User talk:Jake Wartenberg: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:35, 11 July 2013 editGreyshark09 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers42,564 edits →Syria Infobox issue ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 19:48, 13 December 2024 edit undoJake Wartenberg (talk \| contribs)Administrators22,981 edits →Updating Lemish page: ReplyTag: Reply
(246 intermediate revisions by 99 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talk page\|noarchive=yes\|search=no}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
			<br />
	\|maxarchivesize = 125K
			{{archive box}}
	\|counter = 5
	\|minthreadsleft = 15
	\|algo = old(5d)
	\|archive = User talk:Jake Wartenberg/Archive %(counter)d
	}}
	{{bots\|optout=all}}
	{{usertalkheader}}
	{{Signpost-subscription\|right}}
	{{WPLP/A}}
	__TOC__

	== ~~Talkback~~ ==		== I Hate Sex ==

			Dear Jake — I recently submitted a draft article on the band ] for review. I didn't realize at the time that there was a previous version of the article that was deleted several months ago. Since you were the administrator who carried out the deletion, I wanted to invite you to take a look and provide feedback. Thanks! ''<span style="color:#0000f1">]</span><span style="color:#0f0"><sub>]]]</sub></span>'' 14:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
	Replied on my page. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 23:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

			:As you mentioned on the draft talk page, your draft has non-primary sources. I'm very optimistic that it will be accepted. Thanks for your work on this! ⇌ ] 15:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
	== Concerned ==

			== LTA ==
	Please be aware that DIREKTOR is not the victim he tries to make himself out to be. The Syrian civil war is a polemical issue - the most polemical international issue right now. He has it in his mind that "mainstream media" (that being reliable news networks In North America, Europe, Austrailia and Japan) are completely biased in their reporting, and whether he realizes it or not, he believes that any user that repeats their reports or expresses any hint of sympathy to the conflict should be regarded as a suspicious user. Now I have gotten into soapbox debates with User:Funkmunk plenty a time, and so after reading these debates DIREKTOR is entirely convinced that my only goal on wikipedia is to push a view, particularly in favor of the opposition/rebel side. However personal views do not influence my input on wikipedia. Fact-checking, sourcing, and determining proper weight does. ] (]) 23:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
	:I'd like to draw your attention to ] on DIREKTOR's talk page. I think he may be right, that for a little while today it did seem like some progress was being made through edit warring. There were several edits you made which did not revert his additions in full. Do you agree that there is a potential compromise here? ⇌ ] ] 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	::After I made those additions he raised Lebanon and Turkey into the same column section as the SNC. My revision that I first made is the only acceptable solution if we are going to go so ridiculously far as to include Israel. ] (]) 00:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::DIREKTOR, you described the revision in question as "not a bad step towards compromise." Would you be willing to accept this until there is a consensus for something else? ⇌ ] ] 00:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	::::I would. I'm just not sure Sopher99 and the others feel like they should compromise like that anymore, now that they had their own version back up and protected. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 00:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::::Futuretrillionaire and Sopher99, what do you think? I will immediately lift the protection if you both agree to this. I'm sure all three of you agree that it would be incredibly gratifying to make some progress on this issue after so long. ⇌ ] ] 00:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

			] is back as ]. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 06:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
	If the infobox looks like this, where all the border clash countries are kept to one section of the box, and explicitly stated border clashes and their respective dates, then yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=546779284&oldid=546778964 ] (]) 00:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
			:Blocked. ⇌ ] 13:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
	:I do not agree to the unnecessary dates for each individual border clash, I do not like the weird double line divider. I do not like the fact that Israel, Turkey and Lebanon are listed together as allies(!?), and I do not like the fact that Turkey is unnecessarily listed twice in that version of the infobox (once more in the collapsible box). But I would agree that the inclusion of Israel is the primary issue, which makes the version much more acceptable in my view. Like I said, its not a bad step towards compromise. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 00:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
			::Thanks. For future reference, specifically ] was this one? I've seen them around, but I've never known which one it was. - ] <sub>]</sub><span style="color:#6B8E23">\</span><sup>]</sup> 18:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::I'm not sure, though I've also seen it before. ] was the one to report it to AIV the first time around, I wonder if they can tell us? ⇌ ] 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
			:I feel kind of awkward starting a game of telephone, but I think {{u\|BilCat}} is more familiar with their MO than I am. But from what I do know, it's an Australian LTA who edits military aircraft articles, adding 'that was' into the opening sentence, and whose edit summaries usually involve insults directed specifically towards the education/intelligence of Americans. ] (]) 19:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
			::Yes, among other things, they tend to follow tedious prescriptivist grammar rules that either are no longer followed, or aren't applicable in American English. They're either very old or very young, or possibly both! Sometimes they engage in insults, and sometimes they don't. It's possible they're actually meatpuppets, but I really don't know. the location of the IPs in Australia can be from widely spaced cities, so it's hard to know. ] (]) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

