User talk:Jonathan9898

Welcome!
Peaceray (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Please be more careful
Jonathan9898, welcome to Wikipedia! I've undone your recent changes to a couple of articles, Point system (driving), and Bruce Yamashita. The problem was that you have made changes to the WP:LEAD section of the article in both cases, and the lead has special requirements as it is a summary of the most important points of the article, so jumping in and changing the lead of an article is usually not the right approach, unless it is is problematic and does not summarize the body, not the case with these two.

It's also important to get into using good editing habits as you start out, and one of the most important things to understand, is that all content at Wikipedia must be WP:Verifiable, and the best way to demonstrate that, is by the addition of citations to reliable sources for any factual content that is added. Except for two articles on software companies, I don't see that happening yet, but from those two, I see that you know how to do so, so keep up the good work, and keep Verifiability and citations in mind, as you edit. See Help:Footnotes for some good tips about this.

Thank you for including edit summaries with your edits, that's a great habit to get into early. As for your changes to article content, it's okay to change it to improve the language, or make it read more smoothly, even if it doesn't involve changing any factual information; in that case, you don't need additional citations. On the other hand, any change to wording or grammar should improve the article in some concrete way, no matter how small. I looked at your other contributions, and the majority of them seemed to me kind of pointless shifting around of words in sentences, changing words or phrases to synonyms or other near-equivalents, and some minor changes of meaning. The end result of of these edits was that the newer version is neither better, nor worse, than the original, and sometimes it is worse.

One problem with this approach to editing, is that you may have some preference in choice of phrasing or word order, but someone else may have a different choice, and in the end, it's just a matter of style or preference, and doesn't really expand the knowledge base or improve the encyclopedia in any concrete way; it's just make-work. For example, the changes at Scott W. Tinker, Franco-Thai Chamber of Commerce, Robert Ross Ferguson, Monthly nurse, Fellowship of Companies for Christ International, World Information Service on Energy, and Conductor (company) didn't leave those articles any better afterward than they were before, and it just seemed like pointless word-pushing. (Those were just the ones I had time to check.)

At Robert Ross Ferguson, for example: the "before" and "after" in the first part of your changes started out: Normally, we don't wikilink major cities (like Winnipeg) and regions, per MOS:LINK, but you wouldn't know that yet as a new editor, so that's no big deal. The change from "Two months later" to "" seems pointless; if anything, it's less precise. The change from "his parents moved" to "" likewise seems pointless. The change from "where his father, Dr. R.G. Ferguson, had been appointed" to "where his father, Dr. R.G. Ferguson was appointed" is a change of meaning, because before the change, they moved after he had received a job offer (makes sense), whereas in your version, they moved and then his father got a job (after? seems unlikely, and would need a source). Your version is worse, in that case, although you added a wikilink for Dr Ferguson, which is an improvement. That's only the first sentence, much of the rest of that edit is similar, although there are a couple of issues with it as well: you dropped the wikilink for No. 87 Squadron RAF: why? In the part about where he was shot down over France, you added a new assertion that he was placed into the TB Sanatorium, Chennai. At the very minimum, any new assertion would require a new citation; but this one is so wildly off-base and obviously false, that you should just immediately remove it; what was going through your mind when you added that? On balance, this edit (rev. 1139258049 of 05:27, 14 February 2023) is not an improvement to the article; for the most part, it's just pushing words around to no real end; and in a couple of cases it's problematic, with the unsourced, inaccurate assertion clearly the worst of it. You should undo that edit by going to the article, clicking the "History" tab at the top, finding your edit in the history listing, and clicking the "undo" link next to your edit.
 * Robert Ross Ferguson was born May 13, 1917, in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Two months later his parents moved to Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, where his father, Dr. R.G. Ferguson, had been appointed General Superintendent and Medical Director of the recently established...

This is just one edit, at one article. I went through the other articles, too, and they are mostly similar, involving a lot of pointless shifting around of words to no apparent benefit, with here and there some improvement, and here and there something problematic going on. Frankly, it takes a lot of time to analyze them in detail, so I hope you'll excuse me if I don't give each one the attention it deserves, but the pattern of the Ferguson article was visible in all the rest of them.

Going forward, I hope you will slow down and be more careful in your editing, so at least you don't run into sourcing problems or introduce inaccurate information into articles. It might help if you set yourself a goal about how exactly you plan to improve an article, before you open it for editing. It's not enough to edit an article with no plan, only to shift some words around; that is not why we as editors are here at the encyclopedia. You need to have a plan, and ask yourself before going in: "How do I plan to improve this article?" Almost always, the first step in that process involves gathering some reliable sources (books, reliable magazines and web sites) and reading up on the topic, before you begin.

If you need some pointers, tips, or tutorials, they are available; check the links in the Welcome message above for some of them. There are also mentors available to help bring new editors on board. You can also ask for editing help at the Tea house or the Help desk. Feel free to contact me below in reply, or at my talk page if you have specific questions. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Khresili
I wanted to let you know that I have undone your recent edit to Battle of Khresili, mostly for the same reasons as described above. The same thing is going on here, a seemingly aimless shifting around of words, or alteration of some words or expressions for other ones with similar meaning, for no apparent reason and resulting in no improvement to the article. In some specific ways, this edit made the article worse, in particular in the case of adding unsourced opinion to a sentence, which prompted the revert. I'm not going to go through the entire list of problems with this edit, as there are too many of them, but here is a sample: We're only at sentence three, maybe one-fifth of the way through your changes at this article, and I'm not going to go through the rest of it with individual examples, but it is pretty much all like that: pointless shifting around of words, insertion or alteration of words which in some cases may seem anodyne at first glance but change the meaning; and changes which make the grammar of the sentence incorrect, particularly in connection with definite and indefinite articles. Individually, none of these would have been worth a revert, and here and there, there are small improvements. However taken as a whole, there are so many changes that are not an improvement, or that make things worse in specific ways, that it's impossible to edit your version to improve it; the only reasonable way is by undoing it and either starting again, or leaving the article as it was before.
 * sentence 1 (the first sentence that appears in a diff of your changes):
 * Before: The Battle of Khresili holds significant historical value but is often misunderstood and underestimated.
 * After:
 * This changes the meaning; what is misunderstood: the battle (before), or its importance (your change)? Why is it now "greatly" underestimated, whereas before it was merely "underestimated"? I agree with your dropping "significant historical value", as it does seem like a fairly empty assessment (if it wasn't significant, we probably wouldn't have an article about it).
 * sentence 2 (part one)
 * It resulted in a decisive Georgian victory that put an end to Turkish influence in Western Georgia in the mid-1700s,
 * This was briefer, with no change in meaning; congrats–this is a small improvement, but nevertheless an improvement.
 * sentence 2 (part two)
 * ... which had begun with the Battle of Sokhoista in the mid-1500s during the zenith of Ottoman power.
 * This made it worse in at least two ways: the antecedent of "started" is "Turkish influence", which is a past event prior to the past event of the Georgian victory that ended it, therefore past perfect tense is required here. And what happend to the required definite articles which you dropped?
 * sentence 3 (part one)
 * Despite the Bagrationi dynasty maintaining control of the West Georgian (Imereti) kingdom during the subsequent two centuries of Turkish influence,
 * Worse. Shifting into passive mode just makes this more difficult to understand. The change of "subsequent two centuries" to "" is pointless and not better; ditto for changing "Despite" to ". Finally, once again you dropped the definite article in two places, so this is starting to seem like a pattern here.
 * sentence 3 (part two)
 * it was an Ottoman vassal, similar to Walachia or Hungary at the time.
 * Worse. Adding the definite article here is a mistake (it wasn't the only vassal); the indefinite "an" is required here. Also, what's up with the pointless duplication of "" here, already present in the first half of the sentence?
 * sentence 3 (part two)
 * it was an Ottoman vassal, similar to Walachia or Hungary at the time.
 * Worse. Adding the definite article here is a mistake (it wasn't the only vassal); the indefinite "an" is required here. Also, what's up with the pointless duplication of "" here, already present in the first half of the sentence?
 * Worse. Adding the definite article here is a mistake (it wasn't the only vassal); the indefinite "an" is required here. Also, what's up with the pointless duplication of "" here, already present in the first half of the sentence?

I hope you take these criticisms in the spirit in which they are intended: to improve your editing and help you develop into an effective and productive editor here. You are welcome to edit Wikipedia, and I hope you stay, and it will be easier to establish good editing habits now while you are still a new editor, as they become much harder to change later, if bad habits become set in stone. I have some concrete suggestions for you; let's do it in the form of "DO's" and "DON'Ts":
 * DON'T just start editing some article without first researching the topic.
 * DO read up on a topic with books from the library, Google books, and reliable magazines and web sites.
 * DON'T edit an article, figuring "I'll just improve the wording of this" on the fly as you edit, changing the text to whatever seems better at the moment you are editing.
 * DO make an editing plan: e.g., "I'm going to improve this article about a battle, by adding new information about the generals involved, and the order of battle, according to sources A, B, and C that I have found."
 * DON'T just change the wording of an article unless most editors would agree that there are specific problems with the wording that must be changed. Don't shift words around or use different words, just because you think it reads better that way, if some other editor might like the wording the way it was before.
 * DO use the Talk page associated with every article on Wikipedia (see the "Talk" tab at the top? That's it.) Create a new section on the Talk page, state your objections to the wording if you think there are serious problems, and see what other editors think about it. Collaborating with other users and achieving WP:CONSENSUS is a core feature of how Wikipedia works.

