User talk:Jprg1966/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jprg1966. 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 talk page.

Thanks for creating New York Marriott East Side, Jprg1966!

Wikipedia editor Winged Blades of Godric just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Superb:)

To reply, leave a comment on Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Winged Blades^Godric 09:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York Marriott East Side, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billiard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reservists on Duty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breaking the Silence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I often see people use "publisher" incorrectly in citations and have to change it; the field is more usually "work". In the citations at Novichok agent, you changed from work ("BBC News") to publisher - but the publisher of BBC News is actually BBC Online. Similarly, I see newspaper cites switched to publisher from work - forgetting that The Guardian for example is actually published by Guardian Media Group. You're not alone in making this error, don't take my correction the wrong way :) Neil S. Walker (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Neil S Walker:, I guess technically BBC News is an "agency" rather than a publisher. Either way, it is not a "work"—hence why it is not italicized in its own article ... right? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:31, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Jprg1966.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Would you please consider heading over to PERM and requesting it? (check the flag requirements HERE)
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers and thanks for helping out at AfC, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

F.Y.I, your recent edit to General Winfield Scott House corrupted the last two lines in the infobox. All fixed now, but I have no idea if whatever caused this may have affected any other articles. MB 03:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@MB:, apparently that was a manual goof. My bad! Thanks for fixing. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your revision. If the term "notable" is a challenge for you, another term can be used. However, I might add that with more than 30,000 clergy members of the Church of God in Christ and the definition that you have provided and standard for the use of term, "For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who attended the school — only those with verifiable notability." This is also spelled out in Wikipedia's Manual of Style on lists: "the lead makes clear whether the list is complete or whether it is limited to widely-known or notable members (i.e., those that merit articles)." I am not sure how a list of less than 30 clergy members who have had great contributions to this church does not fit this definition. Also, many of these ministers do not have published works or articles and may not be known outside of the church, nonetheless does not denote their significance or impact on the church. Last many of the men are African-American and did not have the opportunity or means during segregation and racism that was prevalent in this country during their lives to have such a platform for notoriety.

Wikipedia provides an opportunity for these individuals to be mentioned and recognized for the work they did to advance to work and ministry of the church. Maybe your Eurocentric, narrow, and limited definition and understanding of "notable" may cause you to be biased. Individuals of other ethnic heritage such as myself, find if offensive that someone who is not a member of the church nor of my ethnic group feels they are qualified to make some a blanket statement and then use their limited knowledge to justify such an act. If you would like to research each minister listed and verify their "notability" instead of relying solely on articles published in Wikipedia as proof of such a statement, you are more than welcomed to do so. Until then I will stand by my original premise to include them so that people can learn about who these African-American men are and their contributions on a platform that is largely white and absent of minority representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micahwigs (talk • contribs) 02:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Micahwigs: I am certainly aware of the various problems in Wikipedia resulting from the majority of its regular editors being white and male. I am also sympathetic to the fact that you are motivated to highlight individuals who you believe are not properly represented here. As long as that editing is consistent with Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, it's a valuable addition.

However, Wikipedia is fundamentally a collaborative editing project—"The encyclopedia anyone can edit." No one single-handedly owns any of Wikipedia's content. Furthermore, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, must use consistent, standardized criteria to determine what "belongs" and what does not. As it stands, the only criterion for inclusion in this list of ministers is what one editor (yourself) subjectively believes is the right list. But a central pillar of Wikipedia is that its content be verifiably correct. Generally speaking, in lists of select individuals from a broader group, the criterion for inclusion is if an individual already has a Wikipedia article or is eminently notable enough that they ought to have one. At the very least, the list should only consist of people for whom we can produce a reference from reliable, independent sources that the minister is a particularly "notable" cleric in COGIC.

It is obvious that you are editing in good faith, but I worry that your edits are not being done with Wikipedia's core policies in mind. I am open to ideas that merge your aspiration for inclusion with the site's need for authoritative, verifiable content. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lowkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

About the Russian interference with the 2016 U.S. presidential elections, I'm confused. Please help me out. Is it true that it was the Russian mafia that colluded with the election? I just want to know if it's okay with you if I add something about organized criminals from Russia interfering with the elections. If you have a problem with are adding it there, please tell me why and I promise I won't do it. Thanks. (Bennyben1998 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)

Are you ignoring me? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998) Bennyben1998 (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you not responding? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998) Bennyben1998 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bennyben1998: I am not ignoring you. This is my first opportunity to respond to your question.

I don't know if the Russian mafia were involved in the election hacking. Do you have a reliable source that says they were? If so, you can add it to the article. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you think it might be mobsters from Russia and if not, what else would it be? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)

@Bennyben1998: the role of organized crime in the election hack has been speculated about, but as far as I know there is not evidence of a clear link. The CrowdStrike firm blamed Fancy Bear (supposedly a front for GRU) for the DNC hack. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you think sounds most realistic? That it was mobsters or not mobsters? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998) Bennyben1998 (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bennyben1998: without seeing any evidence, I would guess not. The operation seems like it would be within the capabilities of Russian intelligence working within normal channels. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Why would it NOT be mobsters? Please explain. I mean, electoral fraud is activity done by mobsters. (Bennyben1998 (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)

@Bennyben1998: the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that Putin ordered the election hacks an act of state policy. The only question would be whether he chose to use criminal elements, official elements, or a mixture thereof to accomplish the feat. The publicly available evidence has named Fancy Bear, which is supposedly affiliated with the state. I am not aware of any evidence linking organized crime to the hacks. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

On a similar note, I’ve heard before that in countries like Mexico, Colombia, etc., the drug cartels are just as powerful, if not even more so than those Latin American countries’ governments. I believe it would be the same thing with countries like Russia as well as China. So, with all that being said why would the DNC hack be more in the capabilities of Russian intelligence than Russian mobsters? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998) Bennyben1998 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Please answer my question! (Bennyben1998 (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998) Bennyben1998 (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The difference in Russia is that Putin is effectively the crime family boss. In Mexico, the cartels subvert the state. In Russia, they are instruments of the state. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by being instruments of the state? Also, what's the case as far as China is concerned? Wouldn't it be that the mobsters, cartels, triads, whatever you wanna call them subvert the state and same going for Russia? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)

Almost a whole month, no response. What's the deal? (Bennyben1998 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Bennyben1998)

@Bennyben1998:, I appreciate your curiosity on this topic, but I am here to edit Wikipedia. I have tried to be responsive to your questions. It might not be your intention, but you have been quite pushy in requesting a discussion even as it has strayed further and further from Wikipedia editing. Wikipedia ain't a forum, as they say. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hamid Bakeri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reza Pahlavi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chris Hughes (journalist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mirror (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Billy Arnold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Jprg1966. 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)