Jump to content

User talk:JPxG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.71.69.96 (talk) at 08:56, 29 September 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jacob Gotts. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jacob Gotts. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jacob Gotts. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating 1-Pentadecanol.

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

I have added for you: stub sort, project banner, category. These are things article creators can and should do.

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

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

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Native History: 20 September 2020

Hey bud, sorry if this is the wrong space to contact you at. I'm having some trouble with your edits (Native American culture) that are, well quite frankly, a-historic and pretty offensive/racist that seems to want to continue to push an outdated Euro-centric view of American History. I'd greatly appreciate a little back and forth on the subject, given I have a Masters in American History (also a Native Son of America, not a European migrant) and am very up to date on the research, which is highly underfunded but still LIDAR is helping incredibly. I highly suggest you done some more research, I'm losing all my edits because I'm having a tough time figuring out how to revert them. I can't even revert the one I just reverted, actually. Please get back to me and let me know if I'm contacting you incorrectly.

(replied on user's talk page) { } 08:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Contents

Thank you for your reply. Help questions regarding mobile access, editing etc..happens often...like whats currently at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#mobile device editing experts? despite the users claims to have never seen any. Did not mean to drag you into any personal conflict.--Moxy 🍁 05:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kuruluş: Osman

Hi, I'm Limorina, I didn't understand why you removed some edits by Hayahd, so I added them back... please tell me why you did that though. Limorina (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of edit on Buzz Lightyear article

Hi there. About the changes I did on the Buzz Lightyear article, I don't think the voice actor who did a mere throwaway Toy Story parody on Family Guy deserves being listed right next to Tim Allen and other actors who voiced the character on actual Disney/Pixar productions. Neither I believe detailed descriptions of Family Guy and Simpsons references belong on the section about other Buzz Lightyear appearances throughout other Disney/Pixar media. It's unnecessary and misleading information. Please consider getting those edits back. Thank you.

That might have been a crappy revert. Apologies. {} 02:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sysages Subpages

Do you know how to bundle pages into an AFD/MFD nomination? Probably not. If so, please learn how, so that you can bundle any more subpages. The ones that you have nominated separately can stay nominated separately (unless some admin wants to change things). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know you could do that. Thanks! {} 02:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Hooks Island

Hello! Your submission of Hooks Island at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Toyota edit

Hi. I suppose I have ruined some formatting of the sentence but methinks the less car-savvy reader would want to know whether "platform" is referring to: the engine, the mechanics and stuff, or is it tbe structural bits and pieces (chassis is the name?), or maybe even something I'd call "overall design" (esthetics, visual appeal, auto's line, whatever it's name might be). I know I would. Is platform really all three of them? And some fourth on top? Anyway it's ambiguous. You could reinstate the huh template of you agree. I know I would. 🙂 Cheers --178.148.196.251 (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at it a second time, this makes sense to me. I'll revert to your version. {} 22:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing?

How are my edits disruptive? 98.15.10.143 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff which I reverted, you appear to have removed the publication date, title, author and access date from an inline citation, replacing it with a bare URL. Was there a reason for this? {} 00:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that link/citation because it was dead. The URL I linked goes to the correct IUCN page for the species. 98.15.10.143 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're changing it to a different reference entirely, just add an additional ref tag, and if you're concerned about a dead URL, put {{Dead link|date=September 2020}} in the existing ref. Link rot is a known problem and not a good reason to delete valid references from an article. {} 00:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing abusive comment.

Hi Jacob Gotts, I noticed that you recently removed an abusive comment which was posted to my talk page. This same user has been posting similar comments to other talk pages. Is there a way to block the account? Thanks! werewolf (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Revirvlkodlaku: I reported them to AIV, so it'll probably happen pretty quick as soon as someone goes through there. That kind of shit is heinous and there is usually not much of a "chances" process for it, lol. {} 00:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I really appreciate it. By the way, how did you know they had left me that comment? werewolf (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It showed up in Special:RecentChanges -- there's filters you can set that will show you the edits most strongly suspected to be crap... and, what a shock, this one showed up there :P {} 00:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know that existed. Well good thing it does! werewolf (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy John

Hello my friend. Tommy John’s Don did not study medicine; that is a fact, easily corroborated by visiting his own professional website. Instead he studied chiropractic, as I have repeatedly corrected on the elder John’s page. Chiropractic, it is also easily corroborated, is NOT the study of medicine. You have no good right to continue to make this misleading and inaccurate claim. Please cease doing so. With alacrity. Thank you. EnzoTheAvenger (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you source[1] your additions to articles, and follow WP:NPOV[2] with the language in them, they'll be fine. Unsourced negative statements added to BLPs are usually going to get reverted. {} 06:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ WP:RS
  2. ^ (while avoiding WP:UNDUE)

You've got mail

Re your panspermia deletion.

