Jay8g

Hi @Jay8g: Why did you remove bare url maintenance tag for the Buchanan article when all the refs are bareurls? scope_creep^Talk 05:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Scope creep, please read the documentation for the bare URL template, or WP:Bare URLs. Specifically, "If a URL is accompanied by any other information, it is not considered bare.", and "Any method showing more information than is present in the URL itself is not a bare URL." If you don't think there is enough information, you can consider {{citation style}}. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

That is the second time in three days that folk have asked me to look at the documentation. The docs are 20 years out of date and are shit. A bareurl is anything that doesn't include a website name, publisher and author and location, at the minimum to find it. More and more complexity is being added in to the web and modern site are chok full of different folk working on it, so a simple url and another data item is not enough by a long way to find the information. That url [1] on the Cathy Marie Buchanan in 20 years time will be in archive and will be invisible and will be impossible to find. I know that from experience; already it very hard to impossible to find certain references in modern articles to update to the references in place. You can't find them. So they are still bare urls. scope_creep^Talk 06:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you use templates in ways that go against their documentation, it doesn't make sense to get mad at people for removing them. As I mentioned, there are other, more correct templates you could use, or if you have a specific outcome in mind (as it appears you do), you could always just edit the references yourself to make them the way you want rather than trying to rely on other editors to read your mind. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw that you helped me with some of the citations with a draft I'm working on (Mathias Splitlog), and I tried to indicate a "thanks" from the revision log, but maybe the thanks went to the bot you used? and then I couldn't really sort out how to use the WikiLove appreciation thing... anyway, thank you for the assist! Wikipedian-in-Waiting (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! Citation Bot is a great tool for formatting references. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jay8g,

Thank you for your recent massage. As I don't yet know all the "intricacies" of Wikipedia, I apologise if my answer doesn't follow all the rules. I'll try to respond to the various points raised and try to clear up any misunderstandings.

"conflict of interest/neutrality" : the subject of the article José Tolentino de Mendonça (JTM) is an individual. I don't work for him and I have no power of representation on his behalf. I always try to find quality references to back up what I write, if possible in the Anglo-Saxon press, if not in Portuguese press. As JTM is Portuguese and very well known in his home country, his actions are followed very closely there. Sometimes I mention 'Vatican' sources, such as Vatican News or the Holy See's official communications service, which cannot be accused of a lack of objectivity when all they do is mention a new appointment.

António0196 is a direct reference to my first name. I am the one and only user of this account.

I receive no compensation and do not expect to receive any for what I write on Wikipedia.

Please confirm that these few lines clarify and answer the objections mentioned in your message.

This will allow me to continue contributing to Wikipedia to the best of my ability.

Bestest.

António0196

ANTÓNIO0196 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ANTÓNIO0196 -- I understand all that. Please try to avoid editing in ways that may appear promotional. You may also want to check out Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Thanks! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 21:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your welcome message on my Talk page. Alanli1996 (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jay8g, thanks for your message received here from talk about Kingdom Filipina Hacienda. Yes I am concerned about the misinformation allowed by Wiki promoting misinformation about Kingdom Filipina Hacienda which is only based on personal and very few facts presented, emphasizing old news which only just happened because of ignorance of the people with regards to law. the writer tried to present his opinion in a very malicious way. We are the legitimate new government for the Philippines and soon to be fully operation with lots of transmittals we receive from the government, we are sure our future is bright because we are the only government with lawful territorial integrity. Ninnerity (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Ninnerity - to be honest, your response here is extremely concerning and seems to completely misunderstand Wikipedia's policies and the message I sent you. Please read the links in that message, and especially Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thanks. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Yeah I read about Conflict of Interest and Neutrality. Even if this New Nation I mean is actually under the international law and under Royal Decree Protocol 01-4 and the World Peace Treaty and operating under the existing laws of ownership in the Philippine Constitution, with tangible and absolute proof of Sovereignty and Jurisdiction. it is unfair that my edit is not qualified while the existing version is not substantial. Might as well do not write any bias info at wiki if the intention of the existing wiki about Kingdom Filipina Hacienda is not factual. because my edit version is based purely on facts as prescribed by law. so how come the one who tried to revert to the misinformation is the one who stayed at wiki? Is he not in Conflict of Interest to the Rule of Law? Where is Neutrality? Ninnerity (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, mostly because I have no context for the topic in question. My only suggestion would be to discuss on the article's talk page, where you should be able to find people who know more about what's going on. However, I would strongly recommend against editing the article itself as your conflict of interest is becoming quite clear. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your kind help with the citations of Draft:List of BL dramas article. Best wishes! — ‎‎‎hhypeboyh 💬 • ✏️ 04:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jay8g. Why did you write on my user page that this entry has "very few" "independent" references?

