|
Hi @Jay8g: Why did you remove bare url maintenance tag for the Buchanan article when all the refs are bareurls? scope_creepTalk 05:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Scope creep, please read the documentation for the bare URL template, or WP:Bare URLs. Specifically, "If a URL is accompanied by any other information, it is not considered bare.", and "Any method showing more information than is present in the URL itself is not a bare URL." If you don't think there is enough information, you can consider {{citation style}}. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the second time in three days that folk have asked me to look at the documentation. The docs are 20 years out of date and are shit. A bareurl is anything that doesn't include a website name, publisher and author and location, at the minimum to find it. More and more complexity is being added in to the web and modern site are chok full of different folk working on it, so a simple url and another data item is not enough by a long way to find the information. That url [1] on the Cathy Marie Buchanan in 20 years time will be in archive and will be invisible and will be impossible to find. I know that from experience; already it very hard to impossible to find certain references in modern articles to update to the references in place. You can't find them. So they are still bare urls. scope_creepTalk 06:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If you use templates in ways that go against their documentation, it doesn't make sense to get mad at people for removing them. As I mentioned, there are other, more correct templates you could use, or if you have a specific outcome in mind (as it appears you do), you could always just edit the references yourself to make them the way you want rather than trying to rely on other editors to read your mind. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you helped me with some of the citations with a draft I'm working on (Mathias Splitlog), and I tried to indicate a "thanks" from the revision log, but maybe the thanks went to the bot you used? and then I couldn't really sort out how to use the WikiLove appreciation thing... anyway, thank you for the assist! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome! Citation Bot is a great tool for formatting references. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jay8g,
- Thank you for your recent massage. As I don't yet know all the "intricacies" of Wikipedia, I apologise if my answer doesn't follow all the rules. I'll try to respond to the various points raised and try to clear up any misunderstandings.
- "conflict of interest/neutrality" : the subject of the article José Tolentino de Mendonça (JTM) is an individual. I don't work for him and I have no power of representation on his behalf. I always try to find quality references to back up what I write, if possible in the Anglo-Saxon press, if not in Portuguese press. As JTM is Portuguese and very well known in his home country, his actions are followed very closely there. Sometimes I mention 'Vatican' sources, such as Vatican News or the Holy See's official communications service, which cannot be accused of a lack of objectivity when all they do is mention a new appointment.
- António0196 is a direct reference to my first name. I am the one and only user of this account.
- I receive no compensation and do not expect to receive any for what I write on Wikipedia.
- Please confirm that these few lines clarify and answer the objections mentioned in your message.
- This will allow me to continue contributing to Wikipedia to the best of my ability.
- Bestest.
- António0196
- ANTÓNIO0196 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ANTÓNIO0196 -- I understand all that. Please try to avoid editing in ways that may appear promotional. You may also want to check out Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Thanks! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your welcome message on my Talk page. Alanli1996 (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jay8g, thanks for your message received here from talk about Kingdom Filipina Hacienda. Yes I am concerned about the misinformation allowed by Wiki promoting misinformation about Kingdom Filipina Hacienda which is only based on personal and very few facts presented, emphasizing old news which only just happened because of ignorance of the people with regards to law. the writer tried to present his opinion in a very malicious way. We are the legitimate new government for the Philippines and soon to be fully operation with lots of transmittals we receive from the government, we are sure our future is bright because we are the only government with lawful territorial integrity. Ninnerity (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Ninnerity - to be honest, your response here is extremely concerning and seems to completely misunderstand Wikipedia's policies and the message I sent you. Please read the links in that message, and especially Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Yeah I read about Conflict of Interest and Neutrality. Even if this New Nation I mean is actually under the international law and under Royal Decree Protocol 01-4 and the World Peace Treaty and operating under the existing laws of ownership in the Philippine Constitution, with tangible and absolute proof of Sovereignty and Jurisdiction. it is unfair that my edit is not qualified while the existing version is not substantial. Might as well do not write any bias info at wiki if the intention of the existing wiki about Kingdom Filipina Hacienda is not factual. because my edit version is based purely on facts as prescribed by law. so how come the one who tried to revert to the misinformation is the one who stayed at wiki? Is he not in Conflict of Interest to the Rule of Law? Where is Neutrality? Ninnerity (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, mostly because I have no context for the topic in question. My only suggestion would be to discuss on the article's talk page, where you should be able to find people who know more about what's going on. However, I would strongly recommend against editing the article itself as your conflict of interest is becoming quite clear. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for your kind help with the citations of Draft:List of BL dramas article. Best wishes! — hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 04:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jay8g. Why did you write on my user page that this entry has "very few" "independent" references?
