Jump to content

User talk:Jerium/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 1    Archive 2    Archive 3 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  ... (up to 100)

/* Latter Day Saints */

JudeccaXIII, this is Chimptastic. Sorry for the delay, and thank you for the message regarding Non-Trinitarianism. I've redone some of the edits and provided explanations, I apologize for not providing explanations before. I'm not Mormon, I'm Catholic, but I attended a Mormon university and wrote my thesis on Joseph Smith and the Development of Mormon Belief Through the Lens of Early Christian History (basically attempting to explain Joseph Smith's theology and the development Mormon Belief through the lens of controversies and positions visible in the Patrologia and other Early Christian sources). I have a pretty thorough grasp of their theology and how they define and codify their doctrine. Their doctrine is fascinating, but it is challenging to completely understand for an outsider.

The removed and modified portions of the article either inaccurately described Mormon beliefs or contained phrases which were more appropriate in polemics than in a segment dedicated to explaining the group's beliefs. For example, tying Mormonism to Arianism doesn't really help people understand what Mormons believe, namely because their beliefs are radically different from Arianism and they reject most of Arius's beliefs and fundamental philosophical assumptions. Mentioning Arianism, therefore, is more likely to make the reader misunderstand Mormon belief than it is to help them understand it. Similarly with the references to Tri-theism. Nicene Trinitarianism receives the exact same criticism from Jewish and Islamic groups. Neither Nicene Trinitarians nor more social Trinitarian groups like Mormons would consider themselves Tri-theists, so the comment belongs more in a segment dedicated to criticisms than it does in one dedicated to explanations. I certainly don't think this is intentional on your part, and in several cases I think it's just related to the utilization of hostile outside sources, such as CARM, which are not in a position to define Mormonism's dogmas. Several of the errors in the article and the errors in the attendant sources, appear related to simple misunderstandings or misinterpretations of Mormon beliefs (e.g. Christ as a created being). Mormonism is particularly challenging with respect to comparison with other Churches because they use certain terminology differently, their dogma is narrowly defined but the opinions of their leaders have been widely varied, and there rejection of certain historical philosophical assumptions cause underlying differences in their theology that obviate entire concepts and controversies in Creedal Christianity.

To expand on each of these challenges (I know some of these examples weren't cited in your article, but most were used in the websites you cited): 1. Mormon terms are different than ours: Mormonism's use of the word "ordinance" is very confusing because "ordinance" is usually meant to differentiate between sacramental and non-sacramental theologies with respect to the Sacraments. Mormons, however, use the Protestant non-sacramental word (ordinance), while their underlying theology is actually Sacramental, and therefore Catholic. Another example is their belief in human deification, which is also in my faith, but which they interpret differently. Their belief is even more extreme than the Eastern Orthodox view of theosis, but really only differs in one respect: reproduction. Mormon's understanding of human deification is in D&C 132, where verse 19 describes the necessity of marriage for deification (shared, admittedly, by some of our Orthodox brothers) and then goes further by suggesting that they will be able to have children in the next life, then verse 20 defines what they mean by "being a god":

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

That's the actual definition within Mormonism. The only different thing is that they can have kids. Some leaders and members of the Church may have speculated about other things, but that leads to the second challenge:

2. Narrowly defined dogma: Mormon doctrine is actually very narrowly defined as that which is contained within their "Standard Works" (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants) and Official Declarations and Proclamations from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve. See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine. However, their leaders are free to say whatever they want and have expressed a wide array of conflicting views and opinions on a wide array of things. You can find quotes of their leaders saying all sorts of stuff, and quotes of other leaders refuting or arguing with them. If those things aren't in their doctrinal sources then they can't be considered part of their doctrine and it's irresponsible to cite them in defining Mormon Doctrine, which is something CARM does frequently. Things like whether God the Father was ever mortal, whether Christ was ever less than divine, the origin and destiny of the Holy Ghost etc. are often speculated on but never actually addressed in their official doctrine. So far as their doctrinal sources are concerned, the Godhead is eternal, everything else is speculation. That leads to an example of misunderstanding based on Mormon rejection of foundational creeds, which completely shifts the argument and causes a lot of confusion:

3. Mormon doctrine rejects the validity of the Creeds, as such they came up with different answers to many of the questions answered by the Creeds, and sometimes completely sidestepped the creeds by either not addressing something, or coming up with something completely different. Sometimes they completely reject the underlying philosophical assumptions that led to the Creeds in the first place. Mormons, for example, don't have a creator/created substance dichotomy because they believe in Creatio ex-Materia rather than ex-Nihilo and deny the entire "creator/created substance" dichotomy. Substance theology is meaningless in Mormonism. Their concept of existence is completely different. They believe that energy and matter are different states of the same thing and that they are in some form co-eternal with God. It is from this primordial energy-stuff (technical term) that Christ is believed to have created everything. Also co-eternal with God are the souls of all humanity. Christ's origin is never actually discussed except that he was like the Father in the beginning, and that he was the Firstborn in the Spirit and Only Begotten in the Flesh. The earliest description of Christ in Mormonism (in terms of Christ's existence), is in Abraham 3:24-25. It describes the souls of men before the creation of the Earth and, referring to Christ, says "There stood one among them that was like unto God". So as far back as Mormon theology actually goes, Christ has been like God the Father. Also, as long as God the Father has been creating anything it has been through the Son: Moses 1:33 "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten". From within LDS doctrinal sources, it is unknown if Christ was ever outside of the Godhead, and different LDS leaders have expressed different views. As for Christ being created, that is expressly denied in their doctrine and cannon. The core of the human soul is called an "intelligence" (see Abraham 3), which is eternal and immutable (see Doctrine & Covenants 93:29), and spirit is itself a form of finer and purer matter (D&C 131:6). Christ, therefore, according to LDS doctrine, not only isn't a created being, but no intelligent beings are created, in any sense of the word. God the Father begat in some way the spirits of humanity (never explained how), giving these immutable intelligences bodies of spirit matter. Then those spirits are given bodies formed of physical matter on the Earth. That is a completely different understanding of the universe, and describing Christ as a created being in Mormonism is not only inaccurate, but suggests a dichotomy that is common in other faiths, but doesn't exists in Mormonism.

Similar issues exist with the other modified portions. In general, sources describing the beliefs of different faiths should be from those faiths themselves, especially when those faiths have a central authority which actually defines their doctrines (as in the case of Mormonism and Catholicism). You can't expect an accurate depiction of a group's beliefs to come from hostile sources who lack either the expertise or the motivation to provide objectively accurate doctrinal definitions. I hope this explains why I changes the segments that I did.

On an unrelated note, as I explained in brief in one of the changes, the term "Divine Council" is used within LDS academic discourse and sometimes in LDS discussions, see https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/family-councils?lang=eng to discuss what's called the "Council in Heaven" in typical LDS discourse. It describes the humans/angels that dwell in the presence of God with whom he keeps council. The Godhead consists only of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are at the head of the Divine Council, but are in a unique union. The two are very distinct. A fairly good description of the Divine Council within LDS theology can be found here: http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/06/28/divine-council/

Chimptastic Just make sure you source your edits. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


xaosflux I've sent two images, the filter by itself I sent just in case you want to make any adjustments. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which wiki logo file did you derive this from? — xaosflux Talk 00:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
xaosflux 2000px-Wikipedia-logo-v2JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done see File:WikiFilterLogo.png for current version and your credit. — xaosflux Talk 00:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
xaosflux Thank you for your help. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, 1 more question - what was the source file link for the filter icon you used? — xaosflux Talk 02:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
xaosfluxLinkJudeccaXIII (talk) 03:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've whipped up something for Pseudo-Orpheus. To be honest, I don't remember hearing about the poem before you mentioned it to me, so I stuck close to what I could find in sources and could easily have missed something. If you have any ideas for improvement, feel free to rewrite whatever you want or let me know. 22:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've got something else up. The usual disclaimer applies: I'd never heard of the text before you mentioned it, so any suggestions for improvement or corrections will be more than welcome. (They'd be more than welcome anyway, but especially given that I was learning the topic as I went). Again, thanks for the suggestion. Alephb (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one's short -- three little paragraphs, but it's a start. Alephb (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, JudeccaXIII.

I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

Many thanks for moving my wikiname at WikiProject Christianity from the "inactive" members list to the "active" members list - yes, that was my mistake!Vorbee (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JudeccaXIII. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gnosticism|Gnostic sects

template is not working properly especially the documentation part161.253.75.216 (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot see the sections open otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] The sections are meant to be closed so they won't take space on the article page what ever that might be. Your version is sloppy and takes unnecessary space from pages. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you cannot see a section in open form161.253.75.216 (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] The original version which you changed was purposely designed to be compressed so it won't take much space on the article its associated with. All you had to do is click "Show" to open the section you as the reader wanted to view. Please stop doing massive template changes without consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now, collapsible option works as well161.253.75.216 (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I give up, do whatever the fuck you want...you're obviously not going to discuss without reverting. Next time someone reverts you when introducing a new edit, remember WP:BRD. And also WP:CONSENSUS. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, thank you. Better to renew those obsolete templates with collapsible ones so that they can be used when there is no sufficient place available, and the sections can be observed open form if there is enough space available in the article, this is more convenient.
You are the one reverting without discussing and even understanding what the purpose was161.253.75.216 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Again, WP:BRD. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

can i ask why people are allowed to create wikipedia articles about themselves and vandalize by inserting themselves in other topics?

Eugene Gu is clearly running 2 alter-ego accounts in order to interject his name and company onto various wikipedia pages:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/CranberryMuffin http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Frontierjustice&offset=&limit=500&target=Frontierjustice

both these accounts have a very clear and direct focus on linking his name on any medical pages. In addition, if you look at CranberryMuffin's history, the user makes a very detailed change, which only Eugene Gu himself would know, such as what program he wanted to transfer to as shown below.

" A notable case has been that of Dr. Eugene Gu who has been subpoenaed by two separate Tennessee Congresswomen, Marsha Blackburn and Diane Black, while pursuing a general surgery residency at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Gu has attempted for over a year to transfer into a general surgery program in California or on the West Coast but so far remains in Tennessee. "

I believe it is disingenuous for a person to simply add himself to wikipedia articles in order to bring visibility to his brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] I recommend reporting this to WP:ANI. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Eugene Gu. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

citation bot

I noticed you went over the Bible and violence recent contributions with the citation bot but didn't change anything. I was wondering if the citation bot checks references or what? I am still new enough to Wikipedia that most stuff you probably take for granted is all Greek to me still! I'm lousy at Greek... :-) So--hi! and what's up with that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenhawk777 A minor format change to the correct hyphen according to how the bot sees fit. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, See User:Citation_bot#Page_numbers_with_hyphens. You really shouldn't concern yourself on the technicality of the bot, just the purpose of the bot per WP:UCB. Also, the bot it not always 100% accurate in fixing citations. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Technicality? I'm not concerned, just curious, and figured you would know. So what is the purpose of the bot?Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk777 See User:Citation_bot/use#Functions. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

PaleoNeonate06:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I put up another of the articles you suggested. Pretty much all I know on the topic I learned while writing the article tonight, so if there's something I missed or screwed up, feel free to let me know. Alephb (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mair Rajputs


Information Published in Wikipedia needs correction and is to be edited , pls suggest how the same can be done.

Thanks Tarun tarunverma09@gmail.com

Greek edit

Problem with browser add-on.Should be fixed now. Unless you're telling me adding a relevant template is non-constructive --2601:546:8102:BCA0:7572:718A:BC1C:CF54 (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2601:546:8102:BCA0:7572:718A:BC1C:CF54 Don't know what's wrong with your browser, but vandalizing Wikipedia by inserting nothing but brackets is not the solution. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Get your eyes checked.--2601:546:8102:BCA0:7572:718A:BC1C:CF54 (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker 78

I apologize for deleting Thinker78. I c and pasted it not realizing I deleted it! There are lots of process things to learn on Wiki. Sahansdal (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC) (like that ~ ... thing)[reply]

Sahansdal it’s not a big issue, just make sure you check your edit next time. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Gospel of Mark

What's wrong with adding relatable material as long as source is cited? I add material with deliberation and consideration as to value added. Let others decide the usefulness. Sahansdal (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sahansdal The source needs to STATE the information, not your own interpretation. I hope you don't expect every reader to search the Bible or another text to figure this out. Your style of sourcing content as you did in Secret GoMark. is in violation of WP:VERIFY. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of Christianity presentation

You seem to take in interest in what I post. What do you say to my position that a major Wiki article such as Christianity is not well served by automatically assuming that Jesus Christ was a real person? This is hardly a supportable viewpoint, yet time and again this figure is referred to as if he was! I say anytime he is referred to it should be "Christ is said to have been" or "Jesus Christ is reputed to be the savior..." Wiki is not in the business of apologetics, or is it? Yes, you can redirect me if you want to. Sahansdal (talk) 04:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sahansdal I actually don't follow your edits, you just edit articles I have on watch. The Gospel of Judas, The Secret Gospel of Mark etc. Anything that has to do with the New Testament Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, or other Christian texts. As for your question, Jesus is considered a historical person. I don't want to engage in this argument. If you want more opinions, just take this to the talk page of Christianity or Jesus. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Cleanup Barnstar
This is for all your tireless work, cleaning up URLs for links to Google Books and replacing hyphens in page numbers in citations with en dashes. I greatly appreciate all the work you do and thought I would give you this to show my appreciation. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Katolophyromai Thank you, your efforts on improving articles is worth it. Keep it up — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I find myself coming more and more to the opposite conclusion: that I should spend far less of my time here on Wikipedia. I waste so much time here that would be far better spent doing other things. I also find myself growing more and more frustrated with all the arguing, bickering, and persistent content disputes that working here seems to inevitably entail. I think I have made a immense, positive difference in the encyclopedia; indeed, I have probably done far more than my fair share, but I really should move on and do other things. I do not know if I can leave, though, even though it would be good for me, because I have grown too obsessively attached to this place. Probably the main thing keeping me from leaving are all the articles I have written, which I feel I must defend from the relentless ravages of both vandals and well-intentioned, but misguided editors that may come along. I also still feel the urge to rewrite more articles, but I think I should learn to resist that urge and instead work on my own writings, which I hope to one day publish under my own name. I think that, once Ninurta and Saint Nicholas became Good Articles, I will probably try to leave for the most part, though I will still hang around to watch over the articles I have devoted the most time and effort towards. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Katolophyromai I Know exactly how you feel. Ive been only following your edits. No expanding articles or rv vandals. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I am not sure if I could actually manage to leave quite that completely, but I think I definitely ought to drastically cut back on how much time I devote towards editing Wikipedia, since, after all, I cannot earn money doing this, nor can I really earn much recognition, since the articles are all anonymous. While there are a lot of people here I appreciate and even admire and I get along well with most of them, I occasionally run into some very prickly personalities that I do not particularly enjoy dealing with. In any case, I will wait until the articles I am working on right now have reached "Good Article" status before I start really trying to cut back. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good bye!

