User talk:jlwoodwa

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Category:Eponymous categories

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 5 § Category:Eponymous categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Jlwoodwa for accumulating at least 200 points during the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions helped play a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

January 2025 NPP backlog drive – Streak award

		Asymmetric Epicyclic Gears Award
		This award is given in recognition to Jlwoodwa for accumulating at least 50 points during each week of the January 2025 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,000+ articles and 14,000+ redirects reviewed (for a total of 19,791.2 points) during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

DRAFT: Derwin John Pereira

Greetings. I see your decline of the draft of the Wiki draft page due to failure to meet inline citation rules. Inline citations have been added and edited for proper format. Thank you. Absent.Editor (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

DRAFT: Derwin John Pereira

Greetings. The issue of inline citations and footnotes has been resolved. Would it be possible to remove that caution from the draft page? I'm still hoping the page will go live soon. Thank you! 2601:18D:8800:29E0:CBC:86C7:43A4:884D (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Primefac (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation attribution

Thank you for adding required translation attribution in this edit to the history of Forte Belvedere Gschwent, on behalf of the original editor (Pguggia (talk · contribs)^[noping]) who neglected to do so in their original edits. Please note that the suggested wording when repairing missing attribution is slightly different: when adding original translation attribution, the suggested wording is at WP:TFOLWP; when adding it retroactively, as you did, the wording is given at WP:RIA ("Repairing Insufficient Attribution"). And thanks also for flagging an apparent COPYVIO, even though it turned out to be a reverse copy issue after investigation.

By the way, there are templates available to you: see {{Unattributed translation}} to flag articles that are missing attribution; and {{Uw-translation}} and {{Uw-unattribcc}} to advise users who fail to attribute their articles. Keep up the good work! Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! It's good to know there's a template for saying "this might be translated" when you're not confident enough to make a WP:RIA edit summary of "this was translated".

I've been using User:CFA/scripts/AttributeTranslation to generate the dummy edits and warnings, and it doesn't include the in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 wording that RIA suggests, but I think it's probably alright to omit that part when the article itself was created as a translation. Does that seem right, or should I ask CFA to add this feature to his script? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Additional Changes to (/ Review of) Draft:Grillz By Scotty

Greetings @Jlwoodwa,

I appreciate your feedback regarding the Draft:Grillz By Scotty article.

The content was carefully researched and written. I have already gone through the article and made additional adjustments to further neutralize the tone and eliminate promotional language, ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines.

While grammatical tools were used to refine the wording for consistency and clarity, the article was still manually written and put together. Every sentence and citation has been reviewed and verified by a human as credible and reliable.

The "Grillz By Scotty" article will continue to be monitored and updated as necessary to ensure that the language remains neutral and free from promotional content. A request for users to review the article for potential promotional language and the inclusion of additional information from reliable sources has been added to the "Grillz By Scotty" talk page. Additionally, a/an ("{{advert}}") tag has been placed directly on the article itself, indicating the same request, utilizing the appropriate channels and methods provided by Wikipedia.

Thank you for pointing out your concerns, and if you have any additional suggestions regarding the Grillz By Scotty draft article, which I plan to officially submit soon for review, or if there are any specific sections of the article or references that you would like removed or reviewed, feel free to let me know. I'm open to improving the article where and if genuinely needed.

Respectfully,

ATLFAVORITE (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@ATLFAVORITE: Please don't send me AI-generated messages. They tend to contain hallucinations and meaningless puffery. I would prefer seeing what you think, even if your writing is "rougher" without the AI. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thales LMM, Belfast

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74knzk9x8zo

2001:14BA:78FC:4B00:A18:EC1:D641:EDF8 (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martlet_(missile)

2001:14BA:78FC:4B00:A18:EC1:D641:EDF8 (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you DowntownJupiter (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.

