User talk:JalenFolf/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jd02022092! Thank you for your contributions. I am Nahnah4 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 08:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments, which you added in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Hellberg. Please note that, on Wikipedia, arguments surrounding the deletion of content should not be based entirely off your personal opinion about the article (i.e. whether you like it or not, how useful or valuable it is, etc.), but include reasoning based off our policies and guidelines (i.e. neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability, biographies of living people and what Wikipedia is not, etc.). Please consider reading Wikipedia's deletion policy for a brief overview of the deletion process, and the essay on arguments to avoid during deletion discussions. We hope that you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI we don't normally put anything in brackets after the names of US states to disambiguate them, the only exceptions are Washington (state) to distinguish from DC and Georgia (U.S. state) to distinguish it from the country on the Black Sea. Building a truly global encyclopedia means that you have to have these kinds of exceptions, whilst trying to keep things as simple as possible at the same time! Le Deluge (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if you wanted to take ownership of keeping up the List of current National Arena League team rosters and List of current Champions Indoor Football team rosters? I already do the AFL and the IFL and I rarely follow the CIF and NAL.DMC511 (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Yosemiter (talk · contribs) is the one that updates the NAL tables most of the time. I'll be fine handling the CIF standings for now. Thanks anyway. Jd02022092 (talk) 23:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe @DMC511: is asking if you want to keep the rosters for the teams up-to-date. Personally, if there are not a significant number of notable players then I am in favor of deleting all rosters and templates. If there is nothing notable and no one wants to update them, then I see it as trivia. Actual notable players can be added to the team's history in prose or there can be a list of notable players (by wikipedia standards, like the one at Sioux Falls Storm#Notable Sioux Falls alumni which I edited down from an extremely long list that included minor achievers and non-WP notables). Yosemiter (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the both of you, @Yosemiter: and @DMC511: . I, too, don't follow CIF as much since I'm not from or don't reside in the area. Which is one reason why I declined to keep the roster lists up-to-date. Perhaps one day when there's a team in New England that could use a roster template, more recently the Vermont Bucks, I might consider creating a roster list and keeping it up-to-date, but for now, I'll stick to keeping this year's CIF standings up-to-date only. Jd02022092 (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The article 2017 Dayton Wolfpack season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Season article about a football team that folded before the season began.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LionMans Account (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 Dayton Wolfpack season is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Dayton Wolfpack season until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. LionMans Account (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Natasha Lytess, as policy states that this article is ineligible for deletion under the proposed deletion process due to having previously undergone a deletion discussion. I only did this for procedural reasons and have no opinion on the merits of the deletion nomination. If you still wish to pursue deletion, please feel free to open another deletion discussion by following the three steps at WP:AFDHOWTO, making sure to follow the instructions for a third nomination. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Biggest Little Fur Con requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 21:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My mind blanked and I deleted it unintentionally. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 21:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jd02022092. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Look TV, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This strikes me as a national-level TV broadcaster, which in itself is a credible claim of significance, in my view. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: The same decline was made on a similar article, Look Plus. Thank you, Mz7, for your feedback. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 23:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G2 explicitly does not apply to user space. If you think this user page should be deleted, please find a more applicable criterion. —Kusma (t·c) 16:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware I made an edit on an archive. An edit request moved to an archive was left unanswered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jalen, re: this, users are permitted to remove warnings or other legitimate comments from their own talk page. They just can't refactor them. If an editor removes a comment from their talk page, it's generally considered proof that they have read the message. Anyway, since the editor at 86.2.45.233 didn't do anything wrong this time around, I think it might be wise to remove your warning from their talk page. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. 😀 jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you have a look at articles such as UEFA Euro 2008 broadcasting rights, UEFA Euro 2012 broadcasting rights, UEFA Euro 2016 broadcasting rights etc., they don't use the bold typography at all. To answer your question, I didn't use a rule for bold typography from the Manual of Style page, even though I'm certain a rule such as that exists – I was merely being bold. Arbero (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Arbero: Thanks. If it also helps, I spotted a similar format on 2018 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights as well as a few other similar pages from World Cups prior (see the FIFA World Cup template in the mentioned article.) Perhaps the bold typography can be removed on those articles as well? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 01:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, go for it if you wish. Arbero (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DrStrauss was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Biggest Little Fur Con and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DrStrauss talk 10:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Jd02022092, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! DrStrauss talk 10:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advertising. Cheers. Pietje96 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jd02022092. Pause for a second with the edit requests, please. I'm writing you a message and this will take a few minutes. Altamel (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I will be waiting. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here goes. You are absolutely right that many of these edit requests should have been answered long ago. If you look at my contribution history, you'll see that I have been answering edit requests for a long time, and it is quite frustrating how many of the edit requests require additional input from the reviewer because they lack sources or are badly formatted, etc. Hence very few editors patrol the edit request backlog and the backlog grows out of control.

