User talk:JustBerry

WP:RETENTION - This editor/admin is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Notice: This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 365 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. This page is being archived for organization purposes. Please leave a message on my talk page if there is a discussion that needs to be retrieved from my talk page's archives.

James Segeyaro thanks

Hello, JustBerry. You have new messages at Huon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks Again 109.155.85.69 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@109.155.85.69: Not a problem, and thanks for the talk update. Although I did help with the technicalities of your referencing, I don't agree that changing the BBC reference to the club reference follows the guidelines presented in WP:NPOV and third-party sourcing. I have undone my contribution here. --JustBerry (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help 109.155.85.69 (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@109.155.85.69: Surely! --JustBerry (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done

December 2016

Hello JustBerry. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at 2016 December Instambul bombing. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.Template:Z149  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: I appreciate your message. However, the article is a duplicate of December_2016_Istanbul_bombings. I believe C.Fred has just made the page referenced in your previous message a redirect. --JustBerry (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. However, your initial request for speedy deletion was for CSD A1 approximately 1 minute after it's creation. Thanks.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: I understand. Thanks for watching out. --JustBerry (talk) 20:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done

Your recent message

I think your message is incorrect - surely you should have used a level 1 warning?? Denisarona (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Please provide a diff, as I'm not sure which user talk page you are referring to. --JustBerry (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You left the message at 16:31 on 10 December on the talk page of 86.129.65.84, regarding edits to the Battle of Hastings. Denisarona (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Firstly, I truly appreciate you reaching out. To address my ping to you, I had pinged you to inform you that you had left another level 2 warning on the IP's talk page after mine in the event that you had not realized such. Of course, you are welcome to do so. Regarding your concern on which warning I should have used, I used a level 2 warning because they are "suitable for intentional nonsense or disruption," rather than a level 1 warning which is generally used for "unintentional vandalism/test," as highlighted here. Generally speaking, I give good-faith level 1 warnings to users who may be performing test edits or engaging in talk page conversation in the article itself. Quite frankly, I give editors the benefit of assuming good faith when possible. I disagree that this and this should be considered "unintentional." --JustBerry (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Mediation/Garage punk article

Thanks, for you help volunteering in the mediation concerning the Garage punk article. I'd like to leave some more remarks at the mediation thread, if that is OK. Or, should I wait? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: I have just accepted the case. I will put up comments to begin mediation shortly. Afterwards, I would appreciate if both parties could directly answer questions or concerns posed to move the discussion along more effectively. After you address the issues raised in mediation, you are welcome to clearly state additional thoughts. --JustBerry (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: I have left some comments and tagged both parties accordingly. Please be sure to make agreements/conflicts/disagreements clear and concise, while substantiated with third-party sources or other relevant examples. --JustBerry (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits made from this IP

Hey. Just got a message from you regarding an edit made from this IP address. I am the only user of this computer and I neither know of the man whose page was apparently edited by me nor did I attempt to make any chances. Should I be concerned about security? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.134.165 (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@106.51.134.165: You should not be concerned at all. Someone else, who had the IP address about one day ago, made the edit (if you or anyone on your network did not do so). Please see Wikipedia:IP_addresses_are_not_people#You_are_not_a_number. --JustBerry (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for help with "Cienegas"!!!

I left a message on my message page, i think. I find this whole "Talk" message the most convoluted thing i've seen in a long time. Thanks for any help you can give. Editorsproof (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Editorsproof: Oh yes, thank you for letting me know. Also, I definitely understand how such a system may be initially confusing to newer editors, but it can serve important functions once you understand it. Often times, it's best to use the ping template when replying to a message on your talk page so that the user you're replying to is directly alerted in their notifications. Or, you can leave a message on their talk page in addition to the message on your talk page alerting them that you have replied to their message (like you did here, and I got a notification at the top of my screen). Does this kind of make sense? Also, for the ping template, you can click the edit button on this section of the talk page, and notice how I included the ping template to notify you. Also, it's often best to click "Create New Section," rather than directly editing, on talk pages, i.e. if you're creating a new discussion. If you click to edit this section, see how I included the header message to resolve that issue. This article may or may not help, but hopefully what I mentioned should get you through the technicalities of some basic editor-to-editor interaction. Feel free to ping me on your talk page (or other talk pages) or leave a reply here if you have any further questions. --JustBerry (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JustBerry.

I hope this is what I am supposed to do. Email would be SO much simpler!!!

Thank you for your explanations and especially for keeping the new introduction to "Cienega" and adding links. I really appreciate it!

