User talk:Jay D. Easy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Montenegrin football seasons[edit]

Hello. Could you move the season article back to (e.g.) 1953–54 instead of 1953–1954. Sports seasons are titled using a shortened second year. Cheers, Number 57 17:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for reaching out. Where in MOS can I find this? Jay D. Easy (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where it's stated, but it is how it's done. See Category:Bundesliga seasons or Category:La Liga seasons for some high profile examples. Number 57 19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

The edit summary on this edit is unacceptable: →‎See also: I immediately recognized these two 4em-wide columns as the work of an expert craftsman, and in a fit of envious rage, I destroyed them.

I almost reverted it based on the edit summary alone, I won't be surprised if someone else does so. The purpose of an edit summary is to tell other editors reviewing your changes what you are doing and why. That edit summary says "this is vandalism", and is actually one of the recognizable syndromes of editors who are deliberately damaging the encyclopedia to make a point. Don't do that. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further back in your history, I see this (i don't think i've ever trimmed this much indiscriminate bullshit) and [this], (rm idiotic links and pipes; merged unnecessary sections; lots of ce tbd) edit. Edit summaries like that are disruptive, and under some circumstances can earn you a visit to the dramaboard (WP:ANI). Please adopt NPOV even in your edit summaries, to avoid antagonizing other editors. It's unprofessional — it invites confrontation. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's aimed at no one in particular so don't feel offended. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 16:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tarl N. is perfectly correct. Your last edit summary was:"A true work of art: notice its powerful shading of depths at varying intervals. Embark on a spiritual journey as you follow the caption's protusion downwards into the article. Will it ever end?—no one knows. You may pass through an entire section, only to end up in yet another section! Such is the power of this invaluable piece of artisanship. (but yeah i wrecked it for obvious reasons)" - that gave readers no clue as to why you made your edit and saying I wrecked it suggested vandalism. Edit summaries are meant to be aimed at the reader and explain the purpose of the edit. I wasted time trying to find out if you really had wrecked it. You may see it as fun, others don't and this really has to stop. Please. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hahah, yeah I thought it was funny. But you're right. I'll do my best to keep 'em concise. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 18:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with User:Tarl_N. Edit summary was nonsense. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I undid that Attack on Pearl Harbor revision solely based on the edit itself, before I saw how inappropriate the edit-summary was. DMacks (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, DMacks. The other users' commentary I understand. Yours raises a couple of questions, though. First of all, relevant though the links may have been, the ones I removed I definetely judged to be less relevant than the ones I didn't touch. Your ES mentions WP:EL, which confuses me since I only touched the links in the See also section. Though I think you simply made a mistake there? If not, which part of WP:EL were you referring to specifically?
As long as we're on the subject of WP:EL, the one I'd want to point to is WP:ELPOV, which was a big part of the motivation behind my edit, albeit more in the sense that I felt the lesser relevant links detracted from the most relevant ones. I'd rather present links to a couple of good and highly related articles than a bunch of links of varying levels of relevance. Quality over quantity, you get the idea. But yeah, the biggest motivator was to do something about those horrible 4em-wide columns that you have now restored.
But anyways, I concede that I may well have ruined a couple of my well-intended edits through inappropriate edit summaries. So to anyone reading this, while I do stand by my edits themselves, I apologize for the dumb edit summaries. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I meant SEEALSO not EL (I do a lot of EL cleanups, got my fingers tangled:(. There might be reasons for removing SEEALSO links, but without a reason it looks poor. I use a narrow desktop screen, so I hate forced layout in multi-column situations also. Removing the 4em spacing between the columns in this case seems useful; 2em seems to be the default for multicolumn? But forcing three columns is itself a bigger problem. I switched it to use flexible columns based on screen-size. Feel free to start a discussion on the article talkpage about the relevance of various links. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Dmacks, sorry for the late response. I was re-reading what you wrote and wanted to point out that I meant 4em-wide columns. Meaning the middle and rightmost columns themselves were set to a width of 4em, not the spacing in between. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 16:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why?[edit]

Hello and nice to meet you, Why you removed the picture of the paperboy of the Titanic? I thought I was contributing for the better of the article. --LLcentury (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, LLcentury. Thanks for reaching out. I take it you added it in the first place? There's nothing wrong with the picture itself. However, the way you added it and the way you aligned it, made it so that it sandwiched the text at the top of the paragraph it accompanied, which in turn makes for an unpleasant reading experience. But not to worry, I'll see what I can do about adding it back to the article some way. Give me a sec. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!, I thought I had done something wrong, and indeed, yes I "sandwiched" the text. LOL. Thanks again. --LLcentury (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, there's something i must tell you, the FP candidate is a better quality picture, please check it if you wish. Best of luck. --LLcentury (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

LLcentury: don't worry about it. I usually try to save whatever I can, however in this paragraph I felt it best to simply remove one of both images. I chose to delete the you added because the other does a better job at conveying the immediate sense of grief felt by the passengers' and crew's close ones.
In any case, I added it back to the article! Just please be mindful not to sandwich text or make edits that generally detract from the ease of reading an article. Like cramming an article full of pictures, haha—just because they exist doesn't mean they should all be crammed into it. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LLcentury: you've lost me here. Which FP candidate are you referring to? And what picture? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry PLEASE for the mess, I am referring to this Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sinking of the RMS Titanic --LLcentury (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LLcentury: oh, that one! Now I know what you mean. I actually used the picture you used, but I cropped it myself a couple of minutes ago. You're right when you say that it's more detailed, however try to look at the thumbnail in the article itself. Surely you'll notice in my thumbnail it's easier to immediately recognize what you're looking at (depending on your monitor, of course). The zoomed-in version actually allows a reader to clearly see the newspaper caption in the picture. Also, when you compare your full-res, zoomed-out version to mine, do you really feel we're missing any type of essential piece of information that can only be conveyed by what's on the picture's pheriphery?
Also, don't worry about whatever type of mess, haha! Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Bag and Horace Williams Fuller[edit]

