User talk:Doctor Papa Jones/Archive 5

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 42
This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 08:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

GAN closures
Please be advised that you didn't fully complete the closing procedures for my two German destroyer GANs as you didn't list them in the appropriate section of the Warfare Good Articles. Looking through the other warships, I suspect that you haven't done the same thing for most, if not all, of Parsecboy's Italian cruiser GANs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now listed all. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You pinged me requesting a listing of corrections needed. See this edit. It enumerates all 15 corrections needed according to the English alphabet.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Anastasiya Tolmachevy 2014 version 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Anastasiya Tolmachevy 2014 version 2.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fut.Perf., you make an excellent point - I think you should delete it (if you can). Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anastasia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Anastasius and Georgia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Walther von Brauchitsch - step 5 of nomination?
Hello Jonas, I believe you have missed step 5 of the nomination procedure - listing the nomination on WP:FAC itself (see instructions on WP:FAC). Good luck with your nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I'm aware of that. I planned on doing it, but must have slipped my mind. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Anastasiya Tolmachevy 2014 version 2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Anastasiya Tolmachevy 2014 version 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Stefan2, if you can you can, just delete it now. I was planning on using it on Anastasia, but found a better image for the article. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!
Cheers! &#34;We could read for-EVER&#59; reading round the wiki!&#34; (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 2014
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eurovision Song Contest 2014 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning re: civility - and some unsolicited advice
G'day Jonas, your language here is well outside the standards of civility expected on en WP. Added to the language you've used on the Brauchitsch FAC page when interacting with Dapi89, you are very close to being reported. If you directed that language at me, you would already have been reported, and I believe Dapi89 has been quite patient and accommodating. I would expect most admins would sanction you if you were reported. None of which is going to help Brauchitsch get to FA. I suggest you take a deep breath and start discussing things civilly with Dapi89 if you want to a. have any chance of the article getting to FA, and b. not get blocked. Your behaviour with this article is very much WP:OWN, and your opinion that the article was close to FA when you nominated it was way off-base. It would have been far better to have gone for a c/e and ACR first. Owning articles is completely untenable at higher article classes, especially at FA. FAs are always a collaboration of interested editors, you cannot have it your way AND get the article promoted there. There are very experienced Milhist editors with German language skills making suggestions about this article, ADA and MB in particular. You also have other experienced editors chipping in with suggestions. A little humility and incorporation of alternate views goes a long way. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * G'day Peacemaker67. I understand and appreciate you coming to my talk page, but it seems you misunderstand the overall situation. The dispute began when Dapi89 left some comments for suggestions which needed to fixed on the FAC page. One of those comments said that the French campaign was not based on Blitzkrieg. This I strongly disagreed with and said that unless he could find a ton of published, reliable sources which supported his claim it would not be added. Without further discussion, he added it to the article. Not only did he add it to the article without consensus or agreement, but his addition was also misleading, off-topic and contain misspelled words. Because of all these things, I reverted his edit. He response was to leave me messages which included offensive things like "I'm concerned at this level of ignorance", "using that as a source is highly amusing", "prepare for an influx of heavy weight academic material - some of which you NEED to read", "at the risk of sounding like a bond villain. ... It is you who is wrong Jonas! Stand by", "there is a clear lack of knowledge here on your part", "have at least some understanding about what you write", "maybe your English isn't up to standard", "as a more knowledgeable editor in this field I'm trying to help the article.....and as it happens, you", and "It is contemptible that you can't and won't understand what's being said". Once he had re-added the content once again without taking part in the discussion on the talk regarding that specific addition, and after all these insults, I made this comment. The comment was not civil or polite in any understanding - not trying to deny that, but at that point I virtually felt I was dealing with a vandalizer, whom I have no regards for. Furthermore, if you look at Dapi89's talk page, you begin to wonder if he's looking for trouble; one civility dispute after another (including with admins). Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As it happens I agree with the content of Dapi89's edit about Blitzkrieg. However, stating that he needs a ton of sources to stack up against one Time citation just isn't in accord with WP policy. When we have conflicting reliable sources, we contrast them, we don't reject the one we don't like. The sources he has used are reliable, and the material should be incorporated into the article, contrasted with Time (if that is appropriate, given Time should not have anywhere near the WP:WEIGHT as the ones Dapi89 has used). One lot of incivility doesn't justify a similar response. Dapi89's comments were very abrupt and appear to reflect his frustration with your approach to the sub-topic of Blitzkrieg in the article. Neither of you should be using the sort of language that has been used. But it is your nomination, so there is additional focus on you being collaborative and accepting of advice and comments. There are a number of issues where you have dismissed comments without any basis that I can see. That is not going to help get the article promoted. Would you rather have it your way or have the article promoted? It's up to you. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by saying "there are a number of issues where you have dismissed comments without any basis that I can see"? I would like you to be more specific as I don't recall dismissing any without good reason. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can't see them, you aren't trying. For example, I took a quick look at the German field marshals list (thinking I might review it), but backed away fast when I saw the way you were responding to quite legitimate queries. Saying "I don't see it that way", "I don't feel the lead needs that much improvements", "God, I hate red links", "There isn't enough room", "I don't think its vague at all", "I don't think that's nessecary", "I don't think so", doesn't cut it at FA/FL. When you respond to four reviewers that have the same concern by saying "I hear what you all are saying, but don't agree on much of it" that really rings alarm bells for me. You can be "right", but that won't get your list promoted. I've said this before, but it doesn't seem to be getting through. There are a LOT of VERY experienced editors out there. All of those that review your articles/lists want to help you get your article or list promoted. But you need to read what they say and really examine whether their points are germane to the article/list. Not dismiss them out of hand. Believe it or not, you don't know everything about every topic you edit. Some reviewers may in fact know more about it than you. Some may have a PhD in the general subject area. Just wind your neck in a little and consider what people have to say, and you will find your progress through reviews will go a lot better. You really would benefit from hooking up with a mentor. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 15:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Peacemaker67, If you'll allow me ... I think you're being unreasonable. I have no doubt I could benefit hugely from a mentor, that there are people who knows more than me about topics I edit, and that many editors are very experienced in written GA- and FA-class articles. With that being said, I honestly think I've been quite open when it comes to listing to other people's suggestions. If you look at Brauchitsch's FA-review, there is extremely few points which I have not implemented to the article. I have always encouraged editors to review the articles I nominate for GA- or FA-status and thanked them for their inputs. Regarding German field marshals list, I think it's important that I, as the editor who orchestrated the massive improvement, voice my opinion in the FA-review on comments or suggestions by other editors, which I feel you ... to a certain degree ... misinterpret as WP:OWN. I might do it in a layman terms-like way, but it doesn't mean I reject their suggestions. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walther von Brauchitsch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 34th Infantry Division. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