Yes, cienega should always have an accent over the first "e" and, yes, it is a Spanish word whether spelled "cienega" or "cienaga" and lots of other spellings, which are detailed in the next section I want to add to the article, if i can figure out the formatting and references.

BTW: What is the best way to learn how to format references? Thanks!

Also, in answer to your previous question about the American Southwest, cienegas are unique to that area of the United States and so the introduction is true.

I am not sure I understood everything you detailed in your explanations, but I will spend some more time with them, if I can find them again!

Thank you again for your help with my novice attempts at this. I feel less frustrated now. Editorsproof (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that talk pages can be confusing at first. Over time, with practice (like anything else), using talk pages becomes simpler. To start off, I would recommend the following article section regarding inserting references: Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference (if you're using WP:VisualEditor, see this: Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing_sources#VisualEditor). For a more in-depth understanding of Wikipedia citing, I would recommend referencing Wikipedia:Inline_citation. Regarding my explanation from before that you referenced, I think you may be referring to my reply to your message in either of these places: User_talk:JustBerry#Message or User_talk:Editorsproof#Welcome.21. Finally, I'm sincerely glad to see you're less frustrated. Thanks for all your contributions! --JustBerry (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations from WP:STiki!

		The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
		Congratulations, JustBerry! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@West.andrew.g: Thanks--my pleasure. --JustBerry (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For being patient with, and expertly helping, new and inexperienced users on #wikipedia-en-help connect -- samtar talk or stalk 14:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Thanks for the gesture! --JustBerry (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done

Message from Ehtsham .23

Hey you added that there is no profe that moinuddin pur is from syed that true or not Ehtsham .23 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ehtsham .23: Did you just create a new account? Which edit are you referring to? Are you referring to this edit that I reverted? Without providing citations, information that you add to articles on Wikipedia is not verifiable by others editors and readers. --JustBerry (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Paul Massey Submission

Hi I was wondering why you pinged user SwisterTwister onto the Paul Massey Wikipedia page. This user just left a rather disheartening comment on my submission and I am starting to lose hope that I will not be able to successfully contribute to Wikipedia. Please let me know what I can do to successfully get my page online. Again, here is a link to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paul_Massey_(2) and thanks so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Af398 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Af398: I'm sure User:SwisterTwister didn't intend to come across that way. He's just trying to give you realistic feedback so that you don't have issues with WP:AfD in the event that the article is published in the article mainspace. As a side note, I'd say this article is more of a "not quite yet" scenario. Especially if the politician wins, there will likely be an article when WP:Notability criterion are better fulfilled (more coverage, holding office, other political involvement, etc.) Why don't you, for now, reach out to User:SwisterTwister directly? --JustBerry (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister is semi-retired it won't let me contact him. And there is plenty of valid content to merit a page now (and I would get a lot out of adding to Wikipedia's community)...The user left no explanation as to how to get the page approved, I was wondering if you could — Preceding unsigned comment added by Af398 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Af398: SwisterTwister is not retired at all (see Special:Contributions/SwisterTwistertheir recent contributions). Also, I spoke with SwisterTwister over IRC just yesterday. --JustBerry (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Spin off doctor who companions

What surges are valid and are the comics valid 95.150.111.115 (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@95.150.111.115: Regarding your edits from earlier, please make sure your sentences have sources to ensure verifiability of the information you are adding. Also, I could barely understand your writing here and here. Finally, which film is Cindy Wu from? --JustBerry (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

she's from the 10th doctor comics from Titan 1st appearing as a frend of the main companion but becoming a full time companion from issue 2.7 95.150.111.115 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@95.150.111.115: Can you put that information in there with a source to ensure that other editors can verify the information that you add? If you need help adding a source or making sure that the source is reliable, feel free to reach out. --JustBerry (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit

This was not a minor edit[1]? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Took a quick look; I agree. Switched from STiki to Huggle today; after checking over the preferences/settings a few times, not sure where exactly that would be changed. Let me look at the revert more closely, though, and get back to you. Sorry about that. --JustBerry (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Not the greatest edit but not to bad. Still needs work.

