See my response to your note at WP:HD. Since all came back fine at the IP check request, I've granted you IP block exemption. However, this won't help with the global block (it's only good for the block that was imposed in May), so you need global IPBE too. I'll request it for you. Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jpcase. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Clic & Kat, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Hello, Jpcase. 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.
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello Jpcase: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Scott Hutcheson and I wanted to discuss why you removed my sections from the Catfish article and how you came to determine I am not an expert in my field. Sure the website is no longer running, but that doesn't make the content wrong and, in my opinion, doesn't challenge my credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heymunster (talk • contribs) 19:38 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@Heymunster: Hey, thanks for the message. I haven't been involved with the Catfish article in over a year, and honestly, I can't remember all the details of what you're asking about. Looking at the article's talk page though, I can see that I removed your website in response to a much older comment that had been left by someone else several years earlier. I wasn't questioning your credibility per se, or the accuracy of what you wrote - but Wikipedia requires that all sources either be published by a professional publication or else (in the case of personal websites like blogs) written by someone who has been published by a professional publication. Apparently, when I removed your website, it was because I didn't see any clear indications of what your professional background is. You're welcome to offer more information about yourself, if you feel that your website should be re-assessed. --Jpcase (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Le Building you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Unsaid and Understood.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you want to start an article on A. J. Gil, then do so. Please do not distort the television article with excessive biographical details. Hzh (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzh: Hey, thanks for the message. You're right, I should probably just create an article on Gil instead. The only reason that I tried working the information on him into the American Idol (season 1) article is because there's a contingent of editors who are strongly opposed to having standalone articles on low-ranking Idol finalists. I've been told in the past that finalists below 3rd place or so should only have their own articles if they've received significant news coverage separate from their association with American Idol. All other finalists, I've been told, should have their articles merged with the seasons of the show on which they appeared.
Gil's situation is sort of a strange one, since he absolutely meets the GNG standards for having his own article, and he's continued to have a music career after leaving the series, but almost all of the significant news coverage that he's received has been in relation to American Idol. There are several news articles about Gil's starring role in the film Destination Fame - and those might confer individual notability on him. But those articles are primarily about Destination Fame itself, not Gil specifically. So I'm not really sure - there don't seem to any clear standards on how much non-Idol-related coverage is necessary before an Idol-finalist is considered notable enough to have a standalone article.
For Gil's music career after Idol, I've had to rely mostly on primary sources (which are allowed on Wikipedia, but can't confer notability) and a few short blurbs. So if a standalone article on Gil is just going to be AfDed eventually, then I'd much rather not go through the effort of creating one. I do feel that the information on Gil's career ought to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia though, so I tried incorporating it into the season one article sort of as an experiment - but I agree that it looks awkward there. Any advice? Do you think that a standalone article on Gil would be worth creating? --Jpcase (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say his notability is marginal. Yes, it is possible that any article created may be nominated for AfD, but that is a risk you'll have to take. I don't see anywhere else you can put his biography details. Many Idol contestant articles have been nominated before and survived e.g Pia Toscano, Katie Stevens. A likely outcome of any AfD is that it may end up as a redirect, e.g. Curtis Finch, Jr, but if it helps, AJ Gil may have a better chance of survival than Curtis Finch. Hzh (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paper Luigi has eaten your {{subst:cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{subst:cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
Thanks for the cookie! Yes, it was a bit stale (~4 years ago), but a cookie's a cookie.
Anyway, I reread your comment expressing interest in my plans going forward with Dexter's Laboratory. A few weeks ago, I made a request for peer review that still has no responses. Care to take a look? Or do you know anyone who would? Thanks, Paper LuigiT • C09:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Paper Luigi: Hey, it's really nice to hear from you again! It makes me nostalgic for our days working on Ed, Edd n Eddy together. :) I probably don't have enough time to do a peer review, but I did take a quick look at the article, and overall, it's impressive. The prose reads very well. My only major concern is that the article seems too short - especially the reception section (I know that Ed, Edd n Eddy made it to FA without much in the reception section, but honestly, if I wasn't so busy with other projects, I would go back and make a lot of improvements to that article).
