Jump to content

User talk:Jon698

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

Auto-patrolled?

[edit]

Have you considered requesting the autopatrolled permission? You seem to meet the general criteria (only stumbling block being a couple of copyright notices) and this could be helpful in reducing the WP:NPP backlog. If you have questions or wish to discuss don't hesitate to ping me here or leave a comment on my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

[edit]

Hi Jon698, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 05:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

[edit]

Hello Jon698. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm ♠ 20:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Appeal

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jon698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have made one account and used it for illegitimate purposes. However, I ask that I be unblocked, but banned from participating in AFD discussions and only be allowed to edit as my contribution history shows that I am the only person that has edited articles such as George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign, Alaska Libertarian Party, and Libertarian Party of Massachusetts and there are many articles like Bush's that are in need of greater editing to be completed or to be proper for Wikipedia. I came to Wikipedia two years ago to improve political articles and I have went too far. I acknowledge that I have broken the rules, but as this is the first time I ask that I be given a second chance. If I renege on this then I wish for the next blocking to be permanent.

Decline reason:

You outright lied about the connection before being blocked. You can take the standard offer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Comment I understand. I am not good at apologies especially online and I have had the account since 2017. I rarely used it and did not use it for disruptive editing. I ask that it will be reconsidered and that I be limited to only editing or at least limited to editing only George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign as it is close to completion, but I am the only one who edits it. Jon698 Jon698 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics.
    However, you don't even seem to be that sorry for what you did... You've been using this sock of yours since at least 2017 (Diffs from Scott Burley: [1] [2]). That is long term scrutiny evasiason.
    Have you disclosed all your accounts publicly? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case for WP:SO. Barring any substantive objections, I wouldn't have any problem unblocking you in six months. -- Scott Burley (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Offer

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jon698 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello it has been six months since my block in May and I would like to begin the standard offer process. My provided clear reason is Scott's statement "I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case for WP:SO." and MJL's statement "If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics." Also in the past six months I have improved my understanding of copyright and public domain and I hope to use it to improve the images of political/election articles and I have learned election mapping and hope to improve many Washington, D.C. election articles. The next year will be important for election/political Wikipedia editors and will have a large amount of work and I hope that I will be able to help and participate in that. It has been hard to not edit Wikipedia for six months, but I would still like to thank Scott for the block because it has helped me become less addicted to editing and MJL for helping me get a LPedia account that I could use to edit that site on if I ever had the urge to. -- Jon698 02:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Jon698&ilshowall=1 https://lpedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jon168[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the conversation below (Special:PermanentLink/924708850), you are unblocked. Conditions for your unblock include a 6 month topic ban from Articles for Deletion and a reminder to keep aware of general sanctions pertaining to American politics and other areas as you've acknowledged. -- ferret (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't really understand how the standard offer process works and I hope that I am doing it correctly. Apologies in advance for any mistakes.

@NinjaRobotPirate: I am sorry about the ping, but I have noticed that there is a large backlog in Requests for unblock Jon698 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your unblock request posted to the administrators' noticeboard, I could do that. Due to a quirk in policy, unblock requests that fail to get consensus at a noticeboard turn into a community site ban. The difference is mostly academic, but site bans can only be appealed at noticeboards. Noticeboard appeals are settled via the consensus of the community (more-or-less a vote), but standard unblock requests are resolved by unilateral action by a single administrator. If you don't like the idea of a bunch of random people voting to ban/unban you, the alternative is to wait for a random administrator to get around to your unblock request. That shouldn't take more than a few days, but it could potentially take several weeks. If you want to speed up the process and increase the likelihood of success, you should list all the registered accounts you've used to edit Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. I would rather wait for some random administrator to get around to my request rather than putting it up to a noticeboard vote. The only registered accounts that I used were User:DailyVermonter and User:ImBadWithUsernames. Jon698 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm willing to go forward with this unblock, if checkuser is clean (or you feel it's not necessary) and he agrees to the topic ban for AFDs that he originally proposed 6 months ago in his prior appeal. I would additionally add that he read about General Sanctions and acknowledge doing so by listing the active sanction he believes would apply to his preferred area of editing related to political topics. @Scott Burley: as info as blocking admin. -- ferret (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any obvious block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: @Ferret: I agree to the topic ban for AFDs and as for General Sanctions sanctions could be placed on areas such as abortion, Eastern Europe, gun control, and other areas like those. Jon698 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jon, works for me. Also be mindful of American politics 2. This sanction is core to your editing areas. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup

[edit]

Please note that the correct time to claim points for DYK in the WikiCup is after the hook has appeared on the main page. So you can claim for Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign now, while some of your other submissions have been premature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth Thank you for telling me. I am new to Wikicup this year and I will remember to wait for the rest of my DYK hooks. - Jon698 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Jefferson Hardin

[edit]

Hi-I enjoyed reading your articles; thank you for writing them. I did have to make a change with the William Jefferson Hardin article; he served in the Wyoming Territorial Legislature not the Wyoming State Legislature. The territorial and state legislatures are two different legislative chambers serving different political divisions-territorial and state in Wyoming-many thanks-RFD (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming Legislature template

[edit]

Hi-I have to remove the Wyoming Legislature template from the article about Cathy Connolly who served in the Wyoming Legislature. The Wyoming Legislature template place the Members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category on the the article. This happen on some other articles. I had to go through the members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category and there 2 or 3 others this happen. I am not sure why the Wyoming Legislature template is doing this-many thanks-20:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)RFD (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the Wyoming Legislature template; the template covers the Wyoming territorial and state legislatures. This would explained why he members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislatures were put on some articles that should not be put on some articles like the Cathy Connolly article many thanks-RFD (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

[edit]

Hi there, Jon698, and welcome to Women in Red. With the enormous experience you have of writing about politics and politicians, it's great to see you now intend to devote more of your time to women. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules and our Primer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Whip position

[edit]

I completely agree with you about your position on the position of whip. Seems obvious to me. Activist (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW

[edit]

Your 6 months ban was a travesty, IMO. It's absurd that such a good editor was hit with such awful sanctions. This is an example of why I totally regret having started WP:AN, which led to the farce that is WP:AN/I. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

[edit]
Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Vami IV submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Jon698 for Editor of the Week because of their outstanding contributions to our coverage of American politics, but especially US State legislatures. I have personally bore witness to their dedication to the topic, trawling through thousands of Newspaper.com clippings, and their obvious interest and openness about the topic through conversing with them on the Discord server. On-wiki, he has several Good Articles to speak to the quality of his work, such as David Duke 1988 presidential campaign. He has made it his mission in the two years he's been actively editing to vastly improve our coverage of US State legislators, and has not disappointed. For that and his level-headed and humorous conducting of himself I wish to commend him.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Jon698!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

Jon698,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Scott Ratliff

[edit]

Hi! Just wanted to give you a heads up of a Wyoming-related state legislator article that I recently created, as I recall you are active in the Wyoming Wikiproject and with American state legislator bios. I unfortunately don't have much more time to expand it further, but there are a number of Newspapers.com clippings that I came across and think offer some good material, if you ever feel the urge to expand it! Connormah (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]
Happy Holidays
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

[edit]

Could you explain why the police stopped Moran in the first place? Thank you. DS (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: The book They Came From Within: A History of Canadian Horror Cinema on page 38 does not give a reason for why he was initially stopped, but I have looked through the author's sources and they corroborate most of his claims. I ordered Filmfax #25 which was the only source I couldn't find online and will check that one out. Jon698 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: Apologies for the time it took me to finally get around to editing the article using the Filmfax source. I was unable to find anything about why they stopped it so I removed it. However, the magazine did have a lot of other, more useful, information. This was back on December 7. Jon698 (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red 8th Anniversary

[edit]
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

2023 Seattle City Council election

[edit]

You did a fantastic job with the 2019 Seattle City Council election page! If you have time, could you please help me bring the 2023 election page up to the standard of the one you made? C. W. Edward (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C. W. Edward: Thank you for the invitation to edit. I loved making some of those local election pages and I would love to do it again. I just need to finish a few bookmarks on a book I've been reading recently and I'll be able to get to it. Jon698 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policing the Plains: published cast list from premiere program

[edit]
Transcript of a page from a program for the premiere of the film Policing the Plains.