mentorship for WVB article
Jonas, if you'd like, I can try to find a mentor for you to help you through these basic difficulties of this article. But if we at the MILHIST project find you such a mentor, we'll expect you to listen to and act on advice. auntieruth (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I understand you were very helpful with some GA reviews recently, so thanks for pitching in on that. Let's see if we can find someone to help you with this other article. Getting anything to Featured status is a big challenge.  The reviewers (I'm often one) can be very picky, and we should be, because the Featured articles are the ones that get picked out when someone decides that Wikipedia is (or is not) useful!  :)  auntieruth (talk) 03:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Walther von Brauchitsch
It is irritating when an editor who has contributed very little to the article comes along and becomes the driving force for a change in an article you've done your best on. I have no desire to get in the way of the article's progression. I saw an error that had to be dealt with, and I called it to your attention. The word Blitzkrieg is inescapably problematic. Controversy is integral to any discourse on it. I would be quite happy for those editions to be deleted, if any mention of Blitzkrieg went with it. Simply by not talking about it we avoid the mess that is "Blitzkrieg historiography". You can thank B. H. Liddell Hart for that, along with other tertiary historians who have been slovenly, or far less studious than they should have been. Anyway, the compromise is there. Dapi89 (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eurovision Song Contest 2014
The article Eurovision Song Contest 2014 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2014 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Jonas (even with a bit of help from a friend) . I feel a barnstar award is required here.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  22:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wesley Mouse, it's hilarious you should mention that because I just awarded you a barnstar. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

FA review of Eurovision 2013
Jonas, I appreciate your comments left at Featured article candidates/Eurovision Song Contest 2013/archive1. However, that review is on-hold. I nominated 2 articles, and have been told the review of 2012 has to be completed first, that's why an admin remove the nomination for now, so your comments will not be seen by anyone, until I am able to resubmit the review, upon completion of the 2012 review.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk  00:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as they aren't deleted, it's ok. I will assist the best way I can in the 2012 then. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the reason given for putting the 2013 review on hold. The 2012 review is in full swing, and all the modifications already done. It's just a case of users casting their !vote of support or oppose, along with their reasoning.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  00:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been an extremely busy editor over the last few days, keeping an eye on the GA review, updating annual ESC articles from 2000 - 2014 by adding the official album information, just got the JESC ones to do, and working hard on FA preparation for and  articles.  There's a full list of things I've been busy working on at my to-do list. Feel free to check out my task list, and if there is anything on there that you are able to give a hand with, then I'd be more than happy.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  00:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've just created a new section within Project Eurovision, that will show a list of all FA, GA, and A-class articles (think its time we displayed our team achievements). It also lists articles that use to have those classification, but have now been demoted.  So if you ever get the urge to achieve another article promotion success, then feel free to check out WikiProject Eurovision/Quality articles.   Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk  06:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Brillaint Idea. My to-do list is almost finished, so I'll definitely take a look. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Front. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - Issue 43
This newsletter was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 13:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)