At the same time though, you should be aware that there are very few resources for editors with a COI to "attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first." I've seen COI editors post on the talk pages of dead WikiProjects asking for help, and they never receive a response. I've seen COI editors post on the Teahouse, or on the user talk pages of other editors, only to be directed to ask on the article talk page (I myself have been guilty of this tactic a few times). That is the fundamental problem with Wikipedia's COI review process. There just aren't enough editors interested in reviewing edit requests.

That said, if you were to decline stale edit requests along with feedback that is a little more specific, like "this might be useful, but will take a lot of time to fix the formatting/write specific sentences/weed out promotional content and it hasn't happened in the last five months"—it's not as optimal an outcome as WP:SOFIXIT, but hardly anyone could blame you for your decision given that very few editors are working on this backlog. It can be more helpful for COI editors to get any relevant feedback, rather than the current state where they wait forever for their request to be acted upon, only to encounter silence. And if you have any questions, you can always ask me on my talk page. Thanks for waiting for my message! Altamel (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Breaking up my post into parts because I didn't want you to wait too long for the last message. Thanks again for working on the backlog! I can't tell you how happy I am to see the edit request backlog going down so fast. By all means, keep working on edit requests. You see, you've motivated me to answer requests faster too. Altamel (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your zeal for notifying editors about their lapses in behavior around Wikipedia. That being said, however. your 3RR Warning on PDH30126's user talkpage came more than a week late. Your Warning was overkill as that editor had had already been warned for that behavior on the day it occurred. I have therefore deleted your Warning, but I wanted you to know why. Shearonink (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually didn't pay any attention to the dates when I made the warning, so it makes sense for there to be a revert. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jd02022092. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of National Institute of Textile Engineering and Research, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Universities are gen. not deletable as spam; irrespective of disruptive editing.The curr. version is good enough to evade a CSD. Thank you. Winged Blades ^Godric 02:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