Filmhunter (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

[edit]

Thanks for the like on my post. I also have autism. How do I add the ASD tag to my profile? I mostly edit Wikimedia content and then put it on Wikipedia pages. So I might put it up there as well. Thanks again for the like. MonkeyBBGB (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings!

[edit]

Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale deletion of content

[edit]

Hello. I'm reaching out because I saw that countless election articles have had huge amounts of sourced (or easily sourceable) material removed. This is information that innumerable other editors have objected to the removal of, and your defense is either that it's unsourced (in many cases against WP:CALC practices) or irrelevant (which I and many others would argue is a contentious assertion in many of these cases). Notable instances that come to mind are various state articles on the 1964 presidential election or the 1972 election in the Deep South. Please let me know your thoughts, as I'm fairly inclined to reverse (in part or in full) a large number of these edits. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpotisch Please allow me a few hours to look through the 1964, 1972, and 1988 pages. Jon698 (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. Cpotisch (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you taken a look? Cpotisch (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpotisch Yes. Jon698 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I appreciate you reviewing it and restoring some, but I still see a very large amount of sourced and important material that got taken out with your purges. One of the most egregious examples being the 1964 United States presidential election in Georgia, where, despite your restorations the other day, now does not even acknowledge that this is the first time *ever* that the state voted Republican. That's covered in multiple sources and it's very historically significant. Also, along the way, that article ended up with a very incomplete sentence in the "Results" section.
Another (less problematic) example is the 1964 United States presidential election in Indiana, which now acknowledges that one particular county did not vote Democratic again until 2008, but not that the whole state did too.
Another example was the 1972 United States presidential election in Georgia, which carved out huge amounts of easily verifiable material, such as the fact that this was the best ever Republican performance in the state.
All of which is to say, while I understand where you were coming from with these edits, I think it completely goes against the recommendation that editors try to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM before doing wholesale removals. Cpotisch (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cpotisch all classes for my university have been canceled today and tomorrow (and quite likely Thursday). if you want, you could go through the pages and list what should be added back in and I'll personally go through with finding sourcing. Jon698 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan, thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the drive!

[edit]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Jon698! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:52, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

1984 U.S. Presidential Election Exit Polls

[edit]

Hello! I'm TheApex150. I saw on the page for the 1984 U.S. Presidential Election that you added additional info to the national exit poll. I wanted to ask if you have access to exit poll info from certain states? For example, an exit poll from California or one from Texas. I know the election was a landslide, but I'm curious to see if there were differences among the states themselves. If you have access to that info, can you please link it to me here? Or you can link it to my talk page. Thank you! :-) TheApex150 (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add some additional info to "Policing the Plains" article

[edit]

I having trouble inserting a new paragraph without screwing up the footnotes. You can see the proposed text on the article's talk page. Talk:Policing the Plains Filmhunter (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmhunter: I add the text and references to the page using a cite news template, which I usually use for Newspapers.com clippings. Jon698 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I was at the point where I couldn't add a word without starting an avalanche! Filmhunter (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Gerald Willis (politician)

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gerald Willis (politician) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Samoht27 -- Samoht27 (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Seattle City Council special election

[edit]

Hello again! Thank you for your work on the 2023 election page. There's going to be a city council special election this year. Would you mind making the page for it? I would, but my summer is going to be extremely busy. I have some links for the article.
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/01/seattle-city-council-appoints-tanya-woo-fill-district-8-seat
https://crosscut.com/briefs/2024/01/here-are-8-finalists-seattle-city-councils-vacant-seat
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/05/three-progressives-take-tanya-woo-seattle-city-council-race
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/01/72-people-applied-seattle-city-councils-vacant-seat
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/tanya-woo-launches-race-to-retain-seat-on-seattle-city-council/ C. W. Edward (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C. W. Edward: Thank you for informing me of that. I am interested in doing it. Jon698 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editor