			== ] ==
	We can scratch out the dates, and we can put '''Border clashes and incidents:'''
	] (]) 00:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:No, disagree to another pointless heading - "border clashes" is in the note next to necessary faction entries, and that's a standard format that's perfectly fine with me. I generally disagree to lumping Tukey, Israel and Lebanon together based only on the extent of their involvement. These factions are not associated. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 01:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	::'''Cross-border incidents''' , or we put a line between each of them, but thats just getting awkward, but I can accept it. ] (]) 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::Again, disagree to your adding another heading - its just another means of somehow "distancing" Israel from the SNC that's beyond how the template is generally used. And again, I disagree to lumping them together at all as they are not mutually associated. The reason its awkward is because its unnecessary. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 01:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	::::No I mean not lumping them together (putting lines between them) is awkward. But if you want to put lines between them, then okay. ] (]) 01:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::::That corrects one issue, but creates another - the awkwardness of such a setup. What is your objection to moving Turkey up below the SNC? They have been their loudest, strongest and most generous supporter, and have engaged the Syrian government with their own military numerous times. If I'm not mistaken - the SNC is actually ''in'' Turkey. That move would also eliminate the need for a double listing of Turkey. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::Has to explicitly say border incidents. Lebanon can't go there as the official government has no direct support to them. ] (]) 01:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::That's agreed. There's no question that Turkey's listing requires a <small>(border incidents)</small> note. As for the Lebanon.. perhaps they can be moved just below the Mujahideen, separated by their line? I'm not married to that, though.
	::::::::While we're at it I'd like to thank Jake for allowing us to use his talk for this :) <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 01:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::My pleasure. ⇌ ] ] 01:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Lebanon hasn't responded to bombing of its territory, so the country isn't involved at the state level. It has an official policy of dissociation. That non-state actors from that country have joined the fight doesn't change that. ] (]) 05:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::The only thing I care about is whether the military of the country took part in the conflict (that is to say, engaged in some kind of combat with one or more of the factions). Is that the case? NPOV is simply writing that infobox as all others on this project are written. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 05:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::There have been a few clashes between the Lebanese army and insurgents who crossed the border. ] (]) 05:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::Hm. That would mean it should go to the left-hand column rather than the right. Frankly, I'm not familiar with Lebanon's role in the war.. it seems like a topic for thorough discussion, can we take it one at a time? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 05:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::No problem, I just chimed in when I saw the countries being thrown around. ] (]) 06:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	Futuretrillionaire, do you have anything to add? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 11:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::::::::Syrian army shelling has killed lebanese civilians multiple times To which Michael Suleiman condemned the shelling, and threatened to take it up with the UN, meaning Lebanon is against it. ] (]) 12:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::::::::::Possibly, but to list the Lebanon as a state among the combatants we'd have to have some kind of involvement on the part of its military (and a source like the ones for Israel would be nice as well, but I won't insist). Either way, let's not get into that here on JW's talk. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 12:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

			I wanted to move this article to mainspace and found out that it was (correctly) protected by you. Can you kindly unprotect it? I’m keep tab on the article to keep away promo-socks. Best, ] 08:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
	I have lifted the protection. You are all expected to adhere to 1RR, with no exceptions. ⇌ ] ] 15:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
			:Done! ⇌ ] 13:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
			::Many thanks, Jake. Best, ] 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

			== Block of ] ==
	I see only 3 users involved in the designing of the "compromise" proposal here. What's the rush? Please wait for the other editors (including me, Baboon, Jeancey, Sayerslle, and Darkness Shines) to respond to the proposal before implementing it. Until everyone has responded and there is a consensus to the proposal, the pre-edit war version needs to be restored, and I recommend the article to be locked until then.--] (]) 21:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
	:I'm sorry you didn't have the opportunity to comment before I lifted the protection, but if you are addressing me, I didn't implement anything, the other involved editors did. The original protection was only for 24 hours, so it would have expired by now, had I not lifted it. I would not feel comfortable leaving the article indefinitely protected until a formal consensus is reached, considering that this is something has proven to be nigh impossible to achieve in the past. I think the best course of action is for you to voice your concerns at the article talk page. I encourage you to temper your expectations, as the other users have shown a willingness to compromise that is quite commendable. If your request is something other than "remove Israel from the infobox" you may find them quite amenable to it. Hopefully you all can find a middle ground that leaves everyone equally dissatisfied. ⇌ ] ] 21:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