Removed this aswell[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Regarding the minor edit classifications made by WP:Huggle, I've just made a ticket on Phabricator. Regarding the revert, though, the issue I had was that the user had removed a handful of references and content without explaining the removal in the edit summary. Regarding the warning, if you feel that you can resolve the content issues and feel as though the content removal is justified, removing the warning is fine by me. Keep me posted. --JustBerry (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they added a fair number of references? They removed one? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Hm, seems to be a false positive on my end. Thanks for letting me know. Feel free to comb through a sample of my contribs to spot out any other concerns that may be there (I've looked through a handful, and haven't found any so far). --JustBerry (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Changes

Hello, I made changes to a page , I don't believe it is vandalism. I just saw you said it is not allowed. I did not say anything mean. And it is not a lie or anything. So, I did not intentionally mean to vandalize. I just added some information to clarify a sentence. Apologies Katers21 (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Katers21: Welcome to Wikipedia, and I certainly appreciate you reaching out. Reviewing your edit here, there are a few things that are slightly off from Wikipedia standards. Firstly, if you want to mark something as "not verified" or not verifiable, please use Template:citation needed. The second sentence in your edit is a speculation, perhaps one deduced from WP:Original research. Essentially, for the second and third sentences, please be mindful that all content should meet WP:Verifiability, i.e. be able to be verified by fellow editors, by providing in-line citations. Feel free to reach out again if you have any further questions, comments, concerns, need advice, or just need more help. --JustBerry (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Hi, I'm User:Sis1914. Thank you for patrolling the pages. In response to the message you left on my talk page Sis1914 (talk), I revised the edits with a more detailed edit summary. Briefly, the original content had two lists with multiple inaccuracies: 1) The two lists contradicted each other in data 2) First list had no citation. The current revision has been cross-checked and referenced by 8 sources. Please feel free to examine them. Thank you! Sis1914 (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reaching out. I certainly appreciate your dedication to maintaining the verifiability of information you add to articles by actively citing sources. Looks fine now. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions, comments, concerns, need advice, etc. --JustBerry (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Karrahlian Tercet (Poetic Form) -- New page sourcing issues

Hello, JustBerry.

I see your concerns about sourcing, including lack of results from Google search.

This is because I am the source for this material. I have created a new poetic form, and am attempting to disseminate the form via Wikipedia.

Does my lack of outside sources, or the uniqueness and novelty of the information, necessarily preclude my post from validity? I have met all other requirements of a Wikipedia post; by definition, I am the only reliable source for this information; and I am trying merely to introduce something new into the world via the most powerful medium I know.

Please advise.

Thank you.

Njallsson (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Njallsson: Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:No original research. --JustBerry (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Message from 2602:306:3266:3000:D569:2615:F93C:807D

i think you made a mistake

2602:306:3266:3000:D569:2615:F93C:807D (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Where? Are you referring to this revert? If so, please see Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines. Feel free to reach out if you have any further questions. --JustBerry (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Message from 24.144.37.147

This is why I hate Wikipedia. You add something and some anal OCD jackwad who doesn't even care about the article in question removes it...just to be bureaucratic. Never freaking mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.37.147 (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@24.144.37.147: Hello 24.144.37.147, I am very sorry that my revert or others' reverts may have made you feel this way. Since I see that User:SportsMaster reverted your edit here, I will let them chime in on the discussion too. Not to be too technical about the words you used to express your anger above, but I think it might be helpful to understand why editors revert edits in general. By the end of this somewhat lengthy message, I certainly want to explore what I can personally do to help you to have a more enjoyable experience in editing Wikipedia (and feel free to make suggestions). The reason why we may seem "OCD" is because Wikipedia is compromised of a body of users that are consistently and primarily screening for edits that may appear vandalistic, editing tests, disruptive, promotional/advertising, etc. Please do NOT get me wrong: your edit was none of those. Sometimes, during this "patrolling," editors may revert edits because they feel as though they are not verifiable, which ties into your characterization of reverting as "bureaucratic." As you already know, Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia, in that it's constantly being modified by users globally. Without guidelines such as WP:Verifiability, then, how can fellow editors or readers readily verify the credibility of those facts? My reverting had less to do with your intentions on Wikipedia and more to do with making sure that when you (or anyone else) reads something on Wikipedia, you can see that the information is credible (editors' own observations, commentary, or opinions classify as WP:Original research, which is discouraged on Wikipedia, as it directly counters WP:Verifiability). Please don't be offended or upset, but do you see how the phrases "neither offense really able to establish itself" and "lowest total ever" may raise the eyebrows of passing editors or so-called "patrollers"? For all other people might know, this may be a user that was truly frustrated or thrilled after watching the game and decided to add such information, even though those phrases are not true because they are exaggerated (again, this may not be the case with you--your contribution may be completely factual--but I'm trying to offer you a perspective on the larger process). Do you understand what I'm saying? If not, please feel free to respond here and ask me questions and continue expressing your concerns and comments. To start off in helping you make the contribution you had intended to make, do you know of any independent news sources that support the contribution you tried to make? Please know that I am absolutely willing to help you any time you need (just reach out), even if you just want to reach out to express your frustration about any other aspect of Wikipedia. I'm more than happy to offer an open ear and help you step through any challenges--whether technical or content-based--that may arise in your editing. After writing this message, I hope you can see that we are ready and willing to help out. My apologies on behalf of those that may have frustrated you. I hope you have a great day! --JustBerry (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Helping.

