then improved by multiple editors over time with "cooperative editing" which is built into the fabric of Wikipedia.
Regarding your suggestion to make it a "list of" type article, that is a content issue to discuss on the talk page once the stub exists, and not a notability or reference availability issue. The Italian version of the article is not in list form, as mentioned on the talk page.
I think this page is fully ready to move to artice space as a stub, so other editors get a chance to work on it cooperatively. Thanks. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
My impression on patrolling this article is that it is not yet ready for the main-space. I felt that the tone was a bit essay-like, or possibly more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopaedic article about the founding and legacy of this city's museums. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Salimfadhley: Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the facts regarding the article being essay do not support that opinion. The article is certainly not an essay, given the definition of an essay article as:
Essays, as used by Wikipedia editors, also known as Wikipedia contributors, typically contain advice or opinions of one or more editors. The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia
Interestingly, given the discussion above you did not dispute that the article is "notable" and is well referenced. And given that by the definition of an "essay" it is not an essay, you need a better reason for your objection. And you have given no specific remedies that can be followed. Given that tone is such a subjective issue, that does not provide a path forward. Please be much more specific, or improve the draft yourself. Thanks. Ode+Joy (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Salimfadhley: Thanks for the notice — I agree with your assessment. @Ode+Joy: The applicable policies are WP:NOTESSAY and WP:PROMO. But the most important piece of policy you need to be aware of is WP:WIKIVOICE, which, unfortunately, your draft falls short of. What I strongly encourage you to do moving forward is to read a few Good Articles in the "Art and Architecture" category to see how we generally write articles on the English Wikipedia, and to try to model your article on this basis. It does not need to be perfect, but it should be broadly consistent—in tone, style and content—with these articles. Finally, please be mindful of WP:CIV, which is a policy. JBchrchtalk01:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch: First, regarding WP:CIV, clarify that one please. Is not agreeing with another editor not civil? Exactly what has been less than civil here? Please be much more specific. Regarding WP:NOTESSAY it is not applicable here at all, given that none of the content is original research or personal opinions, and is well referenced. It has no primary (original) research, no personal inventions, etc. as required by that reference. Regarding WP:PROMO I am not the mayor of Florence, and not promoting the city. I have not even been there for over a decade. The statements come from the sources. The city is so well known that it needs no promotion. That issue does not apply here. Regarding WP:WIKIVOICE please clarify what is not neutral here. You have given no specific examples, so I still have no path forward. Please be much more specific, or edit the draft yourself. Thanks. Ode+Joy (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ode+Joy: Disagreeing is perfectly fine, but you have a certain smugness and sassiness about it that you should tone down. We are all trying to help you here during our own free time, and an attitude that's less confrontational would be appreciated. Regarding you draft, a good example is probably the sentence The Museums of Florence hold a very large number of artistic masterpieces, and the number and proximity these works of art can be so overwhelming that they can initiate the Stendhal syndrome on those who try to see them all. This sentence is sensationalist, and does not describe the subject in the neutral, scholarly and dispassionate tone that Wikipedia editors generally try to achieve. Another exemple is The Uffizi also holds the best classical sculptures of Florence, while the rest of the ancient art is found in the National Archaeological Museum. The term "best" is not appropriate in an encyclopedic article, and again sounds like sensationalism or promo. Yet another example would be A second fact to remember which sounds like I'm reading a student's essay. Really, I invite to you to read some of the Good Articles I have linked to above and I'm sure that you will very quickly see what I'm referring to. JBchrchtalk01:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I woke up to this discussion and have only just caught up. @Ode+Joy, I think the subject is almost certainly notable but the paragraphs above really did read like the writer's personal opinion (even if it's an opinion shared by millions of experts and tourists since the time of the Medici). Salimfadhley (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@JBchrch: Well, you have clarified the WP:CIV issue. You comment was not really about civility then, but about an as yet to be established policy "WP:smugness". I offer my apologies about sounding that way, but in reality I am a very civil person, even if my statements sounded sassy in the comments above. For the record, I am not getting paid anything either, and am doing this on my free time.