			I'm not sure I understand why you blocked this user. To be sure, there was some edit warring at ], but you blocked them for spam, and I don't see what is promotional about their edits. Can you please explain? ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 19:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
	== Soffice.exe ==
			: is the AIV report that I was responding to. The report states "all refs have this link." This is not the case, so I can certainly see why you reached out. That said, the user subsequently created a new sock account and resumed edit warring. ⇌ ] 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
			:: Thanks for the clarification. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 21:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

			== Thanks for the help ==
	] wasn't an article, it was a disambig. ] (]) 02:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
	:Thanks. I guess I was going too fast. ⇌ ] ] 03:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

			I'll wait a while on resubmitting the Buck Arnold page, since I'm not sure how or why some of those decisions were made. You got me back the text and other information I'd researched and published, and as you can see, there were five references.
	== ] Infobox issue ==

			But again, I'll just wait a bit to do a resubmit. Thanks ] (]) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	I need to inform you that there is an issue where editors have been arguing over the positioning and presentation of the Syrian infobox despite my attempts to promote a middle ground (neutral lead infobox with competing governments in the Politics and Government section, similar to Libya in 2011) in wake of dramatic changes to the state of politics in Syria. I refrained from making any more moves until an administrator can advise me on what to do next to resolve the dispute. Dear sir, can you please advise on how we can solve the Syrian infobox issue before it gets worse? Thank you. --]<sup>(])</sup> 12:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
	:I have made the editors working on that page aware that they are under a 1RR restriction, and that seems to have stopped the edit warring for the moment. Other than that I guess I would suggest expressing your opinion at the current RfC on the talk page. ⇌ ] ] 19:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
	::] was about Israel's involvement, so I had to ] (and consolidate all separate discussions about that). Sorry. --]<sup>(])</sup> 06:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
	:::I have to apologize; I thought you were talking about a different article. I hope the RfC is successful. ⇌ ] ] 23:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

			:I'm very happy to help. To understand why the article was speedily deleted, you can refer to ]. Based on ], it's not enough to say that he was the head coach at a Division II school. If there isn't another way to make an assertion of notability, the other option is to find sources that discuss him in a substantial way. You can see ] for more information about that. Please fell free to let me know if you have more questions. Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines and deletion processes are really complicated. Another great resource is to submit your draft for review, rather than moving it to article space. That way, if it still needs work, it will merely be declined, rather than deleted. ⇌ ] 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	===1RR issue===
	@Jake, i understand that in order to prevent constant edit-warring you decided to put 1RR restriction on the ] page (March 24 enforcement ). However, there might be a serious flaw in using the "Arab-Israeli arbitration enforcement" tool on Syrian conflict: first of all Israeli involvement is so far very limited in that conflict and hence it is not present in the infobox yet; secondly, even if considering Israeli involvement, it is not a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict (conflict between Israel and Arab League), but actually part of the ] (Iran is not an Arab country and of course is not part of the Arab League). Considering that Syria is suspended from the Arab League (see ), thus the "Arab-Israeli arbitration enforcement" on Syrian conflict is completely irrelevant. I suggest creating a new arbitration tool named "Syrian conflict arbitration enforcement" for 1RR enforcing on related articles to resolve this issue.] (]) 17:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
	:I agree. Most of the editors on the talk page agree that Israel is not a party in this conflict.--] (]) 14:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
	::All I can do is apply the criteria for these sanctions, which is set by Arbcom, to the best of my ability; I cannot suspend or alter sanctions. You should direct requests of this nature to ]. ⇌ ] 00:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::I will clarify myself - you are not requested by us to do anything retroactively regarding the sanctions already imposed. The question is whether you can remove the ARBPIA tag from "Syrian civil war" article now and the editor community will ask to create "Syrian conflict arbitration" 1RR rule (i can start it), or you keep the ARBPIA tag on "syrian civil war" article (which me and many others think is not justified as the case of ]) until the editor community decides to create a similar "Syrian conflict arbitration" enforcement rule - specifically designated for Syrian civil war articles.] (]) 16:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::Since i noticed you are gone for a long time vacation - i shall follow your suggestion and turn to Arbcom. ] (]) 12:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

			== I did not try to delete Wiki pages ==
	===Discussion on Arbcom=====
	A request for Arbcom regarding creation of specific Syrian civil war 1RR arbitration tool is ] and if accepted will affect ] and other related pages. The issue was previously ] and recommended for Arbcom solution on the issue . As an administrator involved in previous discussion, your opinion is requested, thank you.] (]) 17:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

