Duplicate page created (by me)Edit

Hi @Jnestorius: I ended up creating a duplicate of the divorce referendum page you created at Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2016, as it wasn't in the place I had been expecting it, or linked in the navbox or main table (not a criticism, a lot of my edits and new pages can end up being piecemeal!). There was a discussion which I had initiated a few years ago which would have preferred the title format you used, but it was opposed, see Talk:Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2002#Requested move 19 December 2017. In the mean time, we should find the best ways to merge our two pages. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

subperverse acquittals?Edit

Hi -- in the course of this edit, you changed "perverse acquittals" to "subperverse acquittals". Was that change on purpose? I can't find anything about "subperverse" acquittals or verdicts online -- it seems to me that "perverse acquittals" was the correct term? Joriki (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, my mistake. I think I started to type "subornation" and corrected it to "nullification". Always a danger with pipelinks. jnestorius(talk) 00:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

War looting listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect War looting. Since you had some involvement with the War looting redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FA Cup rounds properEdit

Even the Football Association continues to use the word "proper" to distinguish the proper phase of the FA Cup from the qualifying phase. See here. – PeeJay 13:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help editing Boston MarathonEdit

Hello, can you please add a space in the template of the main Boston marathon that redirects to the latest one (2019 Boston Marathon). Please ping me when updated or replied. IsraeliIdan (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zvikorn: I suggest you explain what you want at Template talk:Infobox athletics race and put a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics and Talk:Boston Marathon. I have no opinion on whether this is a good idea or not, but editors with more interest in the topic may object. jnestorius(talk) 12:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, no one really replied so can you make the edit and if somebody objects they will put something on the talk page. IsraeliIdan (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Minor planets by source of name has been nominated for discussionEdit


Category:Minor planets by source of name, which you created, has been nominated for deletion along with every subcategory. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disregard: I had missed the earlier nomination for this tree and don't want to waste anyone's time with a repeat. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elena CornaroEdit

Hi, I see you have been editing Elena Cornaro Piscopia, and made an edit with the comment that "Ph.D. is a stretch". Did you find a discussion of the difference between the laurea awarded to Cornaro and a modern PhD in any of the sources you referred to? If so could you add a short section explaining that claims she was the first woman to receive a PhD are misleading? The article was edited with the comment "first to receive a PhD" just after your edits. I saw the doodle and there seem to be a lot of articles that claim she was the first woman with a PhD, but I did not find one that explained that she did not get a PhD. The "Doctoral degree?" section of the talk page is helpful but not sourced. I am reposting this as I somehow posted it into an archive on 8 June.TSventon (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hiya. Is there a particular reason that you have recreated the article/content on the Housing Rights and Reform Alliance? It was deleted only a few days ago per the inputs of Rosguill, Spleodrach and others to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Housing Rights and Reform Alliance discussion. While I personally chose not to contribute to this AfD, I recognised the outcome. Were you aware of the outcome? If so, and apart from the fact that we now have deleted content being recreated in another form, do you have any thoughts on the situation we now have, where (perhaps) the least notable member of a list is populated with the most content? Or the situation in which one of the members of a list doesn't match the others. (In that, per WP:CSC, the members of a list might either all have an article, or might not.) In that sense, if the selection criteria here is no longer "other registered parties with an article", then is it now to be "all registered parties (article or no)"? If not, then why would the HRRA be listed when other "registered parties without an article" are not. Sorry for all the questions. But I'm a bit confused as to why the HRRA is worthy of special treatment relative to the deletion, selection, redirect, list and other criteria/norms.... Guliolopez (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The initial reason was the cryptic "HRRA" redlinks on 2019 Cork City Council election. In addition, "no elected representatives" was misleading; it did have one elected representative from 2017 to 2019. The obvious criterion for List of political parties in the Republic of Ireland#Other registered parties is all currently registered parties not previously mentioned; if some other criteria are to be used they should be discussed on the Talk page and stated in a comment at the start of that section. As regards "the least notable member of a list is populated with the most content", the problem (fixed) was too little content on the other list items, not too much on HRRA.
There are three possible next steps:
  1. Discuss at Talk:List of political parties in the Republic of Ireland the inclusion criteria for "Other registered parties" and then take action
  2. Leave as is
  3. Delete the redirect, delete the list item, replace {{tl|STV Election box candidate2|party = Housing Rights and Reform Alliance }} with {{tl|STV Election box candidate without party link|party = Housing Rights and Reform Alliance }}, delete {{Housing Rights and Reform Alliance/meta/color}} and {{Housing Rights and Reform Alliance/meta/shortname}}
My vote is for #2 but whatever. jnestorius(talk) 10:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Personally, as I'm a fan of WP:CON, I'll kick off option 1. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KTTL move, thanksEdit

Thanks for the move on KTTL. I had been debating whether or not to move it.

I figured I'd explain why I put it at KMCS (Kansas) in the first place. Typically, broadcasting articles for defunct stations remain at the last callsign of the station unless WP:COMMON is overwhelming (it kind of is here, which is why I even considered it; even the AP article in 1985 is titled with "KTTL", a year after changing call letters, and this station earned national notoriety as KTTL). Some other reasons why it might not be at the last callsign include an extensive or important history under a certain set (such as WBOW (1230 AM)) or the station having gone off the air before adopting new call letters that existed on paper (KSUN (Bisbee, Arizona) isn't "KBZB" for this reason) or for a very brief period (WHSC (Hartsville, South Carolina) has its title because it was WLQR for six days and WTOD for six years—and in each case it was being used to warehouse other call signs from other cities). Raymie (tc) 08:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here’s a brownie.Edit

  I liked your article on Walker’s Hibernian Magazine. Quite a good read. The Time to Llama is Now (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instant positive feedback! Thank you! jnestorius(talk) 15:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Barnaby Fitzpatrick (disambiguation)Edit


If 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 Barnaby Fitzpatrick (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]