User talk:JPxG/Archive7

The Sewer Cover Barnstar
JPxG, thank you very much for toughing through the Sewer Cover Barnstar challenge. You not only read through one of those date articles (2008), but you made substantial copy edits to it. I might ask if you were frightened by the prospect of wading into an endless fountain of disconnected trivia. But I expect you might answer something along the lines of this:

"Frightened? You are talking to a man who has laughed in the face of death -- sneered at doom and chuckled at catastrophe. I was petrified. Then suddenly I felt a burst of, editing energy and I greatly improved the article, after which, I came to your talk page where I was acclaimed First Editor of Trivia de Luxe!"

You, sir, have joined an elite club that is populated exclusively by those who can tough through abject boredom and prevail using nothing but shear willpower. Greg L (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * willpower? I think that's only possessed by shepherds.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol. jp×g 11:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-23
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from . It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from . It will be on all wikis from (calendar).

Future changes
 * The Wikimedia movement uses Phabricator for technical tasks. This is where we collect technical suggestions, bugs and what developers are working on. The company behind Phabricator will stop working on it. This will not change anything for the Wikimedia movement now. It could lead to changes in the future.
 * Searching on Wikipedia will find more results in some languages. This is mainly true for when those who search do not use the correct diacritics because they are not seen as necessary in that language. For example searching for  doesn't find   on German Wikipedia. The character   isn't used in German so many would write   instead. This will work better in the future in some languages.
 * Octicons-tools.svg The CSRF token parameters in the action API were changed in 2014. The old parameters from before 2014 will stop working soon. This can affect bots, gadgets and user scripts that still use the old parameters.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 

20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The NI protocol page is inciting public disorder under the obscene publication act the text needs to removed or amended.

Comment from 161.23.160.115
Question about removing facts on NI protocol - I think wikipedia is not neutral or citing their sources correctly.

Strange how you've removed my edit as 'vandalism' when the comment you have input has no reference or source apart from to stir up trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.23.160.115 (talk • contribs)
 * Edits like this, in which you add At every turn the EU has tried to destroy the UK bid for independence from the unchecked totalitarian regime. Traitors who don't care for the future of their children support the oppressive EU totalitarian 'corporation', need to be cited to something. Whether they are "traitors who don't care for the future of their children" or not is irrelevant; the statement has to be attributed to a reliable source and expressed in a neutral point of view. For example, you might have better luck saying something like "Joe Smith, of the Wetumpka Picayune-Argus, said that "Traitors who don't care for the future of their children support the oppressive EU totalitarian 'corporation'", and include a link to Joe Smith's column in the Wetumpka Picayune-Argus where he said that. jp×g 10:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't the comment in question though was it? I understand you want to restrict my freedom of speech but it's a two way street my friend. I can provide you with the laws that show the unchecked vertical direct effect of the EU on the previously sovereign states that created it, if that helps? The 'sovereign' states have no control over what the EU does and is much like a leviathan. The edit in question was you pitting UK and Ireland against each other with no source so I removed it. It appears your NI protocol page is just a dig at the United Kingdom?
 * Well, I don't know, maybe you are right and it's terrible; I've never been to Europe before, and I've never read a single sentence of this article prior to tonight. If you cited the things you're talking about – or, preferably, some secondary sources analyzing their impact – sure, go nuts (but I don't think you are going to get to "unchecked totalitarian regime" out of that without some serious WP:SYNTH). jp×g 11:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, I'll collate some sources and get back to you. All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.23.160.115 (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

your revert
Sorry, I was adding information on the eunuchs of the Oudh state and was in the middle of a revision adding new information and fixing spelling when Keith D. fixed citations and spellings here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oudh_State&diff=1027948812&oldid=1027945889. So then I edited over Keith D's version here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oudh_State&diff=1027949498&oldid=1027948812 I then manually tried to re add Keith D's citation fixes but I inadvertently reintroduced my capitalization mistake. I will re add the information I was adding now that I explained what was going on. Keith D's version included the capitalization mistake and I was copy pasting the paragraphs with the fixed citations from his version.Uorockum (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me, apologies for the confusion. jp×g 20:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

June 2021, Regarding revert
Hello, JPxG. I am very new to Wikipedia and am not sure if this is an appropriate convention, but considering you have communicated with me on my Talk page, I wanted to reply back to you on yours. (If this is not what I should do in this case, please delete this! And I apologize!!) But anyway, This is user Yanzi526 and I see that you recently reverted this edit to Yu Yan (singer). Again, I want to apologize if this is not the correct way to handle such issues, but I wanted to ask directly what about this edit does not seem constructive. (??)