			Sorry about this, but I wasn't trying to vandalize Wiki pages. All I did was a minor edit on a page involving programs on The WB 100+. It was just a mistake that it was vandalism. ] (]) 22:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
	== Your opinion? ==

			:Your edit was reverted by a ], which is why I deleted your talk page. Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages, and please let me know if you have any further questions. ⇌ ] 22:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
	After days of intense discussion, debate, and compromise a version of the infobox has been produced that seemed to be in accordance with the position of most involved users. It has been written according to a set standard (military involvement warrants mention), and in accordance with the numerous listed sources.
			::Yeah, I don't like it when the edits were reverted by random people even though I was being honest about the edits, and especially bad users who likes to purge Wiki pages. ] (]) 23:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
			== "]" listed at ] ==
			]
			The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10#Misplaced Pages:JDELANOY}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 02:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

			:Hi, I've gone ahead and deleted this. 2009 was a very different time... ⇌ ] 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
	In the middle of an amicable effort to further perfect the infobox through study of available sources (), ] indiscriminately '''' to the version you initially protected. To me it appears as though the user was clearly misinformed, and apparently had not even bothered to glance at the talkpage and review the massive efforts therein ("please address the discussion page before making such edits"?!).
			::Thank you, and sorry for the trouble :) <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 01:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
			::You should not have deleted this and you need to restore it. It was not eligible for G7 speedy deletion because there were good-faith recommendations for actions other than deletion in the ongoing discussion, the discussion was also no eligible for snow closure. ] (]) 23:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::I don't believe that the discussion precluded me deleting the page, so long as the page met the criteria for speedy deletion. ] says, "Pages currently on proposed deletion or deletion discussion may be deleted through speedy deletion." ⇌ ] 18:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::Deletion discussions do not preclude speedy deletion - but only if the page actually meets a speedy deletion criterion, which this did not. Speedy deletion is explicitly only for pages that are uncontroversial, the existence of good-faith recommendations for something other than delete means deletion is controversial. ] (]) 18:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I'm afraid I don't share that interpretation. Your recourse at this point would be to unilaterally reverse the deletion yourself or to open a DRV discussion. That said, I really think it would be unfortunate to waste more of the community's time discussing an ancient joke redirect. ⇌ ] 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Now at ] because this is not a matter of "disagreeing with that interpretation" it is contrary to the explicit wording of the CSD policy. ] (]) 19:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

			== User:JLCSan ==
	Jumping at the chance, Futuretrillionaire immediately moved in to yet again ] revert restrictions to have his way (just as when he tried to have me blocked back then). The user restored the erroneous revert, and in "one fell swoop" made nothing of the ''immense efforts'' at compromise and standardization over the past several days. I am frankly appalled and thoroughly ''disgusted'' at what I perceive is deliberate and malicious disruption. I suppose I too should probably have reverted to some ancient version clamming there's "no consensus" for any of the changes between.

			Hi Jake! ] got blocked but I think that the things they were saying on their talkpage about ], specifically {{tq\|the name is not "Tabacalera, S.A." anymore, the type is not "Sociedad Anonima", the predecessor is also wrong, the date it was founded is wrong, it is not Defunct, Products are not those anymore, and the article is almost empty from what the company is and does..}} is mostly, but not entirely, correct. Maybe you wanna take a look as a sanity-check? The block was completely unrelated to factual accuracy. I made some edits. Nothing makes sense on that article. ] (]) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	That's my view anyway. Oh and both Futuretrillionaire and myself technically breached 1RR with this . I myself completely forgot about the previous tiny revert, but I probably would not have been able to stop myself anyway from reverting Mikrobølgeovn's ''terrible'' misinformed rollback. Either way I'm not prepared to just let this ''vandalism'' go. As an admin previously involved in this would you be interested to intervene in some way? ties blindfold, lights cigarette <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- ] <span style="color:#464646">(])</span></font> 02:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
	:I am also dismayed that edit warring has started up on that page again. I don't really see what I can do to intervene at the moment, though. I will continue to watch the article—I'm afraid that's the best I can do. ⇌ ] ] 23:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

			:Thanks for looking into this. I blocked them for their conduct on the article, including edit warring and inserting promotional language. Unfortunately, they were not receptive to being asked to make requests on the article talk page, instead of editing the article directly, and seemed to be unwilling to work with us. They eventually resorted to making a legal threat, and I revoked their talk page access. All that said, I'm not surprised at all that there are some inaccuracies. Given the research you've done, do you think the article meets our notability guidelines? They did request that it be deleted at one point. ⇌ ] 18:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
	== Casio watches ==
			::Well, I did some digging, and they are not going to like what I found. Not a 400 year history; they started in 1945 in a ]. Somehow they forgot to mention that on the timeline on their website. ] (]) 21:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
			:::Yikes. Thanks for your work on this article. Please let me know if you need help with anything, such as the page move. ⇌ ] 23:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

