User talk:Jhansen23

Sister projects

Hello! Is there a reason why you are removing the links and boxes to sister projects like Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource from several articles? Your edit summaries imply they are blank spaces, which is certainly not the case and quite disingenuous. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was editing in the "Visual Editor", and I saw several spaces between the External Links section header and where the links began (perhaps this is just how it looked while editing, and is not actually the case), so I clicked into the space just right of the first bullet point and then hit backspace several times in order to move the bullet points up until the first bullet point would begin immediately below the External Links section header instead of there being a gap (just like it is with all of the other section headers). I did not at all mean to remove the links and boxes to the sister projects, and honestly did not even know that I could remove them by editing inside the article like that. I am new to this. I'm very sorry, and will be much more careful for that in the future. Thanks for letting me know! Jhansen23 (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you definitely deleted real content. It helps to remember that edits to Wikipedia based on what you see are problematic because our various devices don't necessarily display the same way. Cheers. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Hopkins

Hello Jhansen23, please use the button Show changes, before you publish, see here, you deketed the whole info box. Regards --Serols (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I see it has now been fixed. Will do in the future. Jhansen23 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry Olerich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hazel Green. 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) 09:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Gustav Freytag

added a link pointing to Kreuzburg

Jean Moréas

added a link pointing to Ioannis Papadiamantopoulos

William Gowans

added a link pointing to The Bookman

William Robertson Nicoll

added a link pointing to Minister

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jedediah Vincent Huntington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pennsylvania University.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Please do not add infoboxes to existing articles (especially mature ones and ones in the liberal arts fields) without first raising a new WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk page to add one. The Wikipedia Manual of Style says: "Whether to include an infobox ... is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." While sports and politician bios can benefit from infoboxes, most articles in liberal arts fields do not. See arbitration report: "Infoboxes may be particularly unsuited to liberal arts fields when they repeat information already available in the lead section of the article, are misleading or oversimplify the topic for the reader". Some reasons for this are: (1) The boxes tend to emphasize unimportant factoids stripped of context and lacking nuance, in competition with the WP:LEAD section, which emphasizes and contextualizes the most important facts. (2) Since the most important points in the article are already discussed in the Lead, or adequately discussed in the body of the article, the box would be redundant. (3) It would take up valuable space at the top of the article and hamper the layout and impact of the Lead. (4) Frequent errors creep into infoboxes, as updates are made to the articles but not reflected in the redundant info in the box, and they tend to draw vandalism, fancruft and repeated arguments among editors about what to include. (5) The boilerplate infobox templates create a block of code at the top of the edit screen that discourages new editors from editing the article. (6) It would discourage readers from reading the text of the article. (7) IBs distract editors from focusing on the content of the article. Instead of improving the article, they spend time working on this repetitive feature and its coding and formatting. See also WP:DISINFOBOX. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you for letting me know! Jhansen23 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, similar to the above, many infoboxes are purposely left simple; even if there are additional parameters, those lines are likely intentionally left blank due to potential nuance or, as WP:DISINFOBOX notes, they would otherwise add little value. I would recommend focusing on building content in the articles themselves rather than something superfluous like an infobox. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]