I understand that you want the Pokémon info to be simple but I wasn't going to translate it long it was only temporary because somebody has to translate this for a website. Thanks for helpful theory though.--24.38.206.209 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@24.38.206.209: Are you referring to my revert to your edit here? I don't think I made any comments on the Pokémon article directly. But, regarding that edit, the contribution you made seemed ambiguous (and unsourced). What details are you referring to with "other things." We can, perhaps, add that information instead (sourcing it too). --JustBerry (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~

Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, JustBerry! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia!
Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Linguist If you reply to me here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to the start of your message 22:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

@Linguist111: Thank you--same to you! --JustBerry (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Coming down too hard . . .

Hi, JustBerry! Yes, it's possible I came down too hard . . . the edit, though, [3], was an unsourced, obscenely phrased allegation of sexual activity between living-person brothers. So I was pretty sure it wasn't good faith ;) Was really surprised at the apology. It's the kind of edit that usually gets un-reverted, in my experience, but my experience is only a fraction of yours. For some reason I was sure that it would be a repeated thing, I don't think I've started at that level before, though sometimes I do start at level two when it seems pretty malicious . . . always grateful for feedback. Cheers! Chris vLS (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisvls: Thanks for reaching out! There's no doubt that the revert you made was, in fact, on par with antivandalism efforts. I was also surprised by the apology; by no means was I expecting you to expect that either. As far as the edit goes, yes--I wouldn't classify that edit as good-faith. Also, there's nothing against giving a level 3 warning on the first edit--as long as it's a less frequent habit. However, generally speaking, assuming no faith (good or bad), i.e. level 2 warnings, is a good way to avoid biting newcomers (I'm not saying you do in general or did in that specific instance). Even though blatant vandalism is "bad faith," I generally start with assuming no faith and going from there in such cases, perhaps keeping an eye on the user's contributions to make sure there's no continuum of vandalism (in which case assuming bad faith may be necessary). I just wanted to check in with you to see your reasoning and ensure it wasn't a regular practice--that's all. Thanks for your antivandalism efforts thus far, and have a great day! --JustBerry (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@JustBerry:Thanks! And thanks for reaching out, also led me to you page and to reading about editor retention, very cool and good stuff. Cheers! Chris vLS (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisvls: Wonderful--glad to hear! Feel free to reach out again. --JustBerry (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

adminably yours (mover rights)

hello JustBerry, I see you're the Elsevier person. I have an unrelated request: years ago I could move pages, but now apparently I cannot. Can you pls move File:PeoplesWar Sept1944.jpeg to File:PeoplesWar Sept1943.jpeg for the uncontroversial reason of typo in file name (wrong year)? And if you can give me page-mover rights (which I will use rarely if ever, but it's very nice to have them when I need them.. forex I had to request another image page move for a similar reason a couple months ago), then that would be mahvellous. Tks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Thanks for reaching out--are you considering requesting access to Elsevier? Regarding your requests, you can request file moves following these guidelines: Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Moving_a_file_page. Also, you can request file mover rights here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/File_mover. Before requesting file mover rights, though, I would advise you to peruse through Wikipedia:File_mover if you have not already and evaluate how much you have been involved in dealing with files on Wikipedia thus far. Hope that helped. --JustBerry (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe I allegedly already have access to Elsevier... as for being involved in moving pages, I am not and never will be, but it's a HUGE pain in the ass to make requests and sit for weeks waiting for someone to do it just because some assholes were page mover vandals. I am not a page mover vandal. Been here 10 years etc etc etc etc.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Ah, I see. Do you feel you have the resources you need now that you have had access to Elsevier? I would certainly like to receive feedback on your experience with the database thus far. Your page move seems to mainly qualify under WP:FNC#5 (but also under WP:FNC#1 as well technically speaking). Throw up a rename media template? --JustBerry (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Anyhow, the move is done--FYI. File:PeoplesWar Sept1944.jpeg redirects to File:PeoplesWar Sept1943.jpeg. Have a great day! --JustBerry (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