All 30+ citations, including prior to your comment, are made to websites or books published by independent, third-party institutions and publications, including national authorities The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Academy of American Poets, and The Poetry Foundation.

For the entry's accuracy of citations and subject notability, one may begin by seeing:

https://poets.org/poet/chris-hosea

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/chris-hosea

https://lsupress.org/author/chris-hosea/

https://www.chicagoreview.org/chris-hosea/

https://apnews.com/9e163604c113410dab2450c2783666d7

And, for context:

Walt Whitman Award John Ashbery

FYI Masterzora Masterzora recently made helpful citation style edits.

Rocinante108 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Rocinante108, as I mentioned previously, this is not an area that I know much about so I'm not able to be very helpful here. I'd suggest asking elsewhere -- I saw you already started a discussion on the article's talk page, which is always a good place to start. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @V Jay8g

You suggest you are not an expert in the field of American poetry, something that seems apparent, based on your erroneous claims about the Chris Hosea entry.

For some reason, you have written and published what amount to False statements of fact, without qualification, in your own words.

For example, you made the blanket assertion that "very few" of the entry's references were "independent," and suggested in writing that you based this falsehood on your own personal review of the entry.

In fact, the entry's truthful claims were and have been supported (before, during, and after your untrue assertions) by dozens of easily verified, independent, third-party references.

You have registered, moreover, false statements of fact about a Public_figure distinctively notable in their field.

Why, during the past 10 years, did no other editor, apparently, raise any doubts about the entry's references?

For over a decade, a quick review of the entry's revision history shows, Wikipedia editors have acknowledged the notability of Chris Hosea, based, initally, on his appearance, in 2013, on the List of winners of the Walt Whitman Award, a first book prize administered by The Academy of American Poets, and judged by eminent field authority John Ashbery, whose Wikipedia entry currently begins: "Ashbery is considered the most influential American poet of his time."

Prior Wikipedia editors have correctly assigned Chris Hosea to the following categories:

Category:Harvard University alumni Category:University of Massachusetts Amherst MFA Program for Poets & Writers alumni Category:1973 births Category:Living people Category:American male poets Category:American male artists Category:21st-century American poets Category:21st-century American male writers

You, personally, potentially may have the responsibility of defending your Burden of proof (law) in a Defamation lawsuit.

I believe any fair-minded individual would recognize that, at the least, you did not abide by the Wikipedia community's guidelines for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Will you apologize for and retract your false statements of fact?

Thank you in advance for your reply. Rocinante108 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have opened an ANI discussion about this. Please continue the discussion there if that's what you want to do. Otherwise, as I've said before, I'm staying out of this. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 17:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to several studies, the Hui people have significant connections to the Middle East and Central Asia, which are markedly different from the Han Chinese. Here are the details:

1. Whole-Genome Sequencing Study: A whole-genome sequencing study on the Hui people indicates that they have significant Western ancestry. The research shows that approximately 10% of the Hui genome comes from Western Eurasian populations, a proportion significantly higher than that found in the Han Chinese. The study points out that the ancestors of the Hui included merchants and political emissaries from Arabia, Persia, and Central Asia, who migrated to China during the Tang Dynasty and intermarried with the local population​ (Oxford Academic)​.
2. Y-Chromosome Analysis: Another study focusing on Y-chromosome analysis of the Hui population in Liaoning Province reveals that nearly 30% of Hui male lineages are of Western origin. This research identifies a high frequency of North Asian and Central Asian Y-chromosome haplogroups among the Hui, which are not commonly found in the Han Chinese, supporting the significant genetic contribution from Western Eurasian populations​ (BioMed Central)​​ (Frontiers)​.