We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I choose you

2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 18:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@2601AC47 While I do think Jlwoodwa would likely serve well as an administrator in the future, I think nominating them out of the blue isn't for the best? "Briefly speaking, I personally know little about Jlwoodwa myself, but in their nearly 2 years of contributing and supporting Wikipedia, they seemingly have done very well" is not a statement that really inspires confidence in the nomination, and I think it sets up Woodwa for unnecessary issues during a run; as a nominator, you want to ensure minimum distractions/drama for your candidate. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I did my research throughly before doing this nom. Sure, they may want a little bit more experience, but with that many contributions over the last 24 months (most having to do with WP's key functions), it'll be worthwhile to, ya'know, try-out. Perhaps, barring anything that maybe worrisome and subject to intense scrutiny, we should give them a chance to prove their readiness to us contributors? 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Moneytrees. I'd recommend in the future asking folks if they want your RFA nomination first before creating their RFA page. RFA can be an unpleasant process for the candidate, and it is not usually a good idea to throw people into the process without consulting with them first. I would also recommend not posting anymore on Jimbo's talk page, as you are being a bit rude to him there and a lot of people watch that page so social gaffes on that page can do reputational damage. Hope this advice helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@2601AC47 (edit conflict) Let me put it like this: while RfA has definitely gotten nicer in recent times, opposition can be generated by innumerable factors. Something people have opposed RfAs over in the past is the candidate accepting despite a scant nomination statement. For several editors, a nomination statement will be their first introduction to the candidate, so highlighting their attributes is essential. Often times, a particular field they work in, or articles they've written, or interactions they've had, are highlighted (check some of what I've written here for example). You don't do that in your nomination; this sets up people to learn about the candidate via the votes that are subsequently cast and the candidate's answers to questions. You have not adequately protected your candidate from something "worrisome" that could get mentioned in a vote-- something that could threaten a run, even if it's not a real issue-- RfA can be cruel like that! Reaching out to offer a nomination was a kind gesture, but ultimately accepting an RfA would just set you and Woodwa up for trouble. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion at MfD. This is in no way a reflection of what I think about your editing or whether you should be an admin or not, it's just that this is the completely wrong way to start an RfA, as explained at WP:RFA. Fram (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

And I have deleted the nomination page for the same reason. Again, this is absolutely no reflection on you or your editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Moneytrees and Novem Linguae: Thanks for your comments. I don't think I'm ready for RfA yet, and I would have told 2601AC47 that if they had asked first. @Fram and Newyorkbrad: Thanks for getting the nomination subpage deleted, and making it about procedure rather than about me. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Monotypic ornithischian genera has been nominated for deletion

Category:Monotypic ornithischian genera has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

A goat for you!

"Today's DYK entries include a Spanish anarchist group, a New Zealand horse, an Indonesian politician, an Australian election, and a Neptunian broadcast." - Thanks for making my day! Though I think the correct term is "Kiwi horse" :D.

GoldRomean (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

For cleaning up the Pancake house page. They didn't have a pancake option so I chose the stroopwafels instead lol - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 22:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Request on 05:05:17, 9 April 2025 for assistance on AfC submission by SilverTherier

• SilverTherier (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Upsilon Gallery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Jlwoodwa. I am afraid your review is irrelated to the actual content in every statement made:

- Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects - this is subjective and has nothing to do with this actual piece. The "tone" of the article is not different from articles about similar venues. I do understand that you just used a template, but there is absolutely nothing in the piece fitting the description of "speculative" or "extrapolated from other subjects".

Essay-like writing - I would appreciate the SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of what this can possibly be referring to. The article describes the facts and none of them has anything in common with your claim.

- Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references - this actually is plain false statement. Every fact described in the article is factual and your claim rather falls under the description of "hallucination" I will require evidence of this claim. If you do have a reason to believe that any of the statement in the article are in fact not true, please be specific what are you referring to, and I will point you to the direction of the support for this fact.

