User talk:Jusdafax/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Williams Iowa Source

You asked me to name a source for my change to the Williams, Iowa page. There would be no source, as williams is a very small town with no newspaper or reason for the town's nickname to be published. However, I am the source, I grew up in WIlliams, and my folks still live there. The locals call the town Billtown. Not sure how to name myself as the credible source, but I can't think of anything more credible than a local stating what locals call their town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.65.126 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Milky Way

Please stop your edit warring at Milky Way. You made this edit, and were reverted. Following that, you reverted back, in this edit, with the following highly ironic edit summary: I again refer you to the 2017 RFC in Archive 5. If you want to run a new one, feel free. If you revert, you are edit-warring. Please discuss on talk page, thanks.

You've been around long enough to know what Edit warring is, which is why your edit summary is so ironic. Reverting to enforce your own opinion, in the face of opposition by another editor, would be a good example of it. Instead of doing that, please raise a discussion on the talk page. Contrary to your edit summary, the burden of proof is not on the editor who initially reverts your bold edit, rather, it is on you to do so. Please follow WP:BRD, and state your case.

Your are also mistaken about the effect of a 2017 Rfc, which does not rule consensus forever. In fact, WP:SILENCE governs consensus here, and the fact that you wish to unilaterally go back to an old consensus, is contrary to editing guidelines. You need to establish a new consensus now. You may well find agreement among other editors by starting an Rfc, in which case I'm fine with your change. But not until that point.

Finally, warning someone who edited once on the article and who is following WP:BRD of edit warring, is disingenuous, and I don't know what you mean to imply by it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

  • To be brief, I disagree with much of your commentary. As you correctly note in reply to my comment on your Talk page, our posts crossed, and I had started a discussion on the Milky Way Talk page. Further discussion should be conducted there, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Matt Williams (Football player)

You changed my edits which were all true first hand accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reece Tincher (talk • contribs) 16:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes. Information on Wikipedia should be reliably sourced per WP:RS. Jusdafax (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Borussia Dortmund

Hi, Jusdafax! I appreciate the edits you have made to my edit in the Borussia Dortmund article. However, I feel that it was not required. The reason that I had removed a part of the article and added it in another section was because that part of the article did not match the section "Return to glory" as it talked about Dortmund's hard days. That is why I felt it was more appropriate to create a new section about the team's downward spiral and add the said text into that section. Thanks, Abraham Benno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham Benno (talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes. As is noted in my message, please use edit summaries, especialy when deleting large chunks of content, even if you are relocating it elsewhere later. Edit summaries save vandal reverters time and energy. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Media coverage of Bernie Sanders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chyron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Done I have made the link go direct, thanks DPL bot. Jusdafax (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Round Rock ISD

Hi. I added citations. Thanks for the reminder. I did it for one change and thought that it would count for all the changes. Now I know each change needs a citation. Ugh! I'll pay better attention next time so I don't have to do duplicate work. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1023:61C7:4D1B:B2AE:34EF:A1A8 (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus page

Since Im a new Wikipedia editor I’m not allowed to edit the Coronavirus page, so I’d ask if you may add these numbers

Infected: 111,069 Deaths: 3,830 Recovered: 62,280 TheRealAsphiteJumär (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but for a number of reasons I don't want to do that. If you ask someone else, you may wish to add this reference. Good luck! Jusdafax (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notification. Jusdafax (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, JusDa! I happened to log back in to my account here a few days too late. I would have liked to add a comment regarding what were some of the last edits made that highlight a wider pattern of behaviour. I wonder if this can be added once the case is opened. My experience with ArbCom is limited, so I'm not sure what is permissible. petrarchan47คุก 01:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Howdy Petra, long time. As the clerk's notice above notes, this case has finished the preliminary statements and is in the evidence phase, which I opened with a summation of the late-2018 incident, and various susequent challenged statements, with links, regarding which more recent editors below have done a better and expanded job. I believe numbered diffs are more the accepted style than the links I use in my statement, per Voceditenore's evidence submission.
This link takes you to the Evidence page. Some or much of what you are pointing to may already be stated, but you may have supplementary evidence. Needless to say, show diffs/links for everything. Again, this phase closes March 23 and you are limited to 500 words. The next stage is the Workshop, a somewhat complex process. My best wishes, Jusdafax (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, JDF. Please check your email. petrarchan47คุก 02:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- MrX 🖋 12:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