Additionally, those so-called genes similar to the Han Chinese are due to the deliberate obfuscation by some Chinese researchers aiming to assimilate the Hui people.

These studies provide strong evidence that the Hui people have a distinct genetic heritage that includes substantial Western Eurasian ancestry, distinguishing them from the Han Chinese. I hope this information will help reinstate my edits on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your attention. A2355645 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @A2355645, please discuss this on the article's talk page. Simply removing large amounts of content without a talk page discussion or even an edit summary is problematic, as is edit warring without discussion. This is a topic I have no background or context on so I will not be editing the page on your behalf, but your post above would make a good start to a discussion on the article's talk page, where you will be much more likely to find people who actually know about the topic. Thanks! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 00:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. I joined Wikipedia a few months ago and I was warned because of edit war Colombia page and I don’t really know about many of the policies here because I just recently started editing again.I want to know many of the more important policies on Wikipedia so next time I am more informed on this. ElMexicanotres (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I see that you've been removing the ABC News wikilinks, since they currently go to a disambiguation page following a recent page move. I believe most of them should be adjusted to ABC News (United States).

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jay8g,

Just thought I'd drop you a quick note thanking you for the message! I already have a topic of discussion I think, in WP:LEAD, that might benefit from the experience of those in the Teahouse. I'll probably drop by at some point soon and raise :).

Thanks! - CarterPD (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello boy, but it's not correct the redirect "Unreviewed" because Poggio Sommavilla is a fraction of the municipality of Collevecchio in the Tiber valley and not an archaeological area!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patatebollenti (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have no idea what you're trying to say. Maybe try WP:Teahouse if you have further questions. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

It looks like you suggested this edit, but I can't see where it says that the original article or either of the comments the quote was taken from were made on January 6, 2012. I can see other comments by Deitch made on that date, but not those used here.

Can you tell me where that date came from? Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Ubcule, Citation Bot normally pulls date information from the page's metadata, which includes meta property="article:published_time" content="2012-01-06T10:13:38+00:00"/. It's a bit unusual to cite comments on a blog post rather than the post itself, so I'm not surprised Citation Bot got confused here. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jay8g: The article date seems fine, then. I agree that it's somewhat unusual to cite comments, but in this case they were by Deitch (i.e. both the co-creator of the film and author of the article) on his own site, so it can be assumed they're relevant regardless.

The comment quotes are from two different comments made at slightly different times (and they do include dates), so short of splitting them into two references (which I'd rather not), I'm not sure how they'd both be dated correctly in a single field.

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jay8g. You messaged me on 19 August after I made my first Wikipedia edit, which was to update the profile for David Cappo AO. You suggested it was worth getting you or another editor to check proposed changes. I then noticed that my work had been flagged as containing "promotional material", which was a little surprising. I have drafted some revisions which I think remedy any perceived problems, but I can't work out how to get someone to check them and then how to get the flag removed. I thought I had replied to your earlier message and I also sent an email to another address but have had no response. I hope you can help. Thanks Nick2103 Nick2103 (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Nick2103, I'd suggest you ask at the WP:Teahouse if you would like to discuss further. The content you added was full of promotional wording and resume-like content and is primarily referenced to the organizations' own websites rather than independent sources, which is problematic. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 06:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah shoot, I meant to swap this out and have it run whichever day it launches... I gather it's tomorrow now. But I've been busy so never got around to it and it ran yesterday. Oh well. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jay8g and thanks for the welcome. I've been writing on WP for almost 9 years and have never had a conflict of interest. I love and hate WP and try to improve it where I see deficiencies and I try to do it almost as a fanatic of the neutral point of view. For years I have only edited WP in my spare time, already having a government job that takes up a lot of my time. However if there is something I can do to improve my contributions, I am always ready to listen. Thanks again and good work. Bronzino (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply