Jump to content

User talk:JJPMaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:JJPMaster (bot))

Question from Ecfactman (22:28, 20 December 2024)

[edit]

Hi Junie,

I'm new to Wikipedia as a contributor. Yesterday I created an article in my 'sandbox' titled 'United States Horoscope'. It's the first article I've ever edited or contributed. When I finished it, I hit the 'Publish' button.

What will happen now? --Ecfactman (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ecfactman: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! When you pressed "Publish", it posted the content of your article to your sandbox. If you wish, you can use the Article wizard to submit it. However, I advise against doing this, as the article consists of original research and appears to presuppose the fringe theory of astrology. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I advise against doing this, as the article consists of original research and appears to presuppose the fringe theory of astrology. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Junie,
Thank you for your reply.
I would like to respond to each of your two objections.
1)
I don’t understand your proposition that the article is based upon ‘original research’ when there were 4 sources cited to support the fact that the United States legally came into being at 12:45 P.M. on June 21, 1788.
3 of them are official Government sources. The fourth is from the Boston University School of Law.
https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/ATR2WPX6L3UFLH8I/pages/AWW44LLLVHYOYT85?as=text (See left hand page, paragraph 2)
https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2013/06/21/the-real-constitution-day/ (see paragraph 7)
https://www.loc.gov/collections/continental-congress-and-constitutional-convention-from-1774-to-1789/articles-and-essays/timeline/1787-to-1788/ (see 1788 marker and grey box on right hand side of the page next to it)
https://www.loc.gov/collections/continental-congress-and-constitutional-convention-from-1774-to-1789/articles-and-essays/timeline/1787-to-1788/ (see final paragraph of the PDF document)
I understand the reasons for, respect, and wholly support Wikipedia’s rigorous standards for facts in support of arguments put forth in articles. That is precisely why I included the sources that I did.
If you actually went to the sources and reviewed them, I don’t see how you could possibly conclude they are erroneous. That would effectively be telling the US Government it doesn’t know the true facts about its own origins.
2)
To say that the article should be rejected because it deals with ‘the fringe theory of astrology’, I have 2 things to say in response.
One:
I did a Google search with the term: Wikipedia astrologers. Many Wikipedia articles having to do with Astrology came up in the search results. Here is just one example: (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Astrologers)
So, obviously Wikipedia does not automatically reject an article merely because it deals with the subject of astrology. Neither do the Wikipedia articles I reviewed include a disclaimer or any type of caution message saying that ‘Astrology is a practice based upon ‘a fringe theory’.
Two:
More importantly, my article does not advocate for Astrology, it merely states that anyone who chooses to practice Astrology must be able to obtain reliably sourced accurate data upon which to do their calculations.
The whole point of the Article is to provide exactly that… reliably sourced accurate data regarding the true date, place, and time the United States of America began.
I’m trying to get a little known truth out there to counter the legally and factually false (and widespread) notion that the United States of America came into being on July 4, 1776. It did not.
Thank you for your time. In light of the above, I hope you will decide to remove your objections to the Article being published if I opt to do so. Ecfactman (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the claim of original research is largely due to this section:
What happened on July 4, 1776 was that 13 rebellious British Colonies declared that they were going to break away from Britain and form a new nation.
The Declaration of Independence was NOT a legally binding document. It was merely a Declaration of Intent. The 13 rebellious colonies could have lost the war of rebellion (Revolutionary War). So, at best, the 'idea' of the United States came into being on July 4,1776, but not the actual nation.
The 'idea' is like a seed, a 'conception'. It is comparable, in human terms, of one's 'date of conception' - the date one's mother becomes pregnant. It is not the day/date one is physically born. In a biological pregnancy, lots of mishaps can happen between conception and the expected date of birth, mishaps which could disrupt or terminate the pregnancy. The same could be said about the period between the Declaration of Independence on July 4,1776 and Ratification of the US Constitution and the birth of the United States of America 12 years later on June 21,1788.
The sources you provide do not appear to support the idea that the Declaration of Independence didn't actually declare independence, or that countries are comparable to humans in terms of birth.
Second, articles about astrology are fine, otherwise, I wouldn't have linked astrology in my earlier message. But your article is not merely about astrology, it is asserting the truth of an astrological claim. On Wikipedia, astrology is generally considered pseudoscience, so we should not make claims that treat it as established fact, as your article appears to do. I advise that you post this on a subreddit such as r/AdvancedAstrology or a blog, since the article appears to be written for the sake of advocating a particular point of view rather than providing encyclopedic information. JJPMaster (she/they) 00:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim "The Declaration of Independece 'didn't actually declare Independence.'
A declaration of Independence is NOT the same as the estblishment of a new nation under a legally binding Constitution.
Did you actually read the sources.
You are treating this as if I am presenting 'personal views and personal opinions' rather tuan historical fact.
I am willing to rewrite the article and limit the scope of it to the real, factual, legally verified date of the beginning of the United States of America using the same 4 sources I presented..
If you continue to deny the article thereafter, I will appeal your decision because it would mean you are challenging the validity of those sources.
It seems this is a subject you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about. Ecfactman (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that there cannot be 2 dates for the establishment of a new nation.
The date of the Declaration of Independence cannot be the date of the establishment and origin of the United States when, as the sources clearly state, ratification ofbthe Constitution on June 21, 1788, was.
As far as countries 'being equal to humans as far as birth', I have 2 things to say:
One, I used that example as an analogy, not a 'statement of equivalence'.
Two - there is a branch of Astrology which analyzes the 'natal' (a word Astrologersfor lack of a better word) of countries - so the analagous relationships between human births and those of countries was made long ago in that practice
That is why I used that terminology.
Again, I will state that I am willing to rewrite the article and limit it's scope to the fact of the date of the beginning of the United States. Ecfactman (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ecfactman: I will point out that Astro.com is not a reliable source. It is not peer-reviewed, and deals with fringe theories without providing "parity of sources":
The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.
As for your suggestion to limit the scope of the article to the beginning of the United States, we already have an article for that. If you wish to incorporate your article's content, you can ask on the article's talk page, though I advise removing most of the astrological content first.
I also advise that you seek advice from other uninvolved editors as well, so I suggest you forward any further questions to the Help desk. JJPMaster (she/they) 21:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ecfactman (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top AfC Editor

[edit]
The Articles for Creation Barnstar 2024 Top Editor
In 2024 you were one of the top AfC editors, thank you! --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays!

[edit]
Happy holidays!
Wishing you a Merry Christmas filled with love and joy, a Happy Holiday season surrounded by warmth and laughter, and a New Year brimming with hope, happiness, and success! 🎄🎉✨ Baqi:) (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]

Hello JJPMaster: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Abishe (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from MAUNG NAY PHYO on Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/False positives (12:34, 26 December 2024)

[edit]

Help me --MAUNG NAY PHYO (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MAUNG NAY PHYO: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! It looks like you are trying to report a false positive with the edit filter, however it doesn’t look like you’ve tripped any filters lately. Could you please elaborate? JJPMaster (she/they) 14:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BhooJoeT on Talk:Arnon Milchan (18:02, 28 December 2024)

[edit]

Hello,

I resent that Milchan is characterized as someone who made his billions simply as a movie producer, when in reality he was set up in that business by the Israeli ultra-zionist government with millions, solely to spy on Americans. He has enlisted american citizens to spy on anyone who opposes Israel’s occupation of Palestine. He helped provide support for apartheid South Africa. Where is the whole truth? --BhooJoeT (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BhooJoeT: Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! If the things that you have stated are indeed true, then you can cite reliable sources and include those facts in the article. However, the particular wording that you're using here worries me that you might misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a place for righting great wrongs or correcting perceived injustices, or a place for advocacy. Unless what you're talking about is verifiable, it should not be included on Wikipedia. JJPMaster (she/they) 18:56, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete my draft

[edit]