			== Gladiators S2 vandal ==
	Can you please provide the rationale for deleting the "List of Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of possessing Casio watches"? Is it because of consensus based on heads counting, or is there something appliable in their arguments that is based on policy? ] (]) 13:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
	:I'm not sure what you are asking me to do here. We've both read the discussion, so I really don't think it's necessary for me to summarize all of the arguments that were presented. I did find the nomination, which cited BLP concerns, to be particularly convincing. I think that ''some'' of this content could be reincorporated into the ] article. If you would like, I would be happy to userfy the page for you. ⇌ ] 16:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
	::I was asking which arguments you thought were supported by policy. The concerns about BLP were because the article when nominated had a large amount of primary sources, but all those had been removed from the final version so they shouldn't be a concern anymore; in particular not because of ], the only policy mentioned by Nick-D. Everything in the list was referenced to reliable sources, and the "attempt by Fladrif to address BLP concerns in 2011" was again reinstated and included. Given that all the concerns from the nominator have been addressed, what's exactly the problem with BLP that lead you to delete the list? ] (]) 21:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::I didn't realize that the sourcing had been fixed, although I should have. I've asked Nick-D for his input. ⇌ ] 04:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::Hi Jake, I expressed several concerns when starting the AfD, of which the BLP problems were only one (if I thought this was fixable by reverting to Fladrif's version I would have fixed it) so Diego's suggestion that all my concerns had been addressed is not correct - if this had been the case I would have withdrawn the nomination. Most of the editors who voted to delete the article did so ''after'' Fladrif re-removed the material sourced only to primary sources, so there seems to be no reason to disregard their votes, especially as many of the votes were clearly motivated by concerns over the notability of this concept which was one of the issues I raised in the nomination statement (none of the references linked these people together on the basis of the watch type) as well as concerns over this being a WP:COATRACK. Moreover, no-one actually voted to keep the article - Diego was the sole editor who didn't think it should be deleted, and he wanted to merge its content into another article (a position which attracted no other support). As such, your closure of the discussion as 'delete' was sound, and there was no other policy-based option available here given the clear consensus was to delete the article. Regards, ] (]) 09:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::A merge is a !vote to keep content, and it was the only one based on policy in the whole discussion. I suggested the merge precisely to avoid the concerns of it being a coatrack, even if WP:COATRACK is not policy; and ''my'' concerns that a deletion would go directly against WP:PRESERVE were ignored; closing admins are supposed to assess the strength of arguments, ]; if the multiple similar opinions didn't include arguments, the discussion should be closed as no consensus - specially if the "per Fladrif" and "per nominator" were based on the PRIMARY argument, when the primary links had been corrected. In particular I cared about the summaries of the arguments given by the numerous newspapers included in the right column of the table; those would have been a nifty addition to the Denbeaux article and didn't have any BLP problem, but are inaccessible now that the content has been deleted. This is why deletion is ] and articles should instead be fixed by editing whenever possible. ] (]) 12:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::Come on, Diego, lets get real here. There were 10 deletes and one merge. Many policies and guidelines were referenced in the discussion, so it's not just a headcount. Just because you don't agree with the other side doesn't mean you can just dismiss them. The only reasonable way of interpreting the consensus was "Delete". Let it go. (My apologies to Jake, for hi-jacking your talk page.) ] ] 14:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::I'd still would like anyone to explain how the final version of the page had problems concerning BLP, since nobody has provided an answer to that question; and why we can't reuse the well-sourced elements from the newspapers. ] (]) 14:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I don't think that the fact that the sourcing issue had been corrected is in dispute anymore. I did miss that initially. ⇌ ] 21:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::And yet, the deletion decision was based on that? Is there a way to recover the well-sourced content and merge it somewhere else with proper attribution? ] (]) 21:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Are you still thinking of merging it with ]? Was there any information about the watches in the reports that article covers? Otherwise, I can't see how that would be appropriate. ⇌ ] 21:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Yes, the "Detainees' profile" section covers Denbeaux's mention the Casio watch and olive-drab clothing cited as evidence of enemy combatants. The descriptions by newspapers of instances of those mentions would be a contextually relevant expansion. ] (]) 22:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