To explain the edit I made, another user added an inaccurate Korean name (it does not seem appropriate considering the singer in question is not of Korean origin and as someone who is a fluent Korean speaker, I can confirm the Korean text has an inaccurate pronunciation.) Additionally, I have added more recent career developments and links to new social media that has opened up in the past few days, as well as some citations. (I am currently trying to add MORE citations but I cannot do that when you keep reverting my edit!) At the current time, I am one of the few people contributing to this page and again, because I am new to this, I am not very good at adding citations. However, I understand this is extremely important and would like to do so properly. If there is any assistance you could provide, that would be appreciated. It is not my intention to vandalize the page in question and would really appreciate a few hours to go back and edit without anyone reverting the changes constantly! Again, I appreciate your dedication to keeping Wikipedia an accurate place. However, I am writing from verifiable sources and am just having trouble adding them to the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanzi526 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Yanzi! I didn't have a problem with the rest of the edit. Mostly, what I saw was that the sentence fragment "She is also well known for her " kept being added in the middle of the article, which is usually what someone does if they are trying to mess around. From your comment, it seems like you clearly aren't, so you can go nuts on the rest of it if you want and I'll leave it alone. Apologies for the misunderstanding -- I'm glad that you have come here to tell me about it, and I hope you have a good time on Wikipedia! jp×g 04:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback Request
Hi there! I have recently made a request for an assessment of the article Puppetry of the Penis on various WikiProjects. I have been editing this article for over a month, adding almost 3000 words, new sections, an infobox, media and more references for verifiability. I noticed you were a very active (and helpful) editor of Wikipedia and was wondering if you had the time if you could have a look at the article and provide me any feedback. I understand if it's not your area of expertise, but any general feedback would be much appreciated and possibly an assessment of the article for importance and quality. Thank you very much. Rubyredgirl (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, I've been seeing a shitload of edits on that article in WP:HG (I assume they're all getting flagged because of the "penis" in the name). I've been wondering what the article itself is about... so if I get some time, sure, I'll check it out. jp×g 09:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's really interesting I had no idea thank you for informing me JPxG! I actually just included on the article talk page a banner about Wikipedia censorship because they have very strict rules about not removing certain important information just because its deemed "inappropriate", but I guess you're right the word 'penis' is just flagged instantly. Very annoying when I've spent so long working on this article. But thank you for your reply I appreciate it a lot. Rubyredgirl (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hang on
just wait one second. Now I may not have the best 'stash in the world, country , state , town ... but that does not mean I can't be trusted. Thank you very much. — Ched (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol! Don't worry, mine is pretty scraggly too. I understand... jp×g 22:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Preston Sturges
A few people have accused my edits of being disruptive, and so I have attempted a "compromise" edit in an attempt to address my concern, and even if anyone disagrees with that edit, I will not make any more changes to the Preston Sturges article. I don't believe my edits were disruptive, and I believe that the accusation of disruption is more in response to the edit war itself, rather than to the content of the edit. It takes two people to engage in an edit war, so I'm hoping someone at least reached out to Beyond my Ken as well.

I think people might, just might, realize I have a point if they actually bother to read and consider my point, that the statements I'm trying to remove literally make no sense.

As I pointed out in my original edit, the article as it stands claims that "Sturges would typically "deliver an exquisitely turned phrase and take an elaborate pratfall within the same scene" and then cited an alleged "example" of a tender love scene interrupted by a horse; cited example is neither an example of a turn of phrase, nor an example of a pratfall." I then clarified the reason for my objection -- "A horse is not a pratfall," a statement that would be axiomatic anywhere except in Wikipedia edits -- and I also proposed a solution -- "this claim needs clarification." I even suggested one possible form of clarification -- "Is the point simply the juxtaposition of comedy and drama? Then say so, minus the hyperbole." In short, I explained the reason for the edit, I suggested a solution that might warrant keeping the content, and I even tried to find some common ground to help aid in that clarification. All of this was ignored and I was instead accused of being disruptive. I suppose I could have avoided the accusation of disruption by not engaging in the edit war, but seriously, the only justification for declaring my edits to be disruptive is if you ignore my multiple attempts to explain the edit, propose a solution, and reach common ground.

I do have to also point out that the reason for the most recent revert of my revert doesn't make any sense, and now we're getting to the realm of absurdity here. The most recent reason was "you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so."