I have reverted some of your edits to Horace Williams Fuller, and I have filed an RfD on your reversion of my retargeting of the redirect, The Green Bag (magazine), at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 12#The Green Bag (magazine). You are welcome to comment there. With respect to Fuller, please make a more thorough check of the sources provided before requesting citations for statements already fully cited in the article. Also, please do not remove images of the article subject from the article unless you can provide a better one. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome and I won't fight you on any of this. Just trying to contribute in a way I felt was substantive. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 21:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. The image in the Fuller article was the best one I could find. The original was of very low quality, and I had to adjust the color balance to make the contours clearer. bd2412 T 21:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit[edit]


USS Jeannette[edit]

Hi, you deleted my {{contradict inline}} tag about the date of sinking, but did not make an attempt to reconcile the discrepancy between the two articles. The ship either sank on the evening of the 12th or the morning of the 13th. If you're sure it was the 13th as described in USS Jeannette (1878), then please make the correction in Jeannette expedition. As both articles cite the same source for this statement, one of them must be incorrect. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 19:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Howcheng, thanks for reaching out. Yeah that's my bad, I simply forgot. It's now been corrected. Take care. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Input?[edit]

Hello @Jay D. Easy: when you mean by unnecessary there are pages that do use you tube videos if they are from a Reliable source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC,_Myspace,_Facebook,_and_YouTube_reliable_sources? ? it seemed like a good closer to the section Jack90s15 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, lots of articles use YouTube videos as refs, and there is no established rule that forbids it. Personally though, I'd argue that actual literary works hold more encyclopedic value and integrity as a source, as opposed to a video that may be taken down at any point in time. Next to that, I believe it's a lazy way of adding references, and if you look at any random bunch of references that are YouTube videos across Wikipedia, you'll notice most of them are haphazardly added. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: as if to prove my point about your unfamiliarity with syntax, you haphazardly added that entire URL instead of just creating a wikilink. It's cool that you're contributing, and the last thing I want to do is discourage you. Just please familiarize yourself with and put some effort into eligible syntax. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay D. Easy: I see what you trying to tell me Can I put in the External links can we compromise on that?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss,

Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.Jack90s15 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay D. Easy: I did not see your 2 post to my 1 reply If I redid into a wikilink?, would that be ok to post it back there or my other idea is better? putting it in the External links. Jack90s15 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have no idea what you're even talking about anymore. You're all over the place. It's obvious that English isn't your first language, and while that's fine, of course (it's not mine either), I do feel you should reconsider whether adding significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia is really the right thing for you to focus on. Especially since you seem somewhat confused about the guidelines and other established practices.
To answer what I think is your question: no, it's better to not add a link to that YouTube video at all. Not even to the external links. It's low quality, unencyclopedic in comparison with written accounts, and only marginally connected to the subject of Zhukov. See WP:YOUTUBE. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jay D. Easy: Sorry for confusion with that, that is why I have an a adoptee to help me with Wikipedia and I see what you mean how its marginally Connected with Zhukov What happened was I saw the first reply but I did not see the second one that is why my comment was a bit all over the place sorry about thatJack90s15 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USS Sheridan (1865) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect USS Sheridan (1865). Since you had some involvement with the USS Sheridan (1865) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhnotsoloud: thanks for bringing this to my attention. I looked up some sources and it appears you're 100% correct. So my bad, this is fully on me. I added my vote in support of deletion. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 16:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Louis I of Anjou does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Hello Jay- I think I might agree with your deletion of the section in this article, but it would be helpful to all of us if you left edit summaries. Eric talk 10:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Jay D. Easy

Thank you for creating Purple club-headed fungus.

User:Originalmess, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, when making redirects it would be very helpful to make sure the redirect is in the target article. However, a quick google search of "Purple club-headed fungus" only brings up paraphrases or duplicates of the Ergotism page with no other sources referring to the species by this name. Could you please clarify this? Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Originalmess}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

originalmessbusta rhyme 03:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosguill found it was a translation of the latin name. All good, thanks! originalmessbusta rhyme 00:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Montgommery spelling?[edit]

I see you renamed "Gabriel, comte de Montgomery" as "Gabriel de Lorges, 1st Earl of Montgommery". Is the double-m correct in this context? It isn't the current spelling in the English language, and is inconsistently used in the rest of the article. I could understand its usage in the French Wikipedia (and cf the Landurant book) but you have replaced a French-accented title with the "Earl" title and the English-language references use the single m. At least, perhaps explain the difference in the body of the article? David Brooks (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidBrooks: I'm not against reverting back to the French title if you judge it best. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done, the difference explained inline, and an appropriate redirect added. David Brooks (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 Wikipedia 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 2019 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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox spy[edit]

Re Template:Infobox spy: I noticed you have made a number of edits to the template. The codename3 parameter is no longer displaying on page Anthony Blunt. Do you have any idea why that might be the case? Thanks for any help! --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert.Allen: I removed them myself after I decided that having up to eight, nine, or ten (I don't remember) codename labels was a bit excessive. The idea being that you can now use |codename2_label= to create a custom label, e.g. "codenames" (plural). Come to think of it, even that might be excessive, still. Because one codename label should be all you need, really. Just stack all codenames using {{unbulleted list}}. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert.Allen: I took the liberty of editing the Anthony Blunt article to show you what I mean. Feel free to undo it if you please. Personally I think it would look best if they weren't stacked, but just comma-seperated. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.[edit]

