(credit to EEng)

Casting of ass

Persians

Hi, I don't understand why you reversed the edits I have made to the article on Malaysia-South Korea relations. I had indicated that the language used in the section was from a non-neutral point of view, meant to support one side of the supposed controversy. I had also indicated it was irrelevant to the article as a whole, because it doesn't seem to have made a lasting impact on Malaysia - South Korea relations. Thanks and please get back to me. NettingFish15019 (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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culture) that are, well quite frankly, a-historic and pretty offensive/racist that seems to want to continue to push an outdated Euro-centric view of American History.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@Vexans44: I didn't have the chance to give the article a complete proofread, but from what I could tell, this was an unreferenced addition. Adding potentially-undue critical remarks to a lead section on a biography of a living person is a fairly contentious thing to do. It looks like there are more sources further down in the article, which might give it a better chance if they were used to source a statement in the lede. jp×g 04:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@50.71.69.96: In general, the Manual of Style suggests to avoid terms like "critically acclaimed" in favor of more neutral language like "received positive reviews". I suppose there'd be an exception if the degree of critical acclaim was itself commented on by reliable sources. If the other articles say that, I think they should be changed to more neutral language as well. jp×g 03:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hooks Island, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that unauthorized persons are not allowed to go to Hooks Island? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hooks Island. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hooks Island), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your hook made our all-time non-lead hook list! Congratulations! Yoninah (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bradford Island, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the decommissioned minesweeper USS Lucid was used as a floating warehouse by a scrap-metal dealer on Bradford Island for 18 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bradford Island. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bradford Island), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 82.3.151.146 (talk). I noticed that you recently restored content from SMTV Live without adequately adding a reliable source and explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the restored content has been removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.82.3.151.146 (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This diff? It looks like there are two references in the paragraph directly supporting both statements. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you mention that you're removing unsourced claims of the show "returning". The section you removed says that they did a reunion episode. It doesn't say that the show is coming back and, as far as I can tell, it never said that; of course there aren't going to be sources backing up a claim that was never made. I would be happy to discuss this on the talk page of the article if you have further questions. jp×g 08:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why did you revert my edit? no railfans do this. it's a whole different community. 100.6.86.58 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@100.6.86.58: Apologies -- I believe you that railfans don't hop trains (and a friend I asked confirmed this for me) -- I just saw the removal of an image without a good explanation and reverted. Go ahead and take it out if you want to; I would have changed the caption but it's fine to me either way. jp×g 03:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you can tell I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing beyond panicking. Really grateful for your assistance and advice. (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out, I’m still learning the workings of wikipedia editing. I removed the pharmaceutical bioprospecting section from the vincristine page since I was editing it too frequently, so much so that I believe it’s best to upload when it is more finalized. The sandbox could be a good place for it to stay until then, I was unaware of that as an option. Would you remove it from the page and add it to the sandbox or would you like me to do? I’ll maintain detialed edit summaries in the future. Thanks for your tips. Crossgates (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossgates, it looks like other editors are already having a go at it. Don't worry; you can copy it to User:Crossgates/sandbox anyway (if you want to) and update the article later anyway. Wikipedia:There is no deadline, so work on it whenever you want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Today I received a warning about an edit I made which was removed due to it not being backed up by creditable sources and for being vandalism, I never ever made any edits to a Wikipedia page so I find the warning quite strange. Could you please clarify me on this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.6.229 (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses can be assigned to individuals, organizations, schools, prisons et cetera. It's also possible for your ISP to assign dynamic IP addresses, in which case you'd just be getting a random one every time you connect. If you're at work (or school) though, it's probably just that someone else has been messing around on Wikipedia and you happened to be the next person after them to load a page here (and get the talk page alert). Take care! jp×g 17:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that you recently removed content from Generation without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. jp×g 10:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

First, I explained why I removed content from Generation. It was in my edit summary. "Removed Xennials. No citation provided in Western World. Idea of a "micro-generation" does not fit into this article." As you can plainly see on Generation#Western_world, the entry for Xennials ends with "[citation needed]". No citation has been provided for that paragraph for months.

Second, the page is titled Generation. Not micro-generation. I believe that paragraph does not belong in the Western World nor List of named generations sections. The description for a Generation on the same page is "generally considered to be about 20–⁠30 years". Not 5-10 years.