- Close paraphrasing - that is another generic statement having nothing in common with the actual article in question, unless your interpretation of the term is different from the one universally used. Please clarify.

Thank you for trying, but please explain yourself.

SilverTherier (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Phrases like furthering its engagement with the local art community, extending its international presence, and reflecting its focus on creative potential are promotional rather than encyclopedic. Maybe this is a subjective opinion, but if so, it's an opinion held by the Wikipedia community, and your contributions to Wikipedia should align with it. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Is this all you found questionable?

I have removed two of the abovementioned phrases, and have refined the third one. I would like to thank you for the third suggestion. While original expression may be an accurate description and is frequently referred as gallery policy, being more specific indeed will be an improvement.

I don't want to sound combative, however if I may mention, the other two instances are indeed reflecting the accurate account of things. I do see how it may not sound as such for someone outside of the art business, so I was happy to remove them completely.

The suggested corrections are implemented. I would appreciate if you would help with getting article published, unless there is something else that may need improvement.

Your initial annotation have mentioned "hallucinations". Let me reassure you that all facts described are absolutely accurate, and supported by the references in the article.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you again specifically for help with this article, and in general for your massive contribution to Wiki content. I took a minute to study it, and indeed your devotion and energy are inspiring. SilverTherier (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Goodyear High School

Hi. A few months ago, you placed a Wikipedia:Verifiability banner on the article for Goodyear High School. It was reasonable at the time - a lot of sources were primary sources from the school district.

However, news coverage has since increased as the school gets closer to opening, so more of my sources are secondary now, and the primary sources that that remain are either corroborated by the secondary sources I write or something that a news outlet isn’t going to cover like the exact color codes of the school colors.

While I think the issue has been sufficiently addressed, I feel the work I have put into the article prevents me from making an impartial judgement. Thus, I was wondering if you could give the article a second look and decide whether that banner could be removed.

Thank you for your time and continued hard work on Wikipedia. I hope to hear from you soon. Dexcube (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Honestly...

I personally agree with you. The article was a bit- not my best. ~ [[User:ComeAndJoinTheMusic|Music]] ^{[[User talk:ComeAndJoinTheMusic|''what music?'']]} ~ (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, sorry - my signature has gone a bit wonky. ~ [[User:ComeAndJoinTheMusic|Music]] ^{[[User talk:ComeAndJoinTheMusic|''what music?'']]} ~ (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you admitting that you made Islamic Republic of Abornia up? If so, you can help to clean it up faster by adding {{db-self}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

"WindowsXI" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WindowsXI has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 17 § WindowsXI until a consensus is reached. Srleffler (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

BeehiveBarrier UAA

Your report of BeehiveBarrier (talk · contribs) at UAA included a URL which I can't see in the user's contributions or the filter log. Adding the URL could be seen as WP:DOXXING. Please be very careful in doing this. If the user has given the URL you're golden. In similar situations I used to find "Google is your friend" suitably indicative and compliant. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I did think carefully about whether posting the link was permissible, but I hadn't considered whether it was necessary in the first place. That's a good phrase, I'll keep it in mind. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a chatbot. (I don't think I am, anyway.)

Hi there, this is PeakerPan. Nice to meet you, and thank you for your diligence in making Wiki a better place. An article I wrote, Peak Records (Switzerland), was recently marked by you as possibly having been produced by a large language model. Could you please clarify what gave you that impression? Being compared to artificial intelligence is flattering, but I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion. I would love to resolve this matter so we can remove the tag. Thank you for your time. PeakerPan (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

You used AI to write your "I didn't use AI" message? Really? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Since I don't understand your reasoning on this issue, I would appreciate it if you could provide some light on your thinking. Many thanks. PeakerPan (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Could you tell me to what extent you have used AI to edit Wikipedia (if at all)? My explanation depends on your answer to that. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

As you were the one who insisted I used AI to write the original article — and then, quite bluntly, accused me of using it again to compose my polite response to you (which you requested, inviting discussion) — I would have thought the onus was on you to explain the reasoning behind those accusations. However, if you're unwilling to do so, I’ll go ahead and answer your original question.