My memories of Elsevier are vague. I have access to several databases. I seem to recall... vaguely... that Elsevier might be the one that I could never log in to, but then Nikkimaria played with it for a while and explained the glitch to me. Or maybe Elsevier is the one that didn't respond to my request for months and months... or was that Cambridge... I get them confused... anyhow, JSTOR has worked by far the best for me. If you're actually wanna know my Elsevier experience, it would take me 10 seconds to search my emails...Oh, OK, it looks like Elsevier is the "didn't reply for months" one. Cheers!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion Review

By the way, in general, issues concerning the decisions taken at Articles for Deletion can be discussed at deletion review. However, in the specific case, it doesn't really matter because unregistered editors are seldom given any significant weight in deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for stopping by, but as you mentioned, the main reason why I hadn't suggested that was because unregistered editors are not usually given substantial weight there. Since the user already appeared frustrated with the AfD process, I figured coordinating further disagreement with the deleting admin--one person, rather than a discussion space in which their voice may get overridden--may be a workable option to mediate their frustration or concerns associated with the article's deletion. --JustBerry (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Ho Ho Ho! You've been visited by the Christmas Trout. Don't panic! Someone is just wishing you a happy holiday season and a wonderful New Year!

AlexEng^(TALK) 05:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

Hello JustBerry: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Dane ^talk 08:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas JustBerry!!
	Hi JustBerry, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 16:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Deletion

Thank you for dealing with the Ed Brown dispute. Your efforts are appreciated. However, DRN was the wrong forum for two reasons, not just one. First, as you noted, it was forum shopping. Second, because another editor had made a typo in their instructions to the filing party, they should not have been at DRN at all, but at DRV. DRN doesn't deal with cases when there is another forum available, and so, among other things, we don't deal with deletion, which should go to deletion review, which is what another editor meant to advise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for clarifying that. However, please make that clear in your opening statement next time (I was not aware of the typo/DRV proposal given by someone else). I didn't propose DRV yet because of the ANI listing. Let the ANI case finish its course first at least. --JustBerry (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. The typo only became clear to me after further checking on the talk pages of the participants. Requests and complaints concerning deletion are something that we get from time to time at DRN, and we close them as the wrong forum (in this case, wrong forum and also at ANI). When cases are filed at DRN that should be somewhere else, we should redirect them as soon as possible, not wait for ANI (which sometimes runs for a long time, especially when a tendentious editor keeps adding to it in order to demand administrative attention (and maybe the only administrative attention is a boomerang) ). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Thanks for looking into the talk pages and such to provide some context as to what had happened. I thought that perhaps you had known about the typo ahead of time and had just forgotten to mention that in the opening statements. Although I'm aware of the wrong forum issue, I figured that issues at ANI should finish their course there prior to providing any other suggestions. I have heeded your note regarding not waiting for ANI discussions to close. I checked the case; your closing rationale seems spot on--great work! --JustBerry (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:JustBerry - Unfortunately, what we have here is two editors, an experienced editor and an inexperienced editor, who do not like each other. There is a mechanism that is nominally available for such cases, two-way interaction bans. However, interaction bans do not work well, because they typically result in baiting, in which one of the editors gets close to the edge and tries to provoke the other one to crossing it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I saw your note on that in the case as well. DRV or riding out ANI seem to be the viable options for now. --JustBerry (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Garage punk article dispute

For the sake of being more concise, I went back and trimmed my remarks in section #4 at the dispute resolution noticeboard (I hadn't earlier seen the two-sentence limit). Working within that limit, I'm not sure if my present remarks will be able to adequately convey my thoughts or be able to show the changes I'd like to see (I hope that people will read the upper columns of the thread to get a better picture). I should probably go into the garage punk article myself and make a few changes, and then people could give me feedback. I'm now reluctant to do that, because, though I have been involved in the article for a longer time than the other party, I don't want to engage in edit warring--that is why I made the request for dispute resolution. I'm sorry that this whole thing is so complex, I wish there was a simpler way to say it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 12:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: Please see my last series of comments under your most recent reply in the last Volunteer(s) section. --JustBerry (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Korean_nationalism.23Article_issues

As far I can see Korean nationalism is not on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All. Korean ethnic nationalism is another article. --Christian140 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Christian140: Thanks for reaching out. Although the RfC is not on Korean nationalism, a two-part RfC could be created for Korean ethnic nationalism, considering the participants in the existing RfC could quite possibly participate in this dispute as well. Since this appears to be controversial, the case has been reopened. --JustBerry (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Christian140 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Christian140: No problems. Feel free to reach out again if you have any other questions, comments, or concerns. --JustBerry (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Douglas, Massachusetts

