LastJabberwocky

Welcome!

Hi LastJabberwocky, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Mach61 01:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Freestyle Chess Grand Slam Tour

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Freestyle Chess Grand Slam Tour, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Future Days

As per the message on your userpage, it's great that you've decided to help out, but you might want to have a look at this diff. It introduces grammar errors in the second and third lines of the article, which isn't a good look. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ashley Pomeroy, I couldn't find grammar errors, but the lead certainly was incoherent in parts. I tweaked it. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPPROD

Hello, LastJabberwocky,

I had to untag several articles you tagged for BLPPRODs because they violated the basic eligibility for this tag: To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography. In other words, the article was not the biography of a living person but were articles about musical groups or musical acts. BLPPRODs are intended to be for unsourced biographies of individuals, not groups.

Please review WP:BLPPROD if you have any questions about this deletion process. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, please know that for a BLLPPROD, having external links counts as "sources". But you can always try using a regular PROD instead if an article is not eligible for a BLPPROD. Just supply a policy-based deletion rationale when you tag the article for consideration for proposed deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Good morning! I realized the BLPPROD nomination probably wouldn't work on bands since they are organizations/groups, but in all cases I nominated individuals doesn't have, so I thought the group is ALSO their biography (I need read more about BLP :)). I put them for discussion spreading it through a couple of months. LastJabberwocky (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Unlink circular redirects

Hi, and thanks for your work cleaning up the backlog of unreferenced articles! When you WP:BLAR an article, could you try to check if it's linked in the target page, and if so unlink it? This saves people reading the article from thinking "oh, neat, more information about this subject" and then being looped right back where they started. Not a big deal, just a nice bit of cleanup. Rusalkii (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder!

Regarding the GA nomination for JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, I completely forgot about the authorship part of nominating, so thanks for reminding me about that! I'm currently #6 on the authorship list, so I'm a lot closer to being able to actually nominate it, but I still couldn't have done it without you! - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 00:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@OpalYosutebito No worries, one of my initial thoughts: what if I pick up review anyway; the main of the review is to improve the article and we can do that. But there are so many active editors that contributed to the page and can be potentially hurt (out of top five four are active). BUT I think it's fine. You can already co-nominate the article with the guy/gal with dominant 30% authorship. All if they are busy, you can solo nominate! LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good to me, but I'll be sure to crack down on it towards the middle of May, when school is over - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 18:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

On the subject of eurobeat...

You recently put up a deletion proposal for eurobeat vocalist for Elena Ferretti. As a eurobeat fan I am sad to see her lack significant coverage but that's par for the course of someone who was only famous in non-English speaking nations. However, looking at other eurobeat artists I have found that many of them use few sources, mostly primary ones. Do you think that maybe these other people should also get deletion proposals? The only artists I can see with some notability in the English-speaking world are Dave Rodgers (although his article isn't the best), Ken Laszlo (solely because of Tonight) and Annerley Gordon (because of her non-eurobeat stuff). GarethBaloney (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

When you redirect articles...

Like here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Revolve_(Danger_Danger_album)&diff=prev&oldid=1288127410 can you then also remove the link from templates? (in this case Template:Danger Danger -FMSky (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I removed several of the links; there is only one stray left. I'll get it! —LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ege Bamyasi

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ege Bamyasi 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 Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Please stop redirecting articles?

Noticed on your talk page you've been doing this for awhile. I just undid two of your redirects pertaining to Edgar Rice Burroughs characters which, at a minimum, should stay until an AfD discussion. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, I'm picking only articles that potentially lack notability and if I can I save them removing notability warning. In this case you're right there are two sources that can be expanded into make an article (for both characters I touched). I'll remove the notability warning. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I mean, if there were two mistakes in a row maybe a much more careful look at both the pages you wish to delete (I consider redirects such as this deletions as what people usually do when "redirecting" pages is not merge any of the informative information) and those you've already redirected. Thanks. I just happened to see these two because I have them and the Barsoom navbox on my watchlist. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn Well, I redirected because a character page needs something extra (analysis, cultural impact, discussion by nice sources). In this case they didn't have information that can be merged. Barsoom already has brief bios for both of them and the two book sources. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 15:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand that, and have been called an ultra-inclusionist because of things like this, yet full pages on characters from a major series by Burroughs seem notable if sources exist. Maybe if at all questionable you can Afd pages and not just remove them (editors, in some cases many editors, have worked on each page deleted/redirected, and in doing so put their thought and energy into them). Apologies, I don't like criticizing other editors in such a way and hinder their work, just that others have worked on those page too. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ege Bamyasi