If you haven't already, you should check out some news archiving sites like Infotrac and HighBeam, which you may be able to access through your local library's website. Another option would be NewsLibrary, which charges for access to articles but is free to search - if you find sources on there that you think could be useful, you can request them at WP:Resource Exchange. I imagine that you could probably find some great sources through any of these services.
One other small suggestion - I noticed a lot of "missing url" notifications in the references section, all of which seem to be for Amazon pages. It looks like the url link is actually included in the ASIN, but you might want to change the formatting for those references, just to get rid of those red notifications.
Hello, Jpcase. 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.
Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil#Soundtracks. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
@SNAAAAKE!!: Just because those articles don't have tags, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have tags. Most articles about films have short productions sections, but that's simply because editors haven't taken the time to work on those articles yet. The goal should always be to expand articles with as much notable information as can be sourced. The production section for that particular article can still be expanded significantly, so it seems worthwhile to keep the tag - but do whatever you think is best. --Jpcase (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They sometimes don't even have production sections. If it pains you so much, go and work on it, as clearly no one else is going to ever do it for you (seriously, no is going to do it, it's Wikipedia in 2019). --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SNAAAAKE!!: I really don't care very much, which is why I'm telling you to go ahead and do whatever you think is best. But again, just because some articles have less production information than this one, doesn't mean that this article's production section shouldn't be expanded. There are different tiers of article-quality - this isn't at the bottom, but it's definitely not at the top. And yeah, maybe no one will ever decide to work on improving this particular article, but the article still has the potential to be improved upon. --Jpcase (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: Hi - thanks for letting me know. I hadn't realized that any three reverts on the same page over 24 hours would be considered edit warring. I had assumed that edit warring only described reverting the same editor multiple times or reverting the same content multiple times. I can see that the policy applies in more situations than I had realized, so I've gone ahead and restored the content that had been removed by my most recent revert. --Jpcase (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wumbolo: Okay, thanks for clarifying! I just want to make sure though - it's okay for me to continue reverting edits like the one I reverted here, right? I'll hold off on reverting anything less serious than that, but if content is added that could be considered libelous, I'd like to be able to revert it as soon as I see it. --Jpcase (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Defamatory content has no place on Wikipedia. However, content merely being unsourced is often not an excuse, so reporting it to WP:BLPN or WP:RPP is safer than risking a block. wumbolo^^^16:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove my comments from the discussion page at Talk:Ralph Northam
Jpcase, please don't change other editor's comments on talk pages. I made what I believed was an uncontroversial refactor of the discussion and explained the refactor. You reverted the refactor and removed my expository comments from the discussion. The proper way handle that situation is to adjust the refactor and explain your reasoning in the discussion thread under my comment on the refactor.
@Sparkie82: Apologies about that - I had thought that I was only reverting the change you made to the discussion's title; I didn't realize I removed your comment as well. And if you want to change the title again, feel free. I thought that sticking with a more concise title would be better, but I don't feel very strongly about what title is used. --Jpcase (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We were discussing how much detail to include the Ralph Northam article and you abruptly made changes to section under discussion and stopped discussing the issue. Please discuss the issue until we have reached a consensus before making any changes. Sparkie82 (t•c)02:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning on doing an FAC for SpongeBob SquarePants before at least the time that the third SpongeBob movie comes up, so it might be the TFA the day it's released. I feel like it is on its way towards becoming a FA but I wanted to see what you thought about its prospects seeing how you copyedited the article before and commented on the last FAC. Thanks, Jerry (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JerrySa1: Hey, thanks for the message! I haven't been on Wikipedia very much lately, and so I haven't kept up-to-date with the most recent changes to the SpongeBob article. I'll look things over sometime this week, hopefully in the next few days, and get back to you with my thoughts. --Jpcase (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho: Apologies in advance for how long this response has turned out. I'm...quite aware that I can drone on sometimes. But hopefully my answers below are helpful. :)
Thanks for the followup! And as noted in my edit summary, I have no serious objections to reworking how these categories are presented, if that's the route you want to go.
