This is an archive of past discussions $5 $2. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current $4 page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited High-intensity focused ultrasound, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Focus. 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) 12:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of screw drives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multiples. 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) 09:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polyvinylidene fluoride, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crosslinking. 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) 10:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jacob Gotts. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jacob Gotts. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jacob Gotts. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating 1-Pentadecanol.

User:Kudpung while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

I have added for you: stub sort, project banner, category. These are things article creators can and should do.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Kudpung}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Help questions regarding mobile access, editing etc..happens often...like whats currently at Wikipedia talk:Teahouse#mobile device editing experts? despite the users claims to have never seen any. Did not mean to drag you into any personal conflict.--Moxy 🍁 05:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bud, sorry if this is the wrong space to contact you at. I'm having some trouble with your edits (Native American culture) that are, well quite frankly, a-historic and pretty offensive/racist that seems to want to continue to push an outdated Euro-centric view of American History. I'd greatly appreciate a little back and forth on the subject, given I have a Masters in American History (also a Native Son of America, not a European migrant) and am very up to date on the research, which is highly underfunded but still LIDAR is helping incredibly. I highly suggest you done some more research, I'm losing all my edits because I'm having a tough time figuring out how to revert them. I can't even revert the one I just reverted, actually. Please get back to me and let me know if I'm contacting you incorrectly.

(replied on user's talk page) { ${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$ } 08:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Limorina, I didn't understand why you removed some edits by Hayahd, so I added them back... please tell me why you did that though. Limorina (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to bundle pages into an AFD/MFD nomination? Probably not. If so, please learn how, so that you can bundle any more subpages. The ones that you have nominated separately can stay nominated separately (unless some admin wants to change things). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know you could do that. Thanks! {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 02:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Hooks Island at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I suppose I have ruined some formatting of the sentence but methinks the less car-savvy reader would want to know whether "platform" is referring to: the engine, the mechanics and stuff, or is it tbe structural bits and pieces (chassis is the name?), or maybe even something I'd call "overall design" (esthetics, visual appeal, auto's line, whatever it's name might be). I know I would. Is platform really all three of them? And some fourth on top? Anyway it's ambiguous. You could reinstate the huh template of you agree. I know I would. 🙂 Cheers --178.148.196.251 (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at it a second time, this makes sense to me. I'll revert to your version. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 22:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How are my edits disruptive? 98.15.10.143 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff which I reverted, you appear to have removed the publication date, title, author and access date from an inline citation, replacing it with a bare URL. Was there a reason for this? {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 00:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that link/citation because it was dead. The URL I linked goes to the correct IUCN page for the species. 98.15.10.143 (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're changing it to a different reference entirely, just add an additional ref tag, and if you're concerned about a dead URL, put {{Dead link|date=September 2020}} in the existing ref. Link rot is a known problem and not a good reason to delete valid references from an article. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 00:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacob Gotts, I noticed that you recently removed an abusive comment which was posted to my talk page. This same user has been posting similar comments to other talk pages. Is there a way to block the account? Thanks! werewolf (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Revirvlkodlaku: I reported them to AIV, so it'll probably happen pretty quick as soon as someone goes through there. That kind of shit is heinous and there is usually not much of a "chances" process for it, lol. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 00:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, I really appreciate it. By the way, how did you know they had left me that comment? werewolf (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It showed up in Special:RecentChanges -- there's filters you can set that will show you the edits most strongly suspected to be crap... and, what a shock, this one showed up there :P {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 00:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know that existed. Well good thing it does! werewolf (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend. Tommy John’s Don did not study medicine; that is a fact, easily corroborated by visiting his own professional website. Instead he studied chiropractic, as I have repeatedly corrected on the elder John’s page. Chiropractic, it is also easily corroborated, is NOT the study of medicine. You have no good right to continue to make this misleading and inaccurate claim. Please cease doing so. With alacrity. Thank you. EnzoTheAvenger (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you source^[1] your additions to articles, and follow WP:NPOV^[2] with the language in them, they'll be fine. Unsourced negative statements added to BLPs are usually going to get reverted. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 06:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re your panspermia deletion.

@Paul Leigh Edwards: The edit I reverted was adding a statement sourced with what appeared to be a personal website, enclosed in <nowiki> tags. If the edit had a valid citation, I'd have left it alone. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 10:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacob Gotts, I noticed you recently removed edits I made on Green spot and Redbreast whiskies pages. I work for both brands and we are trying to clean up and update both pages in reference to the most recent information in the spirits world.