			The IP you blocked from adding unaired info to the Gladiators 2024 article has been doing it again! block them again immediately! ] (]) 20:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
	I've ] the article per my original offer. ⇌ ] 00:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
	:OK, thanks for your time. ] (]) 12:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

			== Invitation to participate in a research ==
	== Discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard ==

			Hello,
	Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 08:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

			The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
	== Articles for deletion: Embassy of Honduras, Ottawa ==

			You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
	Hi. You closed an ], but there were more articles in there. I ], maybe you'd like to follow and/or comment (probably better there, to keep things in one place) Thanks - ] (]) 22:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

			The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
	== AFD close ==

			Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
	Could you undo your close at ]? That article was already covered by ], but my close didn't apply to the discussion you closed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 22:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
	:I've reverted my closure and left a note asking the closing admin to extend the AfD. Sorry all. ⇌ ] 23:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

			Kind Regards,
	== PAK SHAHEEN CRICKET CLUB ==

			]
	Hi Jake. You deleted my new page 'PAK SHAHEEN CRICKET CLUB'. This was my attempt to establish some history for this club which lasted for over 20 years and which was an important part of the lives of those that were members and resulted in the sporting interests of the parents of two higly respected and important sports of the current generstion; namely Amir Khan (Boxer) and Sajjad Mahmeed (Cricketer). Both of their wikipedia pages were linked to this new page. Please reinstate the page and it will be expanded by the various interested members. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Replied on talk page. ⇌ ] 19:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	Hi Jake. Thanks for your reply. Reliable sources are the following websites:
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->

			== Dafna Lemish page updates ==
	The original article listed some club members and the following are linked to the external websites which have been on the net for years:

			Dear Jake,
	Mohammed Arshad and Mohammed Yaqoob - www.khukh.net

			Would you please review my latest attempt to update ]? I left you a note to continue our thread.
	Sahid Mahmood (father of Sajid Mahmood, England Cricketer - www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/17944.html

			Thanks,
	Sajjid (Shah) Khan (father of Amir Khan, Boxer) - www.amirkhanworld.com

			TheBlueHeronofHopewell ] (]) 21:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
	Hope the above will enable you to reinstate the original article. You can add the external libnks or I can do so.

			== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
	Given a few weeks I am sure members will add further info to justify retention of the article for the future.
	*Unfortunately, none of these qualify, as they either primary sources or do not directly cover the subject of your article. Please see or policies on ] and ]. ⇌ ] 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

			Hello,
	== Lifting the 1 revert rule ==

			I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
	Can you please lift the 1 revert rule from the ] page. The conflict about the infobox is long over. And as the Syrian civil war page becomes a more popular destination in recent days, other editors who are editing the page for the first time and don't know what there doing are making many mistakes that are difficult to deal with the 1 revert restriction. ] (]) 08:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	:I understand your frustration, but this is not actually something that I have the power to do. All articles that relate to Israel-Palestine, broadly construed, fall under these restrictions. Perhaps keeping track of problems with the article on the talk page would be helpful in the short term. Otherwise, your best bet is to ]. ⇌ ] 14:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
	::I don't understand. You put the 1 revert rule in the first place without no request to do so. Also this article has nothing to do with Israel-Palestine. ] (]) 00:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::In my opinion the article clearly falls under the sanctions. People have been arguing for months over Israel's role in the conflict, as you are well aware. Note that other articles that might seem only tangentially related such as ] fall under the same restrictions. ⇌ ] 00:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

			Take the survey ''''''.
	== Syria Infobox dispute escalating to censorship, edit wars and such. ==

			Kind Regards,
	I'm sorry to inform you but you should check out the history of Talk:Syria and recent events. A user known as Eliastoma is attempting to silence my complaint about editors attacking my users pages and such. I don't think this can go on. Can you please escalate the infobox dis]'''<sup>(])</sup> 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
	:I've blocked the account. ⇌ ] 00:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

			]
	== ] ==

			<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
	Could you unprotect ] so I can move ] there please?--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->
	:Done. ⇌ ] 17:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
	::The ] article has been through three or four Afd reviews and has failed each time, only to be reinstated with similar content. The ] page is also not supported - it is almost an exact replica of the three-times deleted article. The article page was protected to prevent exactly this. Any chance of having the protection reinstated to prevent yet another tedious Afd process? ] (]) 18:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::Thanks, Wikipeterproject, for providing that context. I usually air on the side of granting requests if I don't have the time to look into them. I have restored the protection. Launchballer, you would need to go through ] for this. If you choose that route, please advise me. ⇌ ] 19:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
	::::Having had ] very kindly eMail me the content, that is certainly not similar content to what was eMailed to me; my article is much better, with 10 external links (of which six are inline citations). But as per your suggestion, {{done\|]}}.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 12:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
	:::::The submission for the article's creation has already been declined on the basis of lack of notability. The citations in the proposed page are either primary sources or blogs. Although the actual content of the proposed article might be different, the basis for multiple deletions has not been resolved therein. ] (]) 10:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