Dear colleague,
First of all, I want to thank you for sending me your thanks via the button, after this edit. I was going to come and visit you here anyway to inform you, in the nicest possible way, of how some of your recent edits, and their edit summaries, have made me feel:

  • I was puzzled by your reverting of this edit, and would therefore appreciate it if you could help me understand what motivated your action. The hyphens I had inserted were obviously not vandalism, nor applied in error, and they conformed to the guideline set out in the isbn parameter of the template: Hyphens in the ISBN are optional, but preferred. Thank you for letting me know why you reverted that edit.
  • Please may I also respectfully suggest that you consider the effect of some of your edit summaries on the morale of your fellow editors? I was puzzled, and hurt, by your use of such words as: "fix haphazard refs" and "fix novice refs, footnotes, double spacing, missing commas, haphazard images"; was it really necessary to be so pointed? Although all of us are always on a learning curve, neither Brian nor myself deserve to be labelled, however indirectly, as "novices", nor do we aim to edit Wikipedia in "haphazard" ways. In summary, I felt that your edit summaries were unjustified, unhelpful and hurtful.

Personally, when I notice an error introduced by another editor, I tend to assume good faith and I also ask myself what I could do to help the other editor, who might not be aware of some guideline or other. Since you are clearly a very experienced editor yourself, I think the project would benefit even more if you were able to find a way of contributing more positive edit summaries.

Therefore, and in a spirit of cooperation, I am offering you the suggestion of considering my practice of keeping a page of sample edit summaries that I now use all the time, as I find they make me more productive and might also prove useful when other editors assess my edits, since I provide links to the appropriate guidelines. Yes, they make for long-ish edit summaries, but I'd like to think they have the benefit of clarifying the intent behind my edits, which are often further justified by the linked-to guideline(s).

Finally, I hope you will be able to read all the above in the positive spirit in which it was written, and I am hopeful you won't mind that I pointed out an area of improvement that I dare say will be of benefit to you personally, as well as in maintaining harmony within our community of editors. Thank you for your time and consideration.

With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 12:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pdebee: thank you for contacting me. First and foremost I wish to apologize for my edit summaries. They were written without thought nor tact, and they do not reflect the incredible work that you and Brianboulton have done on not just the article in question, but many others as well. I recognize that it was wholly unnecessary for me to use such adjectives as haphazard or novice, which, truth be told, your work is anything but.
From my perspective there might sometimes be an easier—or more concise—way of writing code, prose, or a page's overall legibility. None of that justifies criticizing others' work, and therefore, once more, I hope you will accept my apology. I will improve my edit summaries and I thank you for the suggestion and the link to your user page. Please feel free to call me out on any possible future improper conduct, because although I will do everything in my power to prevent it, I do admit to sometimes reverting to bad habits. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 13:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Jay,
Thank you for your prompt reply and apologies, which I accept wholeheartedly, and which I am happy to confirm have helped me put this incident behind us. I really do appreciate your stated resolve to improve your edit summaries, and I commend you for it. If it helps, you will have noticed that mine always begin with an action verb, followed by a brief description of the target of the action, plus (quite often) a wikilink to the shortcut keyword of the appropriate guideline. I find such a structure tremendously useful, not only for other editors assessing my edits, but also because it acts as a safeguard that prevents me from adding any personal views I might sometimes feel about the state of the content prior to my edit.
Might this perhaps be an easy, ready-made structure for you to adopt, thereby also helping you keep to your resolve? I hope it will be. Please feel free to "steal" () any or all of my sample edit summaries, if you think you can use a similar approach. To tell you the truth, I came up with this solution because I got fed up with typing the same edit summaries all the time, and forgetting some of the keywords to the guidelines I wanted to quote. Plus, it's really easy to keep that samples page open in another window, then switch to it and simply grab the appropriate one!!
In any case, thank you for your part in this exchange, Jay, which I am happy to say has made me feel a lot better. I wish you well in all your projects here, and want to thank you for all your past and future contributions to our encyclopedia. Please keep well and happy.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 17:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A7 speedy tag on Zuzana Štefániová[edit]

Hello Jay D. Easy -- I've declined this as there is a clear claim of significance in the article. Also, while other-language encyclopedia have different standards, an article on another wiki is an indication of possible notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's with your edit summaries?[edit]

contributing to wikipedia: how not to do it rating: god awful and unreadable, but keep trying ‎ looks like someone flunked english

I might also note that this is not the first time people have questioned your borderline—in some cases wholly—uncivil edit summaries, though I find it strange that this issue only pops up every once in a while. Please stop. Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While you raise a fair point, does it justify reversal back to a problematic prior version? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the edit summaries, I'm glad to see that you recognize that there's a problem. However, you also recognized and apologized for your edit summaries just one month ago (December 2019) and have faced questions about them last February and May. And those are just the times someone felt compelled to leave a message. Will you commit to using civil and constructive edit summaries moving forward?
On the prior versions, neither of your edits I reverted benefited the articles. Please see MOS:REPEATLINK and when WP:OVERLINK applies/does not apply. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

prairie fever[edit]

Hi Jay, whatcha think about this version of Prairie madness#In popular culture? Cheers, --Taterian (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Union Pacific Railroad[edit]

I am trying to understand your removal of links in Special:Diff/949169442, because these seem to be reliable and likely useful resources and you didn't provide any explanations. Graywalls (talk) 06:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate and uncivil accusations[edit]

In January 2020 you made a series of accusations of spamming and vandalism which I found inappropriate and directly rude - see under January 2020 on my talk page. Such incivility is not good for the encyclopedia; it would irritate many editors and deter others. I hope that you understand how important civil discussion is for the community to thrive. I expect that you will try to offer feedback in a more constructive manner in the future. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voicing your concern. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stein[edit]

Hi Jay, you specified Stein′s date of death in the German Wikipedia without any source. Could you add an appropriate reference, please? Thanks Dreizung (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreizung: Done and done! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 12:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Dreizung (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Poolaw[edit]

Can you clarify why the Combat Infantryman Badge x 3 has been denied. More rare than the Medal of Honor. Thanks. Lpinn (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Batavia (1628), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marooned (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roem–Van Roijen - oops[edit]

Hi, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. I asked a Dutch friend about the capitalization of "van", but overgeneralized the rule he explained to me. I have reverted my changes. Take care. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 08:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelis Boom[edit]

I do not follow the reason for the changes you made to this article, which do not seem constructive. As far as I can tell, you removed the infobox for a biography, removed all the single line breaks, and removed all the images. Why? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the line breaks. It should be self-explanatory why I removed the infobox. Also WP:NOTGALLERY. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 16:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with both points.
  • The essay on Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes is just an essay, the opinion of some editors. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Use of infoboxes: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." That is, before removing the infobox (a potentially controversial action) you should gain consensus on the article talk page.
  • Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of photographs or media files with no accompanying text. However, the map with its extensive caption and the detail of this map showing the Lastage are directly relevant to the text, which is mainly about controversies over the Lastage roads, canals and slips. The illustration of a contemporary ship launching slip by Hendrick Avercamp, also shown in w:nl:Cornelis Boom, gives a view of what was being disputed, and the picture of the Militia of Boom's son captain Captain Abraham Boom is directly relevant to the section on Descendants.
I will restore what you removed. The simplest way is to simply revert to the earlier version. Did you add any content in your edits? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 14[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lucius E. Burch Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservationist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dog. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. 22 June 2020 - inclusion of unsourced text under an existing reference, and deletion of properly sourced material with your comment "rm speculative tidbit". William Harristalk 12:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Dox[edit]

Hello, you were right to remove the categories, I was mistaken with another wiki-version (the Dutch one). However, I do not agree that you remove the category Lier, Belgium. This category still belongs on his page as he has a strong connection to his birth-city and has , eg. a street named after him. He is still known in his birth town and praised for his actions. Regarding your comment on the minor edits, it is possible I might have ticked minor when I should not have.Garnhami (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC) EDIT: regarding the need for additional sources, I have removed this. I have no clue why this is needed. Almost all the references are peer reviewed, written by historians, published in journals regarding history or they are reference from newspapers. They are in accordance with wikipedia standards. Also, pretty much every statement/sentence in the article is supported with a reference. So I have no idea why you would need additional reference. Wikipedia does not require the references to be in English. A last comment: you will not find anything else on this matter. I added pretty much every reference there it to be found, but perhaps I can add 1 or 2 more, but they are more general ones (and not specific on Pieter Dox).Garnhami (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful...[edit]

In this edit you moved list-defined references into the body of the article. That is counterpolicy. It is also disruptive, as it erodes the utility of our diff mechanism. Other contributors can't use the diff engine to determine whether you merely moved the references for some trivial aesthetic reason, or whether you both moved them, and changed the values of some of their fields.

There is a well-known and respected principle, in engineering, and other technical disciplines -- "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Edits like worse do not comply with that principle. Please be more careful. Geo Swan (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, don't make up fake reasons for why you disagree with an editor. You disagreed because it converted a table to a list, not because of anything to do with references. It is not disruptive. You are well within your rights to revert per WP:BRD, but don't make it out like it's petty vandalism. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primefac, the inaccurate note, above, was normal human fallibility. I reverted someone else, that day, who had unnecessarily futzed around with references, I put the explanation in the wrong spot. Apologies Jay. Thanks for your interest Primefac. Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you know, that secondary other side note question that was going on with the the question[edit]