@Paul Leigh Edwards: The edit I reverted was adding a statement sourced with what appeared to be a personal website, enclosed in <nowiki> tags. If the edit had a valid citation, I'd have left it alone. {} 10:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Whiskey

Hi Jacob Gotts, I noticed you recently removed edits I made on Green spot and Redbreast whiskies pages. I work for both brands and we are trying to clean up and update both pages in reference to the most recent information in the spirits world.

If you're a paid editor, you need to do a WP:COI disclosure. My revert was due to the removal of cited information from the article -- if you want to copyedit and put the old information further down, that's great, but there's no good reason to remove stuff because it happened a few years ago. {} 10:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm 2A01:11BF:81D:CC00:D951:1689:4278:68D0. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Łužyca (TV program) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.Template:Z186 2A01:11BF:81D:CC00:D951:1689:4278:68D0 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Hooks Island

Hello! Your submission of Hooks Island at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with that troll.

Thank you for dealing with that user who was trolling articles related to the presidential debates. This was a pretty bad case of vandalism.Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob Gotts: Just a question, what's the point of all those level 4 warnings on User talk:Watnick? Lol ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nkon21: I don't get to use the level-4 templates very often, so I was relishing the opportunity. It would have gotten boring if I'd used the same one every time... {} 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Options besides Twinkle

I would hardly classify this edit as worthy of {{uw-vandalism1}}. I think this is one of those situations when we get into the "what you can do besides quickly revert" if you disagree with an edit instead of using Twinkle to get all BITE-y. Perhaps just a difference of opinion. 70.62.149.86 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@70.62.149.86: I still think you should have moved it into the article body somewhere, although you are right that it wasn't quite vandalism and it would probably have been better to mark with {{uw-delete1}}. Apologies. {} 22:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian subcontinent

Edit war continues (thanks lord that I am no more a part of the war). BTW, won't you take part in the RfC? Aditya(talk • contribs) 23:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Epstein

Hi Jacob, thank you for your feedback regarding the Alex Epstein page. My intent was not to cast Epstein in a biased light, but rather to provide a neutral qualification to his statements. I believe that the Wikipedia readership desires the ability to easily evaluate the authority of persons making this type of assertion. To that end, my added qualifications to his statement are both valuable to the readership, and facially neutral -- they are true and provide valuable context to his statements regarding climate change. To not qualify such statements with his credentials and evidence provided may serve to unintentionally mislead readers into believing they carry more authority than they do in fact. Rather then revert the edit entirely I would be open to working with you to achieve this end in a neutral way. Vexans44 (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Edit war

Hello, I made a good-faith edit to the article [1], which included a long list of academic publications that had obviously been copy-pasted from the person's CV (presumably by her). User Seemplez (talk) has reverted these changes -- they are apparently not aware of the fact that the content of a Wikipedia article should not be a copy-pasted CV. I presume this user has complained to you? I would like you to block User Seemplez for repeated vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.131.127.116 (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@85.131.127.116: While I agree that the list of publications in that article was excessive, repeatedly reverting people (especially when there's a discussion on the talk page about the subject) is not generally a great way to move forward. If you want to get technical, you did more reverts than Seemplez, in addition to making further edits while ignoring discussion on the talk page (that's why I gave you a {{uw-3RR}} and not them). I proposed a compromise (that addresses the issue of undue coverage while avoiding the wholesale removal of referenced content) on the talk page -- I think if you contribute there, we can work towards a solution tht doesn't result in anyone getting blocked. jp×g 08:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Jacob Gotts. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Lofty abyss 10:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-royalists

I undid a very few recent edits and stated that this was to restore information that had been lost. Also the new ideological description appeareed less accurate and dubious. I am happy to discuss this further on the talk page of the article itself. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the prior version in question already had "far-right" in the description of their position, whether they're "right-wing to far right" or "far right" isn't something I feel qualified to judge (and you may be right). The only reason I reverted it was because you were removing a reference. jp×g 06:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

l4d

Dont you think the article for both Left 4 Dead games should be consistent with one another? The two games have the same Metacritic score, with the second game receiving slightly higher reviews. Yet according to the articles the first game received "highly positive reviews" while the second one just received "generally favorable reviews". Doesnt sound right - 50.71.69.96 (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JPxG&oldid=980928628"