All 30+ citations, including prior to your comment, are made to websites or books published by independent, third-party institutions and publications, including national authorities The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Academy of American Poets, and The Poetry Foundation.
For the entry's accuracy of citations and subject notability, one may begin by seeing:
https://poets.org/poet/chris-hosea
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/chris-hosea
https://lsupress.org/author/chris-hosea/
https://www.chicagoreview.org/chris-hosea/
https://apnews.com/9e163604c113410dab2450c2783666d7
And, for context:
Walt Whitman Award
John Ashbery
FYI Masterzora Masterzora recently made helpful citation style edits.
Rocinante108 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Rocinante108, as I mentioned previously, this is not an area that I know much about so I'm not able to be very helpful here. I'd suggest asking elsewhere -- I saw you already started a discussion on the article's talk page, which is always a good place to start. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @V Jay8g
- You suggest you are not an expert in the field of American poetry, something that seems apparent, based on your erroneous claims about the Chris Hosea entry.
- For some reason, you have written and published what amount to False statements of fact, without qualification, in your own words.
- For example, you made the blanket assertion that "very few" of the entry's references were "independent," and suggested in writing that you based this falsehood on your own personal review of the entry.
- In fact, the entry's truthful claims were and have been supported (before, during, and after your untrue assertions) by dozens of easily verified, independent, third-party references.
- You have registered, moreover, false statements of fact about a Public_figure distinctively notable in their field.
- Why, during the past 10 years, did no other editor, apparently, raise any doubts about the entry's references?
For over a decade, a quick review of the entry's revision history shows, Wikipedia editors have acknowledged the notability of Chris Hosea, based, initally, on his appearance, in 2013, on the List of winners of the Walt Whitman Award, a first book prize administered by The Academy of American Poets, and judged by eminent field authority John Ashbery, whose Wikipedia entry currently begins: "Ashbery is considered the most influential American poet of his time."
- Prior Wikipedia editors have correctly assigned Chris Hosea to the following categories:
Category:Harvard University alumni
Category:University of Massachusetts Amherst MFA Program for Poets & Writers alumni
Category:1973 births
Category:Living people
Category:American male poets
Category:American male artists
Category:21st-century American poets
Category:21st-century American male writers
- You, personally, potentially may have the responsibility of defending your Burden of proof (law) in a Defamation lawsuit.
- I believe any fair-minded individual would recognize that, at the least, you did not abide by the Wikipedia community's guidelines for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
- Will you apologize for and retract your false statements of fact?
- Thank you in advance for your reply. Rocinante108 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have opened an ANI discussion about this. Please continue the discussion there if that's what you want to do. Otherwise, as I've said before, I'm staying out of this. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 17:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to several studies, the Hui people have significant connections to the Middle East and Central Asia, which are markedly different from the Han Chinese. Here are the details:
- Whole-Genome Sequencing Study: A whole-genome sequencing study on the Hui people indicates that they have significant Western ancestry. The research shows that approximately 10% of the Hui genome comes from Western Eurasian populations, a proportion significantly higher than that found in the Han Chinese. The study points out that the ancestors of the Hui included merchants and political emissaries from Arabia, Persia, and Central Asia, who migrated to China during the Tang Dynasty and intermarried with the local population (Oxford Academic).