{{ping|Geo Swan}} and every edit and all the other edits today, 30th AUgust, what's the deal ? you could take out the links to pages but maybe then add them into the wikicommons they reference Dave Rave (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC) and edited 22:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
so many edits that are removing info ... is this right ? Dave Rave (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
his mis-info is a separate issue from every edit removing info Dave Rave (talk)
Note: Dave Rave created a new section with the above comments to Geo Swan in Special:Diff/976066700. I have also used markup to clarify subsequent edits to those comments. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave Rave: I've changed the {{help me}} template you put on this user's talk page, because it's not clear what you want help with. If you would like to ask a question, visit the help desk, or you can click this link to ask a question, or just leave a message on my talk page. Seagull123 Φ 12:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
once again a question is hard to read. current page, user contributions Dave Rave (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to talk page watchers: OP separated these comments from where they were in a previous section, then substantially changed one of them.
Nothing inherently wrong with edits that are mostly removals, especially when surveyed over such a short period of time. If you are truly curious about the user's behavior, provide that user diffs or at least a link to the page in question. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ho hum
in that other section where someone else asked about that other edit, there was a question, to which i appended a similar note for other edits, this was just ignored and un-helped when that was answered, hence this separte section
then someone didn't understand the question, though it is so hard to comprehend the scope of the question
edit? when? where ? hmmm I wonder
how about here then and those. but you still can't see the detail.
This user here
this page
these edits
link provided by wiki, it's called user contributions
which ones? the date i mentioned, the 30th
is being pedantically help desk wilful so hard that comprehension is impossible?
@Rotideypoc41352: FOURTH attempt Dave Rave (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that all your attempts have only one thing in common: you. Not even zombie Einstein can read Jay D. Easy's mind. Just sit tight and wait for a response. If you two can't hash it out, take it to WP:DRN. Please stop asking this fishmonger to launch your spaceship. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs)
  • Jay D. Easy, I'm sorry that this discussion, which doesn't really have anything to do with you, is taking place on your user talk page.
  • Rotideypoc41352 I'm sorry that Dave Rave modified their original edits, which further obscured whatever point they were complaining about. If you look at their first three edits: [1], [2], [3], it's clear that their opaque complaints were about my edits, not Jay D. Easy. Dave Rave, editing your earlier comments, as you have done here, is frowned upon, as it has the unfortunate effect of undermining your correspondent's comments. It can unfairly make it look like they are ignoring points that weren't present when they left their reply. So, please stop doing that, both here, and everywhere else.
  • FWIW, I left a comment at User talk:Dave Rave#I honestly don't know what you are talking about. Dave Rave, I find it disappointing that you didn't respond there, and haven't responded with diffs. Um, is it possible you don't know how to use diffs in discussions? If so, PLEASE learn how to use them.
  • You suggested, above, that diffs weren't necessary, that anyone could see what you hinted were my questionable excisions by looking at my contributions from July 30th. If it is really JDE's July 30th contribution you are concerned about - I don't see anything problematic with his six excisions that day.
  • Everyone is fallible. I know I am fallible. So, if you think you want to express concerns with my edits, or anyone else's edits, could you please make a greater effort to express those concerns clearly?
  • As a courtesy to Jay D. Easy, if your concerns aren't with his edits, let's take your concerns somewhere other than User talk:Jay D. Easy, like User talk:Dave Rave#I honestly don't know what you are talking about, or WP:DRN. Geo Swan (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • after someone else added you back into the discussion, after I moved it away from your comment because it was over-written and obfuscated by that other response,
    no i didn't want an answer from a specific user, i wanted his point of view back on the topic he again removed the help me link from
    I know it's very difficult, but really, what part of this uiser, this page, these edits by the user on this page, are so dervishly difficult to grasp the minutae of that everyone just likes to help-me-resolve the issue and hide ?
    and don't apologise to the user in question about it not having ought to do with him, its' his page Dave Rave (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dave Rave, I think I have been pretty patient in my efforts to try to figure out your concerns. I think other contributors have also shown you a lot of patience.
    • I urge you to consider your own efforts. Your answers? Extremely unclear. I know I am wondering whether your opaque replies prove efforts to understand you have been a waste of time. Other contributors are sure to share my frustration.
    • You have been around since 2012, but it really looks like you haven't learned how to use diffs. That is alarming. You really won't be able to fully participate in wikipedia discussions until you learn how to use them. You also do not seem to have learned our indentation conventions. That is also alarming.
    • I don't know you. I haven't looked at your 12,000 edits in detail. But let me give you the advice I would give you, if I were your best friend. If I were your best friend, and thought you were well intentioned, I'd tell you to study how you are expected to conduct yourself in wikipedia discussions in general, and particularly how to use diffs and properly indent your comments, your first priority.
    • You have been around here long enough to know individuals who are considered persistent vandals can find themselves indefinitely blocked. Please be aware that individuals whose good faith has not been questioned can also find themselves being blocked, if a determination has been made they are not capable of competent participation. See Wikipedia:Competence_is_required. There are some administrators who will block individuals, for incompetence, on less evidence you have shown here. So, if I were your best friend, I'd very strongly urge you to figure out how to follow our conventions for discussions, and how to make your points more clearly, before you made even one more comment. Geo Swan (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Geo Swan Incompetence ? why are you referencing July ? Why haven't you grasped the concept of this isn't about you ?
        emg, let me just hold your hand for you, apparently you're new at this.
        Ready? Follow the bouncing ball now ....
        This user, This page, these edits. Factor in a time dilation for the world is a big place, and look at John Ross through Jacob van Deveter Dave Rave (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've already urged you to learn how to use diffs, and to learn how to follow our indentation conventions. I've already urged you to please make a greater effort to express yourself clearly. You've ignored that advice. I'll add my suggestion you make a greater effort to be polite. Geo Swan (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see you still haven't read the problem, looked at the diffs, figured that you are not infallible, paid attention, realised this isn't about you, gone away, left it alone for somebody else to assist ... Dave Rave (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for using indenting according to our long-standing conventions, in your last comment.
            • A link to contributor's edit history is not a diff. It am still alarmed that you can't or won't use diffs.
            • Both Rotideypoc41352 and I looked at some of the excisions Jay D. Easy made, and found nothing obviously wrong with them. Your continued insistence they require more attention, without, however, providing some diffs to whichever ones you consider the most problematic, and without your making the effort to clearly articulate the nature of your concern, does not measure up to our conventions on civility and collegiality. Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin's lost expedition muster roll (removed)[edit]

Hello – I’m new to editing on Wikipedia, but as a scholar working on the Franklin expedition, I made an account in order to put forward an objection to the removal of the crew manifest list (i.e. the two muster roll tables containing the names, ranks, towns of origin, and ages (as of 1845) for the members of Franklin's crew) from the page “Franklin’s lost expedition.” Here are a few reasons why this list ought to be restored to the page:

  • The information contained in this list (especially the towns of origins and ages (as of 1845) for certain men) is difficult to reliably find elsewhere, especially in so convenient a form.
  • The tables that were removed contained collated data from several sources, all of which will now have to be referenced separately in order to obtain the same information that used to be available on the main page. Very few non-specialists have access to all of the relevant sources, but this information is relevant even to casual readers (cf. below.)
  • In the field of historical research concerning the Franklin expedition, even the so-called “non-notable personnel” are often the subjects of significant historical scrutiny (cf. e.g. the Hartnell brothers, only one of whom is now mentioned on the "Franklin's lost expedition" page, but both of whom have been rigorously studied.) Not only do notability guidelines "not apply to content within articles or lists,” according to Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability, but the crew list that was removed, far from being a potentially limitless directory as per the stated concerns, was rather a very specific set of 134 named individuals who, though not all equally well-known, nevertheless are indeed “the essence of the subject” for many readers delving into the lives of the members of the Franklin expedition. Having a list of the basic biographical details pertaining to all of these men on Wikipedia is indeed essential for new people wishing to learn about the field.

