48JCL
 |
Thanks for defamation
editI need to get an admin review for the false accusations for sockpuppetry. I didn't knew why and how some one can accuse for something trivial? SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Your fault for vote stacking and signing as a banned user to promote your DYK noms. 48JCLTALK 19:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- @D'SuperHero 48JCLTALK 20:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Check my history mate. I have a clean record, anyways I do not negotiate with someone who defames anyone for own edit interests.
- SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 05:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Tell me about the votestacking will you? And signing as a banned user? 48JCLTALK 12:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @D'SuperHero 48JCL TALK 22:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- I told you I do not negotiate with any user without sane reason accuses for sockpuppetry. Anyways, I have been warned by users and not repeated that and even votestacking would have been done (or not to be precise) I abide by rules. My record is clean and your false claims of sockpuppetry is just harassment. See you and get well soon brother. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 21:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
edit
|
Hey 48JCL, thank you so much for doing the GA review for my article npm left-pad incident! I appreciate the feedback about sourcing and I'll be sure to keep it in mind for the future. Have a good one! ~Liancetalk 21:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
- Yay! 48JCL[citation needed][dubious – discuss] 17:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
GA reviewing
editHello there, I saw you've completed two reviews (Npm left-pad incident and Kiribati at the 2020 Summer Olympics) since my last message. I just wanted to check that you didn't just check the sources in those reviews, and that you also took a look at the prose, the layout, and the other bits of the GA criteria? If you did, it's good practice to just say so in the review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just checking you saw this 48JCL? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29, terribly sorry I somehow did not see this. I made a promise, more specifically to Pokelego that I would add stuff on the talk page. Cheers 48JCL TALK 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I did that stuff on Talk:Rhapsody (climb)/GA1. xq 12:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2024
editNews and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.
Technical news
- The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
- The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.
Miscellaneous
- WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit
- Hi 48JCL! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
-- 02:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
edit- Hi 48JCL! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
-- 02:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Your signature
editI saw your signature at this AfD, which has gotten pretty heated, and thought – did they really tag this guy's !vote with citation needed and dubious? That would be a whole new level of badgering! Thankfully, it was just your signature, which gave me a good laugh. Toadspike [Talk] 08:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry
editPer this discussion, it appears I was wrong about that redirect from the old user talk page. I've now deleted it, sorry for the hassle. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Odd welcomes
editWhy are you welcoming editors who haven't edited in years? -- Ponyobons mots 20:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
GA reviews
editHello. I appreciate that you're trying to get into reviewing, but I was hoping that you could return Talk:Fear of bees/GA1 and Talk:Autocracy/GA3 so more experienced reviewers can address them. I'd also prefer if you didn't appoint yourself the source reviewer of my other nomination Talk:Federalist No. 8/GA1 despite the actual reviewer not accepting your offer to share the review. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, and done. Cheers! 48JCL TALK 02:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- 48JCL, it would be more appropriate for you to request a G7 speedy deletion on both the Talk:Fear of bees/GA1 and Talk:Autocracy/GA3 pages, so they can be deleted, rather than request a second opinion; there's been very little done on the former review and nothing on the latter one. See WP:G7 for more information. Please note that I have already made an adjustment on the Talk:Autocracy page to help deal with that one, but the best thing is still the G7. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Based on the "done" above, and the latest addition of a semi-retired template, I've gone ahead and G6'd both of these. Let me know if something else needs to be done. I don't think anything needs to be done with Federalist No. 8.--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- 48JCL, it would be more appropriate for you to request a G7 speedy deletion on both the Talk:Fear of bees/GA1 and Talk:Autocracy/GA3 pages, so they can be deleted, rather than request a second opinion; there's been very little done on the former review and nothing on the latter one. See WP:G7 for more information. Please note that I have already made an adjustment on the Talk:Autocracy page to help deal with that one, but the best thing is still the G7. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi 48JCL, I would just like to check in on this regarding Talk:Slowpoke (Pokémon)/GA1. You have carried out some defined Spot checks, but it is very unclear what the process means. What is a pass, if not a reliable source? How are you checking offline sources such as Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination for original research and copyvio? CMD (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: List of world heritage sites in botswana has been accepted
edit
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Relativity ⚡️ 22:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Gaborone task force articles
edit
A tag has been placed on Category:Gaborone task force articles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 16:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Category:Gaborone task force has been nominated for deletion
edit
Slowpoke Good Article Review