- Y-Chromosome Analysis: Another study focusing on Y-chromosome analysis of the Hui population in Liaoning Province reveals that nearly 30% of Hui male lineages are of Western origin. This research identifies a high frequency of North Asian and Central Asian Y-chromosome haplogroups among the Hui, which are not commonly found in the Han Chinese, supporting the significant genetic contribution from Western Eurasian populations (BioMed Central) (Frontiers).
Additionally, those so-called genes similar to the Han Chinese are due to the deliberate obfuscation by some Chinese researchers aiming to assimilate the Hui people.
These studies provide strong evidence that the Hui people have a distinct genetic heritage that includes substantial Western Eurasian ancestry, distinguishing them from the Han Chinese. I hope this information will help reinstate my edits on Wikipedia.
Thank you for your attention. A2355645 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @A2355645, please discuss this on the article's talk page. Simply removing large amounts of content without a talk page discussion or even an edit summary is problematic, as is edit warring without discussion. This is a topic I have no background or context on so I will not be editing the page on your behalf, but your post above would make a good start to a discussion on the article's talk page, where you will be much more likely to find people who actually know about the topic. Thanks! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I joined Wikipedia a few months ago and I was warned because of edit war Colombia page and I don’t really know about many of the policies here because I just recently started editing again.I want to know many of the more important policies on Wikipedia so next time I am more informed on this. ElMexicanotres (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I see that you've been removing the ABC News wikilinks, since they currently go to a disambiguation page following a recent page move. I believe most of them should be adjusted to ABC News (United States).
Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jay8g,
Just thought I'd drop you a quick note thanking you for the message! I already have a topic of discussion I think, in WP:LEAD, that might benefit from the experience of those in the Teahouse. I'll probably drop by at some point soon and raise :).
Thanks! - CarterPD (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello boy, but it's not correct the redirect "Unreviewed" because Poggio Sommavilla is a fraction of the municipality of Collevecchio in the Tiber valley and not an archaeological area!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patatebollenti (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe try WP:Teahouse if you have further questions. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
It looks like you suggested this edit, but I can't see where it says that the original article or either of the comments the quote was taken from were made on January 6, 2012. I can see other comments by Deitch made on that date, but not those used here.
Can you tell me where that date came from? Thanks,
Ubcule (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Ubcule, Citation Bot normally pulls date information from the page's metadata, which includes
meta property="article:published_time" content="2012-01-06T10:13:38+00:00"/ . It's a bit unusual to cite comments on a blog post rather than the post itself, so I'm not surprised Citation Bot got confused here. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jay8g: The article date seems fine, then. I agree that it's somewhat unusual to cite comments, but in this case they were by Deitch (i.e. both the co-creator of the film and author of the article) on his own site, so it can be assumed they're relevant regardless.
- The comment quotes are from two different comments made at slightly different times (and they do include dates), so short of splitting them into two references (which I'd rather not), I'm not sure how they'd both be dated correctly in a single field.
- All the best, Ubcule (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jay8g. You messaged me on 19 August after I made my first Wikipedia edit, which was to update the profile for David Cappo AO. You suggested it was worth getting you or another editor to check proposed changes. I then noticed that my work had been flagged as containing "promotional material", which was a little surprising. I have drafted some revisions which I think remedy any perceived problems, but I can't work out how to get someone to check them and then how to get the flag removed. I thought I had replied to your earlier message and I also sent an email to another address but have had no response. I hope you can help. Thanks Nick2103 Nick2103 (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi @Nick2103, I'd suggest you ask at the WP:Teahouse if you would like to discuss further. The content you added was full of promotional wording and resume-like content and is primarily referenced to the organizations' own websites rather than independent sources, which is problematic. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah shoot, I meant to swap this out and have it run whichever day it launches... I gather it's tomorrow now. But I've been busy so never got around to it and it ran yesterday. Oh well. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jay8g and thanks for the welcome. I've been writing on WP for almost 9 years and have never had a conflict of interest. I love and hate WP and try to improve it where I see deficiencies and I try to do it almost as a fanatic of the neutral point of view. For years I have only edited WP in my spare time, already having a government job that takes up a lot of my time. However if there is something I can do to improve my contributions, I am always ready to listen. Thanks again and good work. Bronzino (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:NMartinez1 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You might want to actually look at the existing sources before reverting a user and warning them for making unsourced changes. The article Damian Priest has sources listing his name as "Luis Martínez". Without reliable sources giving his name as "Luis Berrios Martinez Jr." NMartinez1 was perfectly correct to change the name to "Luis Martínez". Meters (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding User_talk:Sokarre, it would be helpful not to give different sections the same heading. -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jay8g
I'm reaching out about the message on editing the page for Akalanka Peries. As per your message, I've done few things.