If your primary objection to the list is that it is “unexplained,” I would be happy to draft a brief description in order to explain it. I and several other educators were dismayed to see to see the crew manifest removed, and we would very much like to have it returned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Coningham (talk • contribs) 08:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me. Regardless of the points you raise, Wikipedia is not a directory and also not a scientific journal. Of course I understand the importance of such a list, however it has little encyclopedic value. You can always retrieve the table and its contents from the article's history logs. My advice would be to migrate to and continue this work on Wikidata. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 06:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I’m afraid you simply don’t understand my concerns. I have, in fact, already retrieved a copy of the table for my own records, but this does not resolve the issue that removing the table from the page hinders the ability of new readers to grasp important knowledge of the topic.
Once again, I reiterate that the muster roll list is not a directory – as noted above, these names and biographical details have notable basic reference value; as per Wikipedia’s guidelines on lists, “there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.”
For those of us with students who use Wikipedia to get a grounding in basic topics, the muster roll table does in fact have encyclopedic value. The information on the crew members does not constitute original scientific research or a scientific journal entry but rather entry level knowledge, and it can indeed “be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field.”
This information should not be reserved only for those willing to dig into Wikidata, and should not only be available upon the condition that I or one of my colleagues learn how to craft a Wikidata location to which we might migrate this list. The crew manifest served a purpose being easily findable on the main “Franklin’s lost expedition” page. –William Coningham (talk • contrib.) 12:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slight warning here: this is a lengthy reply. I apologize in advance.
Note that most points regarding embedded lists are probably not entirely applicable here. The list we're discussing is one that is already defined and whose individual entries thus aren't up for discussion on a point to point basis. It's about whether we include the entire muster roll, or nothing at all. This being the fact means we're essentially talking about statistics (or data). Before I move on (because I do want to move on) there's one more thing I wish to address and that is your non-argument regarding Wikidata. Your or anyone else's lack of experience with Wikidata has absolutely no bearing on whether or not data or statistics are better suited for Wikidata.
Anyway, despite my point regarding embedded list guidelines, I do want to point out these:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Embedded lists:

Embedded lists are lists used within articles that supplement the article's prose content. [...] Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose. Presenting too much statistical data in list format may contravene policy.

Wikipedia:Article size#Lists, tables and summaries:

Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy.

And also to reiterate that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information:

