User talk:48JCL/Archive/2024/May
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Signature unreadable
Your signature is unreadable. Blue on dark blue does not provide enough contrast. Please consider changing or removing the background color for accessibility. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
May 2024
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to List of Roblox games, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Nominating a page for deletion based on the lack of content listed is purely disruptive, and is not in any way beneficial to the site compared trying to add content. λ NegativeMP1 23:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @NegativeMP1 Sorry, that’s not what I was going for- I proposed it for deletion but after thinking about it I thought it was purely stupid 48JCL talk 01:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
|
thanks for your contributions! :) xRozuRozu (t • c) 17:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
- Thank you! 48JCL 22:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Spanish or Vanish (May 15)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Spanish or Vanish and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, 48JCL!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! -Samoht27 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
|
Women in Red
Hi there, 48JCL, and welcome to Women in Red. I hope you are able to devote some of your editing time to writing women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2024
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
Botswana Defence Force Air Wing
Thanks for this edit. The edit summary was one of the weirdest I've seen in 19 years on Wikipedia! What a bizarre place to source words for a Wikipedia article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Would you consider rephrasing this comment?
I understand that you are frustrated with the users conduct, but let’s assume good faith. FortunateSons (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Weimar Republic essay-like
Hi 48JCL -- Is there some specific section (or sections) of the article that you find particularly essay-like? I largely rewrote the history section about a year ago, so I'm especially interested in it, but I'd like to know your thoughts behind adding the comment box just in general. I can possibly see it for the introductory paragraphs but not much else in the article. Let me know, if you would. Thanks, GHStPaulMN (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Larrabee County, Iowa
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Larrabee County, Iowa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CosXZ -- CosXZ (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2024
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Minnesota State Highway 36
Thank you for your GA review of Minnesota State Highway 36. I'm wondering where you found basic references in the article? To my knowledge all of the sources are cited with a template, I would appreciate you pointing out where they are if I've missed something.
Also, would you advise that I continue improving the article for higher classes or work on other articles instead? NotDragonius (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
GA mentorship
Hi 48JCL, I noticed the note you left at WP:GAMENTOR, and I'm willing to mentor you. We can do this in a couple of ways: I can pick out a couple of articles you might want to review, or you can choose one yourself; we'll then go through the review process together. What sounds best to you? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Thanks for responding! I’ll go for the second option 48JCL (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Currently reviewing Talk:Npm left-pad incident/GA1 48JCL (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay! When starting a review, most people use a reviewing template: I personally like {{GAList2}}, but all the others are perfectly fine. What's important is that they are only a guide—you should aim to go beyond just ticking them off. Personally, I nearly always find that I can comment on GA criteria 1, 2, and 3. Here's what I look for in relation to each criterion:
- Well-written: I read the article top-to-bottom. If there is anything that doesn't look right (grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation) I either comment at the review or am bold and fix it myself. Then, I look at the Manual of Style (MOS) pages the article needs to comply with. This one isn't a work of fiction and it doesn't have lists, so it just needs to comply with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, and MOS:WTW. You should actively try to find places where the article doesn't match the MOS.
- Verifiable:
- First, you need to check whether the sources used are all reliable (helpful links for this are WP:RSP and the archives of WP:RSN). If a source isn't considered reliable, make sure that the nominator can justify having it in the article.
- Second, you need to actually open some of the citations to check that a) the article is actually supported by the citations and doesn't include original research, and b) doesn't plagiarised (copy-pasted, or closely paraphrased) the sources. It's good practice to note the sources you have checked in the review, as this check (we call it a "source spot-check") is required in reviews. If you can't access some of the sources, ask the nominator to provide quotes.
- Broad this is fairly easy—does the article include everything you expect to be told as a reader? Does it go into too much detail at any point? This is a bit subjective.
- Neutral like you did with the MOS pages, check that the article meets everything in WP:NPOV.
- Stable just make sure there haven't been edit wars or big disputes recently (also check the talk page)
- Illustrated if the article has no images, try and see if some could be added; if it does, go to their pages to check that all looks ok with the basic parameters (year, source, author) and that the license looks alright. You'll rarely find problems here, but it's good to check.
- In general, if you've checked something, note it down in the review, even if nothing was wrong in the end. This helps assure people that you have actually reviewed the article. I think that's a good starting point—how about you continue with the review now, and ping me when you think you're done (or earlier, if you need an opinion!) so I can look it over? Best of luck! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay! When starting a review, most people use a reviewing template: I personally like {{GAList2}}, but all the others are perfectly fine. What's important is that they are only a guide—you should aim to go beyond just ticking them off. Personally, I nearly always find that I can comment on GA criteria 1, 2, and 3. Here's what I look for in relation to each criterion:
Your GA nomination of Larrabee County, Iowa
The article Larrabee County, Iowa you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Larrabee County, Iowa for comments about the article, and Talk:Larrabee County, Iowa/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of CosXZ -- CosXZ (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for including me in Larrabee County, Iowa :-)
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| I have been chickening out of my first GA for months and suddenly, because of you, I kinda sorta got half a GA without even realizing it. Last week at work was gnarly and my self esteem has been bouncing around like the logo on the DVD menu. This was such a nice surprise! Thanks for all you do. I'm excited to see what articles you write next! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
Welcome!
Hello 48JCL/Archive/2024 and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
- The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
- The project Academy has lots of useful information about editing and writing military history articles. One very useful introductory course to get you started is Writing a good stub.
- Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
- The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
- We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
- We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
- If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
- If you would like to receive the project's monthly newsletter, The Bugle, please sign up here.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Jwaneng diamond mine
The article Jwaneng diamond mine you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:Jwaneng diamond mine for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Esculenta -- Esculenta (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|
hope you're doing well! take care :D xRozuRozu (t • c) 17:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |