User talk:JPxG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Dumbarton Rail Bridge 2021 redux.JPG

The Dumbarton Rail Bridge in San Francisco Bay, July 2021. Canon EOS 650D. 1/125, ISO 100, f/6.3




Feedback request: WikiProjects and collaborations request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Did you know on a "WikiProjects and collaborations" 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 23:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2022-16[edit]

23:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

wp:burden[edit]

Kindly respect wp:burden. And do not restore material that has been challenged and deleted due to lacking proper refs, without providing them. --2603:7000:2143:8500:606B:77EB:AE0D:1436 (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the passages you're removing don't individually have inline citations in them, but I find your edits concerning, for a couple reasons.
  • First of all, inline citations for all sentences/paragraphs are not strictly required for all content; if there are general references on a page, it's often the case that "uncited" information on the page is coming from one of those references. To simply remove paragraphs and sections because they lack inlines seems almost as though you're applying GA criteria to all article text on the project, which is generally not done.
  • Secondly, the rate at which you're making these edits is troubling. After this edit, for example, you took merely 51 seconds to review this edit, in which 419 bytes are removed. You're moving between entire articles in less than a minute; it seems to me like it would be physically impossible to review the existing sources in that amount of time.
  • Thirdly, your extremely fast rate of editing seems to be causing egregious errors such as this one, where your edit summary is "d uncited", but the edit itself removes a reference. This had to be reverted by a recent-changes patroller.
The combination of these issues is a situation in which someone is mass-removing large amounts of text without checking to see if it can be verified, or indeed if it already is verified, from existing sources. The fact that you're doing it so fast means it is prohibitively difficult to check your work. I'd greatly appreciate if you would slow down. jp×g 06:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know quite well that there was only one mistake that I made. But you refer to it as multiple. You know quite well that it was a mistaken deletion of part of a ref, followed by cleanup of the rest of the ref, and that the text it was supporting was not deleted, nor was it of any great moment .. and yet you incorrectly call that egregious. You also seem to understand wp:burden, but you left an improper "warning" on my talk page. All of that is troubling to me. But as I have said elsewhere, I do apologize for that one (single, not multiple) accidental (you can see how that happened) removal of a lone ref, while leaving the text - text not of any great moment - untouched, which you nevertheless term "egregious" for some reason, and will endeavor not to make a second such error. By the way, since you raise what you find concerning, one might also be concerned about all of the uncited material, especially that tagged - for as much as fifteen years - that has been lying about in these articles without being addressed. Some corners of the Project are a mess. 2603:7000:2143:8500:606B:77EB:AE0D:1436 (talk) 06:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rest[edit]

Juan Griego Sunset.jpg Well deserved rest
Hope you're enjoying the vacation :) — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 April 2022[edit]

Signpost issue watchlist[edit]

Re [6], don't worry about the redlinks. That's normal until someone comes and starts the first comment on the column. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Yeah, I figured. I remembered the way that namespace aliases work about ten seconds after I expanded all the links... jp×g 21:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2022-17[edit]

22:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" 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 23:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

When you created Nina Jankowicz, why did you characterize her as a political commentator?[10]] That's not really accurate, is it? Not even close, right?

Then, what did you mean by "who's ready for FUN" five minutes later?[11]

Then you included a whole bunch of OR based on primaries with selected scarequotes.

Just thought I'd let you know I noticed. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: You have left me kind of a confusing talk page message, and I am not sure how to respond to it. It seems that you think my writing wasn't very good, an opinion you are certainly within your rights to hold (good Wikipedia articles are often written by many people working together). I certainly did not deliberately write a shitty article, although I did write it under some time constraints (I had some errands to run, and an engagement tonight). If you have an issue with the content of an article, the talk page is generally an appropriate place to bring them up. With regard to the "fun": writing articles about current events generally causes my watchlist to be blown up with inane shit for weeks afterwards, which is not in fact fun for me. However, some people seem to find great joy in such editing, so I was (and am) wishing them the best. Cheers, jp×g 13:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2022-18[edit]

19:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Time to publish Bots newsletter?[edit]

Hi JPxG. I see that Wikipedia:Bots/News/202202 is nearly completed, can you publish it please? I know you have received some pushback for publishing bot news about things from years ago, but I support your work and think it is important to document history. It has helped bot operators like me to know how things were done and avoid comitting the same mistakes of previous botops. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Script included twice on common.js[edit]

Hello, I had a look at your common.js file to se how to include TrackSum.js on in my common.js. I noticed that you've included the customWatchlists.js twice on your common.js page. havarhen | Talk 12:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Wikipedia proposals" 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 21:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2022-19[edit]

15:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Long time listener, first time caller[edit]

Sometimes when editing Wikipedia stops being fun, I look at your recent contribs and remember why I like this place. I think your software and writing kick ass and I hope to be half the editor you are some day. Forgive me if flattery isn't a good use of your talk page! Crunchydillpickle (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]