I saw your post on your user page saying that you are retiring from Wikipedia. I wanted to say that I have really appreciated all your contributions to this encyclopedia and all the help you have given me. I wish you nothing but the best! --Katolophyromai (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katolophyromai, thank you and I'm glad to have helped out. Keep up the fantastic work! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, JudeccaXIII. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Title says it all,PaleoNeonate21:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PaleoNeonate Thank you, glad to be back and glad that well fimiliar editors such as yourself are still around.👍 — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi JudeccaXIII! You created a thread called Requesting improvements for a few articles at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
for Fighting vandalism on the Suicide watch page Jack90s15 (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following up

Hi! I notice you have been editing since I pinged you on my talk page. I thought I’d follow up, since you never answered my questions. Cheers! Filet-o-fish king (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your talk page archive?

Hey there friend! I notice that you recently removed my comment with an edit summary “clearing/archiving” and I was curious to see where you had moved it to, but I don’t see that you have an archive. Lol wuuuut, how crazy is that? Anyway, take care and cheers! Filet-o-fish king (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards#The Banstar Barnstar. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Re "Are you that stupid?"   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Are you referring to me or Epinoia as having an agenda? I have noticed that other editors have asked polemics to be removed from articles pertaining to religions, why any different here? I don't think polemics should be emphasized for any religion, especially vulnerable minorities. I hope you agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GF46238 (talkcontribs) 17:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man RM closure?


Hi! Thank you for your recent closure of Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home#Requested move 15 October 2019, but I would query whether it was appropriate for a non-admin to close that particular discussion. There was roughly a 2-1 majority against the proposed move, but virtually all of the oppose !votes were either simple !votes with no rationale, or rationales that were clearly contradicted by the presented evidence or by simple logic. If all such !votes were discarded, there was (by my admittedly biased count) a clear majority in favour of the move.

Given that you didn't address this point in your closure, I suspect you may not have noticed it, which is why I'm coming here to request clarification.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Hello and thank you for asking. Before I elaborate, I just want you to know that closures are based on consensus, not votes. Arguments must adhere to policy and guidelines, and those who perform closures must also consider arguments from previous closures via WP:RMCOMMENT. I'll try to summarize. Now it's quite obvious that the arguments from those who supported the move were all based on MOS:CT. And even though some editors in opposition did not link policy for their arguments, it was clear they were referring to WP:OFFICIAL & WP:COMMONNAME by primary sources. See arguments: [1] (Note that other editors echoed Trailblazer101's argument to support their own "per Trailblazer101" but there's nothing wrong with that.), ([2] & [3]), [4], [5], & [6] (I probably missed someone). And Amakuru (Opposed move) was the only person willing to provide any statistics for the most searched title. Calidum also noted that there could be exceptions to avoid the "standard" spelling per WP:TITLETM. My final decision though was based on "Discussion". In that conversation, there were disagreements on what was considered a reliable source. That led me to close. Overall, the whole move request was in a complete disagreement (No consensus). Jerm (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know about consensus versus votes, which is why I think (in my admittedly biased stated) that most or all of the "oppose" comments need to be disregarded as tendentious or disruptive. They claimed they were arguing based on OFFICIAL and COMMONNAME, but consistently ignored evidence that OFFICIAL can't apply (official sources are not consistent) and that COMMONNAME actually favoured neither title over the other since the difference in favour of one, if there even is one, is negligible. "most searched" wasn't actually something Amakuru presented any evidence for or even claimed to be presenting evidence for -- he linked a bare Google search indicating that most hits (on the first page) capitalize. Trailblazer's argument was nonsense (two times before the film was released is not "countless" and at no point was the "declining" based on consensus to do so or on reliable sources) and so not only would Trailblazer's argument need to be dismissed as such but anyone who said "per Trailblazer" would also need to have their reasoning questioned. Spanneraol claimed their argument was for "the way the studio named the film", but poster stylization is not the same as "how the studio names the film", as I and others pointed out... Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trailblazer made it clear in his argument that the current title is supported by the official websites of Marvel and Sony via primary sources, and no one bothered to counter Amakuru's hits with hits of "Spider-Man Far from Home". Those who support the move always state that there are a mixed amount of sources but never provide the search results/hits. Primary sources (excluding visual designs) such as the websites of Sony and Marvel have always been ignored by the those who support the move in favor of secondary-sources. Finding the search hits is key to satisfying COMMONAME. And if there are truly a near mixed amount of results, then the most logical thing to do is to establish the title on primary sources. And with that, I'll end my part of the discussion. Jerm (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the discussion but still made my final reply. I don't want my talk page to be a battleground for who was right or wrong. This was just clarification for my closure. I know you're dissatisfied, but I have to consider all arguments. Please don't consider me though as an incompetent editor because of this. Jerm (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Alexander Jannaeus

Nothing. It's just a historic evidence of Jannaeus' existence. Is that a problem?--Huna234 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huna234: Yes, it's out of place. The article has no coverage on archeological evidence yet. But the real problem is having a WP:SOCK account. Jerm (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, can you check this page?

Draft:Aybars İbak

Have a good day. Respects. Baran Ahmet (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why you deleted?


why you have my deleted changes? I mean Youtube has the same.

Jicco123 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jicco123: Promotional content is not allowed on Wikipedia per WP:PROMOTIONAL. You were advertising the service. But now that you've messaged me, you must disclose any paid editing and your employer per WP:PAID. Jerm (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional? Okay I took the explanations out the guidelines. I don't want to discuss. You have read the rules. You are right, but I don't have advertised for the service. When falls something under "advertisement"? How must a statement be written so that not to fall under "advertisement"?

Jicco123 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jicco123: Ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse so that multiple editors can assist rather than just an individual. Jerm (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Thank you but I don't will add again. It's deleted and all done. Thanks that you answered my questions. Have nice day

Jicco123 (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I'm again

I Have a question

Season 2 is the next evolution of the platform, advancing livestreaming further with innovations focused on expression, community, and fun. Stay tuned for exciting new features as Season 2 continues.

Is the text advertisment?