Unfortunately, there wasn't any right way to deal with that issue. You advised the filing party to go to the copyright noticeboard, which, in general, was reasonable advice. However, the problem is that the copyright noticeboard is for filing reports by a reporting party, not for filing a defense by the alleged copyright violating party. The filing party at DRN was the alleged copyright violating party. Db54 had posted material from a "public document", which may or may not have been a public domain document, and Garchy had reverted their edit and warned them, and Db54 was complaining at DRN. Thank you for closing that, because it was badly filed and was a mess. However, there is no right advice, other than for the filing party to stop complaining and discuss with the reporting party. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Can't the alleged copyright violating party file a case at the copyright noticeboard to resolve the issue in the spirit of User:Garchy (as xis revert implies disagreement/conflict which User:Db54 is seeking some closure on)? --JustBerry (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that they could if they wanted to be reasonable. However, that has its own problems. First, they would actually have to show that the public document was in the public domain, rather than just saying that (and most printed material in the United States now is copyrighted even if it isn't labeled as copyrighted). Second, in that time, they could, instead, rewrite the material. Yes, if it really were public domain, they could resolve it by filing, but I don't think it really is public domain. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Neither do I, but (in handling the case) I was more referring to the scope of DRN in my general close note than the actual content of the dispute. --JustBerry (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, if you are saying that copyright issues are out of scope for DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Message from Editorsproof

Hi, JustBerry.

Can you please help me with the "Cienega" article again? I thought I left you a message on the Cienega talk page, but as i've said before, this Talk system appears extremely convoluted to me. I hope this is the right place to reach you.

The word "Cienega" as the title of the entire article needs to have an acute accent over the first "e." How do I make that happen? It appears that I cannot change the title.

Whether "Ciengega" is spelled "cienega" or "cienaga" (and there are article pages for both), the first "e" should have the accent. In fact, that is the way they are shown in the link to Wiktionary.

Thank you so much for your help! Editorsproof (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Editorsproof: What are the sources supporting your change again? FYI, Ciénega currently redirects to La_Cienega. Moreover, not sure why La Ciénaga (disambiguation) redirects to La Ciénaga... You may need to request a page move here following the guidelines on that page. --JustBerry (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Cienega Article

Hi, JustBerry.

The "La_Cienega" disambiguation section to which you say the "Cienega" article redirects is garbage. It should be deleted. It doesn't say anything, and has no bearing on wetland cienegas (or cienagas, alternate spelling).

The whole subject and the titles of articles containing the word "cienega" or "cienaga" should be reviewed, in my opinion, in terms of what links to what. There are towns -- in New Mexico and in Dominican Republic, apparently -- named as such; and certainly those articles are great and valid. However, i really don't understand the disambiguation stuff. The two spellings of the word are valid, however, so I understand that it is a confusing issue.

The sources for the changes to the Cienega article are clearly cited in the References. The article itself is written by A.T. Cole who is renowned for cienega restoration work on his ranch in southwest New Mexico.

I hope i answered your question.

However, you did not answer mine. How can i insert an acute accent over the first "e" both in the name of the article and in the text?

Thanks very much for your help! Editorsproof (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Editorsproof: Before making such drastic technical and administrative requests, I would suggest first seeking WP:Consensus on such change propositions. See WP:RfC as one of the modes to do so. --JustBerry (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JustBerry!

Happy New Year!

JustBerry,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

@Davey2010: Thanks--to you too! --JustBerry (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year. Thanks for holding the fort at DRN. My daughter just had another daughter, and I have been dealing with the 14-year-old and the 7-year-old. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: No problem, same to you. Congratulations! 7-year-old x 2 children = 14-year-old in the year 2017. Wew! --JustBerry (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That's strange arithmetic. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: For sure... not sure how or why I thought of that... --JustBerry (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JustBerry!

Happy New Year!

JustBerry,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. -- Dane ^talk 02:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

HAPPY THIS YEAR!

