User talk:Jay D. Easy

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) and add comments on a new topic in a new section. I will respond on this talk page unless you request otherwise. Questions, requests, criticism, and any other comments are always welcome!

Montenegrin football seasons

Hello. Could you move the season article back to (e.g.) 1953–54 instead of 1953–1954. Sports seasons are titled using a shortened second year. Cheers, Number 57 17:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reaching out. Where in MOS can I find this? Jay D. Easy (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know where it's stated, but it is how it's done. See Category:Bundesliga seasons or Category:La Liga seasons for some high profile examples. Number 57 19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

The edit summary on this edit is unacceptable: →‎See also: I immediately recognized these two 4em-wide columns as the work of an expert craftsman, and in a fit of envious rage, I destroyed them.

I almost reverted it based on the edit summary alone, I won't be surprised if someone else does so. The purpose of an edit summary is to tell other editors reviewing your changes what you are doing and why. That edit summary says "this is vandalism", and is actually one of the recognizable syndromes of editors who are deliberately damaging the encyclopedia to make a point. Don't do that. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking further back in your history, I see this (i don't think i've ever trimmed this much indiscriminate bullshit) and [this], (rm idiotic links and pipes; merged unnecessary sections; lots of ce tbd) edit. Edit summaries like that are disruptive, and under some circumstances can earn you a visit to the dramaboard (WP:ANI). Please adopt NPOV even in your edit summaries, to avoid antagonizing other editors. It's unprofessional — it invites confrontation. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It's aimed at no one in particular so don't feel offended. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 16:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Tarl N. is perfectly correct. Your last edit summary was:"A true work of art: notice its powerful shading of depths at varying intervals. Embark on a spiritual journey as you follow the caption's protusion downwards into the article. Will it ever end?—no one knows. You may pass through an entire section, only to end up in yet another section! Such is the power of this invaluable piece of artisanship. (but yeah i wrecked it for obvious reasons)" - that gave readers no clue as to why you made your edit and saying I wrecked it suggested vandalism. Edit summaries are meant to be aimed at the reader and explain the purpose of the edit. I wasted time trying to find out if you really had wrecked it. You may see it as fun, others don't and this really has to stop. Please. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hahah, yeah I thought it was funny. But you're right. I'll do my best to keep 'em concise. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 18:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with User:Tarl_N. Edit summary was nonsense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

And I undid that Attack on Pearl Harbor revision solely based on the edit itself, before I saw how inappropriate the edit-summary was. DMacks (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, DMacks. The other users' commentary I understand. Yours raises a couple of questions, though. First of all, relevant though the links may have been, the ones I removed I definetely judged to be less relevant than the ones I didn't touch. Your ES mentions WP:EL, which confuses me since I only touched the links in the See also section. Though I think you simply made a mistake there? If not, which part of WP:EL were you referring to specifically?

As long as we're on the subject of WP:EL, the one I'd want to point to is WP:ELPOV, which was a big part of the motivation behind my edit, albeit more in the sense that I felt the lesser relevant links detracted from the most relevant ones. I'd rather present links to a couple of good and highly related articles than a bunch of links of varying levels of relevance. Quality over quantity, you get the idea. But yeah, the biggest motivator was to do something about those horrible 4em-wide columns that you have now restored.

But anyways, I concede that I may well have ruined a couple of my well-intended edits through inappropriate edit summaries. So to anyone reading this, while I do stand by my edits themselves, I apologize for the dumb edit summaries. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant SEEALSO not EL (I do a lot of EL cleanups, got my fingers tangled:(. There might be reasons for removing SEEALSO links, but without a reason it looks poor. I use a narrow desktop screen, so I hate forced layout in multi-column situations also. Removing the 4em spacing between the columns in this case seems useful; 2em seems to be the default for multicolumn? But forcing three columns is itself a bigger problem. I switched it to use flexible columns based on screen-size. Feel free to start a discussion on the article talkpage about the relevance of various links. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Dmacks, sorry for the late response. I was re-reading what you wrote and wanted to point out that I meant 4em-wide columns. Meaning the middle and rightmost columns themselves were set to a width of 4em, not the spacing in between. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 16:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Why?