The article Ege Bamyasi you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ege Bamyasi and Talk:Ege Bamyasi/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ege Bamyasi

The article Ege Bamyasi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ege Bamyasi for comments about the article, and Talk:Ege Bamyasi/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 Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Precious

good article rescue

Thank you for quality articles such as Ege Bamyasi, for rescuing good articles such as Wanna Be Startin' Somethin', for redirecting less notable topics, for reviewing for good article such as Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott, BWV 80, - Michael, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2971 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Yaropolk Iziaslavich retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Nicolinas

Thank you very much for taking my GA nomination for the article Nicolinas that was up since September of last year. I’ve fixed the things you pointed out and I’m available to discuss any further details. V.B.Speranza (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @LastJabberwocky, I’ve done a few more changes, once more, thanks for the review! V.B.Speranza (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello @LastJabberwocky, is it possible to extend the deadline for me to make the changes? I’ve had a tough week and I don’t know if I’ll be able to conclude the necessary changes until then! Thanks, V.B.Speranza (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@V.B.Speranza Not a problem; we probably here for the next ~month. I'm ready when you are! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 19:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@LastJabberwocky Hi! Addressing some things following further changes, i believe I’ve addressed everything marked with the “pending” symbol apart from the bibliography and the PDF formatting. I’ve also made the changes you asked in the text, apart from those I don’t agree on, if you want any explanation or clarification I’m here to help. V.B.Speranza (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The World Destubathon

You are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. It's currently planned for June 16-July 13, partly due to me having hayfever during that period and not wanting to run it throughout July or August in the hotter summer and will be run then unless multiple editors object. There is currently $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. As 250 countries and entities is too much to patrol, entries will be by user, but there is $500 going into prizes for editors covering the most countries. Sign up if interested! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is given to LastJabberwocky for two straight months of contributions to WikiProject Unreferenced articles with a tally of 258 points as of May 31. Your citations have helped to reduce the backlog by 12,000+ articles since the beginning of the year. To the June backlog drive and beyond! Cielquiparle (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Fulda Symphonic Orchestra deletion proposal

I've entered some information on the Talk Page for this article. Opus33 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024/GA1

Hi there. Apologies for the message out of the blue, I'm a collaborator of Grk1011 over at WikiProject Song Contests, and I noticed you recently did a review of Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024. I can see that you're an avid nominator of articles to put through the GA process (as am I!), but I believe that this is your first time reviewing an article, is that right?

While I have no doubts about the work Grk1011 has done on the article, I am somewhat concerned about the speed and process you followed when doing the review on this article. I'm sure you will have seen from articles you put through the GA process in the past that putting an article through the process and engaging with the editor(s) involved is one of the best ways to ensure quality articles, and to make articles even better than when it was nominated. This is why when I saw how bare bones your review was I was concerned, and I'm sure Grk1011 would agree that we were expecting a much more thorough review of this article. It can be very frustrating, given the timescales that are now expected when it comes to waiting for a GA review, that when you finally get a chance to have your article reviewed it is then almost rubber-stamped without any proper comments to work on.

In the past I have had an article's status revoked because of a poorly conducted review, which was powered it turns out by AI, so it's important to know that recent reviews are going to be scrutinised by admins. I suggest you look at the instructions on reviewing GA nominations, and compare your recent review with past reviews on your own articles; hopefully you will see where you have fallen down here. Even if the article is ready to go, just following the instructions and providing some short notes for each of the criteria may be enough, just to show evidence that you compared the article to the criteria and found no issues. Otherwise it gives the appearance that you took on the review and just tapped it through without any proper scrutiny.

I'm saying this just as a concerned editor, and I want the best for this encyclopaedia, as I think all editors do. It just doesn't sit well with me when I see such a bare bones review, when I'm sure Grk1011 was expecting a lot more from the process. I'm not sure what the next step would be now that the review is done and the article has been listed, but I suggest you work together to remedy the situation before more formal action is required, which may mean months more waiting for a proper review. 09:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sims2aholic8: Well, when I pick up an article from an experienced editor there are, in most cases, only three things that can be worked out: prose, broadness, and verifiability AKA spotcheck. I checked two of those things (prose and verifiability), and performed c/e myself as I usually do. BUT the thing I forgot is to wait for feedback on the c/e (through usually no one really responds, instead they copy-edit my copy-edit if they deem it necessary). So I closed the review.

Also, people mostly complain when I get picky about everything :). Like my review of Chalandriani with UndercoverClassist who questioned whether some of the suggestion are a part of the GA criteria for prose. I saw his point, but we couldn't get to a reasonable compromise. After that I add prose suggestions a bit more lightly.

