User talk:JECE

Welcome
 Hello, JECE, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

JECE, good luck, and have fun. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Flag of León
Thanks! I forgot to add those other flags there. Good job! Alacrity25 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! --JECE (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Revolutionary Union of Kurdistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kurdish ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Revolutionary_Union_of_Kurdistan check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Revolutionary_Union_of_Kurdistan?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions on Kurdistan
Hi JECE, We’ve noticed that you edited articles related to Kurdistan. Thank you for your great contributions. Keep it up! Bobo.03 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Is this a part of Meta:Research:WikiProject Recommendation? JECE (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, from the Portals WikiProject...
You are invited to join the effort to revitalize and improve the Portal system...

The Portals WikiProject was rebooted 9 days ago, and is going strong. Fifty-two editors have joined so far, with more joining daily.

We're having a blast, and excitement is high...

Our goal is to update, upgrade, and maintain portals.

In addition to working directly on portals, we are developing tools to make building and maintaining portals easier. We've finished one so far, with more to come.

Discussions are underway about how to upgrade portals, and what the portals of the future will be.

There are plenty of tasks (including WikiGnome tasks too) on the WikiProject page.

With more to come.

We may even surprise ourselves and exceed all expectations. Who knows what we will be able to accomplish in what may become the biggest Wikicollaboration in years.

See ya at the WikiProject!

Sincerely,    &mdash; The Transhumanist   03:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much
The RfC discussion to eliminate portals was closed May 12, with the statement "There exists a strong consensus against deleting or even deprecating portals at this time." This was made possible because you and others came to the rescue. Thank you for speaking up.

By the way, the current issue of the Signpost features an article with interviews about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

I'd also like to let you know that the Portals WikiProject is working hard to make sure your support of portals was not in vain. Toward that end, we have been working diligently to innovate portals, while building, updating, upgrading, and maintaining them. The project has grown to 80 members so far, and has become a beehive of activity.

Our two main goals at this time are to automate portals (in terms of refreshing, rotating, and selecting content), and to develop a one-page model in order to make obsolete and eliminate most of the 150,000 subpages from the portal namespace by migrating their functions to the portal base pages, using technologies such as selective transclusion. Please feel free to join in on any of the many threads of development at the WikiProject's talk page, or just stop by to see how we are doing. If you have any questions about portals or portal development, that is the best place to ask them.

If you would like to keep abreast of developments on portals, keep in mind that the project's members receive updates on their talk pages. The updates are also posted here, for your convenience.

Again, we can't thank you enough for your support of portals, and we hope to make you proud of your decision. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   18:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: if you reply to this message, please ping me. Thank you. -TT

