Hi - what was incorrect about the edits I made to this re Excel? (I wasn't logged in at the time BTW.) E.g. the 1900 leap year bug is well-known and you can easily verify it for yourself. Thanks Ben Finn (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry Bfinn. I often come across an LTA who introduces deliberate errors related to leap years (e.g. Special:Diff/1241716767), and I thought your edits were of that kind. I must have misremembered the "exception to the exception" rules at Leap year § Gregorian calendar, because your edits were correct – 1900 was not a leap year. I apologize for being too quick to think your edits were subtle vandalism. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear jlwoodwa, I write to you asking for a question... I saw an article about currencies and most of them doesn't have pictures of banknotes/coins to be displayed as pictures. Are there specific reasons why currency pictures are not uploaded? Why other currencies (and I mean actual banknotes, not historical ones) are allowed to be uploaded on Commons to be displayed properly?
Is there a way to be uploaded under Fair use on WP upload page instead of Commons? Adding the word 'Specimen' and with a medium quality could really help? My regards. Searcher200 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I have read all the links you gave me, and well, the thing is I want to upload Peruvian Banknotes. According to Commons:Currency, banknotes are not exempted to copyright, but they can be uploaded under Fair Use. According to this Wikimedia talk in here, it wouldn't violate the law of counterfeiting, which is not related to piracy. Also, the pictures would not be in high resolution, but similar sizes like this picture. Low-res would not be a problem, besides, the BRCP (Peru Central Bank) uploaded pictures of examples of peruvian banknotes, with the difference that the banknote code was a file of zeroes. Searcher200 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I am reuniting the pictures, but first I need to know what are the right templates for the pictures (to place at the file's feet. First I need a template which specifies the resolution justification, another related to currency permission, and the fair use one. Thank you! Searcher200 (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I thought the resolution should be nor more than 1 megapixel, but when i reread your comment, I realized that it says '0.1 megapixel' What are the maximum dimensions of that? Does a bot will correct that while I'm uploading or will make the corrections once after it's uploaded? Thanks! Searcher200 (talk) Edit: About the non-free use rationale currency template, I checked it and have not clear what should I fill with in the fields... 05:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This award is given in recognition to Jlwoodwa for accumulating at least 100 points during the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
September 2024 NPP backlog drive – Streak award
Geneva mechanism Award
This award is given in recognition to Jlwoodwa for accumulating at least 25 points during each week of the September 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 19,000+ articles and 35,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 26,884.6 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback
Hi Jlwoodwa. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Fastily23:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just point out that you were right to revert ReMonetary's edit, but he reverted back with a nonsensical explanation - an unsubstantiated claim that the source is not reliable and that the information in it is 'false' and 'racist', neither of which is true. The source is a normal etymological dictionary, any other etymological dictionary gives the same information, e.g. [1], [2], and neither the author nor anybody else today is suggesting that the Bulgarians really were 'buggers'. This is just nationalist censorship of reliable information because of wounded patriotic feelings (and an insufficient sense of humour). And it was somewhat successful, because the article stayed as he wanted it for 8 days; if I hadn't happened to read it and then check its history, it might have stayed like that for 8 years, too. Now I have reverted it back, but if ReMonetary continues his efforts, the article may need the attention of more than one vandal patroller or, alternatively, to be protected.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
It's alright, no harm done in the end. A couple silly edits don't disrupt Wikipedia all that much – they're quickly caught and quickly reverted. It would be more of a problem if you kept it up beyond those first few. Anyway, speaking of funny, maybe you'd enjoy WP:UNUSUAL? There's plenty of fun to be had on Wikipedia without vandalizing it. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't turn off redirect creation when moving a sandbox draft into draft space. The redirect doesn't do any harm and might be useful. If another editor tries to review the sandbox, and there is no redirect, they get an error rather than being redirected. Moving a sandbox isn't one of the situations in which redirect creation should be suppressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for starting a clean up of references but note your recent edits removed the reference with archive copies detailed and kept the reference without archived copies.
Please also check other parameters such as dates, title, publisher, etc, as these also differed between instances.
Hi Jlwoodwa. Thank you for your work on Condylocardia. Another editor, Tavantius, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Thanks for making an article on Wikipedia! Have a great day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Tavantius}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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.
speedy deletion of redirect that seems implausible or is an unlikely search term.
please delete that. thanks. I apologize for any confusion. Since you are a moderator, could I kindly request you to review and consider removing the noindex tag from the main page for Rifat Hasan, as I have checked and noticed it is currently tagged with noindex. Thank you. Morshedul Alam Talukdar (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your role as a new page reviewer. I’m aware of the 90-day policy. Despite that, it would be very helpful if you could review the page I created, as a page reviewer. Thanks again for your help! Morshedul Alam Talukdar (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying for "Monumental Cemetery of Crotone"
Hi Jlwoodwa, thank you for your message...I deeply understand your concerns about the originality of the text I created, but honestly, aside from using an AI chatbot here and there for minor spelling fixes that I might have missed, everything else comes from my own hard work and careful translation. I’ve worked as an interpreter for a while and been an examiner for language certifications, and now I’m currently doing an English internship with a tutor to qualify for teaching in high schools as well. Plus, I’ve got the book myself, so every page I referenced was chosen by me, one at a time—they’re definitely not random. Honestly, I’m not sure what else I could do to prove its originality to you. Let me know when you can. Thanks a lot, and keep up the great work!