The answers to questions #1 and #4 should be fairly apparent upon reading the ¡Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes! article. "The Three Caballeros" is a 1944 song. "¡Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!" is a 1941 song. They're different songs that share a melody. I guess that the technical way of putting this would be to say that "The Three Caballeros" is a contrafactum of "Ay, Jalisco", in the same way that "What Child Is This?" is a contrafactum of "Greensleeves" or in the way that "Hotaru no Hikari" is a contrafactum of "Auld Lang Syne".
When I created the "Ay, Jalisco" article, I decided to add a section there devoted to "The Three Caballeros", rather than creating separate articles for the two songs. There's an argument to be made that the "Three Caballeros" section of the "Ay, Jalisco" article should be spun off into its own standalone article. But the "Ay, Jalisco" article is already pretty close to a stub as it is, which is why, when I created it nine years ago, I decided to simply combine the two songs into a single article. What I did back then made sense at the time, but I'll concede that it may not have been the best approach. If you're interested in splitting the two songs off into their own articles, then there's sure to be some sourcing out there that hasn't been utilized yet, which could help ensure that neither of the standalone articles are super short stubs.
As for the Ray Gilbert category, you're right, I hadn't noticed that. But that's the only category shared by the two pages. My goal when I set up the categories for these pages was to only include categories that actually apply to "Ay, Jalisco" in the "Ay, Jalisco" article and to then include categories that only apply to "The Three Caballeros" in the redirect. So -
If someone were to see "Ay, Jalisco" mentioned in Category:Songs from The Three Caballeros, then that person would get confused, because "Ay, Jalisco" isn't a song from The Three Caballeros. On the other hand, if a movie's title song were to be missing from a category explicitly devoted to songs from that movie, then the category would be weirdly incomplete, don't you agree? That's why I added the "Songs from The Three Caballeros" category to the "Three Caballeros" redirect page, rather than to the "Ay, Jalisco" article. Which seems like the most useful and least confusing way of presenting this information to anyone viewing the category.
Actually, now that you've pointed it out, I have no idea why I included the Ray Gilbert category in the "Ay, Jalisco" article, because Ray Gilbert didn't write the lyrics to "Ay, Jalisco"; he only wrote the lyrics to "The Three Caballeros".
Again, if you feel strongly that moving categories like "1944 songs" or "Songs from the Three Caballeros" out of the redirect and into the target article would be a better way of presenting this information, then I'm open to going that route, although I'm not exactly sure what would be accomplished by doing that.
As for what should or shouldn't be considered a defining category? I guess that's kind of a subjective call. I'll assume that you're at least a little familiar with both of the songs that we're talking about, but in case you're not, the entire focus of "The Three Caballeros" is on friendship. If friendship isn't a defining characteristic of that song, then personally, I'm not sure that friendship would be a defining characteristic of any song - in which case, why bother even having such a category? But I'm going to be honest with you - and I realize that this is kind of an ironic way of ending such a long ramble - I don't have very strong feelings on what categories are used for these pages. I do think we should take care not to make the "Songs from The Three Caballeros" category seem incomplete or confusing. But otherwise, I'm going to give you space to make your own decisions on these categories. --Jpcase (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, that was wordy, especially when the only message was ‘they are different songs’ which is patently untrue, and I would vehemently oppose any splitting because there are 2 sets of lyrics. The history and connection is part of the development of the song and it does not benefit readers to separate. I give you two examples where different lyrics do not mean a different song/article, Io che non vivo (senza te), another is Baía (Song) (I hope you appreciate the irony of me quoting this one). There are many other examples where they have not been separated. Do you need more?
Your claim for 3Cabs being a 1944 song are incorrect, at best, it is a 1944 lyric, a category that does not exist.
Ray Gilbert should be listed at the target, where there is confirming text confirmation. Anybody looking at Ray Gilbert lyrics will want to be taken straight there, not round the roundabout.
A defining characteristic is, according toWP:CATDEF, ‘A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sourcescommonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, in Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement, Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio’
That pretty much cuts out Songs about friendship, the redirect lacking either text or references! NB I always remove Songs about cats from redirects for this reason.