	== ~~Family~~ ~~Ties~~ ~~seasons~~ ~~AfD~~ ==		== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	Hi. You closed ] as ''redirect'' (no deletion) two weeks ago. I commented about the ] problems at ], and I think that these articles have the same problems. ] also created these, and spot-checks find identical episode blurbs. Would you consider revising your close to ''delete'' or ''delete and redirect''? Thanks. ] (]) 04:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
	:I've deleted all the revisions except for the ones which contain the redirects. Hope this helps. ⇌ ] 04:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
	:: That does. Thanks for your quick response. ] (]) 04:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2024\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	== 1rr? ==

			If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx\|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
	i thought the syrian civil war article was set to 1rr? sopher has made 2 reverts in one day. ] (]) 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
	:Which diffs are you talking about? It looks to me like he made two reverts, the first of which he self-reverted. Although this is still technically a violation, I don't see much reason to impose a block. ⇌ ] 19:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

			</div>
	== NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22 ==
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->

			== Updating Lemish page ==
	{\| style="{{divstylegreen}}{{border-radius\|8px}}"
	\|-
	\| rowspan = 3 \| ]
	\| style="font-size:150%;" align=center\|] at Prospect Park
	\| rowspan = 3 \| ]
	\|-
	\| You are invited to the ''']''' in Brooklyn's green and lovely ], on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the ] :) -- ] (])
	\|}

			Hi Jake,
	</div>

	<!-- EdwardsBot 0550 -->
			Would you please take a look at this thread and advise me? I'd really appreciate it!
			https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dafna_Lemish?markasread=331329314&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Axad12-20241101155900-TheBlueHeronofHopewell-20241101124200 ] (]) 19:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

			:I think Axad12 gave you some really good feedback that mirrors a lot of my own suggestions. In keeping with that, I would start a new section on that page and only make a single request. There are two requests in your comment, so you would need to remove one and save it for later. Make sure you use {{tlx\|edit COI}} at the top of the section and ]. Lastly, it's important to make sure that you are logged in when editing. Thank you as always for your patience and attention to our processes. ⇌ ] 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:48, 13 December 2024

This is Jake Wartenberg's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

I Hate Sex

Dear Jake — I recently submitted a draft article on the band I Hate Sex for review. I didn't realize at the time that there was a previous version of the article that was deleted several months ago. Since you were the administrator who carried out the deletion, I wanted to invite you to take a look and provide feedback. Thanks! Qmwne₂₃₅ 14:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

As you mentioned on the draft talk page, your draft has non-primary sources. I'm very optimistic that it will be accepted. Thanks for your work on this! ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

LTA

That LTA you blocked is back as 49.186.59.12. - ZLEA _T\ 06:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. For future reference, specifically which LTA was this one? I've seen them around, but I've never known which one it was. - ZLEA _T\ 18:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, though I've also seen it before. User:Loafiewa was the one to report it to AIV the first time around, I wonder if they can tell us? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel kind of awkward starting a game of telephone, but I think BilCat is more familiar with their MO than I am. But from what I do know, it's an Australian LTA who edits military aircraft articles, adding 'that was' into the opening sentence, and whose edit summaries usually involve insults directed specifically towards the education/intelligence of Americans. Loafiewa (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, among other things, they tend to follow tedious prescriptivist grammar rules that either are no longer followed, or aren't applicable in American English. They're either very old or very young, or possibly both! Sometimes they engage in insults, and sometimes they don't. It's possible they're actually meatpuppets, but I really don't know. the location of the IPs in Australia can be from widely spaced cities, so it's hard to know. BilCat (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Goya Menor

I wanted to move this article to mainspace and found out that it was (correctly) protected by you. Can you kindly unprotect it? I’m keep tab on the article to keep away promo-socks. Best, Reading of Beans 08:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Done! ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Jake. Best, Reading of Beans 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Block of User:Bomyy

I'm not sure I understand why you blocked this user. To be sure, there was some edit warring at Manipulation (psychology), but you blocked them for spam, and I don't see what is promotional about their edits. Can you please explain? WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 19:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the AIV report that I was responding to. The report states "all refs have this link." This is not the case, so I can certainly see why you reached out. That said, the user subsequently created a new sock account and resumed edit warring. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 21:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

I'll wait a while on resubmitting the Buck Arnold page, since I'm not sure how or why some of those decisions were made. You got me back the text and other information I'd researched and published, and as you can see, there were five references.