I've never heard of anyone being asked to provide a source for removing Wikipedia content. Is there a reason why my edit is being held to some sort of standard that isn't typically applied to Wikipedia edits in general? Keep in mind, I'm not making any claims in the edit itself -- bold or otherwise. It seems that the claim that a horse is a pratfall would be the bolder claim, and while a source is cited, as I have already pointed out, nowhere in the cited source does it claim that a horse is a pratfall.

Furthermore, the subjective nature of the content I deleted would, again, be accepted as "subjective" anywhere except in Wikipedia edits. The argument that Sturges was "surprisingly naturalistic, mature, and ahead of its time" -- I actually agree with that statement, but it's a matter of opinion. The article cites a source, but that doesn't mean that the article's author is objectively right. Clarifying the claim with something like, "according to this source, Sturges's work has the following qualities" but the article, as written, doesn't do that. It just makes the claim that Sturges was "surprisingly" naturalistic and mature, as if that's an objective fact.

Anyway, I'm hoping but really not expecting for you to read this and see that I wasn't trying to be disruptive. I'm also going to forward this to Beyond my Ken's page, talk page, just so he knows about this communication. (I think it's only fair.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.152.76 (talk • contribs)
 * Reading what you've written here, and now looking at the edit in the context of the entire article, it seems at least arguable to me that you are correct and that the previous version of the article was rather silly in describing the scene as a "pratfall" (I haven't watched the film in question, so all I have to go by is the Guardian piece and the Wikipedia article). Certainly, your compromise edit looks fine to me, and I've restored it. I'm not sure what everyone else was thinking; you will probably have to wait and see what they have to say about it. In all honesty, if you were to make a section on the article's talk page and then say the same thing you said here (even if it was the same block of text, and pinged me and BMK at the beginning for context), I wouldn't complain, and I'd be fine with reinstating your version, since I don't think anyone brought up a real objection. I think what most likely happened is that everyone saw a big-ass chunk of text (including a reference) disappear from the article and got BTFO. BMK may have more in-depth opinions, because per authorship information they have written a lot of the article, but if a talk page discussion (or RfC) is opened I don't see what harm could come of it. jp×g 21:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Extremely biased (or incompent, you pick 🙄)
You think cleaning up the extremely biased entry and removing factually incorrect information and outright lies and broken links is "not constructive"? 🤨 Here's some problems with that entry:


 * There is NOTHING in any news or reports about him "targeting random Muslims".
 * They were not waiting to cross the street, they were walking on the sidewalk.
 * There is no information about them dying at hospital, witnesses indicated they were already dead at the scene; police haven't confirmed either way.
 * There is currently absolutely no evidence of him being "a far-right extremist", and certainly not in the page linked in the citation (did you even bother to check? I DID. 🙄)
 * The sentence "The victims were all from the same family of three generations." is clunky and horribly written. (as is "the ones killed…" and "drove into a street") - who the hell wrote this? 🤨
 * The line about them being hit "in the Hyde Park." is factually incorrect, they were hit on a sidewalk on Hyde Park road, NOT IN A PARK. 🤦
 * The type of attack is listed as "vehicular rampage" which is anything but NPOV; in fact, every other vehicular entry says "vehicular attack", RAMPAGE is extremely biased. 😒
 * This entry is longer than almost every other entry in this page, it goes into far too much detail for the purposes of this list.
 * The discussion of who was injured or died is also clunky and quite redundant and repetitive and unnecessarily verbose. 🙄
 * The accusation of his motive is premature at best and false at worst. As I said in the edit note, the case just started and the trial has barely begun, let alone there being a conviction. 🤦 This entry doesn't even say "seems to be" or "may have been" or even "presumed to be", it makes the statement of his motive as if it is a fact, a confirmed foregone conclusion which it most certainly is NOT.
 * This entry is extremely unprofessionally written and incredibly biased. WikiPedia demands a NPOV. If you don't understand that, you have no right to be messing around with articles. 🙄

