User talk:JJPMaster

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

Note: Automated messages and newsletters (with the exception of ArbCom election notices) go here instead.

JJPMaster uses the Wikibreak Switch template, and plans to update this notice if a wikibreak is taken.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Isnamademecry (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where u from?:?? im from israel and pakistan wbu

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:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out across Articles for Creation - your work here never goes unappreciated :-). Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi how are you? I recently had an edit instantly removed by you as you claimed it was "Not helpful" the irony being it was a detailed breakdown on a conspiracy. Let me ask, were you the initial poster of the conspiracy? How is any claims referencing a memecoin to a government department allowed on here? I'd love for some rationality from your side. 120.22.151.155 (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do agree that there is no conspiracy like that, I removed it nevertheless. Three reasons:

1. You did not provide any reliable sources for the existence of this as a major conspiracy theory,
2. You wrote it in a very non-neutral tone, using loaded political language, and
3. Even if this were a real conspiracy theory and written neutrally, it likely would not belong in the lead of the article, as we at Wikipedia try to avoid giving undue weight to fringe theories.

Meanwhile, the part that you removed, namely, that DOGE is a backronym for Dogecoin, is undisputed. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, when i first started the edit the conspiracy was there directly stating it was a "pump and dump" so i addressed the statement and provided insight. Which is what i thought this place was about. "DOGE is a backronym" IT is not though, look at any government acronym and their names, do you mean to tell me FBI is a backronym for 'fining black individuals' ? If you check the edit history you will see somebody had wrote it was pump and dump, while i was editing you must have changed it to the doge backronym.

anyway appreciate your response, cheers. 120.22.220.169 (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find any edit alleging such a conspiracy in the page history. And as for DOGE being a backronym, that claim in the article is sourced, so you will likely need consensus on Talk:Department of Government Efficiency before removing it. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that this was a misfire? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: Correct, I'm sorry. We've been dealing with a lot of one specific kind of vandalism ("Mario Thomas Barros" --> "Mario Luigi Bros") from IPs, so I instinctively reverted the edit without realizing that it was actually the reversion of the vandalism I thought the edit itself was. JJP_Master (she/they) 02:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE Starid (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're really funny haha. Nice to meet you. You're my new Wiki Inspo, watch out xx

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JJPMaster. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. 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. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! SilverLocust 💬 05:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar has many studies correcting this misinformation on Maseru Emoto work

Abstract The hypothesis that water "treated" with intention can affect ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions toward water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicated that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (P = .001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16979104

Show me how to correct this misinformation

Vincent Cook --VincentWikkiCook (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! However, I do not believe that this journal, Explore, is a reliable source. Our article on it says,

Explore has been heavily criticized both for the content it publishes and the beliefs of its editorial team. Its self-description and author information explicitly includes pseudoscientific topics well outside the mainstream of medical practice. Critics have noted this willingness to publish work in areas lacking a scientific basis, and have labelled it a "quack journal" which "doesn't limit itself to just one quackery, the way [the journal] Homeopathy does", a publisher of "truly ridiculous studies", and as a "sham masquerading as a real scientific journal".

I advise that you seek consensus on Talk:Masaru Emoto before making any changes citing this source, as there are likely to be objections. JJP_Master (she/they) 06:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is it possible to re-open this discussion? I don't think either the nomination nor the keep !votes engaged with the essential issue here, which is that this place quite possibly does not exist as an actual community. The reason being that Iran counts its census at locations called Abadi. These are simply census-taking locations, and need not correspond to actual villages/towns, and are essentially the Iranian version of census tracts (something explicitly excluded by WP:GEOLAND). Carlossuarez46 went through the 2006 Iranian census making these articles at an incredible fast rate, without bothering to check whether these places actually existed as anything more than a census-taking location. Many of them were obviously wells, pumps, farms, shops, bridges etc. based simply on their names. For example, on the day he created this article, he created at least 445 other articles also about Iranian "villages" (I say "at least" because at least 20,000 of the articles they created have since been deleted and the deleted articles won't show up in this search). FOARP (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I've never reopened a deletion discussion before, and the original discussion (whether it violates GNG) has indeed been concluded. I figure that starting a new AfD, or bringing the article to DRV would be in order here. If I'm missing something here, and reopening deletion discussions is common practice, please let me know. JJP_Master (she/they) 18:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be a DRV case because this isn't an issue with your interpretation of the consensus in the discussion itself, which was correct. Deletion discussions can definitely be re-opened simply by reverting the close and inserting the entry linking to the discussion back in to that day's log page - the closer is allowed to reverse their close if they so choose (but obviously not too long after the close). I would open a new AFD but people tend not to like opening a new AFD right after one has closed - looks like not accepting the consensus - however I can do it if you prefer. FOARP (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: Alright, I have undone the close. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Espu Kola. JJP_Master (she/they) 18:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JJP. There's a good chance no-one will respond but it's worth giving it a shot. FOARP (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, apparently, they were on to something. CoPilot found a few articles on The Gentleman's Agreement. [1] [2] [3]

It supposedly ended in 2004, though. But hey, I learned something! CyanoTex (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was really excited to see my page get approved by AfC, however it has been waiting in new-page-patrol for 11 days… there is quite a large backlog. I wonder if you’d consider approving it - or at least flagging the backlog in new-page-patrol to the right administrators. - CC ScotsOats (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScotsOats:  Done. And as for the backlog, we have a drive coming up in January to deal with that. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! ScotsOats (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]