Jicco123 (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Mixer (service). @Jicco123: "Stay tuned for exciting new features" is clearly promotional. If you don't know that without having to ask, and based on your writing so far, I'm afraid you don't have the English skills to be able to contribute to English WikiPedia. This is not a comment about you as a person – learning other languages, especially English, is difficult.
This user has asked you to move the discussion to somewhere more appropriate, where other users may help you, like the Teahouse or, better, Talk:Mixer (service). Please discuss any changes you would like to make there. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Jannaeus

Hi. You seem to consider this article your own. It is not, it's Wikipedia. So please, relax. I haven't changed the meaning of a single sentence, just fixed the poor English phrasing, punctuation and alike. Pls stop bulk-reversing. If you have issues with single edits, go one by one and we can see if you're right. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Own? Me restoring sourced content that you removed without an explanation is owning? Interesting Jerm (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I indef'ed ILoveREM as Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PianoManFolkRock. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks: Nice job. Do you think the IP you blocked for a month is the same person? Jerm (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Good-hand/bad-handing. There are several other IPs used over the past month, but that's the only one that is current and re-used after previous block, so it's the only one I blocked. See history of The One I Love (R.E.M. song) as a honey-pot of others. This is my first experience with this sock-drawer:( DMacks (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: Did a search. The IP is coming from Brooklyn, New York. I think it's a private device because no public building was associated with the IP on my search. Jerm (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they're all Brooklyn. [insert New York State of Mind joke here]. Think it's worth opening an SPI, to collect the IPs for future reference? DMacks (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: Nah, this person is using private devices so there's going to be random IPs from other locations. It's not worth the time and effort. Who knows if it's the same person anyway. If the other blocked socks have as their IPs then a range block would quickly solve the issue, but like I said, most likely from different locations and possibly different people. Jerm (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: However, for future IP edits. If you're confident it's the same person, then yes, start an SPI case. Jerm (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Lang

I received your message about the changes I made to Daisy's page. All we did was reword it. What was it about the change that needs proof? Does it need to be an electronic citation with a link? Daisy has PDFs and videos but they are not links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mags0312 (talkcontribs) 19:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mags0312 and thank you for your efforts in improving Daisy Lang. I have a few issues with your edit, and other issues that I see with the article entirely. In my edit summary, I stated that Youtube is prohibited from being used as a source per WP:RSP which is true. However, I assumed you had added the link but it was there prior to your edit. For that, I apologize. The other issue though is that you didn't follow MOS:BOXING/LEAD. Therefore, you didn't really improve the lead of the article because you didn't add a reliable source. And because you didn't add a reliable source, this part of the lead which you added as "made history" in women's professional violates MOS:PUFF. I'm sure she made history but here on Wikipedia, we don't usually exaggerate facts, especially when it's not sourced properly.
Now the true issue is, you have been edit warring with Squared.Circle.Boxing. Both of you have violated WP:3RR, however, you Mags0312 are introducing problems as stated above. You must now discuss your changes and receive consensus at the articles talk page to get them approved. I'm going to revert you after you respond to this. Jerm (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aristobulus I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethnos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar revision

Hi there! Sorry, but I have no idea why you mentioned your update to the Category Barnstar on my talk page. I don't believe I've ever had anything to do with its creation or editing, but thanks for assuming I did. Cheers, Her Pegship (I'm listening) 21:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pegship:Hello, I assumed it was you because your name is on this file as the original uploader. Jerm (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, you're right. I didn't look for history as far back as 2007. Thanks for your diligence! Her Pegship (I'm listening) 00:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]



I ended up edit-conflicting with your close here, just as I was going to add a detailed policy analysis that likely would have resulted in an firmer closure. I believe it should be relisted, instead of RMNACed as no consensus, since a) the policy arguments of one side are actually much stronger (though less emotional) than the other, so a consensus is in fact likely to emerge, and b) all that's going to happen with an nc result is that it will get re-RMed again later, rehashing the same arguments. It is better to just settle the matter now, even if it takes one or more relistings. I'm not going to get into whether something at WP:RMNAC can possibly be interpreted to suggest the close was "faulty", much less go challenge it at WP:MR; I think the close was in good faith, just kind of short-term expediency-oriented (at the expense of long-term efficiency), plus (as a pagemover myself) I find RMNAC to have drifted off into WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:CREEP land. I don't wish it on anyone, unless they're actually incompetent or are supervoting. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  08:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: The RM was already in the backlog which is my reason for performing the closure, but stating that one group presented a better argument than the other is entirely your own interpretation on the matter. The only thing that matters is that their arguments were based on policy which both groups have demonstrated. And yes, I did exclude Alex’s additional vote. His first vote wasn’t difficult to interpret. Though he did not name any specific policy, it was quite clear his argument was to go according to what primary sources show per WP:PRIMARY. I’m only mentioning his vote because he’s the only one to have not name a specific policy. Overall, the arguments were presented according to policy and the number of votes from both groups are even via No consensus . Jerm (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the discussion, but my reply is in there. I”ll add it as a supplementary in my closure as soon as I get back to my computer. I hope my response though was satisfying enough. Jerm (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine. I didn't come to pick a fight or accuse you of wrong-doing, just to suggest a relisting. I'm not sure what the hatting of the thread is about (and then continuing it anew); guessing it has something to do with your "here vs. away" routines.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: The reason for why I hat these because I don't want the conversation dragging on over who's "right and wrong". That is just my assumption, and I know not everyone will be satisfied with the closure, especially participants who don't get their way. But thank you for being patient and understanding. Jerm (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cats in the barn

The Barnstar Creator's Barnstar
Fur the appealing Template:The Feline Barnstar, which is purrrty, really says "check meowt", and claws its way to the top of striking barnstars. The memory is fuzzy, and maybe I was napping when it was introduced, or I would've pounced on this sooner. I think I just should've stalked WT:FELINE more closely, and I prey you'll forgive me.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Thank you, glad you liked it. Jerm (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a tester of my template

I saw your good work with {{The Fishy Barnstar}} and was hoping you could take a look at a template I made to easily create barnstars. It's not perfect, but just wanted another set of eyes on it, if you have a few moments to spare. it's at User:NessieVL/Barnstar maker. Cheers. --Nessie (📥) 19:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @NessieVL: I was testing your template on my sandbox, and I really like it. Your instructions for adding an image should clarify that brackets "[[ ]]" are not required for adding an image, neither setting up the size of the image. The biggest question of all is where do editors add the template at. Obviously, they're going to make a Template page, so instructions for that should be added. Jerm (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good notes. I'll work on those things. Thanks, and keep up the good work. --Nessie (📥) 00:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NessieVL: I made this change to the template doc, but that's not why I'm really messaging you. I had used your template to make Template:The Volcanic Barnstar, but I just noticed that your template doesn't Bold the barnstar title. Could you make your template do that? Jerm (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NessieVL: Nevermind, I fixed it here. Jerm (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was sleeping. 😪 --Nessie (📥) 11:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
That's one great anatomy barnstar! Thanks for creating it. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I'm spanish. PCE is not an marxist-leninist party. They are integrated in a socialdemocrat coallition with "Unidas podemos". They can say they are marxist-leninist, but they are not. I can say i'm a plane, but if i don't fly and i'm not made of iron, definitively i'm not a plane.