(Copying this over from the AfD discussion, as you suggested) Would you consider the links I put at the Notaker AfD to count as reliable secondary sources that contribute to the artist's notability? And would you re-consider deleting the page if information from those links were added (with citations, of course) to the article? I am curious about your opinion on this matter. TheMagnificentist pointed out that interviews should not be counted as secondary sources, but I provided pages from significant online magazines and news websites (especially Mixmag, which has its own wikipedia page) that discuss Notaker and are not interviews with him. Clbsfn (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course I would. The only reason why I chose not to say it in the AfD was because according to WP:AFD: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion," and I did not want to contradict that by saying in the discussion that the references were okay to use. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That did not occur to me at all, thanks for pointing this out. So... I suppose we'll just have to wait and see if other editors come to that discussion to clear it up, since you're unable to reverse your position on these matters there. Clbsfn (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to the case I filed as I don't think it's appropriate use of CU in this case and especially not just to get things moving. If a clerk decides a CU is warranted, that's fine. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll add to this. You are requesting CUs at multiple cases that have nothing to do with you and for reasons, when you state them, that make no sense. Please stop doing it - it's disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Chrissymad and Bbb23: Acknowledged, and withdrawn my request on the other case. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yooka-Laylee 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 AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Could we say that we've reached consensus? Feel free to edit! Pietje96 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I would say your reasoning for the infobox result issue is acceptable and that a consensus is reached. However, as I was the one that started the consensus, I cannot close it. Thank you for your time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Dirt 4 received positive reviews and Metacritic mentions it as generally "favorable" reviews, I don't think that my change was wrong. Pure conSouls (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That's okay. I had assumed good faith anyway. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Just an FYI, but if a user creates a blank user page, that's not really the same as an implicit request for deletion by "blanking", i.e., to remove all the contents of a page. User's fairly regularly will create a blank user page to unredlink their name. Sometimes that's because they're socks, and sometimes that's just because they don't want to be seen as a newbie. TimothyJosephWood 17:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. If you haven't already removed the CSD tag, you may do so. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article Yooka-Laylee you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Yooka-Laylee for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the (Jalen D. Folf) part from your signature or alter the colors.The fragment gives a contrast ratio of 1.43 which fails the standards set at MOS:CONTRAST by a huge margin.We're aiming 4.50 as a minimum for contrast ratio, reaching at least AA compliance, and preferably AAA--per WCAG.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 09:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:  Done. Even checked it in advance. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time out!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your response to my request for edits to the IAFOR was prompt and very helpful. I really appreciate it. I'll get to work on the next steps to add sourcing that is not from the IAFOR website, but first actual work to do. Like at my job. I hope to have things by the weekend. Your help helped me cheer up about Wikipedia. Hope I can reciprocate. Gotanda (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Per the header on ANI: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." The template you added is voluntary. It's not required to use it when non-admins comment. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've got a quick (kind of silly) question... thanks for the note on Anthony Pratt's talk page but how do you mark an edit request as fulfilled or "partially fulfilled"? Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Meatsgains, the documentation for the {{request edit}} template has all the info to help you with this problem. In a nutshell, there's a letter to mark the request as answered, and another to mark the request as a partial implementation (A and P, respectively.) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Easy enough, thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

See this for why. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

For this request, why did you feel this would require consensus before being done? It's hardly contentious. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: Thanks for reversing the decision. I wasn't sure of how to make the change myself since I know Metacritic for movie and video game reviews. The info you provided on the article's talk page is very helpful for my improvement in responding to these requests. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There is long-standing consensus not to update these until officially cleared with the league and announced by the team or league. The reason these aren't updated until reported by the teams is that the League has to review them and sometimes they don't happen (the league rejects them, somebody fails a physical, etc). Please don't update player articles until the deal is finalized (i.e. - reported by the team(s) involved). The news' job is to report signings as they happen to get the scoop. This isn't a news site, it's an encyclopedia so having these updated immediately is less important than updating them when the results are official. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will remember this for future edit requests of this nature. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Instead, see if there's an archive available here, here, or here before removing a site which is completely dead. In case you didn't know, which I thought maybe you didn't. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please also add the archive to cite templates as "archiveurl" rather than replacing the original url parameter. -- ferret (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You can use IABot to do this automatically. --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 19:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

In reference to this edit - that was disruptive, the edit should have been reverted and the user reported (I've since blocked them). I'm also alerting you to the presence of discretionary sanctions in this area, not because you've done anything wrong, but purely to make you aware of their existence for this subject area. I would advise you read the information about discretionary sanctions if you're going to make pseudo-administrative edits in future, so you can avoid getting yourself into unintended trouble. Nick (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Did you accidentally deleted messages on my talk page?Sue (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Sue (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sue: It might have been a mistake. Please see the page history for my initial reason. If you have reverted it already, thank you for doing so. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The edit reason was sock puppetry investigation on Reid62 or something to that effect. So should I revert and attempt to continue conversation with the alleged sock puppet? or should I ignore the deleted message? I haven't visited Wikipedia for a while as an editor and have never run into any administrator related activities, so I am unsure what is the current protocol/ right way to respond. Would be great if you can give me a hint. :-) Sue (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not an administrator so I would not give the best advice. However, the IP is currently blocked by administrator RickinBaltimore for edit warring, so if it were me, I would just ignore the message. But again, the decision is entirely up to you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sue, I'd leave the edit removed at this point. Since this was an IP of a blocked user, it's best to not give them the attention they are looking for. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

ok, cool. Thanks. Sue (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Malinaccier (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jd22292,

I made a request to changes for the harold mirisch page and also the marvin mirisch page. The information on both their pages is incorrect as well as the sources. I made the request months ago. On July 14th, i saw that the changes were denied.