Now, regarding "The Uffizi also holds the best classical sculptures of Florence" that statement happens to be totally true compared to what else exists in Florence, but I will delete the word best, and go from there. Regarding the "The Museums of Florence hold a very large number of artistic masterpieces, and the number and proximity these works of art can be so overwhelming that they can initiate the Stendhal syndrome on those who try to see them all." That statement was the rewording of a statement from a book, as well as the Telegraph article. But I can change the wording there too.
So to review the situation, you are not objecting to "notability", "lack of references" or "original research" but the wording in the sentences that seem superlative. I will remove the superlatives, but let us remember that you went to Florence because you thought it had great museums. Be that as it may, I will delete the superlatives and go from there. Thanks. Ode+Joy (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
That is correct. The museums of Florence are one of the most notable aspects of this city, however the way the article was presented read like an opinion or an essay to me. --Salimfadhley (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Salimfadhley: Hi, I think I have removed all the superlatives from the text and every statement is now supported by a good reference. It does not seem like an essay now. Please take another look and if you see anything else point it out. I will then fix it. If you see no superlatives, etc. then please remove the tag and move it back to main space so we can wrap this discussion up this year. Thanks. Ode+Joy (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ode+Joy: I will have a look at it tomorrow. In the meantime can you submit the draft for AFC review? That will bring the attention of editors who are more qualified to review it than me. I don't have any knowledge of classic art or antiquities, but there are many others who do. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Salimfadhley: Well, in real life, and in cyberspace, not having knowledge about a subject is no barrier to getting involved or expressing opinions. You moved the page. Right? The fact is that from what I have seen, being a new page reviewer in Wikipedia is a difficult, thankless, painful job. Everyday, the reviewers have to deal with a long line of clueless "pass through users" who want to build a page about themselves, their dog, or a bus stop near their house. Yes, I happened to see a discussion about a page for a bus stop! So as the frustration builds, the reviewers try to get through the issues as best they can. Hence the decisions can be based on the frustration level of the reviewer that day, rather than notability.
Regarding the issue at hand, before I ask for another review, in all fairness, you need to clarify the essay tag you placed on the page. That links to WP:NOTESSAY which is about "Primary (original) research" "Personal inventions" etc. There is NO original research or personal invention in this page. I did not invent Florence, and every statement in the page is well referenced. There is no original research here. So you need to explain why that tag needs to remain there. Please do so. The "it seemed to me like an essay" would be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is a "not to do" item, although not a policy. So please clarify why the tag needs to remain there.
By the way, as above, WP:WIKIVOICE does not apply here because there is no controversy, given that there is no art historian who states that Florence does not have well known museums. So there is no policy breach anywhere here, at all.
Now, a digression. I feel that since we are discussing this I need to clarify your statement about "tourists since the time of the Medici" above. At the time of Medici there were no tourists for the art. Not just because travel was difficult, but because the art was
kept out of the reach of the public who could not get into the Uffizi. The Medici had it designed as a long closed corridor because they were too afraid to walk the streets. Many attempts had been made on their lives. That was their safe travel route in Florence. Your statement about the museums being "one of the most notable aspects of this city" is correct however. But the other notable aspect since the time of Medici can not be included in Wikipedia. Florence has had two elements since the time of the Medici: art and corruption. In fact, the corruption of the Medici provided the funds that sponsored the art. So Machiavelli did not just appear in a vacuum, but was the product of a culture of wealth, corruption and intrigue. Officially, all Florence politicians are clean today, and there is no corruption. Hence the appearances of city officials in courtrooms as defendants should be overlooked. But there is a Wikipedia angle to it. A few years ago, someone mentioned in the Italian Wikipedia that a company managed by the wife of the mayor at the time had "just happened" to win the exclusive contract to manage all city parking spaces. The mayor made the mistake of calling in his lawyers, which then resulted in the issue appearing in the front pages of many Italian newspapers. To his credit, Jimmy Wales did not back down, and to this day the mayor's page in Italian Wikipedia has a link to a Corriere della Sera article that mentions the issue. I will not mention the mayor's name here, because he is now a member of the European Parliament and his wife may be controlling the parking spaces in Brussels. So, I will not mention the name, because the next time I go to Brussels I may need to get a parking space.