P.S. = I just added the "Translated page" template to the article’s talk page—I totally forgot to include it earlier when I first created the entry. My bad! RennyDJ (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
November 2024 - Phil Kelly (Royal Marines)
Thanks, @Jlwoodwa - I used AI to give me some formatting structure to this page and to write in the correct wikipedia coding. I'm an EVTOL enthusiast, there is not much in the way of wikipedia information in this industry; the people, the technology etc. so I am hoping to contribute to this. I started by trying out this page, as he has an interesting background and now works in this industry. Any help for edits or pointers that would be great. Thanks! Diddlybop-9 (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Remove unnecessary parentheses/disambiguator
I strongly disagree with this habit of preventatively removing disambiguation in titles. There are approximately a dozen or so famous works with the name "Gust of Wind". The idea that an editor creates disambiguation with this mind should be paramount, not the other way around. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing English Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. — WP:D2D
I used to try to do "anticipatory disambiguation" too – I made Talk:Jason Baumgartner § Requested move 16 April 2024 just half a year ago – but it's just not how Wikipedia does disambiguation. The way you establish the need for disambiguation is by finding other things with the same name that Wikipedia describes. The only other mention I could find on Wikipedia of something named "The Gust of Wind" was The Gun Salute's pendant, and that's just a passing mention – I think the Renoir painting is still the primary topic. But if you disagree, you can revert the undiscussed move and I'll make a requested move so it can be discussed further. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I entirely disagree with Wikipedia editors doing the process exactly backwards, which is why I don't do it. We should be doing anticipatory disambiguation within a field to prevent extra work in the future, which entirely escapes the people working on disambiguation because they are not actively creating articles. I'm not reverting anything, I'm displaying my 20 year-long unhappiness with how backwards things are and why if I spend more than 20 seconds discussing it, I immediately start looking for an available hammer to take to my computer. In other words, nothing is going to change, the people working on disambiguation are going to continue doing things backwards and making more work for other people, and I'm going to continue to make things easier while being constantly reverted at every step because "that's not the way we do things". Facepalm. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus is that pages should have as much disambiguation as is currently necessary, and no more (WP:CONCISE). Even if it means more work later, it's easier to work with what we have now, rather than what we might have later. I don't see what "not creating articles" has to do with it – the extra work in the future is the work of moving pages and maintaining the disambiguation system, which is exactly what I was doing when I moved The Gust of Wind. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creating articles has everything to do with it. I'm planning to create all the different articles in advance. I've done this many times before. See Woman with a Cat. The reason many "rules" on Wikipedia are so backwards, is because they are created by people who aren't impacted by them, i.e. those who don't write the articles. Now I have to go back and move the articles you moved when I create the next sequence in the series. Thanks for the extra work. And how did Wikipedia suffer from my original title? Note, it didn't, not in any way. These are the kinds of rules that should be ignored, because they are created by petty tyrants who make life more difficult, not easier. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is fully of giddy little rules-creators, who love to create meaningless rules that make things difficult for others. I get it, you will continue to follow these arbitrary rules, but I will continue to ignore them. Have a great day, and thanks for making my life slightly more difficult. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not describe other editors as fanatics. Even if you think someone's edit made an article worse instead of better, you should assume good faith, or in other words, act on the presumption that both of you want to improve the article. jlwoodwa (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information presented on the page is human writing and the sources were derived from my own research, but I did use the help of AI to suggest less biased language in addition to using it to help properly format the page so it would be presented properly on Wikipedia. If you have any other questions or concerns about this page please let me know and I will be happy to fix them. Sesame119 (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lou Myers
Hi. I saw you changed Lou Myers' location of birth from Chesapeake back to Cabin Creek. Chesapeake is already cited as his place of birth in several of the existing references (footnotes 1, 2 and 9). Note that footnote 2 is the program from his memorial, so pretty valid source. 71.126.141.212 (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you reverted things that I merged from another page. The stage name Leabengula is there in the playbill at footnote 4.
November 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award
Citation Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Jlwoodwa for collecting more than 2.0 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles's NOV24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 8,000 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! – DreamRimmer Alt (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the article is closely paraphrased. For example, take the last paragraph: the source has
For years the tower has been “approached” by bathers in order to climb to the top and then jump into the water from above. But currently this practice, described as dangerous, is totally prohibited by the authorities under a fine of 6,000 euros.
and the draft has
The indiscriminate use of the tower as a foothold for jumping into the water, with the dangers that this entails, has led the authorities to prohibit this practice.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brünnhilde (cat) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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 until the discussion has finished.
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for good article nomination reviews will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age of nominations reviewed.
Each article review will earn 1 point; for each 90 days an article has been in the backlog, an additional half-point is awarded; one extra point will be awarded for every 2500 total reviewed words.