Sorry my bad english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Hello and thanks for sending a message. I have to say that you didn't provide a reason for removing sourced content or any reason at all in the edit summary (see: Help:Edit summary). Also, I'm not the only editor reverting your changes. You now have to go to the articles talk page and start a discussion in order to receive consensus for such changes. Jerm (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thanks for upholding justice to Carrie Lam and all of Hong Kong, you deserved this barnstar. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) 10:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peeled Snacks


I was editing the Peeled Snacks information so it is current but see you reversed it back to the old....can you tell me why?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKALINA22 (talkcontribs) 23:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JKALINA22: Hello & thnx for messaging. Your edit here is based on your personal experience/opinion which is prohibited per WP:OR. If you're serious about editing, please reach out at WP:TEAHOUSE. Jerm (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{request edit}} How can we have the company information updated by someone at Wikipedia as we are unsure how or what to do?

@JKALINA22: You're supposed to place the tag at the articles talk page, not a users talk page. Jerm (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - please take more care if you're going to close RMs. What also needed to be done with Bharat was to place a hatnote at India pointing to Bharat (disambiguation), because otherwise Bharat (disambiguation) is left as an orphan and those searching for "Bharat" won't necessarily know about the disambiguation page. Furthermore, the lead of the disambiguation page needed to be changed to reflect the primary topic. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: Hello and thnx for messaging. My apologies. I performed about six moves (including Bharat) on the 6th and completely lost track and forgot about it. I'll try not to make that mistake again. Jerm (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

There's no need to edit war with an IP on their own talk page, as you did here. Just report them to WP:AIV and move on - continuously reverting them just inflames the situation. Thanks. – bradv🍁 05:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Yeah I know. I tried reporting the IP, but someone else had already done it. Honestly though, I would've moved on a lot sooner if the IP just blanked their talk page instead of modifying other editor's messages. Thanks for blocking the IP anyway. Jerm (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks Jerm. – bradv🍁 13:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long term retention of admins

Hi Jerm, it isn't that people don't care about longterm dormancy among admins, it's just that there are some very different philosophical approaches. To some people we are a volunteer community where we want an open door and to be as welcoming as possible to returning colleagues who have spent a few years bring up kids, working too hard or looking after a dying relative. I have been involved in various real world voluntary organisations long enough to know that bereavement, retirement and redundancy are among the sometimes stressful reasons that lead to people returning to an old hobby that they had put on one side a few years before. There is the alternative view that if we follow certain business school concepts there is no benefit investing in something that isn't going to yield a result in the current or next quarter; or that having a long tail of currently dormant accounts is untidy. There used to be a view that editors who have left are so unlikely to return that we gain little by keeping an open door, but I doubt that anyone still holds that view. Different philosophical approaches that result in people who care having very different perspectives on the issue. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @WereSpielChequers: I said that as a possibility, but I completely agree with your statement. I also have my assumptions on what others think of the matter. The discussion being closed though in such a short period from its initiation is very unusual and unnecessary, but it's all good. Like I said in my last response before the discussion was closed, I wasn't trying to start a witch hunt. Jerm (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts at ANI

@Jerm: Mostly because they stopped and sought redress. Had the user not communicated further, a block would have been appropriate immediately. But, given that they came here and ostensibly sought explanation, might as well AGF. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: I understand. Hopefully they don't continue spamming without discussion first now that they've been warned. Jerm (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: I've never seen WP:ROPE before. Anyway, I'm not sure what to expect. Maybe a new ANI case real soon because the user still spammed the link? Or maybe by some miracle, the editor will make helpful and constructive edits on Wiki. Jerm (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to new users who've been warned on a previous ANI case, usually return to ANI for doing the same disruptive thing or something entirely new yet disruptive still. Just saying. Jerm (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: I'm not sure if you noticed, GolfEditorUSA is now blocked. Jerm (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that the edit you reverted on Bruce Perens is actually correct; the birthdate is unreferenced, we have no source for an exact date, only an approximate year. There was an old discussion on Talk:Bruce Perens about it as well. The IP reverted your reversion, so nothing to do but I didn't want you to revert it again without explaining. Schazjmd (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for helping revert vandalism too. You may want to get scripts to help you, which you can install by adding to User:Jerm/common.js. I'm fond of User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js and some other scripts that let you see a diff without having to go to the page, which I think is what User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/watchlistDiffs.js does but I'm not sure. On a less related note, I think you can just report users like to AIV without warning them first because they were just released from a block. ~ Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Glaser Loves Gear


I personally messaged Steve Cirbus (star of the show) on Instagram and he informed me it was cancelled. TruTV doesn't seem to always announce these things, so I think this is the best confirmation we're gonna get. Can you help me fix my reference formatting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:CF01:8240:2425:E750:C975:619B (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:182:CF01:8240:2425:E750:C975:619B: Hello and thnx for messaging. You were reverted because you had removed sourced content which is prohibited unless you can update/replace it with a reliable source. Your personal experience/beliefs are not considered a reliable source. That would be a violation of WP:OR. However, it's not often an IP messages me and explains their changes, and I'm not interest in the subject. I'm just going to ignore your changes since it isn't really vandalism, but don't remove sourced content or add unsourced content again. And don't be surprised if someone else reverts you. Jerm (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I didn't see your edit here. No harm done then. Jerm (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Timothy Broglio, 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the "minor" checkbox to indicate that the edit was vandalism was inappropriate, and an abuse of the rollback tools. Elizium23 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: Thnx for pointing that out for me, I did not know my rollback edits were being marked as "minor" edits. Btw, you should've just added the citation to begin with instead of arguing with me. Biography articles are taken very seriously. In the future, please read WP:BLP & WP:BLPRS. Happy editing & Cheers. Jerm (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But thanks for adding the citation. Jerm (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing, don’t send warning templates to someone you’re currently arguing with in a content dispute. That’s an abuse of warning templates. Jerm (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Cuthbert debunked Super Mario FX rumor

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that Dylan Cuthbert (one of the programmers at Argonaut Software who worked on Star Fox) confirmed that Super Mario FX was just the internal code name for the Super FX chip on his Twitter page years ago and not an early version of Super Mario 64. Here's proof: "SNES Central: @dylancuthbert I'm researching unreleased SNES games, was a game called "Super Mario FX" ever in development?
Dylan Cuthbert: @snescentral no, that was the internal code name for the FX chip"[1] 2605:E000:121D:8BF5:F053:244D:1218:64A7 (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thnx for messaging. I'm kinda confused. Did I revert your edits? And if I did, what article was it? I'm not seeing any of my edits in the articles you've linked. Jerm (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was the Platform game article that had the Super Mario FX information. 2605:E000:121D:8BF5:F40A:AB9F:C935:EC8 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because you had removed sourced information and didn't bother explaining why via the WP:edit summary. After reexamining the content, I've decided to remove it for other reasons. Jerm (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ "Dylan Cuthbert". Twitter. Archived from the original on May 25, 2014. Retrieved May 25, 2014. SNES Central: @dylancuthbert I'm researching unreleased SNES games, was a game called "Super Mario FX" ever in development?
    Dylan Cuthbert: @snescentral no, that was the internal code name for the FX chip"