Now, I believe I agree it can stay in the Other terminology section, where "The term generation is sometimes applied to a cultural movement, or more narrowly defined group than an entire demographic." There seem to be multiple instances of the same idea there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.32.205 (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for your reverts! Firestar464 (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! jp×g 02:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just a student at a school that uses the IP address 218.214.105.15

you recently notified us and uh yeah sorry about that lol we got a couple thousand so sometimes students will just vandalise and whatnot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.105.15 (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lol it's cool. i used to get that kind of stuff when i was in school too. at least now i think they usually softblock school IPs so you can edit if you make an account... good luck with it and &c :^) jp×g 03:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop treating me like a troll. I try to make constructive edits only! 50.232.92.83 (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@50.232.92.83: The main reason I reverted your edit was because your edit summary was "removed false information", but most of the content you deleted was cited. Whether it was cited to reliable sources, I can't say for sure (I'm not familiar with sourcing guidelines on that subject) -- but as a general rule, the removal of sourced material usually requires some convincing reason (or more authoritative sources that dispute the claim). I'm not saying your edits are shitty, or that you're wrong, but this is something in particular I tend to pick up on when I see it. jp×g 04:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How were my edits unneutral? I am cleaning up the page, removing outdated and unnecessary information. And the party is inarguably not center-right.

Note that my sources for a lot of this stuff is my experiencing living in Delaware, so I had to find something more "official" as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.43.22 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@100.16.43.22: I don't think that reliably cited information gets "outdated" -- there might be a WP:RECENTISM issue but I don't think that who was elected to positions within a committee in 2017 are WP:UNDUE for inclusion in an article about it. Your edit wasn't shitty or anything -- if you want to start a section on the talk page for the article I'll be glad to request a third opinion and get consensus (it may well be the case that your edit was more justified than mine). jp×g 03:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you sent me the following(inaccurate) message

"In Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hard power without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. jp×g 00:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)"

This is wholly inaccurate - I did describe why I removed the content. It's a little frustrating to follow the instructions to the letter, to then have a moderator second guess you without reading the notes provided or the original content... I say this because there is no way you read my change description, along with the deleted text, and decided to put it back. Anyone who speaks English as a first, second, or third language would find the suggested edits (deletions) unintelligible. Have the original poster clean it up or leave it removed - this should not have required my attention twice. Additionally - your note could be clearer. I included an explanation - for you to say it was inadequate requires more qualification on your end, not mine — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWDeGraw (talk • contribs) 18:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TWDeGraw: I agree that most of the stuff you removed was dreck and written quite badly; the reason I reverted your edit was because it removed a citation (and the reference it was cited to). I'd be fine with sharply reducing the size of that section otherwise. jp×g 06:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Whip It (Devo song) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Crusades on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kashmir Valley on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I noticed that you have revirted a edit that I have recently made. Maybe we shouldn't look at expounding the header and introduction of the page to highlighting mater's of merit that are relivent to the culture that is reading it. This is the buitiful way the Daharma transforms for the time and place. The addition of ways that you can honour another whilst still alive and not deceased would go along to help in these times. The use of a reference that has already been cited would be fine I would think. Look forward to your reply. 