Hello and nice to meet you, Why you removed the picture of the paperboy of the Titanic? I thought I was contributing for the better of the article. --LLcentury (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, LLcentury. Thanks for reaching out. I take it you added it in the first place? There's nothing wrong with the picture itself. However, the way you added it and the way you aligned it, made it so that it sandwiched the text at the top of the paragraph it accompanied, which in turn makes for an unpleasant reading experience. But not to worry, I'll see what I can do about adding it back to the article some way. Give me a sec. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!, I thought I had done something wrong, and indeed, yes I "sandwiched" the text. LOL. Thanks again. --LLcentury (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Yet, there's something i must tell you, the FP candidate is a better quality picture, please check it if you wish. Best of luck. --LLcentury (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflict

LLcentury: don't worry about it. I usually try to save whatever I can, however in this paragraph I felt it best to simply remove one of both images. I chose to delete the you added because the other does a better job at conveying the immediate sense of grief felt by the passengers' and crew's close ones.

In any case, I added it back to the article! Just please be mindful not to sandwich text or make edits that generally detract from the ease of reading an article. Like cramming an article full of pictures, haha—just because they exist doesn't mean they should all be crammed into it. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

LLcentury: you've lost me here. Which FP candidate are you referring to? And what picture? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry PLEASE for the mess, I am referring to this Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sinking of the RMS Titanic --LLcentury (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

LLcentury: oh, that one! Now I know what you mean. I actually used the picture you used, but I cropped it myself a couple of minutes ago. You're right when you say that it's more detailed, however try to look at the thumbnail in the article itself. Surely you'll notice in my thumbnail it's easier to immediately recognize what you're looking at (depending on your monitor, of course). The zoomed-in version actually allows a reader to clearly see the newspaper caption in the picture. Also, when you compare your full-res, zoomed-out version to mine, do you really feel we're missing any type of essential piece of information that can only be conveyed by what's on the picture's pheriphery?

Also, don't worry about whatever type of mess, haha! Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The Green Bag and Horace Williams Fuller

I have reverted some of your edits to Horace Williams Fuller, and I have filed an RfD on your reversion of my retargeting of the redirect, The Green Bag (magazine), at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 12#The Green Bag (magazine). You are welcome to comment there. With respect to Fuller, please make a more thorough check of the sources provided before requesting citations for statements already fully cited in the article. Also, please do not remove images of the article subject from the article unless you can provide a better one. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You are most welcome and I won't fight you on any of this. Just trying to contribute in a way I felt was substantive. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 21:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Much appreciated. The image in the Fuller article was the best one I could find. The original was of very low quality, and I had to adjust the color balance to make the contours clearer. bd2412 T 21:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

USS Jeannette

Hi, you deleted my {{contradict inline}} tag about the date of sinking, but did not make an attempt to reconcile the discrepancy between the two articles. The ship either sank on the evening of the 12th or the morning of the 13th. If you're sure it was the 13th as described in USS Jeannette (1878), then please make the correction in Jeannette expedition. As both articles cite the same source for this statement, one of them must be incorrect. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 19:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, Howcheng, thanks for reaching out. Yeah that's my bad, I simply forgot. It's now been corrected. Take care. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Input?

Hello @Jay D. Easy: when you mean by unnecessary there are pages that do use you tube videos if they are from a Reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC,_Myspace,_Facebook,_and_YouTube_reliable_sources? ? it seemed like a good closer to the section Jack90s15 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, lots of articles use YouTube videos as refs, and there is no established rule that forbids it. Personally though, I'd argue that actual literary works hold more encyclopedic value and integrity as a source, as opposed to a video that may be taken down at any point in time. Next to that, I believe it's a lazy way of adding references, and if you look at any random bunch of references that are YouTube videos across Wikipedia, you'll notice most of them are haphazardly added. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit: as if to prove my point about your unfamiliarity with syntax, you haphazardly added that entire URL instead of just creating a wikilink. It's cool that you're contributing, and the last thing I want to do is discourage you. Just please familiarize yourself with and put some effort into eligible syntax. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jay D. Easy: I see what you trying to tell me Can I put in the External links can we compromise on that?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss,

Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.Jack90s15 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jay D. Easy: I did not see your 2 post to my 1 reply If I redid into a wikilink?, would that be ok to post it back there or my other idea is better? putting it in the External links. Jack90s15 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea what you're even talking about anymore. You're all over the place. It's obvious that English isn't your first language, and while that's fine, of course (it's not mine either), I do feel you should reconsider whether adding significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia is really the right thing for you to focus on. Especially since you seem somewhat confused about the guidelines and other established practices.