United Monarchy

I suggest that you self-revert at Kingdom of Judah. Here is why:

Lipschits, Oded (2014). "The history of Israel in the biblical period". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-997846-5. As this essay will show, however, the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of "united monarchy" is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Could you elaborate on what has to be reverted? Jerm (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rehoboam as first king of Judah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: I'll do it, but despite academic consensus, such information in the info box doesn't mean a united kingdom of Israel or kingdom of Judah existed. It seemed proper since Rehoboam is attributed as the first king of Judah. Jerm (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Question If the kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) didn’t exist, why are the names of the rulers with length of their reigns in the info box at Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)? Jerm (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerm: The idea is that David and Solomon did exist, but they were hill county chieftains, not kings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: I’ve never heard that before, but I see it in the article along with the kingdom of Judah dated to 750 BCE. That doesn’t explain why Saul and Rehoboam are in the info box though. Jerm (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't worry too much about it: who were the leaders of an imaginary kingdom? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Yet it was an issue for you @Kingdom of Judah. If you wanted me to revert which I did. I think you should remove all rulers in the info box as it will create misconception to the readers that the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) existed. The dates next to their names don’t help either. Jerm (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it’s 3 in the morning and I need to sleep now. I never bothered investigating whether the kingdom of Judah existed or not or what the scholarly consensus is, but I’ll continue this conversation tomorrow and at the appropriate talk page. Happy editing & Cheers. Jerm (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move closings

Jerm, please close move requests before you rename the page or pages. The way you have been doing it, moving pages before you close the RMs, is wreaking havoc with the RMCD bot. Thank you for your consideration in this matter! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Paine Ellsworth: Just wanted to let you know I've been closing RMs first before performing moves since your message. Jerm (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 07:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting things you know nothing about

Why you reverting the edits on the Albanian Civil War page when you are clearly not well placed to judge whether those edits were judicial or otherwise?

Has Wikipedia become the old Encyclopedia but with dum idiots as editors now or what has happened to this place?

If any edit was wrong then you edit it, you don't go to a lecture like a child with a lolipop and clean all that work on the blackboard.

Especially as that page is so wrongly represented and is so utterly factually mistaken to the point any Albanian should sue the Wikipedia foundation for gross defamation to start off the end of this website which has clearly become utter trash.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You removed sourced content and caused a template error by tampering with the transclusion link. And if you don't like Wikipedia, stop editing and move on. Jerm (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked them for legal threats and personal attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian.thomson: Thnx for the block, that individual definitely wasn't ready to edit Wiki. Jerm (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian.thomson: Btw, I think you should revoke access to their talk page. The individual is still ranting. Jerm (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was at work. Looks like they only needed to be reverted once. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randal Burns Page

Hello Jerm, I noticed that you had removed my section of the Randal Burns Wikipedia page on his personal life because I had not provided a reputable source. This is a valid concern, however, there are no sources online to include on the page regarding his personal life. I know Randal personally, and I made sure he reviewed all my information to make sure it was accurate. I am kindly asking you to revert the change that you removed, as it took me weeks to write. Best Regards, Stan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thnx for messaging. When new content is added, it has to have a reliable source. Personal experience is not a source, it is in fact a violation of WP:OR. Biography articles are taken more seriously than most articles, we (editors) don't want to introduce false/fraudulent content about a living person (or deceased), see WP:BLP for more information. Jerm (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely unprofessional of you to address me the way you did. I frankly feel that "thnx" is not a proper way to express gratitude, especially since you're an editor, who writes quite frequently. I now ponder where you went to school, and whether you did. I learned how to properly deal with business inquiries and professional inquiries in general very early on in my life. Maybe that was just a personal experience, however, you clearly did not learn. I am once again asking for you to revert your edit on the Randal Burns Wikipedia page, or attempt find a source corroborating the obviously true information. Kind Regards, Stanley Yelnats — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting someone on Wikipedia is considered a WP:PERSONAL attack. A personal attack can result in a block. If you don't want to follow policy and guidelines then you shouldn't be editing. Jerm (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Judge Deryeghiayan

Why are you editing Judge Der-Yeghiayan's personal life changes? I changed his grandchildren from 3 to 4, because he just had another (as I have a personal association to him). Clearly there wont be article on this given COVID, so why remove this entire section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bliztu (talkcontribs) 01:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bliztu: If it is not sourced, then it is in violation of WP:BLPRS. Any editor may go-ahead and remove unsourced content. Jerm (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but it wasn't sourced before and it was there for years... so why is it being noticed now? Either way, thanks for editing and correcting other things on the page, you made them look a lot better than me. Ha.

@Bliztu: I didn't know how long the content was there for, I just stroll random pages. Btw, welcome to Wikipedia. If you have any concerns/questions, leave a message @WP:TEAHOUSE. Jerm (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jerm, I get it. Appreciate the edits again.

Hey there, thanks for your reports at WP:UAA. Just wanted to give you a heads up that "Ufuk" is a Turkish name, and that some of the names you reported, by my estimation, are plausibly Turkish names, specifically UfukGundogdu (Ufuk Gündoğdu) and Ufukcimen (Ufuk Çimen). Also, "fuku" is another string to be cautious about because it's a Japanese word. For cases like these, I'd suggest leaving a message stating your concerns on their talk first, or reporting if you see evidence of disruptive evidence. Thanks! bibliomaniac15 00:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibliomaniac15: Hello & thnx for the info. I didn't know "Ufuk" was a name, thought it meant "You fuc*". I knew there were Japanese spellings, but I wasn't confident in some of the usernames. Jerm (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Murray

Hey, sorry I stepped on your move. Was just about to do the exact same thing. Station1 (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Station1: It's fine, but now that you've messaged me, you need to close the RM discussion before performing the move. Once the discussion is closed, the RMCD bot will remove the RM notice tag from the article. Jerm (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Murray (publisher)

What happened to John Murray (publisher)? Something needs to be fixed, the disambig page has no entry for the company imprint - the dismbig page goes to the disambig page. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker Done. Jerm (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


How is removing unsourced fiction disruptive editing? Do I have to replace it with my own fictional story for it be "constructive"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is the content not sourced when there are references like [7] ? Jerm (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where does that source talk about smoking teeth and eyeballs popping out? Why is the content written like a novel, with stuff like "could only whimper and take big deep breaths"? Also the father was not present at the execution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18 June 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple citations there, not just the one. If you're also concern about the style, you can change it yourself. I won't revert you anymore as I have other priorities, but don't be surprised if someone else reverts you. Jerm (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 06:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Path slopu: Thank you, and likewise, thank you for your efforts to. Happy editing & cheers friend! Jerm (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded EuryalusSQL
removed JujutacularMonty845RettetastMadchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed KeeganOpabinia regalisPremeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news