editThank you for taking the time out of your day to review Slowpoke (Pokémon), both of us nominators appreciate it. However, are a bit confused about the lack of overall comments on the article. While we're glad our prose is apparently up to par, in my case I find it a bit odd that there were apparently no comments to be made about anything in the body bar the citations checked for the spotcheck, as well as an additional lack of comments about how we passed things such as the manual of style and overall. Additionally, your source check seems to only be checking about verifying the lead, whereas most reviews focus on verifying not only the lead, but also the rest of the body of the article. If it's not too much effort, would you be willing to leave additional comments or overall summaries of these areas in order to explain your rationale? While it may or may not affect your overall review, we do just want to ensure the review was conducted while complying with the usual Good Article review standards. We hope it isn't too much trouble. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- yeah sure ill do it on the talk page 48JCL TALK 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you :) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:CaseOh
editIf this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:CaseOh, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- TheTechie, it is literally a draft. Why is this tag being added? 48JCL 📲 22:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- At the time of tagging, all it said was "CaseOh's grocery store". But, as an admin has declined it, I'll leave it alone. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 20:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously? It’s a DRAFT 48JCL 19:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CaseOh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) Are you aware this is a draft of something the community looked into recently (especially as to sourcing) and decided to delete? The article was deleted, plus the moved draft got deleted, and a user sandbox got deleted as well as content forks. You've offered no BLP-worthy sources and only a copyvio image. Yes, this matters even in a draft. It's not an alternative space to edit with free rein. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- ...and Deb salted this article name space with the comment "Repeatedly created A7 article". See CaseOh red templates for more deletions and moves. JFHJr (㊟) 02:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Seriously? It’s a DRAFT 48JCL 19:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- At the time of tagging, all it said was "CaseOh's grocery store". But, as an admin has declined it, I'll leave it alone. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 20:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Re: Warnings
editNot sure why you replied to a notice I gave over a month ago, but I am not required to follow the exact order of the warning templates (that's why we have level 4im warnings) and users generally should warn based on the severity and amounts of vandalism. Cheers, Lynch44 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Piccadilly Page
editHi 48JCL, thanks for nominating Template:Piccadilly Page for deletion. I was thinking, instead of another 7-day discussion, it would be better to just tag the template for G8 once the MfD closes. Maybe withdraw the TfD? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Flora Peel
editYou sent me a message saying you intended to speedily delete the page Flora Peel that I just created. I went to the page to contest this and the notice has been removed. What are you playing at? There's nothing wrong with the page or its sources and I wasn't even on Wikipedia when the previous page was deleted. Shrug02 (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Shrug02 A. see WP:AGF, and B. it was an accident. That’s why i removed it, I kinda fucked up. Anyways bye 48JCL 23:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Drive by fail of Mark Zuckerberg
editI was surprised to see here your statement about the minimum % of contributions and position in the contributions list. Can you tell me where you got those numbers? I didn't think the GAN instructions gave any definite numbers for determining if an article was a drive by. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Pretty sure here, at first I thought it was either 10% or above 6th in authorship but I was proven wrong by BlueMoonset at World War I which then led me to QF the GA (Nom complained so I was very hesitant and g7’d the review). I got the stats here. To be fair, they didn’t really add much prose, and in fact removed more than add, which really screws up the rankings. In fact, most of the text added them. Looking in the history, their main contributions were actually just trimming stuff down and archiving sources. Cheers, 48JCL 12:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thanks -- I'd forgotten about that footnote. I think there are cases where it wouldn't apply so I'll probably start a conversation at WT:GAN about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- It seems unfair and overly hasty to fail solely based on who nominated this for GAN. For whatever it might be worth, the nominator did consult me (a frequent contributor) beforehand. You didn't even comment on the prose, referencing, breadth of coverage, neutrality, stability, or media usage. If there are glaring issues with any of those aspects, then it definitely would've helped to elaborate on that within the review. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- 48JCL, looking again at that footnote, it says "if there's no post on the article talk page" you can uncontroversially fail it. In fact Msinccc did post a note saying they'd nominated it for GAN and hoped nobody would object. Nobody did object. I think that means you should not have quickfailed it. Did you not see that note? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mike Christie, could you remove this from my reviews? I have g7d it and put the nom back up. Sorry for all the inconvenience.
- Ping 48JCL 21:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- That should happen automatically when someone else picks it up for review -- it'll mark your review as superseded at that point and subtract it from the count. Thanks -- I think this was probably the right move on your part; if you missed the note on the page it was an easy mistake to make, but since the nominator did ask on the talk page I think a quick fail wasn't the right choice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, thanks -- I'd forgotten about that footnote. I think there are cases where it wouldn't apply so I'll probably start a conversation at WT:GAN about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
DYK for Larrabee County, Iowa
edit
On 23 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Larrabee County, Iowa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that because Larrabee County was not established, Iowa remains a state with 99 counties? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Larrabee County, Iowa. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Larrabee County, Iowa), 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.
Nice one! Feel free to put up your articles on Wikipedia:The 50,000 Challenge.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
User talk page blanking
editI've reverted your restoration of content at User talk:Lionel Cristiano. Per WP:BLANKING, save for a few exceptions, editors are allowed to blank their talk page content.-- Ponyobons mots 22:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)