User talk:Jon698

Auto-patrolled?

Have you considered requesting the autopatrolled permission? You seem to meet the general criteria (only stumbling block being a couple of copyright notices) and this could be helpful in reducing the WP:NPP backlog. If you have questions or wish to discuss don't hesitate to ping me here or leave a comment on my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Jon698, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 05:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hello Jon698. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm ♠ 20:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jon698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have made one account and used it for illegitimate purposes. However, I ask that I be unblocked, but banned from participating in AFD discussions and only be allowed to edit as my contribution history shows that I am the only person that has edited articles such as George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign, Alaska Libertarian Party, and Libertarian Party of Massachusetts and there are many articles like Bush's that are in need of greater editing to be completed or to be proper for Wikipedia. I came to Wikipedia two years ago to improve political articles and I have went too far. I acknowledge that I have broken the rules, but as this is the first time I ask that I be given a second chance. If I renege on this then I wish for the next blocking to be permanent.

Decline reason:

You outright lied about the connection before being blocked. You can take the standard offer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Comment I understand. I am not good at apologies especially online and I have had the account since 2017. I rarely used it and did not use it for disruptive editing. I ask that it will be reconsidered and that I be limited to only editing or at least limited to editing only George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign as it is close to completion, but I am the only one who edits it. Jon698 Jon698 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics.
    However, you don't even seem to be that sorry for what you did... You've been using this sock of yours since at least 2017 (Diffs from Scott Burley: [1] [2]). That is long term scrutiny evasiason.
    Have you disclosed all your accounts publicly? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case for WP:SO. Barring any substantive objections, I wouldn't have any problem unblocking you in six months. -- Scott Burley (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Offer

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jon698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello it has been six months since my block in May and I would like to begin the standard offer process. My provided clear reason is Scott's statement "I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case for WP:SO." and MJL's statement "If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics." Also in the past six months I have improved my understanding of copyright and public domain and I hope to use it to improve the images of political/election articles and I have learned election mapping and hope to improve many Washington, D.C. election articles. The next year will be important for election/political Wikipedia editors and will have a large amount of work and I hope that I will be able to help and participate in that. It has been hard to not edit Wikipedia for six months, but I would still like to thank Scott for the block because it has helped me become less addicted to editing and MJL for helping me get a LPedia account that I could use to edit that site on if I ever had the urge to. -- Jon698 02:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Jon698&ilshowall=1 https://lpedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jon168[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the conversation below (Special:PermanentLink/924708850), you are unblocked. Conditions for your unblock include a 6 month topic ban from Articles for Deletion and a reminder to keep aware of general sanctions pertaining to American politics and other areas as you've acknowledged. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't really understand how the standard offer process works and I hope that I am doing it correctly. Apologies in advance for any mistakes.

@NinjaRobotPirate: I am sorry about the ping, but I have noticed that there is a large backlog in Requests for unblock Jon698 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your unblock request posted to the administrators' noticeboard, I could do that. Due to a quirk in policy, unblock requests that fail to get consensus at a noticeboard turn into a community site ban. The difference is mostly academic, but site bans can only be appealed at noticeboards. Noticeboard appeals are settled via the consensus of the community (more-or-less a vote), but standard unblock requests are resolved by unilateral action by a single administrator. If you don't like the idea of a bunch of random people voting to ban/unban you, the alternative is to wait for a random administrator to get around to your unblock request. That shouldn't take more than a few days, but it could potentially take several weeks. If you want to speed up the process and increase the likelihood of success, you should list all the registered accounts you've used to edit Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. I would rather wait for some random administrator to get around to my request rather than putting it up to a noticeboard vote. The only registered accounts that I used were User:DailyVermonter and User:ImBadWithUsernames. Jon698 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm willing to go forward with this unblock, if checkuser is clean (or you feel it's not necessary) and he agrees to the topic ban for AFDs that he originally proposed 6 months ago in his prior appeal. I would additionally add that he read about General Sanctions and acknowledge doing so by listing the active sanction he believes would apply to his preferred area of editing related to political topics. @Scott Burley: as info as blocking admin. -- ferret (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any obvious block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: @Ferret: I agree to the topic ban for AFDs and as for General Sanctions sanctions could be placed on areas such as abortion, Eastern Europe, gun control, and other areas like those. Jon698 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jon, works for me. Also be mindful of American politics 2. This sanction is core to your editing areas. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup

Please note that the correct time to claim points for DYK in the WikiCup is after the hook has appeared on the main page. So you can claim for Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign now, while some of your other submissions have been premature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth Thank you for telling me. I am new to Wikicup this year and I will remember to wait for the rest of my DYK hooks. - Jon698 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Jefferson Hardin

Hi-I enjoyed reading your articles; thank you for writing them. I did have to make a change with the William Jefferson Hardin article; he served in the Wyoming Territorial Legislature not the Wyoming State Legislature. The territorial and state legislatures are two different legislative chambers serving different political divisions-territorial and state in Wyoming-many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming Legislature template

Hi-I have to remove the Wyoming Legislature template from the article about Cathy Connolly who served in the Wyoming Legislature. The Wyoming Legislature template place the Members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category on the the article. This happen on some other articles. I had to go through the members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category and there 2 or 3 others this happen. I am not sure why the Wyoming Legislature template is doing this-many thanks-20:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)RFD (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the Wyoming Legislature template; the template covers the Wyoming territorial and state legislatures. This would explained why he members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislatures were put on some articles that should not be put on some articles like the Cathy Connolly article many thanks-RFD (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

Hi there, Jon698, and welcome to Women in Red. With the enormous experience you have of writing about politics and politicians, it's great to see you now intend to devote more of your time to women. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules and our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Whip position

I completely agree with you about your position on the position of whip. Seems obvious to me. Activist (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW

Your 6 months ban was a travesty, IMO. It's absurd that such a good editor was hit with such awful sanctions. This is an example of why I totally regret having started WP:AN, which led to the farce that is WP:AN/I. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Vami IV submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Jon698 for Editor of the Week because of their outstanding contributions to our coverage of American politics, but especially US State legislatures. I have personally bore witness to their dedication to the topic, trawling through thousands of Newspaper.com clippings, and their obvious interest and openness about the topic through conversing with them on the Discord server. On-wiki, he has several Good Articles to speak to the quality of his work, such as David Duke 1988 presidential campaign. He has made it his mission in the two years he's been actively editing to vastly improve our coverage of US State legislators, and has not disappointed. For that and his level-headed and humorous conducting of himself I wish to commend him.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Jon698!

Happy New Year!

Jon698,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Scott Ratliff

Hi! Just wanted to give you a heads up of a Wyoming-related state legislator article that I recently created, as I recall you are active in the Wyoming Wikiproject and with American state legislator bios. I unfortunately don't have much more time to expand it further, but there are a number of Newspapers.com clippings that I came across and think offer some good material, if you ever feel the urge to expand it! Connormah (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

Could you explain why the police stopped Moran in the first place? Thank you. DS (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: The book They Came From Within: A History of Canadian Horror Cinema on page 38 does not give a reason for why he was initially stopped, but I have looked through the author's sources and they corroborate most of his claims. I ordered Filmfax #25 which was the only source I couldn't find online and will check that one out. Jon698 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: Apologies for the time it took me to finally get around to editing the article using the Filmfax source. I was unable to find anything about why they stopped it so I removed it. However, the magazine did have a lot of other, more useful, information. This was back on December 7. Jon698 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red 8th Anniversary

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

2023 Seattle City Council election

You did a fantastic job with the 2019 Seattle City Council election page! If you have time, could you please help me bring the 2023 election page up to the standard of the one you made? C. W. Edward (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C. W. Edward: Thank you for the invitation to edit. I loved making some of those local election pages and I would love to do it again. I just need to finish a few bookmarks on a book I've been reading recently and I'll be able to get to it. Jon698 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policing the Plains: published cast list from premiere program

Transcript of a page from a program for the premiere of the film Policing the Plains.

Filmhunter (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thanks for the like on my post. I also have autism. How do I add the ASD tag to my profile? I mostly edit Wikimedia content and then put it on Wikipedia pages. So I might put it up there as well. Thanks again for the like. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings!

Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale deletion of content

Hello. I'm reaching out because I saw that countless election articles have had huge amounts of sourced (or easily sourceable) material removed. This is information that innumerable other editors have objected to the removal of, and your defense is either that it's unsourced (in many cases against WP:CALC practices) or irrelevant (which I and many others would argue is a contentious assertion in many of these cases). Notable instances that come to mind are various state articles on the 1964 presidential election or the 1972 election in the Deep South. Please let me know your thoughts, as I'm fairly inclined to reverse (in part or in full) a large number of these edits. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpotisch Please allow me a few hours to look through the 1964, 1972, and 1988 pages. Jon698 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. Cpotisch (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you taken a look? Cpotisch (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpotisch Yes. Jon698 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I appreciate you reviewing it and restoring some, but I still see a very large amount of sourced and important material that got taken out with your purges. One of the most egregious examples being the 1964 United States presidential election in Georgia, where, despite your restorations the other day, now does not even acknowledge that this is the first time *ever* that the state voted Republican. That's covered in multiple sources and it's very historically significant. Also, along the way, that article ended up with a very incomplete sentence in the "Results" section.
Another (less problematic) example is the 1964 United States presidential election in Indiana, which now acknowledges that one particular county did not vote Democratic again until 2008, but not that the whole state did too.
Another example was the 1972 United States presidential election in Georgia, which carved out huge amounts of easily verifiable material, such as the fact that this was the best ever Republican performance in the state.
All of which is to say, while I understand where you were coming from with these edits, I think it completely goes against the recommendation that editors try to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM before doing wholesale removals. Cpotisch (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpotisch all classes for my university have been canceled today and tomorrow (and quite likely Thursday). if you want, you could go through the pages and list what should be added back in and I'll personally go through with finding sourcing. Jon698 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan, thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1984 U.S. Presidential Election Exit Polls

Hello! I'm TheApex150. I saw on the page for the 1984 U.S. Presidential Election that you added additional info to the national exit poll. I wanted to ask if you have access to exit poll info from certain states? For example, an exit poll from California or one from Texas. I know the election was a landslide, but I'm curious to see if there were differences among the states themselves. If you have access to that info, can you please link it to me here? Or you can link it to my talk page. Thank you! :-) TheApex150 (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Seattle City Council special election

Hello again! Thank you for your work on the 2023 election page. There's going to be a city council special election this year. Would you mind making the page for it? I would, but my summer is going to be extremely busy. I have some links for the article.
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/01/seattle-city-council-appoints-tanya-woo-fill-district-8-seat
https://crosscut.com/briefs/2024/01/here-are-8-finalists-seattle-city-councils-vacant-seat
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/05/three-progressives-take-tanya-woo-seattle-city-council-race
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/01/72-people-applied-seattle-city-councils-vacant-seat
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/tanya-woo-launches-race-to-retain-seat-on-seattle-city-council/ C. W. Edward (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C. W. Edward: Thank you for informing me of that. I am interested in doing it. Jon698 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of Beavers

Recently noticed you put up Hundreds of Beavers for GA nomination. Looking over the article, and working on getting the filmmaker's previous effort to FA status, I am impressed with the structure you have on this second film. Though I am still debating about reviewing it, I do want to thow out a few pointers and concerns I have noticed. If you wish to wait for that until an actual GA review occurs I understand. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack Please go ahead and tell me. Jon698 (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sections preceeding the plot are incomplete. While I don't know if you have found every piece of reliable information on the film's production, release, reception, and accolades have a great deal of expansion needed. While that is very strenuous, it is necessary. Not every piece of info is needed, but the film was released to many film festivals and to many awards. You don't need to cite every single one. The best example would be how I structured the release section of Lake Michigan Monster as it covers notable ones while citing how it was consistently screened in film festivals since the original release date. The reception section needs more reviews and should be structured in paragraphs, each one going into each aspect noted (positively or negatively) by critics. It might be a bit more work than you expected, but it helps significantly in fleshing out the article to the high quality we strive for in articles. if you have any. more questions or need advice, just message me on my talk page. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings!

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]