To answer what I think is your question: no, it's better to not add a link to that YouTube video at all. Not even to the external links. It's low quality, unencyclopedic in comparison with written accounts, and only marginally connected to the subject of Zhukov. See WP:YOUTUBE. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jay D. Easy: Sorry for confusion with that, that is why I have an a adoptee to help me with Wikipedia and I see what you mean how its marginally Connected with Zhukov What happened was I saw the first reply but I did not see the second one that is why my comment was a bit all over the place sorry about thatJack90s15 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

USS Sheridan (1865) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect USS Sheridan (1865). Since you had some involvement with the USS Sheridan (1865) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Shhhnotsoloud: thanks for bringing this to my attention. I looked up some sources and it appears you're 100% correct. So my bad, this is fully on me. I added my vote in support of deletion. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Louis I of Anjou does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Hello Jay- I think I might agree with your deletion of the section in this article, but it would be helpful to all of us if you left edit summaries. Eric ^talk 10:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Jay D. Easy

Thank you for creating Purple club-headed fungus.

User:Originalmess, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, when making redirects it would be very helpful to make sure the redirect is in the target article. However, a quick google search of "Purple club-headed fungus" only brings up paraphrases or duplicates of the Ergotism page with no other sources referring to the species by this name. Could you please clarify this? Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Originalmess}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

originalmess^{busta rhyme} 03:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Rosguill found it was a translation of the latin name. All good, thanks! originalmess^{busta rhyme} 00:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Montgommery spelling?

I see you renamed "Gabriel, comte de Montgomery" as "Gabriel de Lorges, 1st Earl of Montgommery". Is the double-m correct in this context? It isn't the current spelling in the English language, and is inconsistently used in the rest of the article. I could understand its usage in the French Wikipedia (and cf the Landurant book) but you have replaced a French-accented title with the "Earl" title and the English-language references use the single m. At least, perhaps explain the difference in the body of the article? David Brooks (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@DavidBrooks: I'm not against reverting back to the French title if you judge it best. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Done, the difference explained inline, and an appropriate redirect added. David Brooks (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox spy

Re Template:Infobox spy: I noticed you have made a number of edits to the template. The codename3 parameter is no longer displaying on page Anthony Blunt. Do you have any idea why that might be the case? Thanks for any help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Robert.Allen: I removed them myself after I decided that having up to eight, nine, or ten (I don't remember) codename labels was a bit excessive. The idea being that you can now use |codename2_label= to create a custom label, e.g. "codenames" (plural). Come to think of it, even that might be excessive, still. Because one codename label should be all you need, really. Just stack all codenames using {{unbulleted list}}. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Robert.Allen: I took the liberty of editing the Anthony Blunt article to show you what I mean. Feel free to undo it if you please. Personally I think it would look best if they weren't stacked, but just comma-seperated. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.

Dear colleague,
First of all, I want to thank you for sending me your thanks via the button, after this edit. I was going to come and visit you here anyway to inform you, in the nicest possible way, of how some of your recent edits, and their edit summaries, have made me feel:

• I was puzzled by your reverting of this edit, and would therefore appreciate it if you could help me understand what motivated your action. The hyphens I had inserted were obviously not vandalism, nor applied in error, and they conformed to the guideline set out in the isbn parameter of the template: Hyphens in the ISBN are optional, but preferred. Thank you for letting me know why you reverted that edit.
• Please may I also respectfully suggest that you consider the effect of some of your edit summaries on the morale of your fellow editors? I was puzzled, and hurt, by your use of such words as: "fix haphazard refs" and "fix novice refs, footnotes, double spacing, missing commas, haphazard images"; was it really necessary to be so pointed? Although all of us are always on a learning curve, neither Brian nor myself deserve to be labelled, however indirectly, as "novices", nor do we aim to edit Wikipedia in "haphazard" ways. In summary, I felt that your edit summaries were unjustified, unhelpful and hurtful.