🙏🏼 Zongqi (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	It was either that or the good humor badge. Thanks for your help there. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted my edits for Thomas D. Waterman because they were "not neutral." My purpose for deleting the information which was cited is that it is not neutral and instead seems to provide political speculation. Particularly, footnotes 8^[1] and 9^[2] cite to blog-style opinion pieces which are not fact-checked and do not cite any sources. I understand your concern with me deleting the material as it is "sourced" but it is pretty clear these sources are not reliable. Not sure how else to go about removing the material as it is simply not supported anywhere reliable. I also am unfamiliar with how this talk page works so sorry if I have done anything incorrect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:D607:8500:597D:8978:C66:6415 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not JPxG but chiming in because I've also reverted your edits. Sources cited are thoroughly reliable. Michael Gartner is a living legend--a former president of NBC News and Pulitzer Prize winner--who owns and reports in Cityview, a newspaper (not a blog) in Des Moines now that he is semi-retired. Bleeding Heartland is a blog but Laura Belin is a professional journalist (formerly a foreign correspondent in Russia, Ph.D. from Oxford) and is nationally recognized as one of the state's premier political journalists. Des Moines sadly has virtually no original reporting on politics from the old traditional outlets due to the ongoing collapse of the Register. For what it's worth, the Register is also cited; issues around Waterman's conduct and the bill were well-publicized and certainly newsworthy. And I have now added an additional source from the Cedar Rapids Gazette backing up Belin's reporting. Iowalaw2 (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I would once again like to respectfully disagree. While I am not questioning the qualifications of the authors themselves, it is clear from each article by Belin and Gartner that the claim that the actions were a “power grab” by Waterman are unsupported. The Belin article cites the Gartner article for support and both articles clearly state none of the justices were reached for comment and neither explains where this information is coming from. This indicates political speculation rather than fact. I understand however, that Wikipedia may be averse to removing them since they are technically “sources.” What is most concerning is the information as it appears now lacks context. The Register article indicates that it is not against Iowa law for judges to discuss legislation with lawmakers when the legislation concerns the judiciary; this is supported by Rule 51:3:2 which permits judges to discuss legislation which relates to “the legal system.” Additionally, while the Gartner article speculates a power grab, there is no subsequent information reflecting that the interim Chief Justice was David Wiggins and the chosen Chief Justice after that is now Susan Christensen. The Gazette article clearly states that six of the seven justices denied recusal and it is withing each Justice’s discretion to do so and that Chief Justice Cady also denied any reason for recusal but acknowledged that as the current Chief justice, he had a personal interest in the legislation (per the register article). Yet, the information as it stands attempts to imply that Justice Waterman did something nefarious by recusing and discussing this legislation. As it stands, my concern is that the language is intended to unfairly imply impropriety rather than state complete facts. Wikipedia policy states that information should be removed which is poorly sourced and has the potential to be libelous. I believe this information qualifies. Presently, I have added sources to reflect this additional information and reflect the material that is cited but perhaps a separate moderator can review to confirm that this is a fair course of action? It seems selective to include this one topic which has not been supported by subsequent facts or mainstream reporting (additionally, there is no “collapse” of the Register, which continues to report on Iowa politics).