                                ..
      ..             **    :_\/_:     . 
     :_\/_:   .    .:.*_\/_*   : /\ :  .'.:.'.
 ..: /\ : _\(/_  ':'* /\ *  : '..'.  -=:o:=-
:_\/_:'.:::. /)\**  .|.* '.\'/.'_\(/_'.':'.'
: /\ : :::::  '*_\/_* | |  -= o =- /)\    '  *
 '..'  ':::'   * /\ * |'|  .'/.\'.  '._____
     *        __*..* |  |     :      |.   |' .---"|
      _*   .-'   '-. |  |     .--'|  ||   | _|    |
   .-'|  _.|  |    ||   '-__  |   |  |    ||      |
   |' | |.    |    ||       | |   |  |    ||      |
___|  '-'     '    ""       '-'   '-.'    '`      |____

________________________________________________________

Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@Chrissymad: Thanks. freenode's loss for kicking you for the ASCII in the channel. Happy New Year again. --JustBerry (talk) 05:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

185.44.195.240

I suspect that many don't even read their talk page. Need something that pops the message up in front of them and forces them to wait a short period of time before they can go on. i.e. they have to stare at it for a few seconds at least. Jim1138 (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Yeah. It was New Year's Day. I tried AGF. It didn't work. O well. That's one of many future attempts. Have a happy and healthy New Year! --JustBerry (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JustBerry!

Happy New Year!

JustBerry,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 18:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

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

@Class455: Thanks--to you too! --JustBerry (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Gender dysphoria dispute

Give it another 24 hrs and then I suggest closing if no further discussion is forth coming with whatever suggestions you feel are best. I have given my overview as in "interested editor" without taking sides. The topic should be handled with care and sensitivity as it could well become controversial. One of the problems of this type of issue is when those involved feel that others volunteering have little to no understanding of what is being discussed. This is counter to how I generally like to handle disputes, which is to see it outside the subject and more on just the participants finding common ground and stability returning to the article and talk page. In most cases, I feel the subject is secondary to how the individuals themselves are handling each others suggestions and reactions in the DRN or talk page discussion.

I am going to suggest a new addition to the volunteering process at DRN. I would like to suggest that volunteers may be allowed to add "Interested volunteer note" when they have an interest in the general subject or have had interactions with participants. These notes are to be added by only interested volunteers who have a general knowledge of the subject and history of the dispute and participants that may make them too biased in the eyes of other editors but still have value towards resolution.

I'd also like to suggest that the Picasso filing editor may need editor retention help. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)(Maleko Mela)

@Mark Miller: I have posted a reply to your suggestions on the gender dysphoria dispute, as there seem to have been multiple discussions prior on this particular topic. Regarding the template, perhaps "interested editor" or "acquainted editor," i.e. an editor acquainted with the genre or general topic, may be two alternative templates to consider. All editors on Wikipedia volunteer their time, but the editor versus volunteer distinction might make the involved versus biased/slightly involved/involved distinction clearer. I have commented on the Picasso case. Thanks for leaving me a message. --JustBerry (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mark Miller, User:JustBerry - The comment about other editors being involved with a dispute is a useful comment. Some volunteer moderators state at the outset that they have no special knowledge of the subject and expect the editors to provide them with any necessary background information. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh and......the helping hand barnstar!

		Project Editor Retention This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
		I don't know if you've been given one of these but your work on DRN deserves it! I know.....I created the award! LOL! ;) Mark Miller (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: My pleasure. Thank you for this personalized gesture! --JustBerry (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Picasso Discussion

When you open a thread for moderated discussion, it would be helpful to state that you are acting as the moderator. Thank you for acting as the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I sensed the ambiguity after seeing your comment here. My original approach was to avoid DRN-like language, as the case filer appeared to be slightly off-put by being referred to as "the case filer" in the case, and focus on mediating the inter-editor conflict at hand. I'll certainly make sure to follow up with a statement or note to the effect you suggested. Thanks for your comment; I'll keep that in mind. --JustBerry (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You have a good point. However, the other editors need also to be considered. At the same time, the "filing party" really appears to be flailing and sort of desperate. They aren't helping themselves, and it isn't always clear how much we can help someone who is panicking the way they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Surely. I think an effective approach for moving the case forward is using mediation to carefully guide the content discussion/dispute/conflict. If the parties find it difficult to regulate themselves, maintain their composure, and avoid absorbing the content dispute personally, then, as you may have implicitly suggested, the discussion may not move forward effectively. --JustBerry (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JustBerry - I assume that you have read the mediation policy. The mediation policy gives the mediator full authority to move the case forward as you describe, and to instruct the parties to focus on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I am aware. Just giving you a general overview of my planned approach for the case. --JustBerry (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Elsevier account