Personally, when I notice an error introduced by another editor, I tend to assume good faith and I also ask myself what I could do to help the other editor, who might not be aware of some guideline or other. Since you are clearly a very experienced editor yourself, I think the project would benefit even more if you were able to find a way of contributing more positive edit summaries.

Therefore, and in a spirit of cooperation, I am offering you the suggestion of considering my practice of keeping a page of sample edit summaries that I now use all the time, as I find they make me more productive and might also prove useful when other editors assess my edits, since I provide links to the appropriate guidelines. Yes, they make for long-ish edit summaries, but I'd like to think they have the benefit of clarifying the intent behind my edits, which are often further justified by the linked-to guideline(s).

Finally, I hope you will be able to read all the above in the positive spirit in which it was written, and I am hopeful you won't mind that I pointed out an area of improvement that I dare say will be of benefit to you personally, as well as in maintaining harmony within our community of editors. Thank you for your time and consideration.

With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 12:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pdebee: thank you for contacting me. First and foremost I wish to apologize for my edit summaries. They were written without thought nor tact, and they do not reflect the incredible work that you and Brianboulton have done on not just the article in question, but many others as well. I recognize that it was wholly unnecessary for me to use such adjectives as haphazard or novice, which, truth be told, your work is anything but.

From my perspective there might sometimes be an easier—or more concise—way of writing code, prose, or a page's overall legibility. None of that justifies criticizing others' work, and therefore, once more, I hope you will accept my apology. I will improve my edit summaries and I thank you for the suggestion and the link to your user page. Please feel free to call me out on any possible future improper conduct, because although I will do everything in my power to prevent it, I do admit to sometimes reverting to bad habits. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 13:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Jay,

Thank you for your prompt reply and apologies, which I accept wholeheartedly, and which I am happy to confirm have helped me put this incident behind us. I really do appreciate your stated resolve to improve your edit summaries, and I commend you for it. If it helps, you will have noticed that mine always begin with an action verb, followed by a brief description of the target of the action, plus (quite often) a wikilink to the shortcut keyword of the appropriate guideline. I find such a structure tremendously useful, not only for other editors assessing my edits, but also because it acts as a safeguard that prevents me from adding any personal views I might sometimes feel about the state of the content prior to my edit.

Might this perhaps be an easy, ready-made structure for you to adopt, thereby also helping you keep to your resolve? I hope it will be. Please feel free to "steal" () any or all of my sample edit summaries, if you think you can use a similar approach. To tell you the truth, I came up with this solution because I got fed up with typing the same edit summaries all the time, and forgetting some of the keywords to the guidelines I wanted to quote. Plus, it's really easy to keep that samples page open in another window, then switch to it and simply grab the appropriate one!!

In any case, thank you for your part in this exchange, Jay, which I am happy to say has made me feel a lot better. I wish you well in all your projects here, and want to thank you for all your past and future contributions to our encyclopedia. Please keep well and happy.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 17:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

A7 speedy tag on Zuzana Štefániová

Hello Jay D. Easy -- I've declined this as there is a clear claim of significance in the article. Also, while other-language encyclopedia have different standards, an article on another wiki is an indication of possible notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

What's with your edit summaries?

contributing to wikipedia: how not to do it rating: god awful and unreadable, but keep trying ‎ looks like someone flunked english

I might also note that this is not the first time people have questioned your borderline—in some cases wholly—uncivil edit summaries, though I find it strange that this issue only pops up every once in a while. Please stop. Thanks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

While you raise a fair point, does it justify reversal back to a problematic prior version? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

On the edit summaries, I'm glad to see that you recognize that there's a problem. However, you also recognized and apologized for your edit summaries just one month ago (December 2019) and have faced questions about them last February and May. And those are just the times someone felt compelled to leave a message. Will you commit to using civil and constructive edit summaries moving forward?