I won’t bother arguing about the other cat, Songs from The Cabs, but my feelings are the same.
@Richhoncho: This could be a mistaken impression on my part, caused by the limitations of written communication, but I'm sensing a bit of tension here; and if there is in fact tension, then I'm not exactly sure where it's coming from. I've done my best to explain the reasoning behind decisions that I made many years ago. And as I've said, where's there's disagreement, I'm generally going to defer to you. So I hope we can keep things cordial. Apologies if I've misread your sentiments.
My understanding has always been that a "song" is the combination of a specific set of words with a specific melody - and that whenever new lyrics are written to an old melody, a new song is created. This is why, as I've pointed out, "What Child Is This?" is considered to be a separate song from "Greensleeves". If there's a difference between the "Ay, Jalisco/Three Caballeros" relationship and the "What Child Is This/Greensleeves" relationship, then it's unclear to me. In both cases, one song is a contrafactum of the other.
It doesn't appear that there's any one, consistent way of handling contrafactums on Wikipedia. As you've pointed out, in some cases, a contrafactum shares an article with the song that it drew its melody from, but both of the contrafactums that I've given as examples have their own standalone articles. It seems that if two songs with a shared melody are both highly notable, then creating standalone articles for each of them is the best way to go. Whereas if both songs are only somewhat notable, going with a single, combined article might be preferable - which is the approach that I took with the "Ay, Jalisco" article and also the approach that I took when I created the "Na Baixa do Sapateiro / Baía" article. I'm not saying that we have to split anything; I only said that I wouldn't oppose a split approach.
If anyone looking at the Ray Gilbert category were to click on "The Three Caballeros", they wouldn't be taken to the redirect; they would be immediately redirected to the "Three Caballeros" section of the "Ay, Jalisco" article. I'm not sure why that would pose a problem.
I don't know if there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline against using categories in redirect pages; if there is, then yes, we should go ahead and remove all of those categories from the "Caballeros" redirect. If there isn't, then I'm not sure why sourcing used in the target page shouldn't apply to the redirect page. It doesn't seem that text or references should be required in the redirect to support the fact that the redirect is about a song featured in The Three Caballeros. The text and sourcing to support that fact is contained in the target page. With regards to "songs about friendship", there doesn't appear to be anything in the target page discussing that aspect of the song, so I have no problem with removing that category - although I assume that the appropriate sourcing could be found and added.
Apologies for the length of my responses. I don't want to take up your time with lengthy discussion, but you've raised several issues, and I don't want to leave anything unaddressed. --Jpcase (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note your comment that you feel I might be more aggressive than necessary. I apologise. These discussions get me down! I shall walk away from the discussion for a day or two and will not alter the redirect unless we have spoken further. Happy editing. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Richhoncho: I appreciate that and respect your willingness to hear out my concern. Thank you :)
I totally understand how online disagreements can be stressful. It's always my goal to engage with everyone on Wikipedia respectfully, but I've made enough missteps in online conversation over the years to know how easy it can be to unintentionally upset someone. I don't think that every disagreement needs to be an argument, so I'm happy to continue discussing all of this with you, if you'd like - so long as we can both make an effort to keep the discussion from turning confrontational. All the best! --Jpcase (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll try again. On reflection I suspect the primary discussion between us is whether we are talking about one or two songs. The connection between the Mexican melody and the English lyrics are an important development and I think readers will like it all being in the same place (some will ignore too, but that is their right). This is pretty much in line with the long and arduous discussions we had to introduce WP:SONGCOVER where each opposer stood on their ground that their favourite band had added something to the cover that needed a title page (but not much else).
Obviously having put both parts together, you fundamentally agree with me and it is only how we deal with individual, not quite simple, cases that there might be divergence. My opinion is, and remains unchanged, is that, where appropriate, any redirect should be where the text is, which means any confusion is also explained.
I am not going to pursue this discussion any further, so what happens next is up to you and not me. The only thing I ask is that Category:Songs with lyrics by Ray Gilbert is only on one article/redirect. Otherwise he has two entries for the same song!