Thank you2604:2D80:D607:8500:597D:8978:C66:6415 (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop borderline-vandalizing an article with content violating WP:NPOV. The Register article does not support your legal analysis, which appears to be based on WP:NOR. The Gartner article attributes the opinion to Gartner to comply properly with attributing and specifying biased statements (i.e. the article does not claim the action was a "power grab" simpliciter, merely that a notable journalist characterized it as such). The information about the passing of Justice Cady and his successors is irrelevant to the article on Waterman. Neither Waterman nor anyone associated with him has ever contested the reporting cited that I can tell, let alone that the controversy exists (all this article reports). If you find such reporting, feel free to add it, as it may be important context. Given your repeated issues with properly editing and lack of history, I also have to wonder if you are WP:COI.

It's also irrelevant to this discussion, but the Register's ongoing mass layoffs/circulation problems/etc. and the exit of its most notable political reporters to Iowa Capital Dispatch have severely curtailed the amount of political news it publishes. Iowalaw2 (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iowalaw2. Yes, I am new to Wikipedia and am struggling with how this all works, as I stated above! I did not know Wikipedia had a conflict of interest policy and after reviewing the page you cited I agree I do have a conflict and will stop making edits. I do still believe the content violates Wikipedia's requirements for Biographies of Living Persons and would appreciate if someone else could review or help me out on if there is some other page I should post on. My apologies if I am incorrect about this policy or how Wikipedia works!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:D607:8500:597D:8978:C66:6415 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page for Buggery Act of 1533, I explain why I removed content from that page. 216.14.157.170 (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@216.14.157.170: This seems to have been brought up before on the talk page, and while I don't see any consensus it seems reasonable to me. The issue I have is with the removal of the sentence and its source rather than a neutral rewording -- why not simply restate it in a way that doesn't constitute OR? jp×g 00:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the source, but left out the speculative language. 2600:1700:7822:6190:0:0:0:45 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:1700:7822:6190:0:0:0:45: Good shit. Teamwork makes the dream work. jp×g 13:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you introduce jokes into articles again, as you did at User:JPxG, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The user JPxG has not made 10,000 edits -- please do not introduce deliberate factual errors into userpages.Template:Z179 jp×g 01:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly has, as of this diff. Please check his edit count before making claims such as this. If you continue to edit the page tendentiously, I will report you to AN/I. jp×g 01:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.I removed content about Abdürrahim Özer because he is not a academic or historian. He is just instructor who teaches in international studies. So he is not worthwhile about Alan Mikhael. I removed second paragraph because it is repetation of upper paragraphs. And brings nothing new compared to upper paragraphs. And there is bias problem in this topic. Because of succes of Alan Mikhael there is lot's of hatred beginned. Alan Mikhael's Books are in number one in Best Sellers in Turkey History section of Amazon books. And He bring new look for Ottoman history. And old guards of ottoman history(Cornell Fleischer, Cemal Kafadar,Sanjay Subrahmanyam) have"faintly malicious envy"(https://www.dartmouth.edu/~crossley/comments_7.html) about success of Alan Mikhael. So their negative feedback is worth to read it. But we read their feedback in upper paragraphs. And writing their negative feedback again and again is create toxic biased atmosphere. So i deleted some repetive parts. Thanks for reading my post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdullahTurkistani (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AbdullahTurkistani: It looks like edits since then have added significant amounts of material to the article, including material that purports to address NPOV concerns (not being an expert in the subject, I can't comment on whether they do). Hopefully this is to your satisfaction, but if not, I would be happy to request a third opinion or open an RfC for you. jp×g 05:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPxG! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 22:28, Friday, October 23, 2020 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For your interesting revert on the New York Post article. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 04:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New suspeciois anti-Croat account at it again [HERE] undoing your revert of theirs. Thought you should know. They seem like a potential puppet. OyMosby (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sus. Thanks for looking out. jp×g 05:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is wrong Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Sarkhosh (biliard players)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir.ct (talk • contribs) 15:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long-term cross-wiki vandal. I could even envision nuking the AFD as part of the vandalism. But charitably, could you re-open it so I can admin-close it as delete/speedy-abuse? DMacks (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Oh boy, doing that NAC was about at the limits of my wheelhouse. If you link me to something that tells me what to do, I'll do it, though. jp×g 15:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. User: Izno took care of it. What I can offer you for now is a note that the pinger only works for new lines of content, not for changes to existing. I saw your note here because I watchlisted. If you forget to ping, need to remove (in one edit) and then re-add with ping (in separate edit) or something like that. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Grabilla on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did provide the reason for the redirect but now I clarified further more. The content was not removed but it was moved to a subsection of Postmedia news and a citing was listed there as well as to what Postmedia News is in relation to Postmedia Network. Moreover some content in the history of Postmedia News was not sourced and was in relation to a different newspaper and was not the history of Postmedia. Hope this clarification helps. If you feel there are any missing content please add it directly to the Postmedia News subsection of Postmedia Network page. Thanks (ArctcBanana (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@ArctcBanana: Looking through the revision history of these articles, it's tough to see what is going on -- it looks like there was some copy-paste merging or something(?). At any rate, apologies if my revert was in error. jp×g 05:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was a mistake on my end I did a Partial revert and removed the one that the source does not state it, as genocide rape.7645ERB (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@7645ERB: No worries, it's fine :^) jp×g 05:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the edit. --166.48.219.22 (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:To Pimp a Butterfly on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

>>> Hello, I'm JPxG. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. <<<

Actually all i did was remove the "i" and the "u". (i.e. making them sh*t and f*ck...which i think you will agree still makes the point of what she said obvious)

this is a public site open to children as well as adults like us, hence my desire to keep the place up to reasonable standards of "decency" before the real government censors get involved and shut it down for this sort of BS reason claiming "indecency" and that it "corrupts our children"...perhaps you're to young to remember that c*nt Tipper Gore and the "trials" of various bands including Twisted Sister and Judas Priest? it may be on youtube somewhere.