I'm reverting my change. If you undo it again and revert to that overtly biased nonsense, I'll be filing a complaint. 😠 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.165.99 (talk • contribs)
 * I will grant that some of the stuff you took out was crap, but your edit removed a reference for no apparent reason; the link works perfectly fine and the Toronto Star is "Canada's highest-circulation newspaper in overall weekly circulation", a reliable source cited in approximately 20,400 mainspace articles. It was neither fake nor dead. The section was badly written, but it doesn't make sense to excise citations (a badly written section should be given more sources, not fewer). Your second edit broke tags (you changed ":11" to ":1"); you also added stuff like "landed immigrants since 2007" (when the source cited for this claim says they moved there "about 14 years ago" and doesn't seem to say anything about them owning land). jp×g 20:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Making male supremacist hate edits, reverting improperly sourced sections added by disinformation campaign
Hi there :, you've been awfully focused on making sure disinformation campaign content by a male supremacist politician remains unchecked. Also making insinuations on my talk page of conflict of interest and/or that I'm a paid editor. I'm not. I have zero affiliation with the people or organizations. I am interested, however, in removing self-serving content contributed by authors abusing Wikipedia for disinformation and political manipulation in their own interest. I removed the section because the entirety of its content was by the politician himself with no verification by others (despite witnesses as made clear in media articles). It's part of a disinformation campaign against a female politician trying to kill a bill that she wrote. Please do a better job reviewing edits for disinformation and content that is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitecatwearinghat (talk • contribs)
 * The story referenced in those articles is from Blake Paterson, who's a staff writer for the Advocate. This website is referenced in some 1,807 articles; there's no WP:RSP entry for it, but our article on the Advocate describes it as "Louisiana's largest daily newspaper" and notes that it won a Pulitzer Prize in 2019. It seems quite unlikely that this publication would fabricate quotes from state legislators, or participate in a "disinformation campaign". Currently, the part quoted in the article gives attribution, i.e. in Alan Seabaugh it says On June 9, 2021, Seabaugh accused Malinda Brumfield White of threatening to shoot him with a gun during a dispute over a domestic-abuse bill under consideration. White "later apologized on the House floor for the altercation", and in Malinda Brumfield White it says On June 9, 2021, State Representative Alan Seabaugh of Shreveport accused White of threatening to shoot him with a gun during a dispute over a domestic-abuse bill under consideration. White "later apologized on the House floor for the altercation". These are both directly backed up by the source; is there an issue here I'm not aware of? jp×g 04:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Again, jp, you've ignored my entire points in favor of enabling white male supremacist propaganda on Wikipedia.Whitecatwearinghat (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a problem, and your response completely ignores addressing my criticism of your biased, male supremacist editing of controversy that shows either intentional participation in political manipulation or inadequate familiarity with standards for reporting and writing histories on political disinformation campaigns and the domestic abuse at issue in the legislation that is the subject of the controversy. To start with 101 problems, 1) no context of the historical legislation at issue provided or its relation to the epidemic of femicide, 2) it's a one-sided account that sensationalizes and mischaracterizes accusatory quotes by a male politician who instigated an argument with the female politician, who is a domestic abuse survivor and author of the legislation with family law professors and domestic violence experts. He's the one who brought up guns in the first place. Her account of his actions in the argument is excluded. This alone is by definition male supremacist.


 * The page should simply be reverted back to how it was prior to the original vandalism on Malinda White's page and self-serving narrative on Alan Seabaugh's page that are contradicted by the many news sources who have covered this legislation for months. Everything that started with the content added by the anonymous IP address with fingerprints of the Alan Seabaugh and/or lobby that orchestrated this political stunt targeting Malinda White to kill her bill to improve laws on intimate partner and child abuse should be removed.


 * I ask that you revert both Malinda White and Alan Seabaugh's pages to June 9 versions as they were before the anonymous IP vandalized with propagandistic content and discontinue editing these pages, as well as other political controversies particularly relating to gendered violence and harassment.Whitecatwearinghat (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Is your claim that the Advocate is an unreliable source? I'm not sure what the legislators being male or female has to do with this. It seems to me that White is a Democrat, and Seabaugh is a Republican; I'm given to the understanding that Democrats and Republicans don't like each other (and disagree on many things), so this seems to be the primary motivation for them getting into an argument. I'd be glad to open an RfC on the talk page of one of the articles, or start a thread at WP:RSN about whether the Advocate can be used for this claim (although if you wanted to do so yourself, this would be fine as well). jp×g 21:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I outlined pretty clearly what my claim of male supremacist biased edits regurgitating edits made on a with fingerprints of the politician himself. They are poorly sourced with one article despite much that has been written, and they are likely defamatory and mischaracterizations of the event. You haven't responded to a single problem with your edits that I outlined.