@Ode+Joy: I will take a look in the coming days. However, your best course of action would be to submit the article, so that a reviewer at Articles for Creation will take a look and give review the validity of the tag. JBchrchtalk22:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ode+Joy: If you feel that the "essay" issues have been resolved please feel free to remove the template yourself. I would also suggest that you submit the draft for review and follow the normal process for bringing a draft into the mainspace. Like you, I'm an experienced editor but I use the drafting process for my new articles. It's the best way to do it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Salimfadhley:@JBchrch: I will remove the essay tag as Salim suggested, and wait a few days to see what JB says, as he mentioned above, then go from there. The museums of Florence are not going to move to Venice next week.
By the way JB, based on your suggestion, I did take a look at the "good articles" on art and the variations in quality are just amazing. Here are some points:
There are a highly disproportionate number of articles on the works of Roy Lichtenstein. Each on its own breaches no policy, and is good quality, but together they could have pushed up the value of his collection by at least 10% and that amounts to several million.
Some articles such as Portrait painting in Scotland are high quality, educational and respectable. That one can be called a "good" article.
Dynamism of a Dog on a Leash was the funniest one. How that deserves a good article tag, or even a page is a mystery. Giacomo Balla was no Botticelli, but seems to get a lot of space.
Stuckism is, of course, in a class by itself. Even the treasure house Stuckism International Gallery (open from 2002 to 2005) has a long page. It is no British Museum of course, but to have an article on that just seems strange.
Frankly, I do not think there will ever be enough human effort to clean up the Stuckism type items, and unfortunately they are starting to create a rummage sale environment for good articles. Sigh. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.
The following had consensus support of participating editors:
Corrosive RfA atmosphere
The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
Level of scrutiny
Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
Standards needed to pass keep rising
It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
Too few candidates
There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
"No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins
The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:
Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.
Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.
There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Forgive me if I'm trying to communicate in the wrong area but you said to talk about your removals and this is the only way I know how to do it. Wikipedia is very confusing when it comes to discussion pages. Anyhow, I feel that the information you removed is important to include, especially the name of the NFT and its creation date. I'm going to revert it and possibly include less fluff if you feel that's an issue. Also, I feel it is unfair to claim that publications related to crypto are unreliable when there are plenty of reliable news-worthy sources directed at discussing the history of the space. This is especially true for MoonCatRescue, as it is was created before CryptoKitties and is a historical NFT project. Not all major news sources are even aware of NFTs back during this time. I understand you want to keep things legit and I agree that is necessary, however, it is important that this information be included as it is a historical project. Halfire101 (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
As an update to the NFT page, I have edited down some of the extra info about the political protest NFT and I think it should be good now, as it includes only names, dates, and the direct info about the reason for the creation of the NFT project. As for the Mooncats, I think it is unfortunate that you do not allow this information to stand because this is a historical project that was only covered by publications aware of the historical significance of it, and also, before the NFT boom started and began to garner a large amount of attention in mid 2021. Because of this, it does not appear there are large news organizations that covered a topic they were not aware of. Only smaller journalism organizations dedicated to this topic were aware of it. If you understand my reasoning for requesting it be reinstated, then please do so. If not, I can't convince you otherwise. Halfire101 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
On 29 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Meme stock, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that interest in meme stocks has given rise to what the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has called a "meme stocks phenomenon"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Meme stock. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Meme stock), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
JBchrch, good evening, I noticed this prompt request for closure, after you rightly reverted a wrong closure on the Eric Zemmour talk page. It seems to me not only a way to circumvent your revert, but also the rules you reminded (30 days). Also a clear POV PUSHING by this contributor, or to enable thereafter a clear POV PUSHING on the main article's lead. (despite the fact that this contributor had also pledged to keep out of the article)
I see that the RfC rules provide, in case of disagreement, that:
"If you disagree with a particular closure, please discuss matters on the closer's talk page, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard. Include links to the closure being challenged and the discussion on the closer's talk page, and also include a policy-based rationale supporting your request for the closure to be overturned."