Having said that, in a year or two’s time or longer, if I am purusing T redirects again I might make the same changes again, accidently, and with no malice aforethought.
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.
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
An article on the governorship (separate from the article on the person) is a suitable idea for a separate article, which is the question of the moment and it also meets wp:notability. But the whole idea is to cover it in more depth and so the article should certain evolve from it's current state which is mostly material copied from the other article. Happy editing.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Governorship of Glenn Youngkin is insanely long, but it also just duplicates most of Glenn Youngkin. It's not appropriate to have content that is WP:REDUNDANT to material elsewhere. This confuses readers – They read Glenn_Youngkin#Economy and see "Further information: Governorship of Glenn Youngkin § Economy", but when they follow the link it's the exact same content, not further information! What's the point? This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and it can become even more confusing when there are slight differences between the pages. Yes, there's a lot of information that may warrant having a subarticle, but there should be a WP:PROPERSPLIT completed, which includes "Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article." involving WP:Summary style. Please substantially trim details from the main article, which should be more of a biographical summary, perhaps without such elaboration of quotations and responses, which are better suited for the governorship article. Otherwise the governorship article should be redirected back to the main page as an unnecessary WP:DUPLICATE page. But being only 1/4 into his term, even the governorship article is too long and detailed and could use a trim to remain readable as more happens. Thanks, Reywas92Talk02:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all of the information currently at Governorship of Glenn Youngkin originated at the Glenn Youngkin article; once the Youngkin article started getting too long, the governorship article was created solely so that some of the information in Youngkin's own article could be trimmed down, while still maintaining that information somewhere else. My original thought was to only include info in the goverorship article if it wasn't already included in the Youngkin article, but going that route would have meant omitting the most notable aspects of Youngkin's governorship from an article that's supposed to be all about his governorship...which wouldn't have made much sense. So I decided to just treat the governorship article as a longer version of the Youngkin article; i.e. if someone wants to do a very deep dive into Youngkin's governorship, then they can read Governorship of Glenn Youngkin, otherwise they can just stick with reading Glenn Youngkin.
While there definitely are a lot of redundancies between the two articles, the "Further information" links in the main article do actually lead to new information - for example, the Economy section in the Governorship section includes an additional subsection, Labor rights and public services, not included in the main Youngkin article.
I recognize that both articles are quite long, but I don't have the time to substantially reorganize either of them right now. The first year of a Virginia governor's term is typically much, much more eventful than the second year though - especially when the legislature is divided between parties, which is currently the case - so I don't foresee either article expanding by more than a paragraph or two at the most in the coming year. The current length of each article should really be viewed more in terms of covering the first half of Youngkin's governorship, not the first 1/4. If by some small chance, the current year winds up being unexpectedly eventful for Youngkin, then yes, at that point, I would definitely see a need to shorten a lot of things. --Jpcase (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Category:2000s Japanese superhero films requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Kailash29792(talk)04:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up regarding the old email address. I deleted all the emails between us, emptied the trash, made sure you're not in my contacts, and signed out and back in to my email. Yet your (old) address still pops up when I enter "Jpcase". I'll have to research how to get the system to forget it properly. Maybe it's "AI" trying to be helpful but not being very intelligent.
FYI, two of the sources I sent you came from WP:TWL databases, EBSCO and newspapers.com. That's not a problem, we don't expect editors to look everywhere imaginable before posting on WP:RX, but you might keep it in mind if you want to search for even more sources. Newspapers.com tends to be better for older newspapers; EBSCO has few newspapers but does have some popular magazines. If you would like access to NewsBank, where I found the rest of the articles, you can visit the partner suggestion page, scroll way down, and upvote a proposal for the WMF to lobby NewsBank for a donated subscription (I accessed it off-Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
French
Deutsch
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC) 
; see Talk:Le Building for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC) 
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to The Firm (1993 film), please make sure that the category page actually exists. In some cases, it may be appropriate to create a new category in accordance with Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, but it is usually better to use the most specific available existing category. It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a non-existent category, i.e. one whose link displays in red. You may find it helpful to use the gadget HotCat, which tests whether a category exists before saving a change. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC) 
.jpg)
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC) 