[edit]

Hi Jon698. Many thanks for reverting a bunch of edits of the anon IP disruptive editor making mass edits to articles on political parties (infoboxes and adding mass of sidebar templates). Whilst much of it is just nuisance edits, from time to time he does sneak in outright incorrect stuff which borderlines WP:HOAX. Especially on International Affiliations he adds stuff without any sort of fact-checking, inventing affiliations even when they don't exist. For example at Wesh Zalmian he did added blatant misinformation that stayed under the radar since January.

Some of the IPs used would be [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], but presumably there would be even more.

It kinda rings a bell on a user that was blocked a while ago, that did the same type of useless mass edits to political party infoboxes, but I can't recall the name. -- Soman (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contacting cited source for correct information

[edit]

I just had an e-mail conversation with Mark Wolf, whose book is now (thanks to you) cited several times on the Fairchild Channel F page. He also included Zach Wahlen in the conversation (from the University of Mary Washington) as the citation from the book has a footnote (#17, Wolf, Mark, ed. (2012). Before the Crash: Early Video Game History. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 9780814337226. page 74) that refers to information from Zach - and linking to my old webpage (some random web page) - which is the webaddress YOU erased from the article after Zach edited the article (MoleculeMolecuelMolecule).

YOU removed the information that Mark Wolf refers to in the book - my old web page - if my old web page isn't reliable information, why do you cite the one who cited it?
YOU have cited me - you have cited information from my webpage that I made in the 90's.

NO, that's not reliable information, you're correct, it's wrong and that's why I now need to correct it - I have learned in the last 25 years.

Zach also explains he had misunderstood, he had information that Zircon was licensing (what I don't know) and he had information there were European clones - and he, himself, put two and two together and drew the conclusion that European clones were the result of Zircon's licensing. It's not.
They don't have secret e-mail addresses, write and ask: Zach Whalen <zach.whalen@gmail.com>, "Wolf, Mark" <Mark.Wolf@cuw.edu>.
How else can I stop you from reintroducing this faulty information again and again and again and again and again and again...? Some faulty information from me and some from Zach - and shame on Mark for not fact checking more. E5frog (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's "Around the World in 31 Days" GA Editathon – October 2024

[edit]

Hello Jon698:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) & Alanna the Brave (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of the WikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notifications here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1916 United States presidential election in Wisconsin

[edit]

Sorry Jon698 but I don't get it. The editor has been reverted six times, I believe, and three times by you (and I trust you will not revert any more) but there's no welcome message on their talk page, no note or warning about edit warring? That's not right toward the user, but it also makes it much more difficult for admins to act. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Nomination of 1980 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1980 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Isaac Vincent

[edit]

On 10 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Isaac Vincent, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Honest Ike" stole more than $200,000 from the Alabama treasury? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Isaac Vincent. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Isaac Vincent), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works Cited and Bibliography

[edit]

Hi Jon698 - thanks for your additions to the Gaiseric page. You'll note that I reverted your addition of "Works Cited" and moved the Conant book into the Bibliography for the page. Some pages will use "Works Cited" and others will use "Bibliography". These two nomenclatures are basically synonymous. Just want to make sure you understand that those two things are the same thing and should not be confused with "Further Reading"...it normally just depends on who originally set up the References. However, both cases where "Works Cited" is used or "Bibliography" can include a "Further Reading" section for reference works applicable to the subject but not actually used on the page. Obenritter (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1988 Presidential Election Exit Polls

[edit]

Hi Jon! I saw you added an exit poll to the 1988 election in North Carolina page back in 2023. I was wondering if you remember where you found the exit poll, and if there's any available in other states in that election? I'm curious to see what the numbers in each state that's available. TheApex150 (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Strategy

[edit]

Just a heads up, I have withdrawn my proposal from the talk page. Thank you for the correction. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red November 2024

[edit]
Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jon698&oldid=1254190197"