On the prior versions, neither of your edits I reverted benefited the articles. Please see MOS:REPEATLINK and when WP:OVERLINK applies/does not apply. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

prairie fever

Hi Jay, whatcha think about this version of Prairie madness#In popular culture? Cheers, --Taterian (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Union Pacific Railroad

I am trying to understand your removal of links in Special:Diff/949169442, because these seem to be reliable and likely useful resources and you didn't provide any explanations. Graywalls (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate and uncivil accusations

In January 2020 you made a series of accusations of spamming and vandalism which I found inappropriate and directly rude - see under January 2020 on my talk page. Such incivility is not good for the encyclopedia; it would irritate many editors and deter others. I hope that you understand how important civil discussion is for the community to thrive. I expect that you will try to offer feedback in a more constructive manner in the future. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your concern. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Robert Stein

Hi Jay, you specified Stein′s date of death in the German Wikipedia without any source. Could you add an appropriate reference, please? Thanks Dreizung (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dreizung: Done and done! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 12:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Great! Dreizung (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Pascal Poolaw

Can you clarify why the Combat Infantryman Badge x 3 has been denied. More rare than the Medal of Honor. Thanks. Lpinn (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batavia (1628), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marooned (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Roem–Van Roijen - oops

Hi, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. I asked a Dutch friend about the capitalization of "van", but overgeneralized the rule he explained to me. I have reverted my changes. Take care. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 08:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Cornelis Boom

I do not follow the reason for the changes you made to this article, which do not seem constructive. As far as I can tell, you removed the infobox for a biography, removed all the single line breaks, and removed all the images. Why? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I restored the line breaks. It should be self-explanatory why I removed the infobox. Also WP:NOTGALLERY. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 16:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with both points.

• The essay on Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes is just an essay, the opinion of some editors. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use of infoboxes: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." That is, before removing the infobox (a potentially controversial action) you should gain consensus on the article talk page.
• Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of photographs or media files with no accompanying text. However, the map with its extensive caption and the detail of this map showing the Lastage are directly relevant to the text, which is mainly about controversies over the Lastage roads, canals and slips. The illustration of a contemporary ship launching slip by Hendrick Avercamp, also shown in w:nl:Cornelis Boom, gives a view of what was being disputed, and the picture of the Militia of Boom's son captain Captain Abraham Boom is directly relevant to the section on Descendants.

I will restore what you removed. The simplest way is to simply revert to the earlier version. Did you add any content in your edits? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucius E. Burch Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservationist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dog. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. 22 June 2020 - inclusion of unsourced text under an existing reference, and deletion of properly sourced material with your comment "rm speculative tidbit".Template:Z187 William Harristalk 12:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Pieter Dox

Hello, you were right to remove the categories, I was mistaken with another wiki-version (the Dutch one). However, I do not agree that you remove the category Lier, Belgium. This category still belongs on his page as he has a strong connection to his birth-city and has , eg. a street named after him. He is still known in his birth town and praised for his actions. Regarding your comment on the minor edits, it is possible I might have ticked minor when I should not have.Garnhami (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC) EDIT: regarding the need for additional sources, I have removed this. I have no clue why this is needed. Almost all the references are peer reviewed, written by historians, published in journals regarding history or they are reference from newspapers. They are in accordance with wikipedia standards. Also, pretty much every statement/sentence in the article is supported with a reference. So I have no idea why you would need additional reference. Wikipedia does not require the references to be in English. A last comment: you will not find anything else on this matter. I added pretty much every reference there it to be found, but perhaps I can add 1 or 2 more, but they are more general ones (and not specific on Pieter Dox).Garnhami (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please be more careful...

In this edit you moved list-defined references into the body of the article. That is counterpolicy. It is also disruptive, as it erodes the utility of our diff mechanism. Other contributors can't use the diff engine to determine whether you merely moved the references for some trivial aesthetic reason, or whether you both moved them, and changed the values of some of their fields.

There is a well-known and respected principle, in engineering, and other technical disciplines -- "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Edits like worse do not comply with that principle. Please be more careful. Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, don't make up fake reasons for why you disagree with an editor. You disagreed because it converted a table to a list, not because of anything to do with references. It is not disruptive. You are well within your rights to revert per WP:BRD, but don't make it out like it's petty vandalism. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Primefac, the inaccurate note, above, was normal human fallibility. I reverted someone else, that day, who had unnecessarily futzed around with references, I put the explanation in the wrong spot. Apologies Jay. Thanks for your interest Primefac. Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: and every edit today, what's the deal ? you could take out the links to pages but maybe then add them into the wikicommons they reference Dave Rave (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

so many edits that are removing info ... is this right ? Dave Rave (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

his mis-info is a separate issue from every edit removing info Dave Rave (talk)