Hello Wugapodes Apologies for the inconvenience, but after a month of not editing, I felt the urge to edit again. Maybe I just needed a break, IDK, but I'm ready to edit again and would like my user rights returned. Thank you. Jerm (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No inconvenience; I like granting user rights more than most parts of admin work. Welcome back, and I hope you had a nice break! Wug·a·po·des 00:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, please do not report potentially problematic usernames unless the account has recently made edits.(the last 2-3 weeks) If the account has never edited, it is not a serious problem requiring an immediate block. There are many reasons why someone might register a username and never use it. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Barrington (Tasmania)

Dbbarefooter (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Hi Jerm. I'm hoping you can assist since you seem to be somewhat more experienced than myself in editing Wikipedia. The work you have done looks great.[reply]

Not sure if I'm on the right track here, but I noticed that references to other activities on Lake Barrington seem to have been removed. Can you advise if this was because they were missing supporting documentation or similar? I would be happy to provide whatever is needed. Best Regards David Bennett

Hello Dbbarefooter, I removed the info because it was not sourced and is typed up in a form of a "Travel Guide" per violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. I ask that you self-revert. Jerm (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed AngelaJcw69Just ChillingPhilg88Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news


Thank you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your help on Biblical criticism. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article name can now be moved

Hi, this article name can now be moved to Korean wave per Talk:Korean Wave, thanks. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiddenstranger: Done. Jerm (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


User:Jerm The requested move for Gauhar Khan, Tanaaz Irani, Bigg Boss Bangla and Bigg Boss Marathi Bigg Boss Marathi 1 Bigg Boss Marathi 2 Bigg Boss Kannada is over its 7 days now please can you move them.

User:Jerm you forgot to move these pages Bigg Boss Bangla and Bigg Boss Marathi Bigg Boss Marathi 1 Bigg Boss Marathi 2 Bigg Boss Kannada as well.

Hello, I only move pages that have participants in the rm discussion. That's why I haven't moved the Big Boss pages and Bigg Boss Kannada has opposition in the discussion. Jerm (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jerm someone has supported for rm for Bigg Boss Bangla, Bigg Boss Marathi Bigg Boss Marathi 1 Bigg Boss Marathi 2 can you move them now


User:Jerm Can you please move Bigg Boss Bangla, Bigg Boss Marathi Bigg Boss Marathi 1 Bigg Boss Marathi 2 as someone has supported it please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:64:8013:E593:26E3:AD4E:580 (talk) 07:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've been asking this already. I can't just move a page when you ask. It goes through a waiting process which includes consensus from other editors. I've moved some of the other pages you asked because those pages already went through that process. I will no longer take a request from you. Someone else will do it or close the RM discussion as not moved depending on the outcome of the discussion. Jerm (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Jerm, thank you for your reply. This is my first time editing a Wikipedia page so I apologize for my mistakes. Can you check to see Mary Robichaux's wiki to see if I corrected them appropriately? Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway061020 (talkcontribs) 00:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Throwaway061020 Hello, concerning this edit, you did not provide a WP:reliable source. Avoid using Mary Robichaux's political website as that is considered promotional. I'd highly recommend reading WP:BLP. If you have any more questions/concerns, ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Jerm (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 19:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added AjpolinoLuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad OrientemHarejLidLomnMentoz86Oliver PereiraXJaM
renamed There'sNoTimeTheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



User: 2607:FEA8:6521:4330:6006:31E7:2746:18C3

Thank you for blocking him. This user has been on my case since late August. Suden13 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suden13, I gave the IP a warning. Only admins can perform blocks, and I'm not an admin. It was Admin Materialscientist who blocked the IP. Jerm (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it afterwards. That user was warned once before. Either way, thank you. :) Suden13 (talk) 00:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed payments

Hello, my friend created this page (or paid someone to create it, I don't know) and wants to remove the "undisclosed payments" message at the top. I tried to do this and noticed you reverted the page to it's previous version with that message at the top. I don't know much about editing pages and maybe I did something wrong so can you let me know what I need to do to remove it?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom505616 (talkcontribs) 16:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Rosguill, you are possibly correct about undisclosed payment. Jerm (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for meatpuppetry signed, Rosguill talk 17:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Olbermann

Hi, I've been trying to update a pages on Keith Olbermann's hate speech, but you reverted it. Can you please tell me why or add it the correct way :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you did not provide a reliable source like a news article. Do not use YouTube as a source. It is not really considered reliable per WP:YOUTUBE. Jerm (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comments were made by him on his youtube video directly, I thought citing any other source could be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, YouTube is not reliable as people can insert their own opinions/personal research via the YouTube video itself per WP:OR violation. Jerm (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so if I re-add the comments and reference a website talking about his comments he made on his youtube video, that will be accepted? I'm trying to find a source that isn't biased, but most are news or blogs which add their political slant on what he said, rather than an unbiased transcript of what was said. Is there any recommendations on how to link what people say in an unbiased way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A news article might be your best option though. There's nothing wrong with a biased news article. If Keith Olbermann's video has been defined as hate speech, you should also add a sourced counter-argument that states his video isn't hate speech. Kind of like both sides to a coin. It will satisfy WP:NPOV. Jerm (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Donaldson (Cricketer)

Hi Jerm Im Johns daughter. Ill find some references on the net later today (such as awards and playing records in the clubs history pages) but there is some that wont be citable as its information directly from the person. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saldon78 (talkcontribs) 03:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saldon78: Personal affiliation or experience is not a source. That would be considered a violation of WP:PSTS. Until you provide a reliable source, I have to remove it all. Jerm (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Jerm, thank you for the helpful information that you left for me, I have found it very helpful. --R.I.P. Mia (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @R.I.P. Mia: & no problem. Welcome to Wikipedia btw. If you have any questions, you can ask it at the WP:TEAHOUSE. It's very active as there are many experienced editors watching. Jerm (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

revert my changes?

Benjamin Netanyahu is a dictator... why deleting it every time I make the change

Provide a reliable source stating he's a dictator. Jerm (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the same country where he lives! A corrupted prime minister that using police forces against protesters, not in a peaceful way. ruling his politically unstable government. The majority of Israeli citizens describe him also a dictator.

Wikipedia uses WP:reliable sources for content, not someone's personal views or experience. Jerm (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable sources"? Explain how and why Leonid Brezhnev was a "dictator" ? He wasn't even close to being a dictator and the same goes with Joseph Stalin... there are lots of falsely claimed dictators on your list and people like Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin which are both dictators and oppress their people, and they are somehow not on the list… is it because the USA said so? Is the USA decides who is the dictator and who is not?

I haven't examined the article, but as for you, you seem to be inserting content based on your personal views and experience, see WP:PSTS. Jerm (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Wyndham Clark

Hi Jerm,

I just got you message. The Wyndham Clark reference was from the link I put in the addition at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2020_FedEx_Cup_Playoffs. That's where I got that information. If you need more from another source, here is another link: https://www.pgatour.com/fedexcup/official-standings.2020.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C2A0:3B80:CD97:E7F4:96EC:4FE8 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for messaging, you actually need to add a citation that supports the content, and you can't cite Wikipedia to support content on Wikipedia per WP:CIRC. Play the video @Help:Referencing for beginners. It shows you how to add a citation. Jerm (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Jerm it’s been 7 days since the requested move for Manasi Parekh can you see what you can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:A2:7E3B:6DA4:26E9:B8F0:435B (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jerm (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You accused me of attacking another editor. (re: wikipedia page "Hubris").