No, I didn’t use AI to write the article or my response. I did, however, use it to check my spelling and general syntax. I’m happy to report it found only minor issues, so perhaps I am AI myself after all! I also used it to help format the <ref> tags — that kind of repetitive markup is, frankly, boring. I then went through and manually checked the links to ensure they hadn’t been garbled (as some of them had been).

I hope that satisfies your curiosity. I’d now appreciate it if you could clarify what, specifically, led you to tag the article as AI-generated and caused you to be accusatory rather than constructive. I would also appreciate you removing the tag, unless you have a valid reason to keep it there. Thank you. PeakerPan (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

This editor has a problem with personal attacks it seems. 107.122.173.95 (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Airplane! at VPI

[1] Can I call you "Shirley"? DMacks (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Read articles before disruptive reverts

Just because you didn't read the body doesn't mean the head is unsourced 107.122.173.95 (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Where in the body of Ed Martin (Missouri politician) does it say that he is "far-right"? jlwoodwa (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"He is president of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles, which was split from Eagle Forum, and president of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund."

This ends in two links, which in wiki speak are references! These say "far-right" and "ultraconservative". Read the sources! 107.122.173.95 (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Wikilinks are not references. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I see you are relatively new. Those numbers with square braces at the end of the lead link to reliable sources. 107.122.173.95 (talk) 03:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not relatively new. I assumed that you meant our article on the Eagle Forum (which does contain the words "far-right" and "ultraconservative"), rather than the citations to STLPR and ABC News (which do not contain those words). jlwoodwa (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Your account is only two years old, perhaps you have another one? 107.122.173.95 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I meant that I am not so new that I would not know the difference between a wikilink and a reference. You had been unclear, and I was assuming you were slightly confused rather than outright lying. Perhaps that was a bad assumption. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

That seems like a function of the quality of your assumer ;). There may be some PAGs about this you haven't encountered yet. Need links? 107.122.173.95 (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Please, do provide the policies and guidelines that support your adding "far-right" to a BLP without including a citation to a reliable source that directly describes the politician himself as far-right. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't distract now, you implied I'm lying, and pretended you didn't see references in the lead. You need to assume good faith. I see you called someone a bot repeatedly above. This sort of behavior is disruptive. Know what you are talking about, or let someone more experienced act. 107.122.173.95 (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if you're claiming that the STLPR or ABC News sources contain the words "far-right" or "ultraconservative", then you are lying. When I said that the claim was unsourced, I did not instead mean that the whole article was unsourced, so I never "pretended" that I didn't see references in the lead. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

RangeHelper.js

Hi jlwoodwa. Could you update your common.js to import RangeHelper.js instead of FindRangeBlocks.js? The script was renamed to reflect its expanded functionality. There's also documentation available now at User:Daniel Quinlan/Scripts/RangeHelper. Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the script! The new links are very convenient. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Globalization of wine

Hi jlwoodwa. Sorry for replying only now. I got hit by the 2025 Iberian power outage.

Anyway, yesterday, you notified me about the deletion nomination of Globalization of wine despite the fact that I'm not the creator of that article. Its creator is actually User:Agne27. I'm assuming it was a mistake on your end. I'm looking forward to see it corrected.

Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I notified you because you're the one who asked for it to be undeleted. I assumed that the editor who nominated the article for deletion would already have notified the article creator, since Twinkle does it by default. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what a "Twinkle" is, but it clearly did not work, because User:Agne27 had not yet been warned, so you better get to it... Kind regards. Barr Theo (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at Agne27's talk page, I see that they haven't edited in a few years, so I'm guessing CoconutOctopus deliberately didn't notify them. Some editors do that, to avoid leaving the usual "wall of deletion notifications" on retired editors' talk pages, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)