Declined. Request is dated and therefore no longer considered an improvement. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what that means. Any help is appreciated.

Thank you Lmassistant (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for your question Lmassistant. I am sorry for the decline, but I was cleaning out old edit requests in an effort to clean out the long backlog on AnomieBOT's EDITREQTable and didn't read through your request entirely. Also, my apologies for deleting the initial message, but just as a reminder that you do not have to send me the same message again as I have deleted your message from my Talk page as an acknowledgement that I have read your answer, but it can still be found in the page history as seen in this revision. Take some time to make a couple improvements to your request, and once you're ready to resubmit the requests to the article's talk pages at Talk:Harold Mirisch and Talk:Marvin Mirisch, please post them there. I will let someone else review the requests. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

In case it would be helpful in the future, if you post a template on a user talk page by accident and recognize that no one has noticed/responded to it, no one will object if you just undo the edit.  czar 04:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I notice you've been declining requested edits from COI editors lately. I'm having trouble seeing the reasoning behind some decisions:

• National Renewable Energy Laboratory: A somewhat detailed request, including replacing dead links and changing an all-caps ref title to title case. You said "I actually don't see this as an improvement."

• Owens-Illinois: WP:Rs#Exceptions says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." That the company was the result of a merger is neither promotional nor controversial.

• Center for Photography at Woodstock: Declined because "This isn't specific; where exactly should this go?" Why not wait for the answer to your question before marking it declined?

• Curiosity (rover) "Before we can complete this request, please declare your relationship with this subject. This request does not show your conflict of interest." Policy is that COI editors should declare their connection; no argument there. But again, why not wait for an answer to your request before declining theirs?

• Florida Municipal Power Agency: The membership of their board as listed in the article is outdated. They provide references and request that the listing be revised. You declined it, saying that the change should be discussed first. Not only does this make no sense, but on July 8, Altamel pointed out to you (see "Edit requests" above) the difficulty in this for COI editors.

The issue of COI contributors is a thorny one. It can be easy to find problems with their requests, especially if you've been editing for a while and know the policies and guidelines. By requesting edits, however, they're trying to do the right thing. Please take more time to review the requests. AGF. Allow them time to answer questions you have before declining requests. If you're not sure, let someone else deal with it. You're not alone here, and you don't have to do it all yourself.

Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Both you and Altamel have been very helpful to me in this part of the encyclopedia. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your diligence in reducing the edit request backlog is invaluable to Wikipedia. Every edit request patroller will have a different style of judgment—and BlackcurrantTea does raise many valid points—but assessing edit requests inevitably entails a learning curve, and you are definitely getting better at applying the correct policies. Altamel (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:jd02022092 - wanted to thank you for the guidance on my recent COI request over on Exelixis. I see your point about what would benefit the article - and following your guidance, I was wondering if you'd be willing to follow through on your suggestion to reduce the named people on the box in the right hand side to just include the CEO/President. Thanks! Levydr (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, this is not required. As I stated, the current list in the infobox is already properly sourced, so there is no need to remove the information. Actually, come to think of it, I might consider retracting my decline as I just noticed that VB00 implemented your request but forgot to mark the request as answered. Sorry for the inconvenience. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response/action to my edit request on the IKEA page! Stwrhbgmon (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how my edit to Talk:The Big Bang Theory was at all bad. I merely suggested something that I thought would be a worthwhile contribution to the article. Please review my edit request once again, as I have revised it with more reliable sources cited, and please let me know if it would be good to add to the article. If not, please inform me on what would make it acceptable. 50.29.96.108 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please visit your talk page to find out why it was disruptive. You basically reopened a request I already answered and removed my answer. It is bad faith to remove talk page discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox National Arena League team, Template:Infobox Indoor Football League team and Template:Infobox af2 team have been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Arena Football League team. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)