Just stopping by to let you know that Elsevier emailed me on 3 January 2017 to give me an access code. They said they were busy over the holidays. Thanks for the help! Icebob99 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Icebob99: Thanks for letting me know. I reviewed the email this morning, but I wanted to give you a chance to see the news yourself before sending you a quick ping. Feel free to reach out if there are any general concerns, technical issues, or comments you may have regarding your database access. --JustBerry (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank's for helping out with that Grouchy Potato!!! -- Dane talk 06:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dane: Thanks to you as well for helping! --JustBerry (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

thank you

hi JustBerry, thank you for your welcome message! Are you an admin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnc3020 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cnc3020: Hello! I am not an admin on the English Wikipedia but on Beta Wikipedia. Need help with anything in particular? Or, just looking around? --JustBerry (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you JustBerry. I have been here and in other Wikipedias for a long, long time (wiki time, hehe). I'm trying to collaborate but this is too big... I've just added Wikipedia:Beta to my watchlist. I spend more time watching than editing. There are some "dangerous" places here and it's easy to make serious mistakes. Thank you again for your messages :) -- Cnc3020 (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cnc3020: Actually, Wikipedia:Beta doesn't refer to Beta Wikipedia. Beta Wikipedia is a part of this (mw:Beta Cluster). Also, what do you mean by "dangerous"? Feel free to reach out if you feel unsettled by something. Nothing should ideally feel "dangerous" on Wikipedia. --JustBerry (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

"dangerous" is not a good word, let's change it with "very, very big"  :) Cnc3020 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cnc3020: Ah, okay. The scope of Wikipedia can certainly be daunting at first, but we're here to help! --JustBerry (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

HSC-9 Edits

JustBerry,

I am new to Wikipedia edits and talking.

I was surveying the referenced page for some data and noticed that two proper names were misspelled and corrected them. In response to your citation query, both names are are statements of fact, not opinion or reference, and are common knowledge. I do not know precisely how to cite a reference for the spelling of a proper name that is in the public domain. Any assistance would be appreciated.

OpusF18 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)OpusF18

@OpusF18: Surely--thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. There's nothing wrong with correcting spelling mistakes, and I certainly commend you for doing so. Since you seemed to be a serious contributor, I considered reaching out to you to help you improve, for lack of a better term, your contributors along Wikipedia's guidelines. One of Wikipedia's main principles is the verifiability policy, which explains why each piece of information added to the encyclopedia should have a source. The name itself doesn't have to be sourced. However, if you have sources mentioning that McDivitt ended their space journey with rides aboard HS-3 helicopters and/or Schweickart ended their space journey with rides aboard HS-3 helicopters, including a citation for that information not only verifies part of the sentence "Astronauts Carpenter, Grissom, Young, Collins, Gordon, Conrad, McDivitt, Scott, and Schweikart all ended their space journeys with rides aboard HS-3 helicopters," but also verifies the spelling of the names you have corrected. This way, fellow editors or readers can easily verify your correction, etc. Does this make sense? See Help:Referencing_for_beginners for a tutorial on citing sources. --JustBerry (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi JustBerry, I recently received your message. I would like to thank you for giving me a lot of information. I am new on Wikipedia.org and I will message whenever I want any help and if you want to give me more instructions and guidance then you are always welcome. Hope I will have a great time on Wikipedia.org Thank again Kingmade1 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kingmade1: So kind of you! My door remains open. --JustBerry (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Message from Johnnyisreallygreat

Hi there I tried to change a photo on river phoenix buy didn't realise u couldn't use oher people's photos and now there's no picture . Please put a picture up on his wall thanks Johnnyisreallygreat (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Johnnyisreallygreat: I reverted your edit for you. Feel free to reach out again if you need anything else. --JustBerry (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please hep!

@justberry my page "kris degioia" was deleted by Waffen77 and I have no idea why. It says he has been banned from doing anything on Wikipedia So how could he delete my page? I'm so confused, ( I don't even know if this is the right way to contact you ) my page wasn't even finished with all the notable references listed as links! It was just re created by someone (I didn't even know it was taken down by the same Waffen77 to begin with. I'm honestly very confused and I'm hoping you can help me ! Please! 107.3.202.41 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)kris degioia107.3.202.41 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mkdw: Pinging deleting administrator of this page. --JustBerry (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2017

(UTC) I really don't know what your response means. I feel totally dumb right now for the fact I don't know how any of this works! I'm cited in mark washingtons NFL wikipedia page, and have tons of links (not PR releases but notable ones) mark wanted me listed as a clickable link from his to mine. Can you help us resolve this bc it's not paid, and it's not advertising it's just facts.

2601:482:0:81BB:616C:2E50:DD41:D792 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)kris degioia 2601:482:0:81BB:616C:2E50:DD41:D792 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)