I did not attack the editor. I attacked his wrongful reverting for whicht there was insufficient reason (as i noted), and which re-included wrong content, and i think it is disrespectful to not try to find common ground but re-revert solely based on his own opinion and without regard to the actual content of the page (if he had re-read it he might have noticed that what he re-added also had no sources either, or he chose to ignore that).

Fucking up useful contributions does really exist, and it is somewhat annoying.

I don't know what makes you think i am attacking him personally.

SiwardDeGroot "Fucking up useful contributions"? If you can't remain WP:CIVIL then you shouldn't be editing. Jerm (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that trying to force the issue by reverting, instead of continuing to engage in discussion, can not be considered WP:CIVIL, especially on a page called "Hubris" (i hope you know what that means). I have, by the way, no objections against replacing "fucking up" by "messing up".

SiwardDeGroot It's called a WP:Content dispute, and you're right about reverting. You keep continuing to revert though while discussing the issue. It defeats the whole purpose of a talk page, plus the issue needs to be discussed at the articles talk page, not a users talk page. Also, if you revert again, you'll probably get blocked per WP:3RR. Jerm (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is more about the reverting behaviour than the page content, so maybe the article talk page isn't very appropriate. Thanks for the 3RR link, it seems useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiwardDeGroot (talkcontribs) 17:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SiwardDeGroot So you don't want to resolve the matter at the articles talk page, yet you like to complain about another editors editing behavior and not your own? Take a step back and actually consider your own behavior disruptive as well because you obviously don't want to resolve this issue in the appropriate manner. Jerm (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: SiwardDeGroot has made it clear that he/she won't be using the articles talk page to resolve the issue. Jerm (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well Jerm, this is an interesting one. You are right that if the content itself is under discussion, the article's talk page is absolutely the right place to discuss it. SiwardDeGroot is correct in one sense though - if the point they want to raise is someone's over-eagerness to revert rather than the content that was reverted, an editor's talk page is actually the right place to do that. If SiwardDeGroot had done that in a civil manner, I could have supported their approach. Unfortunately, they did not.
SiwardDeGroot: there is simply no justification for the foul-mouthed hostility in your approach to MrOllie. Your own edit summaries in the edits that were reverted indicated that they contained OR, and they gave no justification for your removal of material other than that it was 'bullshit'. No mention of any sources, no expanded reasoning, just 'this is bullshit'. If you make an edit like that (which, I would add, contained misspellings, and was so difficult to parse that I literally didn't know what you were trying to say), you should expect it to be reverted. If you want to ask someone why they reverted, that's fine, but please do it in a polite manner. GirthSummit (blether) 18:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit Got it but wouldn't SiwardDeGroot's behavior kind of voids their complaints, especially when I reverted this edit. And MrOllie had already explained why SiwardDeGroot was reverted prior to my revert. Jerm (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IDK anymore, perhaps they should just resolve it themselves. Thanks for the response though. Jerm (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm with you - their comments were excessively rude, and unnecessary given the nature of their edit summaries. I don't think anything you've said is out of line. They were right about one thing in a very narrow sense, but there was no need for the aggression. GirthSummit (blether) 20:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram


All changes made by me are from the organisation's website. I did not add a citation as the link to the website was already provided on the page. Should I put a citation mark with link to the website wherever I made edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indi3322 (talkcontribs) 13:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Indi3322, it would be better to use an independent, secondary source for information of the nature you were adding. We generally only use any organisation's website for the most basic information, such as the address of their head office or the names of office holders. If the material is only available on their website, it's better to leave it out. GirthSummit (blether) 14:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


New to Wiki! Was just reorganizing the intro and overview, as a volunteer with the Planetary Society. I'll use the sandbox first moving forward. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradvonck (talkcontribs) 02:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradvonck I'm not even going to talk about the article yet until you explain why your username resembles that of User:Bradv. I've reported it, so you're most likely going to be blocked for it as an impersonation of another editor. Jerm (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jerm That is my actual name. I am not trying to copy anyone.

Bradvonck I have removed my report because you awnsered and have not caused any disruption. Jerm (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jerm, thank you. "Vonck" is an actual surname. This editor is interested in space exploration. Bradv has never done any substantive editing of articles about space exploration. I see no evidence of an intent to impersonate. The similarity appears to be a coincidence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 Got it, thanks. And thanks for dealing with my reported usernames. Any username you've put on hold, you can just remove them. Those usernames were created a while back. I just reported them because I thought those usernames were a bit more inappropriate than most usernames. Jerm (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jerm, a lot of your UAA reports are good and lead to blocks of disruptive trolls. Thank you for your work. Here is how I suggest you handle accounts that haven't edited: If the name is obviously profane, threatening, overtly racist or sexist, or clearly disruptive, report it. If the username appears promotional, wait until the account edits. The account may be here to spam, or it may be here to contribute positively, not realizing that company names are not allowed. As an administrator, I treat spammers much more harshly than good faith contributors, and looking at their first edits is necessary to make that distinction. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Thanksgiving!

~ Destroyeraa🌀 has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!

Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for the turkey and for reverting that absolute maniac. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Destroyeraa Thank you friend, glad I can help and have a wonderful Thanksgiving! Jerm (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] reported at AN/3

I reported at AN/3. Once an admin has some time free, this may help at Mai Kadra massacre. Boud (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Jones

Hi Jerm, were you aware that whenever you move a [[Foo (disambiguation)]] page to [[Foo]], all the article (mainspace) links to "Foo" have to be disambiguated? I've already fixed the links to Alvin Jones, so no worries. You'll find this and other post-move cleanup needs at WP:RMCI#Cleaning up after the move. Thank you very much for all your help closing RMs! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paine Ellsworth Thanks for the fix. I am aware of incoming links to dab pages and have it fixed. Forgot about this one though (obviously). Jerm (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You remind me of me. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 18:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
~ Destroyer🌀🌀 13:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Palestine–Saudi Arabia relations

The page includes biased reporting and wording. The words, "lashed out" is dramatically exaggerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021 to you too!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Jerm, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,

~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Broken links

Hi, you moved Characters in the Mahabharata to List of characters in the Mahabharata, however there are several links which are broken because of this move. Is there any tool to fix this?

Regards,.💠245CMR💠.👥📜 07:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

245CMR I'm fixing it right now. Jerm (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
245CMR Alright, I think I got them all. Jerm (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much .💠245CMR💠.👥📜 14:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
You're just destroying the guy right now. You've beaten me to a handful of edits. Including a couple of edit conflicts. Unfortunately, this is a known LTA, so he'll keep on going until he's blocked. And after that, he'll switch to different IPs. Keep up the good work! LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I can see how that IP is rapidly disrupting all pages, and you are patiently reverting them. Keep up the amazing work! Ashleyyoursmile! 05:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Apocalypse of James (Syriac), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news