Well, this has gotten really long again, but I'm spending the time because I see that you have a desire to edit here, and I think you can become a good editor if you work on your editing to develop good habits. But please stop your pattern of "tossed salad" edits, that is starting to become WP:DISRUPTIVE; if you ignore this and carry on in the same pattern, it could result in your editing privileges being suspended, so please don't do that. Ask for help if you need it; I've left you links and suggestions in the previous message. I hope this helps, and if you have specific questions, you can always contact me at my Talk page, or by replying below. Good luck! Mathglot (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As a post-script: I did some research on Battle of Khresili in order to try to give you some specific pointers about how to improve this article, and it turns out that there is almost nothing available about it in English books, encyclopedias, academic journals, or magazines. There are some online sources, but most of these are prohibited blogs, self-published sites, and other sites of dubious reliability, so beware of anything you find on the web. In short, this is a very difficult topic for even a very experienced editor to edit, let alone someone who is just starting out. If you speak Turkish or Georgian, you *might* be able to edit this article if you know what you are doing, but I would advise against it. I'm not sure how you ended up at this article, but I'd recommend that for your next project, you choose a topic for which there are numerous books, articles, and other reliable sources available in English. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I've undone your edit to Gazzo (magician) for the same reasons as noted at the Battle article. One tip for you (this is not related to the reasons for the revert): it's typical in biographical articles to include the dates of birth and death in a parenthetical expression in the lead sentence. Wikipedia has an extensive Manual of Style, and the one covering biographical articles is WP:Manual of Style/Biography; you might want to have a look at it. For some examples of how to style the first sentence in a biographical article, see. So, if you find birth & death parentheticals like that, it's best to leave them styled that way; altering them without a specific justification of why it's an improvement could be seen as a MOS violation. Mathglot (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect wikilink targets
Thanks for trying to uphold Wikipedia's MOS:LINK guideline by adding links to some of the articles you are editing. Just as a heads-up, the guideline discourages adding wikilinks for countries (and other categories) so you don't need to link "Thailand" as you did in this edit at Franco-Thai Chamber of Commerce. (This is not a big deal, so don't worry about it; just keep it in mind for next time.)

When you do add a link, please make sure it targets the right destination page, and don't be misled or confused by similar wording. Unfortunately, at least a couple of times that I have noticed, you have added wikilinks pointing to the wrong page. Probably you got confused by similar names, but Wikipedia has 7 million articles, and a lot of them have similar names, so it's very important to check the content of the destination page, before you add a link to it in some other article, to make sure you are linking the right one.

The Franco-Thai Chamber of Commerce included a statement that the Franco-Thai Chamber of Commerce is "one of the most dynamic European chambers in Thailand". However, in your edit to the article, you changed this to "one of the most dynamic European chambers in Thailand", linking it to "European Chamber", which is a redirect to the European Parliament located in Strasbourg, France.

In the Robert Ross Ferguson article, as previously noted above, you added a wikilink to the TB Sanatorium, Chennai in India, half a world away from the sanatorium in France where a French WW2 pilot had been taken.

I've undone the Chamber of Commerce article, so you don't have to do anything with that one. But I've left the Robert Ross Ferguson article as is, for now. Can you please fix the improper link in the Ferguson article? That is, either target the link at the correct hospital, if you know what it is and we have an article on it, or remove the link entirely. Can I count on you to do this? Please acknowledge receiving this message, and let me know if you need help. Also, I think you would benefit from the mentorship program. If you want to try it, see Adopt-a-user. Mathglot (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Good day, Mathglot.
 * First and foremost, thank you so much for the effort you've put into educating me about all the DOs and DON'Ts; it really helps a lot. I have noticed the problems you mentioned, and I will start establishing good editing habits.
 * I'm sorry for the inconvenience, and again, thank you so much for the time and effort you've spent.
 * The improper links in the Ferguson article have been fixed. Please check it. Thank you. Jonathan9898 (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome! Don't worry about any inconvenience, we've all been there, and it takes making mistakes, and fixing them, in order to become more proficient as an editor. For starters, I see that you know how to reply, applying the proper level of indent (or maybe the reply tool does that these days? I'm kinda old skool so I do it the old way in the source code).
 * Also, your fix at Robert Ross Ferguson looks great, thanks! There's a gray area, on how "well-known" a city should be in order to skip linking it; probably most editors would think Ypres not as well known as Paris, or Antwerp, or Brussels, so possibly some might link it, other might not. Again, this is not a big deal, and your choice to unlink is eminently a defensible one; I might have done it the same way. There's no hard rule here; just keep in mind, that the smaller a town is or less well-known, the more likely that linking it would help most editors, instead of annoying them with an unnecessary link.
 * Have you tried some of the links that Peaceray left you in their welcome message at the top? All of them are worthwhile, but starting out with some of the intro links top left, if you haven't already, might be well worth it for you. Top right, you'll see a link for adopt-a-user, which is a mentorship program. That's something worth looking into. Feel free to contact me anytime, either by pinging me here, or by leaving me a message on my Talk page. Best of luck, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Xinhu Wealth


A tag has been placed on Xinhu Wealth, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

LICTA moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, LICTA, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel 5969  TT me 11:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Kabrita has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kabrita. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kabrita (June 10)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by BuySomeApples were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kabrita and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Kabrita Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BuySomeApples&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Kabrita reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BuySomeApples (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:LICTA
Hello, Jonathan9898. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:LICTA, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Kabrita
Hello, Jonathan9898. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kabrita, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Kabrita


Hello, Jonathan9898. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kabrita".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)