The event was about bipartisan domestic abuse bill to improve the enforcement of the rights of women and children, supported by women's rights groups and the women's caucus. This is a state where the femicide rate is top 5 in nation, and the gender disparity in domestic violence is astronomical. It's an extremely gendered topic, you're edits are male supremacist, and don't comply with Wikipedia's editing standards for living person bios and public officials requiring research from multiple sources and viewpoints for unbiased editing or that content added that includes bias and likely defamatory content, with fingerprints of the person who it's about or their political opponents, should be removed. That you have so little understanding of what the content you edited is about, and you've only apparently read one article that you keep pointing to is a big red flag. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures

Your responses detracting from the substance of my criticism aren't helping this get resolved. Given the long problem with sexism in Wikipedia, how women are excluded and misrepresented by editors, I'd hope you'd be more in tune and responsive to the issues raised in your editing. Whitecatwearinghat (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right; WP:BLPPUBLIC does say that accusations should be substantiated by multiple sources. I have added four additional citations about the incident to the articles in question. jp×g 20:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, there is certainly an issue of insignificant peccadilloes being added to biographies of living people (i.e. "dumb tweets from twelve years ago"), but in this case, the consensus of reliable sources seems to hold that threatening to shoot someone with a gun is unacceptable behavior from an elected official. I really don't think this is a Democrat/Republican thing. jp×g 20:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

cease and desist vandalizing armenian genocide and bi'ching on administrators protection board wikijerk
3rr vandal u r duh duh DUH en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Talat_Pasha so that means you are unreliable since u edited this too!
 * It seems like you're doing this for fun (since you've ignored all of the people telling you this previously), but in the event that you are actually interested in editing the article to include a certain piece of information, all you need to do is cite the source that you got it from. It's really that simple -- this is not some kind of political agenda. If you find this difficult, feel free to drop me a message and I'll help you figure it out. Cheers, jp×g 05:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * A simple google search would have shown that the content this IP address contributed is 100% verifiable by multiple sources including international media, national media in Armenia, and history books. Instead of silencing people who are working to historicize in a global, free encyclopedia something as important and traumatic as Armenian genocide by abusing your reverting power, you could have helped by editing to beef up the citation if you felt it wasn't sourced properly or sending it to another editor willing to help. And you participated with others in having this IP address blocked from Wikipedia for criticizing your editing as unreliable? Whitecatwearinghat (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BURDEN (which constitutes policy here), the responsibility for providing sources rests entirely on the editor adding material. Sourcing is important to prevent defamatory (or simply incorrect) information from being added to an encyclopedia whose content most people simply take as fact. This is as much a protection for people who hold an opinion as it is to people who oppose that opinion; allowing unsourced claims here would also permit people to add information about how the Armenian genocide wasn't a big deal, and the only thing determining what our articles said at any given time would be which side of the argument signed up for more VPNs. If you, or the editor in question, supplied links to these sources, I would be happy to defend adding the material (or even to format it myself). jp×g 21:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

That's not what happened here. The content was well-sourced in the reference section for the page. Every line doesn't need an inline citation, and there was no quote, obscure fact or other reason to demand inline citation. It was basic history, common knowledge to people who are up-to-date on this history. What I'm most concerned about is the revert silences and punishes people who coming to Wikipedia to try to historicize a genocide that has been inaccurately portrayed and hushed for so long. This was a neutral sourced edit. Deleting content, blocking, inflames emotions, and it's could be deeply upsetting to an editor of heritage, ethnicity or geography connected to a genocide to be deleted by someone who doesn't appear to know much if anything about it or intentionally manipulating. It comes off as Western or U.S.-based editors popping in asserting authority over the narrative they have no right to control like that.Whitecatwearinghat (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's basic history and common knowledge, it should be pretty simple to find a source. jp×g 23:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:James Barry (surgeon)&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment, and &#32;at Talk:Riemannian geometry&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-24
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * Logged-in users on the mobile web can choose to use the advanced mobile mode. They now see categories in a similar way as users on desktop do. This means that some gadgets that have just been for desktop users could work for users of the mobile site too. If your wiki has such gadgets you could decide to turn them on for the mobile site too. Some gadgets probably need to be fixed to look good on mobile.
 * Language links on Wikidata now works for multilingual Wikisource.