As explained in Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

Moving on. You mention that "removing the table from the page hinders the ability of new readers to grasp important knowledge of the topic". But does it really? The moment one overzealous editor first began creating this gray monstrosity was back in February 2018. I am absolutely convinced that there has never been any new reader up until then as well as now who fails to truly grasp the significance, scope, or historical value of what this expedition represented and how much of an impact its eventual outcome had.
You also state that "[f]or those of us with students who use Wikipedia to get a grounding in basic topics, the muster roll table does in fact have encyclopedic value," forgetting that Wikipedia isn't written with any particular target audience in mind. An expansive list that constitutes the ships' entire muster roll is of very little encyclopedic to the average reader – who, in all likelihood, does not have any significant interest in the subject of polar exploration, the Northwest Passage, the Royal Navy, let alone a such a specific niche as this one. The only thing the average reader sees is a shockingly huge gray mass. The contents of this obnoxious obstacle mean nothing to them. The fact that 27-year-old Able Seaman Alexander Lawrence from Brompton, Kent, took part in this expedition does not complement the narrative in any way. The narrative as established in its current form does not shine any particular spotlight on Lawrence's presence. If it did, it would have been mentioned in prose. Believe me when I say that 99 out of a 100 times it's probably only been given a quick glance. As such, this gray mass represents nothing but a huge obstacle that significantly interrupts the flow of prose.
I fail to see how such an expansive list contributes to one's ability to completely and fully grasp the essence of the narrative. Here's my take on it: Two Royal Navy ships set out to conquer once and for all the Northwest Passage. This was huge, especially for Britain. Arguably the biggest and best equipped expedition ever outfitted for such a purpose. Or so they thought. Long story short: ships became icebound, perhaps a couple of less-than-ideal decisions were made (or in any case, were made too late), rescue efforts were slow to materialize due to all-round overconfidence. Hasty soldering, scurvy, manhauling, everyone dies. Because all this took place outside of "civilized society" (heavy emphasis), this creates the effect of the expedition having basically vanished. Definitive evidence in any form on what exactly occurred is few and far between (that is, perhaps, until recent years), and exactly herein lies the subject's intrigue. Over a great many years, slowly a narrative is pieced together through pain-staking collection of physical evidence as well as Inuit eyewitness testimony.
Anyways, I'll try to wind it down from here on. I stand by my belief that the muster roll has no place in this article. However, I do still believe that there is absolutely value to be gained here. What I propose is that we fork the muster roll over to a new stand-alone list article. It'll allow it to serve its purpose in a more fitting way. I urgently implore you to have a look at the following example to see how well a stand-alone list could work and the level of detail it'll permit: List of Alamo defenders and Battle of the Alamo (note the absence of a prose-wrecking list in the latter).
I look forward to hearing from you! Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 21:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I made up Alexander Lawrence the able seaman. If you noticed immediately then good on ya. If you hadn't, then that's my point exactly.
Thank you for the lengthy reply, and I hope you will understand why my response is also quite long.
I do agree that the question here is “whether we include the entire muster roll, or nothing at all,” and despite the information you quoted about embedded lists, I’m sure we’re both of the same mind that this information would not be better presented as prose. Neither does it “contravene policy,” since it is not a “summary-only description of works,” a “lyrics database,” nor an “exhaustive log of software updates.”
I assume you are therefore implying that the muster list is an “excessive listing of unexplained statistics,” hence the suggestions separating this content into either (a) a Wikidata page or (b) its own separate stand-alone list on Wikipedia.
Again, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood my concerns with Wikidata. I fully recognize your greater expertise as an editor on Wikipedia (and, I’m sure, Wikidata.) I claim no experience whatsoever with this type of editing. In fact, I think it is your editorial experience that has resulted in some part of this misunderstanding – though you obviously have a grasp on one of the overall narratives of the Franklin expedition (i.e. the general “disappearance” of the ships and the two-century long process of finding evidence to explain the events after July of 1845) it’s important to note that there are additional narratives which it is possible (and indeed essential) to present about the Franklin expedition.
The muster roll lists provide access to some of those other narratives. It’s far from “nothing but a huge obstacle that significantly interrupts the flow of prose,” as one can see from your own rhetorical point that referencing the muster lists could answer the imaginative question of whether “AB Alexander Lawrence” was a real member of the Franklin expedition. Few Franklin scholars carry a complete mental list of all 134 crew members in their heads; this does not mean that such information is not useful to scholars and new readers alike. It was precisely the absence of easily available muster lists with towns of origin before 2018 that led to a profusion of misinformation such as the persistent rumor that all but three of the expedition’s officers were English, whereas there were actually five Scottish officers, in addition to Captain Francis Crozier, an Irishman. Knowing the true national origins of the officers of the expedition radically changes one’s understanding of the degree to which the expedition’s staffing choices ultimately led to the disasters that befell the expedition.
While I understand your concern for the “flow of the prose” within the Franklin expedition article, I encourage you to consider which issue posses greater problems to a reader trying to gain information about the expedition – the minor task of scrolling past a roughly 134-row table, or the inability to access the names of relevant personnel without digging through the revision history of the page. Even if, as you say, “99 out of a 100 times [the table] has probably only been given a quick glance” (an imaginative statistic that I assume is grounded in your own experience, which is not a universal one) even within this fictive example the presence of the table would cause relatively little trouble to the fictive 99% of readers if they are able to give it a quick glance and then move on, while the “1%” viewer has gained valuable knowledge from the table. In many cases in my experience, this “1% viewer” has been a scholar, amateur researcher, student, or other curious reader who has this page bookmarked for the specific sake of referencing the muster lists. If pressed, I could supply a flood of anecdotal evidence of the utility others have found for these charts, but collecting this evidence would not be a good use of my time, nor would reading it be a good use of yours, since I imagine you would find it unconvincing. Neither of us have actual statistics.
Even if you believe that this anecdotal experience which I mention is not representative of the general case, however, the wholesale removal of the table is nevertheless essentially reckless. The hypothetical “99” (likely fewer) experience a minor interruption in their reading experience, while the “1” (likely more) may not be able to obtain the information they seek at all, if it does not occur to them to hunt through the page’s revision history. This is a high price to pay for the relative gain of somewhat more streamlined prose.
I will acknowledge that the value of the crew manifest tables could be retained with a stand-alone list much like the excellent “List of Alamo defenders” that you linked – thank you for that – but here is where I fear you’ve misunderstood my point about the relevance of my inexperience with Wikipedia and Wikidata editing. I don’t know how long it took you to remove the muster list table from the page in question, but I do know that it would take me quite a lot of time to learn how to create the type of page you describe.
Therefore, if you would be willing to undertake the process of setting up a separate page for the list, which could then be linked prominently within the “Preparations” section of the main “Franklin’s lost expedition” page (which, frankly, needs to be reorganized anyway), I think this would answer most of my own concerns, as well as the concerns I’ve seen from fellow Franklin expedition researchers and educators.
As I offered earlier, I would be happy to write a brief explanation of the stand-alone list to accompany the link; I would also happily write the introduction to the lists. I simply lack the editing skill to develop the infrastructure for a list article of the type that you’ve described, and it appears that you yourself have the necessary experience to accomplish this task far more easily – I hope you’ll consider crafting the type of page you suggest. If you are unwilling or unable to make this page for whatever reason, then I hope you might see the quandary you’ve left by removing useful information without providing a viable alternative, and perhaps reconsider the removal of the muster roll lists.
Take care as well – best wishes. –William Coningham (talk • contrib.) 04:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello once again – I noticed that you thanked my last comment a while ago and it's now been some time since I posted. I also see that there's been no alteration to the Franklin's lost expedition page, and I've had several colleagues express a need to view the crew manifest. Is there any progress toward making a list article on which the manifest could live? As I said before, I'd be happy to contribute the introductory material, if you could see about making a separate page. Otherwise I must reiterate that simply removing muster roll tables remains an unsatisfactory situation.
Best –William Coningham (talk • contrib.) 03:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'll get right on it. I have some ideas regarding the structure and format of the tables, however that can tinkered with later. The only thing keeping me from creating the article right now is its name. Which of the following would you say is most fitting:
  • List of crew/members/personnel of the Franklin expedition
  • List of crew/members/personnel of Franklin's lost expedition
  • Personnel of the Franklin expedition
  • Personnel of Franklin's lost expedition
  • Personnel of the British Naval Northwest Passage Expedition
Personally I prefer any of the last three styles. See also: Personnel of the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition and Personnel of the Shackleton–Rowett Expedition. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 23:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent – thank you for the efficient response, and I look forward to seeing what ideas you have for the structure and format of the tables. I agree that the last three titles match well with the comparable pages; I'm inclined to favor "Personnel of Franklin's lost expedition," since that also corresponds to the title of main article. William Coningham (talk • contrib.) 23:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it's done! Please see Personnel of Franklin's lost expedition. I've added a link to Franklin's lost expedition as well. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 00:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about Taiwan and other Chinese-speaking regions should have Chinese characters for names of important relevant people[edit]