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

SEIU Local 615
Hi - you’ve reverted my redirect for this article even though all relevant information about this is already in the destination article. Would you rather I took it to AfD instead or go ahead as per WP:BOLD? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I count at least four facts that are not in the destination article. If we really want to be bold, I think that readers would be better served by fixing the current article to represent both "New England 615", as it is currently known, and the historical Local 615. A good model is the article on the International Brotherhood of Stationary Firemen, which is today also subsumed into 32BJ and known as the National Conference of Firemen and Oilers. Since SEIU Local 615 is a stub, though, maybe we should move the article to New England 615 and go from there. What do you think? --JECE (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi @ - I’m not sure I can find any notable coverage of either SEIU Local 615, or New England 615, that couldn’t be included under the merged unions section of 32BJ - but I’m not US-based which automatically excludes me from certain sources. My preference would still be to merge into 32BJ and redirect, but if you find any notable coverage let me know :) Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Area studies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch studies. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Knolles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Mathieu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Airspace
Hi. Since you are interested in what's happening in Western Sahara, I was wondering whether you have access to more information about Spain's advice not to fly over Western Sahara's airspace (given the ongoing war)? This is what I found so far. Regards. M.Bitton (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi! I remember reading about this at the time, but I think that you have already found better sources than those that I had come across. I don't think that it's just 'Spain' that issued the recommendation, though. Were you looking for anything in particular? --JECE (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing in particular, just more info if possible before adding it to the article. I thought it was just Spain since it's the country that is responsible for WS's airspace, or am I mistaken? M.Bitton (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how it works, but I assumed that the Canary Islands FIR's authority stems from the ICAO. In any case, your last source also mentions an FAA warning, so it's not just a Spanish warning. Part of the Western Sahara is also covered by the Dakar FIR, by the way, as mentioned in your last source and illustrated on these two maps: . --JECE (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, the FAA also issued an earlier warning. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The latest incident
The incident is covered here. Obviously, it has nothing to do with the clashes. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I still don't understand your point of view. The incident clearly has a place in the other article, but I think that it obviously also has a place in 2020–2021 Western Saharan clashes. Two of the three sources that we have discussed make the same connection: the Al Jazeera English source and the RTVE source . --JECE (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources link the Guerguerat clashes with the latest incident about the 3 truck drivers. Besides, it took place in another location. M.Bitton (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , what are you talking about? "The Algerian statement did not specify the exact location where the bombardment took place. But Akram Kharief, editor of Algerian website Mena Defense, said that 'the Algerian truckers were killed in Bir Lahlou', on a highway through the part of Western Sahara controlled by the Polisario Front. The Polisario in November declared a three-decade ceasefire 'null and void' after Moroccan forces broke up a blockade of a highway into Mauritania, which the independence movement said was built in violation of a 1991 truce." More than a third of the RTVE article about this incident is dedicated to the war and also places the bombardment in Western Sahara.  --JECE (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with what happened, but like I said, none of the sources link it with the Guerguerat clashes (the two are unrelated). M.Bitton (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not sure what the disconnect is. The clashes have always been along the full length of the berm. They are not limited to the Guerguerat area. The Al Jazeera article mentions that the bombardment happened in Bir Lahlou of the Liberated Territories, and then immediately follows that up in the next sentence by clarifying that the area is now a warzone because of the Guerguerat highway incident. How is that not a link between the bombardment and the clashes? And the RTVE article, titled "Algeria condemns the death of three civilians in an Moroccan bombardment in Western Sahara and promises revenge", dedicates 40% of the paragraphs to the ongoing clashes. Again, that is a clear attempt to say that the two are related. --JECE (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bir Lahlou is far away from Guergurat and that's exactly what makes the bombardment of civilians all the more serious. I intend to update the Algeria-Morocco relations article later; hopefully, it will make it clearer. M.Bitton (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that you have been following the war very closely. The majority of the fighting has taken place nowhere near Guerguerat. This makes perfect sense, since SPLA military power would only get weaker the further away you get from the refugee camps in Tindouf, and Guerguerat is literally as far from Tindouf as you can get, unless you count La Güera. --JECE (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been following the war, but until proven otherwise, this incident has nothing to do with it. For all we know, they could have been targeted because of the latest developments between Algeria and Morocco (which would make more sense). M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , again, what on earth are you talking about?
 * 1. The only way we are going to prove what happened is if Morocco admits to killing the civilians, but they won't even admit that there is an ongoing war. How are they going to admit to collateral damage? We don't require that level of proof for incidents in Syria, for example. It's obvious to editors that such incidents are related to the Syrian War.
 * 2. I pointed to two news sources that make the connection between these killings and the war. The Saharawi Republic also draws a connection between the incident and the war, by the way: . You have provided no evidence to back your theory, which you say makes sense, but makes no sense at all to me.
 * 3. Do you understand that the war is being waged in the vicinity of cities like Bir Lahlou, Al Mahbes and all along the berm? Look up yourself where the fighting has been taking place over the last three days:, ,.
 * --JECE (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources don't connect the two. All the SADR source that you mentioned above says is: {tq|this assassination "proves the malice of the Moroccan regime and the extent of its hostility and its allies not only towards the Saharawi people but also against the peoples of the region"|q=yes}}. It's early day, there is no rush, if they do at some point in future, then we'll know about it. M.Bitton (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is true, but the Al Jazeera English quote does connect the two, as I explained above. It makes the connection that the bombing took place in the warzone. --JECE (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this source (which was published right after the incident, when we didn't know much about it)? Where does it connect the two? M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is getting to be very circular, . As I said above, "The Al Jazeera article mentions that the bombardment happened in Bir Lahlou of the Liberated Territories, and then immediately follows that up in the next sentence by clarifying that the area is now a warzone because of the Guerguerat highway incident." --JECE (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right about one thing: this is getting to be very circular. Let's try a new method: since Algeria has complained officially to the U.N., why don't we wait until the investigation is over and see what they say? M.Bitton (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)