I tend therefore to think that it is a case for the administrators noticeboard. I would however prefer to have your opinion before acting, as you have a lot more experience than me with wikipedia rules. Thank you in advance, --Emigré55 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
P.S.2: I also just asked the said contributor on his talk page to withdraw his RfC, [16], in order to try to avoid any kind of contentious situation and breach of rule(s). --Emigré55 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Emigré55 First of all sorry for not answering you earlier on the sourcing question discussed above. I've been trying to stay on top of the mess that I created at WP:VPR and it sort of slipped my mind, but I intend to answer you today. My apologies! On the RfC front, I'm personally happy to let the good people over at WP:CR handle this RfC and determine whether it should be closed early and what the closure should be. They know the rules well and I completely trust their judgement. From a procedural perspective, my understanding is thus: since the closer has tacitly accepted my challenge to their closure and taken it to WP:CR, you should probably wait for this "second closure" to take place and then after, it you disagree with it, take it to WP:AN. JBchrchtalk17:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks to you for your advice, which I intend to follow. No rush, of course, regarding the sourcing questions. Take your time. Thank you again, --Emigré55 (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Eric Zemmour
JBchrch, I would like to thank you again for having thoroughly edited the presentations of paragraphs on international relations, social issues, and economic issues. It was also necessary to substantiate this article (which was and still is generally too much centred on side controversies) and I appreciate you apparently shared that view, beyond merely editing or amending my own edits after I created these sections.
I believe the paragraph on international relations deserves sub paragraphs on a number of issues, such as Europe and Russia in particular. Would you agree to that? and that we collaborate in developing a bit Z's political views on these particular aspects, with the sources available?
The same applies to economic issues.
I like your unbiased, neutral and balanced approach in presenting ideas. cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi Emigré55 Thank you very much for your kind message and your gracious words! The main problem with the "International relations" section is the lack of available secondary sources. You wouldn't believe how much time it took me to find that Figaro article. It actually involved using an expensive database to which I have university access, which I resorted to use after 45 min of fruitless research. (It was actually pretty disappointing, because I sat down yesterday fully ready to write a 4 paragraph section with 15 sources.) Obviously, I may have missed some resources, but from what I could see, there are very little secondary sources covering Zemmour's views on international relations in any depth. The alternative, of course, would be to use what he has said on TV and in his writing as sources—but all of these are WP:PRIMARY: I'm pretty wary of using these sources, not only on policy grounds but also because many of Zemmour's assertions are challenged by many people and, accordingly, we have to be very careful taking them at face value per WP:NPOV. My personal approach (in general) is not to write anything which I cannot source to high-quality secondary source, and I'm ok with the fact that sometimes this means that I write less than I expected to or less than what would do the subject justice. Happy to know your thoughts! JBchrchtalk01:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch, hello! I agree with you. It is difficult to find good sources on these issues. The good news however is that, with the presidential campaign, media will give more attention to these aspects of this ideas, reporting his meetings which he begins to devote to one or two particular themes or issues sometimes, and reporting on his program when he begins to unveil it and his proposals in various areas, especially the economic one.