1. I created a draft of the article in my user talk -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Samanxy/sandbox/akldraft Let me know if you have any thoughts about it.
2. I created a new account since the previous account did imply that I might be affiliated with the Akalanka, and did not individually identify me (Saman).
Let me know, thank you
Samanxy (talk) Samanxy (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Samanxy -- I see you've submitted it as a draft through articles for creation, which doesn't really work since there's already an article. You should post on the article's talk page and follow the process outlined here, and someone will come along and review your suggestions. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jay8g and thank you for the warm welcome!
I have a question: I worked with Jon 10 years ago and I'm not related to him in any matter. Since I have the same last name should I declare that in a COI message on the talk page of Jon to further help develop that page? I've used double citations to every sentence to validate the information I've put in. I would love to add more information about his bag company Db and furthermore edit the company page as well as it lacks a lot of information. Best, Olsson92 (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted the paragraph I added without discussion claiming NPOV. I suggest that you try to substantiate your claim. Please keep in mind that the FDA is in fact financed by Big Pharma to a considerable percentage, and certain committees recommending to FDA are exclusively Big Pharma organizations. My claim that Big Pharma has huge clout is not a biased POV, in fact, anyone who disagrees with that POV is very likely to have financial reasons, including conflicts of interest to hold an opposite opinion. I would suggest that you make concrete discussion points concerning statements that bother you, with some rational arguments, not just jump at what you do not like and try censorship rather than discussion as a default. CarlWesolowski (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I softened the first two sentences a bit, so that they appear to be less NPOV. However, in my own practice, I have seen bad actor behavior with pharmaceuticals made by small companies being taken off the market for no good reason and to bad effect on the practice of medicine. Try yourself to be more neutral in your assessment. For example, the NYT articles are factual, the references to journal articles were peer reviewed, and you should really present arguments other than a first impression to delete a contribution.CarlWesolowski (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @CarlWesolowski: The language you have used, similar to most of the existing content in the article, serves to promote the subject in a non-neutral way. WP:NPOV is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia, and the WP:ONUS is on those who add information to an article to show that it is appropriate to include. Do you have a conflict of interest/personal connection to the article subject? Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @CarlWesolowski -- I have edited the article to remove non-neutral and promotional content. If you would like to discuss further, please start a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, but please do not re-add the content without further discussion. Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- My ability to start a discussion on Wikipedia: Neutral Point of view/Noticeboard is limited by my relative unfamiliarity with how to do that. If you want to discuss something there, I would seriously suggest that you start such a conversation at that location. Wikipedia does not have, IMHO, a NPOV. For example, the article on The Great Barrington Declaration is very partisan, very badly written and full of garbage. I could go on, but Wikipedia should also be very careful about partisan opinions, accusations of racism, conflicts of interest without proof and the like. Are such things "the pot calling the kettle black?" Sure, the language could be improved, if so, do so, but please be civil about it. CarlWesolowski (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- S. Niazi came to my attention via as the first person who correctly developed the mathematical basis for how volume of distribution of a drug changes in time using sums of exponential distribution in 1976 which work was called to my attention by the then Editor-in-Chief of J Pharmacodyn and Pharmacokin. You do not seem to be content expert. That work was pivotal and was not even mentioned in the article. I am reverting the changes. Discuss first, delete only when your POV, which BTW is not NPOV to my eyes, is found acceptable. CarlWesolowski (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Q. Do you have a conflict of interest/personal connection to the article subject?
- A. No CarlWesolowski (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
|