This is a site to which i have donated on several occasions and i believe i have the right to try to protect it's existence. so i think you should accept my minor edits. FOF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.28.245 (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@76.14.28.245: I see where you're coming from, but this issue has been debated for decades and consensus is pretty clear. I don't look forward to the upcoming Section 230 clusterf*cks any more than you do, but it's doubtful that individual instances of swear words are going to contribute to Wikipedia being censored (and at any rate, I think Jimbo would have pretty good odds against Tipper Gore if they both went on Oprah, viz. Jello Biafra giving her the ol' smackdown on said show in 1990). I do appreciate you looking out, though. jp×g 05:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

You left me a message about removing content without leaving justification on the 'David Argyle' page, but I did - I said 'Removed content in breach of Wikipedia's policy on defamation and poor sources' - the entire Controversy section on that page that I removed didn't adhere to the policy stated on the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons - in particular, 'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.'

Hope that helps :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:2fed:b400:bd98:1afb:7080:285d (talk) 03 November 2020 (UTC)

@2a02:c7d:2fed:b400:bd98:1afb:7080:285d: The policy on biographies of living persons does not in any way say that content substantiated by multiple reliable sources is forbidden. Moreover, I'm not sure how the section you removed would even qualify as defamatory, since it ends with The allegations were rejected by an independent investigation, which concluded there was no evidence of misconduct. This conclusion was upheld after an appeal. which, I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I think the main implication of this is that there was no evidence of misconduct. This seems like the opposite of defamation. jp×g 05:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14 images in a 559 words article doesn't makes sense in anyhow, I left 4 images what seems more balanced although generous in quantity of images to me. I can see that you want to provoke a editing war with a "User vs IP user" scenario, then have your version and that is a little unfair to say the least. I repeat, please, take it in a bit more serious way, spamming of random images doesn't makes any sense. --84.127.120.13 (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@84.127.120.13: Okay, I can make a section on the talk page and get a third opinion or open a request for comment if you'd like -- I am perfectly happy to accept that the images are unnecessary, but I don't think that an article being short means that galleries are unjustified. jp×g 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit to Tutar Sagdiyev?

The linked article is a compilation of praise for her acting performance in the film from random Twitter users. No where in the linked article does it state that Cohen is lobbying for her to be nominated for an Oscar, which is what it supposedly is a reference for. That line is entirely unsourced and needs to be removed from the article.

Considering I explained that clearly I can only assume you are editing in bad faith.

63.69.65.83 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This explanation would have been a very convincing edit summary for removing a claim and its associated source; the edit summary for this I saw was, instead, "removed formatting error". Falsely describing changes in an edit summary generally causes them to look suspicious. Thanks for explaining the removal. jp×g 20:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the confusion. If you check, the edit before that included the summary explanation but then I realized I had accidentally missed part of the reference and had to make a second edit to clean that up, hence removing the formatting error I had created.

I should have made clearer note of that in my second edit summary. That's on me. Thank you!

63.69.65.83 (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@63.69.65.83: No problem! Happy editing. jp×g 21:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		New article List of elections, 1701–1800 reviewed
		Greetings. I wanted to thank you for creating List of elections, 1701–1800 and let you know I marked it as reviewed. I hope you continue to expand it. Best wishes from Los Angeles,   // Timothy :: talk  20:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Please note this dif. For the sake of transparency I'm an old and almost entirely inactive editor; I saw something I felt was pretty glaring, and decided to clip it - for the reason I mentioned here - and decided I'd rather not be subjected to the buildup of messages and mentions that are likely on my user page when all I wanted to do was a little edit, so I remained IP. I will be promptly returning to inactivity and do not intend to continue this conversation further in any venue, but I did want to propose a word of caution to you. While editing that article, immediately upon learning there was an objection to my edit, I went to talk and defended it. You did not engage in talk and instead templated an IP. In this case it doesn't matter. Because I really don't want to get into it. But there are plenty of IP editors with significant experience editing Wikipedia. I am far from unique in that respect. I'd kindly suggest you should consider checking article talk first in the future. Have a very nice day. 24.137.118.155 (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@24.137.118.155: After doing a little more thorough reading on Scruton and his body of work, I stand by the revert (although I, similarly, do not have much interest in disputing the issue either way); that said, I agree that it would have been wiser to consult the talk page first. Apologies for my brusqueness. jp×g 21:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced revert [3] Hey there, I saw you recently reverted an edit I did on the Houses that October Built 2 page because you felt I did not, ' adequately explain why'. In fact, I added a comment to the talk page of the user who was the originator of the changes I reverted, explaining the reason for the revert. If you examine the history of that Wikipedia page in particular, I think you'll notice a trend of user(s) from a very similar ip address range '2601:600:' and '2603:3023' (both Seattle Comcast IP addresses) continually making edits to astro turf that particular page by removing negative content (they have constantly removed the Rotten Tomatoes critic score, which is low, and tried to replace it with the audience, which is higher, despite the critic score obviously being the accepted Rotten Tomatoes score on Wikipedia. They in fact, also, wouldn't even accept compromise edits where I tried to include both scores. ) I have tired to address this issue with this user/user(s) many times via their talk page, but have yet to receive any reply from them. I know we are supposed to assume good faith on Wikipedia, but because of all the proceeding events, I believe this user is editing the article in bad faith and biased way.