There are a few sources on Europe and Russia, as far as I can remember, though. I will research them, and I suggest to simply post them here to you in order for you to check first, and if valuable help starting a dialogue or even drafting a few sentences, here on your or my talk pages or draft pages. Would this method suit you? I am open to anything provided we can find a way to harmoniously and fruitfully work together sometimes, when occasion arise, without disturbing you and your habits of course. I am proposing this as 1/ you are far more experienced as I am, 2/ this could avoid too long (and sterile sometimes) discussions on the article's talk page with other contributors, who also sometimes follow their own political ideas and bias more than the need for neutrality and balance of this article, and block hence immediately the progression of the article (such as what happened to the lead after your proposals). Also happy to hear from your thoughts, cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
JBchrch, hello! On Europe and economy, Here are 2 articles which are in my opinion a good summary of his main ideas. Something to start with.[17][18]. The first one dates back to 2013, but basically, he has changed since. What do you think? cheers, --Emigré55 (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Emigré55: First of all, and once again, my apologies for the delay in answering your messages. I of course agree with the fact that as sources will come out in the lead up to the election, we should expand the article with the sources that will become available. And I am happy to provide any feedback I can give to the sources that you have if you feel like it could be helpful, of course. And yes, I do speak French fluently. As for the drafting, I really encourage you to be WP:BOLD and just add them to the article directly (the wiki-way), though painful the process may be. Because obviously, some page-watchers will revert you some of the time or change what you have added, which will make it necessary to engage on the article's talk page and build consensus. That is to be expected on contentious topics like this one (it gets a lot worse), but it's not that big of a deal: if everyone stays focused on the content and keeps their cool we can often find consensual solutions that improve articles. And even if some people do not keep their cool, the Arbitration Committee has recently held that "some heat is expected in contentious areas, and is tolerated by the community" [19] (not sure I agree, but at least it's a clarification). To get to the sources that you have provided above: the first one is labelled "opinion" and thus would not generally be reliable per WP:RSOPINION, so I would not advise using it. The second one looks fine! Totally usable in my view. JBchrchtalk17:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun
Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.
There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
I saw this & I’m really excited about your passion to combat less than ethical practices here. I’d also like to thank Verbcatcher for their tremendous assistance here also. You both may want to look at this also. JB if you are interested in some of my anti UPE tools which are clandestine please send me an Email & i would share some of the tools with you. Celestina007 (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Celestina007: Thank you so much for your kind message, once again. I am indeed always on the lookout for spam and COI content, and remove it on sight. And many thanks for extending your trust to me and offering to share your tools: I've explained before on this talk page [20], I try to focus on obvious COI/promo content, because there's just so much of it, and... because it's obvious, so it's easy. I tend to shy away from situations where the promo/COI is subtle or unclear, because these situations are stressful and — again — there's plenty of work with the obvious stuff. But I'll definitely keep your offer in the back of mind, and I might circle back to it at some point in the future! Thanks again. JBchrchtalk01:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I see you deal with draftifications, Could you request here, as a prolific new page reviewer that you are, you’d find it helpful when draftifying as it suppresses a redirect, my thinking is if you do a lot of NPP work the perm becomes a necessity as is complements the NPP in carrying out arduous work Celestina007 (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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.
Hi! You were immensely helpful to me when helping me recognize when I had crossed the line or been too aggressive towards Emigre55. I've recently been the target of personal attacks at an AfD I have started here and wish to de-escalate the situation. How can I do that? I don't have any bad will against the other editor and recently "buried the hatchet" with them. I asked a few times to see if the other user would apologize and stay on-topic to the discussion but they have not. Santacruz⁂Please tag me!09:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi A. C. Santacruz and thanks for reaching out. Considering that this relates to matters that have taken place at ANI, I think it would be completely above my pay grade to give you advice. Instead, what I can recommend is that you reach out to one of the admins that have been in touch with you recently on your talk page. Sorry that I cannot be of more assistance. Cheers. JBchrchtalk16:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
You are an admin who knows nothning about basketball and you delete posts about European/Slovenian basketball players. I do all things to popularize Slovenian basketball, and then you come and want to destroy everything. Article about Ciani was my last on this platform because of you. Thanks for this... And question do you know the difference between travel and double dribble? Probably no, and then you want to delete my articles.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bury 99 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Anoa