Firstly, thanks your work of my draft, Draft:SM-A136B. I was unfamiliar with requesting new redirects at the time. Now I want to speedy delete my draft (since my redirect request has been accepted) by using Template:Db-g7 - but since you reviewed my draft, I think I need to ask you, may I? Saimmx (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saimmx: Yep! I don’t even think you had to ask. JJPMaster (she/they) 18:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Yeah, a draft decline is not "substantial content" for the purposes of G7. I've deleted. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: Wait, you’re saying I actually have TPS now? JJPMaster (she/they) 18:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some guesswork from the super-secret admin-only pagewatcher stats and common watchlisting settings, you have ~1 TPS (me, until I get bored of watchlisting it someday and unwatch). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is a nonzero amount. JJPMaster (she/they) 18:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks your explain. The word "substantial" confused me. Saimmx (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically "substantial" there means, contributing any nontrivial effort to the state of the page. So it excludes, say, simple copy-edits, vandalism reverts, technical fixes, things like that. A draft decline is kind of a special case, because even though it's on the article, it's really more metadata about the state of the article. (And for a bit of a wiki-history lesson, the only reason it is on the article instead of the talkpage is because drafts used to all be in talkspace, so there was nowhere else to put comments.) So yeah, it's not substantial content, any more than a talkpage comment is. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the wallpaper user script?

[edit]

Where's even the user script you are working on? Gnu779 (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnu779: User:JJPMaster/wallpaper.js—It's not quite ready for use yet. I'll ping you when it is. JJPMaster (she/they) 14:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll reply it when it's released. Gnu779 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnu779: It should be good now. Please note that it currently only works with Vector 2010 skin. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it supports the Vector 2022 skin. Fix it and tell me in my talk page if it's done. Thank you, Gnu779 (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RM at Talk:Three wishes

[edit]

Is there any reason for not moving the disambiguation page to use a capital letter in "wishes"? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: The request in question was to move Three wishes to Three wishes (disambiguation), and I did not find a sufficiently strong consensus to move it to Three Wishes (disambiguation). JJPMaster (she/they) 19:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: U@tech (train) (January 1)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, JJPMaster! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan arndt: I did not create this article—it was improperly submitted and I was the one who fixed the tag. Please forward this message to R162A 1 Train. JJPMaster (she/they) 01:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Burnout (Green Day song) for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Burnout (Green Day song), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnout (Green Day song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPPHOUR

[edit]

Please remember to be mindful of WP:NPPHOUR. You tagged Graciano Major with {{db-a3}} only 9 minutes after its creation. Thanks, C F A 05:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CFA: NPPHOUR applies to AfDing, BLARing, and draftifying, not CSD. The minimum time for A3 specifically is 10 minutes (I thought it was 5 minutes, so that's why I didn't wait another minute before tagging it, sorry about that). JJPMaster (she/they) 05:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it applies to CSD too. The only time you should be CSDing an article less than an hour after creation is if the page is a copyvio, vandalism, or an attack page. This is especially important for A3 and similar tags because, as you saw, the creator could still be working on the article. There was a recent discussion about this at WT:NPP in case you're interested. C F A 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA: This is odd, since the CSD policy and NPP information page appear to contradict in this regard. I have started a discussion. JJPMaster (she/they) 05:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue Regarding Suraj Yengde

[edit]

Hii . I just made a draft for Suraj Yengde and it goes to Wikipedia:Suraj Yengde by mistake which is now removed. i just want to delete this Suraj Yengde or just replace or merge it with my new the draft with same name here.

Much Regards Callmehelper (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmehelper: Don't worry, the redirect should be deleted shortly. I was the one who moved the draft there. JJPMaster (she/they) 06:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding IRC

[edit]

Since your last request on #wikipedia-en-revdel over on WP:IRC, you've been consistently ping-timeout/reconnecting each 10th minute or so, to the point I've had to instate a ban to avoid the reconnection spam. If you are not using IRC normally, please make sure you don't have a misbehaving IRC client lurking somewhere. →AzaToth 20:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AzaToth: Sorry about that. I recently switched from the web-based Kiwi IRC to Mozilla Thunderbird, so I'm still getting used to it. JJPMaster (she/they) 20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; Assuming you've resolved the issue I've removed the ban from the channel. →AzaToth 20:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JJPMaster&oldid=1267591034"