StockHolding Corporation of India

You reverted my edits for StockHolding Corporation of India, Three Sixty West, Atlantic Water World and Central Depository Services. do you have any valid proof that these are created in return of undisclosed payment or COI.2405:204:12AB:8B8:7CA7:5E5A:85F:2DF6 (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC) - Blocked for using Wikipedia for advertising purposes. --KartikeyaS (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you contact the person who placed those templates in the first place. You removed the templates with edit summaries that said "no proof" but as I see it, that is insufficient. To choose the example of Three Sixty West, the COI tmplate was placed March 8, 2020 by User:KartikeyaS343. I see neither they or you have discussed this on the article Talk page. It also appears you have not contacted the original emplacing editor. Again, I suggest you contact them, either directly on their Talk page or on the article Talk page. Thanks, and best wishes. Jusdafax (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind as I strikethrough the comments made from the blocked IP. Clearly, it is WP:BLOCKEVASION and for obvious reasons, I didn't open any discussion on the talk page. KartikeyaS (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
All good... I suspected it wasnt going to end well for the party involved. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Syro-Malabar vandal

This is more or less a WP:LTA issue at this point. IPv6 addresses always geolocate to Kerala. There is an open investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kkktpkirij. Add the IP addresses if you wish, but they're always stale by the time an admin gets around to it. Best solution is to consistently seek longer WP:RFPP for the affected pages. They'll otherwise keep hopping IPs and keep on coming back when protection expires. Elizium23 (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Yes, I just noticed the template you placed on the Talk page. This is an area of vandal reversion and detection I have long meant to learn more about. This lockdown period could be the right time for that, and if you have any suggestions on how and where I can gain the skills of detecting socks, I would appreciate them. Thanks in any case. Jusdafax (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
    Well, it is a delicate art, I must say I am certainly far from the best at doing it! This particular sock is blatant about his activities: always originates from Kerala, always goes after exactly the same set of articles, always the same kinds of edits. There is basically a lack of variation in the behavioral evidence.
    Some socks are trickier and do not haunt the same articles or even topic areas. Some LTA cases are listed in WP:LTA but many are not, and many are just in the heads of the blocking admins.
    Since I work in narrow topic areas and I work from a watchlist, I am typically alerted to socks who always haunt the same topic area and set of articles. Beyond that, it's just a matter of reading the signs and then kicking it upstairs. The CheckUser guys have the real detection tools; it's important to defer to their judgement because they can see more details than we ever could. Elizium23 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding additional historic information to "Nayagaon' on wikipedia and the same was created by me few years back.

Sir
I am a member of the oldest family of Nayagaon, the ones who founded this settlement. The entire information had been gathered by me and posted on wikipedia by creating this Nayagaon article/page some years ago.

Today i tried to add some additional information about the prominent people of this place who made enormous contribution to this area in different field but the same was removed by you.

Regards Gurdeepinder Singh Advocate and Legal Consultant.101.0.32.179 (talk) 11:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Greetings. The material I removed was unsourced, and these links, WP:RS and WP:V explain Wikipedia policy regarding unsourced additions to articles. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, must maintain standards such as notability, per WP:N, that ensure the integrity of the project. Generally, notable people have their own article on Wikipedia. Now, I see you have added the material back in, essentially a list of names, and not included a reference. Please read the links I have posted. If you can follow our policy regarding sourcing and notability, the material will be included. Otherwise, policy dictates it will be removed again. Also, the entire "History" section of the article is unsourced, which is also a problem. Unsourced material can be challenged and removed. Again, this is a core policy at Wikipedia. Best wishes, Jusdafax (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I have again reverted the unsourced material after several weeks leeway. Jusdafax (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

i made sure it was correct

why you come at me with the attitude much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.127.57 (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

More edits by possible vandal

Hi Jusdafax, thank you for your hard work on Vandalism. Could you please look at the page Timeline of K-pop at Billboard, the same User has re-added the information you took off [1]. Thanks again,--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Done - Thank you. Jusdafax (talk) 04:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

WT.Social User Numbers

Hello Jusdafax. Thanks for your message about reverting the changes I made to the article on WT.Social. You are right that I added an assertion without a reference, which is not good. I have (1) an excuse, (2) a question and (3) a request for advice from you.

(1) The previous (and now current) version of the article gives a most-recent number of users (450,000) which is also unreferenced. Worse: it superficially appears to be referenced when it is not. Footnote[3] only justifies a claim two sentences earlier about the number of users in November. A merit of my edit was to make the footnote refer to the applicable claim.

(2) If you agree that footnote[3] justifies only the claim about the number of users in November, what do you suggest we do about the sentences "It is growing quickly. By January 2020 it had more than 450,000 users." which are unreferenced? Just omit them?