Changes later this week
 * There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes
 * In the future we can't show the IP of unregistered editors to everyone. This is because privacy regulations and norms have changed. There is now a rough draft of how showing the IP to those who need to see it could work.
 * German Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage and 29 smaller wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on 22 June. This is planned between 5:00 and 5:30 UTC.
 * All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes in the week of 28 June. More information will be published in Tech News later. It will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 

20:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Concerns regarding
Hello, JPxG, thank you for your comment. Could you tell me what exactly why it did not appear constructive? IS there a reason that this inflammatory rhetoric keeps being added back despite the fact that the entire page was rewritten in a neutral stance? 50.212.14.35 (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me like there were large portions of sourced content being removed in order to promote a specific political point of view. jp×g 20:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

"Styrofoam" swimming board


On a related topic, do you think there is any chance this floatation device is actually styrofoam and not EVA foam? It seems like styrofoam would be a bit brittle to survive small children for long. It's a featured picture, so probably worth correcting if wrong. HLHJ (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, you're right. That definitely isn't polystyrene -- looks like polyethylene to me (or perhaps maybe EVA). Perhaps I go wave my arms around wildly on Commons. Also, I saw your ping from the edit summary on the EVA article, and all of the things in the gallery right now are almost certainly EVA (including the flutterboard). Will take a look at the rest of the stuff later... jp×g 05:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Polyethylene seems more probable to me, too; there's the bleaching and ~fraying of the cut edges that you don't really get with EVA. Mind you, the photographer has unaccountably chosen to focus on the child instead of the foam, so it's a bit hard to see. I do think it's very useful to have a gallery of common uses near the top of the articles on materials, so that the reader sees what things they handle regularly are the article-subject material, and thus inductively learns what said article-subject material is (a chemical formula, while obviously essential, is not as likely to be useful to the average reader). Honestly a picture of pool noodles might not be all that useful for that; there's already enough unambiguous images of EVA to give a good idea to people from a broad variety of backgrounds, much better than on most articles. So don't stress it. I've tagged the picture for factual accuracy of the caption and title. HLHJ (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Active Wikipedia database reports has been nominated for discussion
Category:Active Wikipedia database reports has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Roman Protasevich&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Ages of consent in Europe&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Template talk:Infobox UK place&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:George Washington&#32; on a "Biographies" 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Ilhan Omar&#32; on a "Biographies" 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops
I have just realised I may have stepped into your review of Public Universal Friend. I apologise, I’m newish to reviewing GAs. As in, I’ve been around the traps, but GA is something I’m not largely experienced in. All my concerns have been addressed except one but which could be resolved with a footnote. How do you want me to proceed with unpicking my faux pas? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A quick ping… how do you want to end that review? Is it GA? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like I am getting to this quite late, but it looks like the GA has already passed, so there's not much useful for me to say. Mostly, I had some concerns about the large amount of contemporary sourcing from potentially opinionated publications, but I didn't know if it was worth holding up a GA over and I didn't have enough specific knowledge of the subject to be confident in doing so. jp×g 20:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * all good, I thought it was OK in terms of the sourcing for a GA nomination so I passed it. Hope that was OK. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you kindly review and add to gaslighting wiki
https://emcee-senior.medium.com/a-conversation-becomes-an-argument-and-after-the-argument-the-victim-either-gets-emotionally-8edabd071c93 Dsm+sam (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by this. jp×g 20:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Sean Spicer&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:State Arsenal (Providence, Rhode Island)&#32; on a "Society, sports, and culture" 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-25
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * Octicons-tools.svg The  group name is now  . This could affect abuse filters.

Problems
 * You will be able to read but not edit German Wikipedia, English Wikivoyage and 29 smaller wikis for a few minutes on 22 June. This is planned between 5:00 and 5:30 UTC.

Changes later this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from . It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from . It will be on all wikis from (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 

15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Jessica Yaniv&#32; on a "Biographies" 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Hardcore (punk rock and heavy metal subgenre)&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 03:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink. Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 13:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Norman K. Risjord&#32; 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 :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-26
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * Wikis with the Growth features now can configure Growth features directly on their wiki. This uses the new special page.
 * Wikisources have a new OCR tool. If you don't want to see the "extract text" button on Wikisource you can add  to your common.css page.

Problems
 * You will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia wikis for a few minutes on 29 June. This is planned at 14:00 UTC.

Changes later this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from . It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from . It will be on all wikis from (calendar).

Future changes
 * ,  and   can be set in preferences. They are expensive to maintain and few editors use them. The developers are planning to remove them. Removing them will make pages load faster. You can read more and give feedback.
 * A toolbar will be added to the Reply tool's wikitext source mode. This will make it easier to link to pages and to ping other users.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 

16:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)