Hi! I saw removal of the Chinese characters of these figures. If someone wants to look up info in Chinese about these pilots it is necessary to know the exact characters of their names: Chinese doesn't have an alphabet like in Russian. That's why the Taipei Times includes Chinese characters in its English language news articles (example). However to make them less obtrusive I've made them into footnotes. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS people in the Chinese-speaking field do in fact care about what other spellings of names are common as there have been many different romanization systems used in place, which is why "Beijing" is also known as "Peking" or "Pei-ching". WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alistair Mackay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Herald Island.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to H. Douglas Keith does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Hippke edits[edit]

I've been checking on pages to clean-up and just wanted to thank you for your own contributions, especially on Erich Hippke. Have a great week. Yogibur (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on The Collector (TV series)[edit]

Hi, Jay D. Easy! In your summary on your reversion to my reversion to The Collector (TV series), you wrote Did you seriously just reinstate multiple instances of WP:LINKVIO (as well as MOS:I)? Regarding the list of broadcasters: WP:CHG. Although I can live with it if you deem a seemingly random list of items worthy of inclusion. It's just that a list of broadcasters doesn't really tell us anything about the subject.

Yes, I most certainly did. How was any editor supposed to know about WP:LINKVIO, MOS:I, or WP:CHG when all that you put into your edit summary was tw.

As per Wikipedia:Edit summary legend#Tweaks tw refers to a tweak. The edits that I reverted were far more than a tweak, & your edit summary was misleading at best.

Multiple editors have commented your edit summaries were lacking, as in here, here, here, here, & here.

While I know that Help:Edit summary is informational & not a policy or guideline, I consider it my duty to revert deleted material that lacks a sufficient explanation in the edit summary. Indeed, there are several user warning templates around material deletion & edit summaries that address this.

While I expect edit summaries with a paucity of information of newbies, I am disappointed to find this pattern in an experienced editor like yourself. Please endeavor to make meaningful edit summaries in the future. I would rather not have cause to revert any more edits or issue any more user warnings.

Peaceray (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad we cleared that up. Take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 22:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Also, @Peaceray, why would you knowingly commit a bannable offense just to prove a point? Imagine if I hadn't re-reverted your flagrant violation of WP:LINKVIO. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 22:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of us has been blocked to date. I rather doubt that any editor acting under WP:AGF would be blocked for restoring deleted material when there was an insufficient explanation for deletion.
I think that both you & I are here to build a better encyclopedia. It helps other editors like myself when you explain what you are doing. Peaceray (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Willis Linn Jepson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservationist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 Wikipedia 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 2020 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) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020[edit]

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Varig destinations, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Jetstreamer Talk 20:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at The Collector (TV series), you may be blocked from editing. Peaceray (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Carl Gustaf Hellqvist, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not abuse Twinkle to revert good-faith edits without an explanation. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Why are you reverting edits by PiercingEyes without any explanation at all? Drmies (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Drmies! I did so because I felt they were in violation of WP:NOTGALLERY. I was planning on doing this for more of PiercingEyes' edits, but I paused to look into alternatives besides manually removing galleries. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Drmies (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

There is no reason to remove the flags from the general count, the list you mentioned is only applicable to infoboxes that aren't military history, take literally any other war/battle infobox to see that your reversions are reduntant and unnecessary, please don't escalate this into a edit war SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 10:56, 04 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey see, monkey do. Please explain how these flags aren't decorative. What purpose do they serve here? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 19:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —valereee (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jay D. Easy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Wait, what did I do wrong here? My edit summaries included links to MOS and an RfC. Did you interpret "monkey see, monkey do" as an insult? It's a metaphor which I literally found in Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained: "When creating an article, editors often mimic structures seen in other articles without understanding the purpose of those structures (see "monkey see, monkey do" and Cargo cult programming)." Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Both per my own judgment and per others in the ongoing ANI discussion, the edit identified by valereee qualifies as another example of the problematic behavior that you have been warned about. I see no reason to lift the block at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Special:Diff/992337718 literally WHILE your uncivil posts to talk/edit summaries are being discussed at ANI: Special:Permalink/992682645#Edit summaries that are either problematic or absent —valereee (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: could you please specify? Jay D. Easy (t • c) 11:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Implying directly to an editor that their edits are "monkey see, monkey do" counts as a personal attack, as it is a slight against their intelligence. If this had been the only time you had ever broken civility norms, it would have merited a mild warning. Coming as it did in the midst of an ANI discussion that raised concerns with other similar behavior and after other editors opined that you were on your "final warning", it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Luckily, this camel has an excellent doctor and should recover in a few weeks. signed, Rosguill talk 16:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jay_D._Easy/Archive_2&oldid=1044314365"