I have since reverted your revert of my edit. In this state, I feel as though the current review section provides a fair, complete, balanced, and accurate portrayal of the films critical response. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this matter. Best. 173.88.250.97 (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'll reply to this here and on the talk page for the article. I am looking through the history of this article and... it really looks like a gong show. The person who keeps taking out the negative reviews seems to be clearly in the wrong here (although I can't confidently say this is astroturfing -- sometimes people will just do this out of extreme love for a movie). If you were the person who kept adding them back in, I support that and agree with your edits (Rotten Tomatoes is pretty well-established as a citable source for movie reviews, as far as I'm aware). At any rate, the edit of yours I reverted was one where a whole (sourced) paragraph got gutted -- I'm not sure if the sources from it were reliable or not (I am not a scholar of horror movie criticism) but I don't think that it warranted removal. Someone making a bad edit doesn't usually render their other edits invalid. jp×g 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo yo. Thanks for responding. I'm not sure if it's a matter of the sources being reliable or not per say, but simply a matter of the user/users in question just trying to load the article with as much praise and positive remarks as possible. This can clearly be seen in their edits regarding the Rotten Tomatoes score. The section that I in fact removed, was added by them in one of those series of additions / reverts that I got into with them. If positive reviews weren't already represented in that section, I wouldn't object to that user(s) additions, but as it stands, the section seems to provide a very fair and balanced detailing of the reception of the film, both positive and negative. I do not believe that the user loading the article with more positive reviews is doing this because they feel the reception section is lacking, or these reviews provide more balance or insight into the reception film, but rather, as I said both, it's just an attempt to load the article with as much praise and positive remarks as positive. This is based on all of their edits in the post, which seem to directly suggest someone trying to remove negative remarks of the film, and only include positive remarks. 173.88.250.97 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create hoaxes on Wikipedia, as you did at List of lists of lists of lists of lists. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Zoozaz1 talk 19:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoozaz1: Don't you think "hoax" is a bit of a stretch to describe a redirect? You should nominate it at WP:RfD if you think it's dumb. jp×g 19:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, It was previously deleted 3 years ago under G3, although I am not sure of the content of that article. Either way, you can contest it if you disagree with the nomination. Zoozaz1 talk 19:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoozaz1: I'm aware of CSD policy, but thank you. In the future, please try to read the text of warning templates before you use semi-automated tools that post them on people's talk pages, and consider whether they are in any way relevant to the thing you're attempting to say (if I were not familiar with the way Twinkle processes CSD nominations, this would have parsed as an extremely aggressive message). jp×g 19:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, Yes, the message was certainly harsher than I would have phrased it had I written it manually. Zoozaz1 talk 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of lists of lists of lists of lists. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 22#List of lists of lists of lists of lists until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Zoozaz1 talk 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, in the article "magnetic stirrer", the sentence "The limited size of the bar means that magnetic stirrers can only be used for relatively small experiments, of 4 liters or less" is not adequate to the actual technologies. We have big and serious worldwide manufacturers that produces units to mix up to 150L without any difficulty. I have personal experience with this unit and big customers that uses it without complain. For these big and famous manufacturers, Even small magnetic stirrers can mix up 20L of water easily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_stirrer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laborwiki (talk • contribs) 12:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

copyediting this article. Just once over lightly, please! There's a lot more copyediting to do for the Sunday issue, but it won't be ready for a day or two. I'll e-mail you about the more general question, starting for the December issue. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]