But again, I'll just wait a bit to do a resubmit. Thanks Hubdb39 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm very happy to help. To understand why the article was speedily deleted, you can refer to WP:CCS. Based on WP:NCOLLATH, it's not enough to say that he was the head coach at a Division II school. If there isn't another way to make an assertion of notability, the other option is to find sources that discuss him in a substantial way. You can see WP:BASIC for more information about that. Please fell free to let me know if you have more questions. Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines and deletion processes are really complicated. Another great resource is to submit your draft for review, rather than moving it to article space. That way, if it still needs work, it will merely be declined, rather than deleted. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not try to delete Wiki pages

Sorry about this, but I wasn't trying to vandalize Wiki pages. All I did was a minor edit on a page involving programs on The WB 100+. It was just a mistake that it was vandalism. 173.207.89.188 (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted by a vandal, which is why I deleted your talk page. Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages, and please let me know if you have any further questions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like it when the edits were reverted by random people even though I was being honest about the edits, and especially bad users who likes to purge Wiki pages. 173.207.89.188 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages:JDELANOY" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Misplaced Pages:JDELANOY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10 § Misplaced Pages:JDELANOY until a consensus is reached. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've gone ahead and deleted this. 2009 was a very different time... ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for the trouble :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You should not have deleted this and you need to restore it. It was not eligible for G7 speedy deletion because there were good-faith recommendations for actions other than deletion in the ongoing discussion, the discussion was also no eligible for snow closure. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that the discussion precluded me deleting the page, so long as the page met the criteria for speedy deletion. WP:DP says, "Pages currently on proposed deletion or deletion discussion may be deleted through speedy deletion." ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions do not preclude speedy deletion - but only if the page actually meets a speedy deletion criterion, which this did not. Speedy deletion is explicitly only for pages that are uncontroversial, the existence of good-faith recommendations for something other than delete means deletion is controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't share that interpretation. Your recourse at this point would be to unilaterally reverse the deletion yourself or to open a DRV discussion. That said, I really think it would be unfortunate to waste more of the community's time discussing an ancient joke redirect. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Now at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 12#Misplaced Pages:JDELANOY because this is not a matter of "disagreeing with that interpretation" it is contrary to the explicit wording of the CSD policy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

User:JLCSan

Hi Jake! User:JLCSan got blocked but I think that the things they were saying on their talkpage about Tabacalera, specifically the name is not "Tabacalera, S.A." anymore, the type is not "Sociedad Anonima", the predecessor is also wrong, the date it was founded is wrong, it is not Defunct, Products are not those anymore, and the article is almost empty from what the company is and does.. is mostly, but not entirely, correct. Maybe you wanna take a look as a sanity-check? The block was completely unrelated to factual accuracy. I made some edits. Nothing makes sense on that article. Polygnotus (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I blocked them for their conduct on the article, including edit warring and inserting promotional language. Unfortunately, they were not receptive to being asked to make requests on the article talk page, instead of editing the article directly, and seemed to be unwilling to work with us. They eventually resorted to making a legal threat, and I revoked their talk page access. All that said, I'm not surprised at all that there are some inaccuracies. Given the research you've done, do you think the article meets our notability guidelines? They did request that it be deleted at one point. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I did some digging, and they are not going to like what I found. Not a 400 year history; they started in 1945 in a dictatorship. Somehow they forgot to mention that on the timeline on their website. Polygnotus (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yikes. Thanks for your work on this article. Please let me know if you need help with anything, such as the page move. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Gladiators S2 vandal

The IP you blocked from adding unaired info to the Gladiators 2024 article has been doing it again! block them again immediately! Visokor (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Dafna Lemish page updates

Dear Jake,

Would you please review my latest attempt to update Dafna Lemish? I left you a note to continue our thread.

Thanks,

TheBlueHeronofHopewell TheBlueHeronofHopewell (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Updating Lemish page

Hi Jake,

Would you please take a look at this thread and advise me? I'd really appreciate it! https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dafna_Lemish?markasread=331329314&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Axad12-20241101155900-TheBlueHeronofHopewell-20241101124200 71.168.164.97 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think Axad12 gave you some really good feedback that mirrors a lot of my own suggestions. In keeping with that, I would start a new section on that page and only make a single request. There are two requests in your comment, so you would need to remove one and save it for later. Make sure you use {{edit COI}} at the top of the section and format the references correctly. Lastly, it's important to make sure that you are logged in when editing. Thank you as always for your patience and attention to our processes. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)