If you're a paid editor, you need to do a WP:COI disclosure. My revert was due to the removal of cited information from the article -- if you want to copyedit and put the old information further down, that's great, but there's no good reason to remove stuff because it happened a few years ago. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 10:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 2A01:11BF:81D:CC00:D951:1689:4278:68D0. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Łužyca (TV program) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. 2A01:11BF:81D:CC00:D951:1689:4278:68D0 (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dealing with that user who was trolling articles related to the presidential debates. This was a pretty bad case of vandalism.Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob Gotts: Just a question, what's the point of all those level 4 warnings on User talk:Watnick? Lol ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nkon21: I don't get to use the level-4 templates very often, so I was relishing the opportunity. It would have gotten boring if I'd used the same one every time... {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 22:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly classify this edit as worthy of {{uw-vandalism1}}. I think this is one of those situations when we get into the "what you can do besides quickly revert" if you disagree with an edit instead of using Twinkle to get all BITE-y. Perhaps just a difference of opinion. 70.62.149.86 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@70.62.149.86: I still think you should have moved it into the article body somewhere, although you are right that it wasn't quite vandalism and it would probably have been better to mark with {{uw-delete1}}. Apologies. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 22:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. About the changes I did on the Buzz Lightyear article, I don't think the voice actor who did a mere throwaway Toy Story parody on Family Guy deserves being listed right next to Tim Allen and other actors who voiced the character on actual Disney/Pixar productions. Neither I believe detailed descriptions of Family Guy and Simpsons references belong on the section about other Buzz Lightyear appearances throughout other Disney/Pixar media. It's unnecessary and misleading information. Please consider getting those edits back. Thank you.

That might have been a crappy revert. Apologies. {${\displaystyle \mathbb {JPG} }$} 02:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war continues (thanks lord that I am no more a part of the war). BTW, won't you take part in the RfC? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made a good-faith edit to the article [1], which included a long list of academic publications that had obviously been copy-pasted from the person's CV (presumably by her). User Seemplez (talk) has reverted these changes -- they are apparently not aware of the fact that the content of a Wikipedia article should not be a copy-pasted CV. I presume this user has complained to you? I would like you to block User Seemplez for repeated vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.131.127.116 (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@85.131.127.116: While I agree that the list of publications in that article was excessive, repeatedly reverting people (especially when there's a discussion on the talk page about the subject) is not generally a great way to move forward. If you want to get technical, you did more reverts than Seemplez, in addition to making further edits while ignoring discussion on the talk page (that's why I gave you a {{uw-3RR}} and not them). I proposed a compromise (that addresses the issue of undue coverage while avoiding the wholesale removal of referenced content) on the talk page -- I think if you contribute there, we can work towards a solution tht doesn't result in anyone getting blocked. jp×g 08:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacob Gotts. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Lofty abyss 10:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I undid a very few recent edits and stated that this was to restore information that had been lost. Also the new ideological description appeareed less accurate and dubious. I am happy to discuss this further on the talk page of the article itself. 83.128.99.144 (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the prior version in question already had "far-right" in the description of their position, whether they're "right-wing to far right" or "far right" isn't something I feel qualified to judge (and you may be right). The only reason I reverted it was because you were removing a reference. jp×g 06:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Jacob, thank you for your feedback regarding the Alex Epstein page. My intent was not to cast Epstein in a biased light, but rather to provide a neutral qualification to his statements. I believe that the Wikipedia readership desires the ability to easily evaluate the authority of persons making this type of assertion. To that end, my added qualifications to his statement are both valuable to the readership, and facially neutral -- they are true and provide valuable context to his statements regarding climate change. To not qualify such statements with his credentials and evidence provided may serve to unintentionally mislead readers into believing they carry more authority than they do in fact. Rather then revert the edit entirely I would be open to working with you to achieve this end in a neutral way. Vexans44 (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dont you think the article for both Left 4 Dead games should be consistent with one another? The two games have the same Metacritic score, with the second game receiving slightly higher reviews. Yet according to the articles the first game received "highly positive reviews" while the second one just received "generally favorable reviews". Doesnt sound right - 50.71.69.96 (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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