The broadness aspect doesn't raise any red flags, but even GA article can be expanded; no need to get 100% of info on the subject. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you for having this discussion! I do share some of Sims' concerns in that perhaps the review could be a bit more explicit in what was checked. For example, I think the instructions now say that you should list the specific reference links you spot checked. This is mainly to prove to questioning editors and potential GARs in the future that the article did actually have a thorough review before getting to GA in the first place. At the same time though, I hear LastJabberwocky's point that sometimes it really just is a minor rewording here, some punctuation there; all items that are easier to just fix during the read through instead of writing out and having the nominator fix it. I've certainly had reviews before where reviewers were like "you forgot to add a comma, I'll wait". But I guess at least that documents something! Maybe in this case LastJabberwocky, if you could take 15 mins or so and just add a bit more to the review. Maybe that checklist template they have or a link to the diffs where you made the copyedits. I really do appreciate editors that take the initiative to do the minor edits!! Grk1011 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Hello, I'm Pyrrhic victor. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Tibor Tscheke have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Take a look at our guidelines about external links. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Sheila Hutchins

I deprodded this, because there appears to be at least three reliable sources for significant coverage. You may take up the issue at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of For Your Pleasure

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article For Your Pleasure 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 Cathodography -- Cathodography (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Susanne Nies

Hi, I’ve removed the PROD from Susanne Nies. She doesn’t seem like a clear PROD candidate, given her academic and policy work and senior roles, including chairing the board at Fraunhofer IEE, which is a well-known institution in Germany. If there are notability concerns, WP:AfD would be the more appropriate venue. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Christine McVie album GA nomination

I wanted to express my gratitude to you for taking a look at the article for the Christine McVie album. I'm not sure if you saw this, but I provided some responses to some of the comments you made regarding the Background section. Once I receive further feedback from you, I can begin to integrate these changes. Thanks. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I slowly but surely will make progress; hopefully with helpful suggestions. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Seneca Hawk

This band is arguably notable, so take it to AfD. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Ukrainian Male Chorus of Edmonton

I'd prefer to merge or redirect this to an appropriate article. What do you? Bearian (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian: Sure! Edmonton doesn't feel like a good merge location. We can merge it into Music of Ukraine#Post-independence as an example of enclaves of Ukrainian music abroad. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok! Do it! Bearian (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Cason Cooley

If and only if we could verify that he was a member of The Normals, then we could redirect it. What do you think? Bearian (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I think redirects are great. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

P.P.S. What would you think about a redirect of Nelson Ascencio to MADtv? Bearian (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Both are really good redirect destinations; I'll make the chamges. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 07:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Bearian (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of For Your Pleasure

The article For Your Pleasure you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:For Your Pleasure for comments about the article, and Talk:For Your Pleasure/GA2 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 Cathodography -- Cathodography (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Question

Hello! I hope I'm not bothering, I'm the editor you promoted the Meg White article to a Good Article with. I do want to eventually push it for a Featured Article (which is a bit ambitious, but I think I'll request a review/some help from the FA mentees) and I wanted to ask your opinion on something: I noticed that in a lot of musician's FAs (Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Lorde, etc) that they have their "Early life" and "Personal life" sections combined into a "Life and career" one. Should I do that for this article too, or would it not be needed? Watagwaan (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Watagwaan, I'm still not familiar enough with FA criterias, but will try take part in Meg White FA review! Regarding your question I found three articles that have a "personal life" section (Nick Drake, Janet Jackson, Margaret (singer)). By looking at these six articles, I think the section structure is dependant on the amount of public personal life that can be cited and how well it's connected to their career (i.e Taylor probably the most public person I can come up with and her personal life often influences her songwriting so they can be nicely tied together). I think Meg White's "personal life" section is nice. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 18:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, cool! Thank you so much for your feedback! Got it, I won't combine it then! Here's hoping we can get this into a FA! Watagwaan (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Watagwaan, Also I need to warn you that Wikipedians are really strict about WP:OVERQUOTING (mostly rightfully so). If a quote can be rephrased without losing meaning, it probably should. Thus, one of the first suggestions on FA, I assume, would be to paraphrase some quotes/parts of quotes. Here's copyvios report on some of the more urgent overquoting. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 19:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The only red/marked quotes and words here seem to be the names of things (i.e Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the White Stripes) save for that first quote we paraphrased about Meg's shyness as a child. Watagwaan (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I did just tweak that quote actually. Watagwaan (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of 2015 Kazakhstan Futsal Cup for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Kazakhstan Futsal Cup is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Kazakhstan Futsal Cup until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Svartner (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)