(3) The claim I added (that as of early April the number of users is less than 450,000) is something I believe because when I go to my own profile page in WT.Social - or the profile page of other users - I find such a figure stated there. It therefore seems a fact. The fact is relevant and useful. But how to reference it? These pages are not stable documents of record. And if we cannot provide a reference, do we always sacrifice relevant and useful facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmedley (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your message. I gather you have Googled various terms to see if there is an independent reliable source available? If so, I'd suggest copying this post to the article Talk page, and seeing if you get some knowledgable editors to speak up. There can be a grey area when it comes to this sort of thing, and it can change. Sometimes unsourced information that isn't about living people can stay in an article with a "citation needed" tag attached. This lets readers know whats up, and lets editors know that improvement in the sourcing is needful. I appreciate your thoughts, and will look at this again to see what develops. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable plan. I looked at the article's Talk page and found that the question of reporting user numbers had been discussed a few months ago and left unresolved. I've added an update to that discussion and will see if anyone responds. Mrmedley (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Suffolk, VA

Greetings, In reference to my recent edit - I wanted to clarify my entry under Notable Figures for Suffolk, Virginia. It was not for promotion, but for historical and recording purposes. I ask for the entry to be reconsidered. Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyEpperson (talk • contribs) 03:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is another reference: https://mediaplayer.whro.org/person/dannyepperson — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyEpperson (talk • contribs) 03:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Greetings. I see this is your first edit to Wikipedia. Notability is a delicate subject, but the policy is laid out in WP:N. Generally, notable people in an area article on Wikipedia have their own articles already. Additionally, imdb.com is not an accepted source. Your second reference is a primary source, so please read WP:PSTS. Further, our WP:COI policy comes into play because you are editing about yourself. Please note I am not an administrator here, and if in spite of this information you would like to challenge my revert elsewhere, please feel free to. If there are articles using reliable sources per WP:RS that back up your notability, sooner or later someone will write an article about you, but please also read WP:AUTOBIO because writing your own, under your own name, will draw considerable scrutiny. Best wishes, Jusdafax (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to FGF21 Wiki page

Hi Jusdafax Thanks for your questions on my edits to FGF21 page. Let me first introduce myself. My name is Alexei Kharitonenkov, and I am the person who discovered FGF21 as a novel metabolic hormone (J Clin Invest. 2005 Jun;115:1627-35.FGF-21 as a novel metabolic regulator. Kharitonenkov A1, Shiyanova TL, Koester A, Ford AM, Micanovic R, Galbreath EJ, Sandusky GE, Hammond LJ, Moyers JS, Owens RA, Gromada J, Brozinick JT, Hawkins ED, Wroblewski VJ, Li DS, Mehrbod F, Jaskunas SR, Shanafelt AB.) as long as many other attributes of FGF21 biology and its prospects to soon became a powerful drug to treat various metabolic abnormalities. Please check my PubMed credentials. While checking this Wiki page I found numerous misinterpretations of FGF21 biology, abbreviated description of its function, and no word on FGF21 as a prospect to become a revolutionary treatment for metabolic disease (several clinical trials are currently underway for FGF21 variants). I do not know who originally authored the page but it is clearly outdated, biased toward a specific set of references, and needs to be substancially edited. I thus attempted to remove the most obvious shortcomings yet the changes were reverted back. If you want to work with me to revise it, we can do it together. At the very least I am in a position to provide an unbiased literature list that will support every claim made on FGF21 Page. Hope this helps, and let me know what you think Alexei

  • Hi Alexei. The article has been edited since my revert, so I will stand back from further edits. Please use edit sumnaries when editing, as it saves vandal reverters a lot of time. Thanks, and best wishes. Jusdafax (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Russell Street Bombing

Hello Jusdafax,

I'm adding information to the Russell Street Bombing wiki page based on information mentioned in the Forensic Investigator Episode on the Russell Street Bombing.

Jpts1107

  • Greetings. I have self-reverted. As I note in my edit summary, please use edit summaries when editing, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

İradə Mehri

The fact is that I translated the page from Azerbaijani into English. But I cannot create a page. Please create an English version of this page: https://az.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0rad%C9%99_Mehri

  • I'm going to decline because I can not read Azerbaijani references, and can't properly judge the notabily per WP:N. When I looked at the original article, there seemed to be none. There are possible other issues as well. Sorry, and good luck. Jusdafax (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Happy Earth day!

Happy Earth Day!

Hello! Wishing you a Happy Earth day on the behalf of WikiProject Environment and WikiProject Ecology.

When man tries to fight nature, he invariably loses. Nature invariably wins. It is only when man is wise enough to live with nature that he really gets anywhere.

--Elmer T. Peterson

Sent by Path slopu (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Environment and its related projects. © Copyleft 2020

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Corrections Reverted for "Masonic Ritual and Symbolism"

Good afternoon,

I attempted to correct the use of incorrect terms on the article entitled "Masonic Ritual and Symbolism" under the section called Overlap With Mormon Symbolism.

However, these corrections were reverted to the incorrect terms and I do not understand why. Please address this at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

  • Greetings. I self-reverted, then fixed the problems your edits created. As I say in the edit summary, please preview your edits before publishing them. This saves time for everyone. Thank you. Jusdafax (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jusdafax/Archive_15&oldid=1048420328"