Jarrod Baniqued

This user has opted out of revert notifications. You should, too!

I am Jarrod Baniqued. I know this welcome came a bit late. Let me explain myself anyway. I am trying to add details and correct errors for the benefit of humankind's knowledge. I am therefore dedicated to my own words. Thank you for reading my edits and for knowing that I'm here. - User talk:Jarrod_Baniqued 18:51, 09 November 2011 (PST) Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited WOPR, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SBC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 12:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Expedition 63, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victor Glover (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jarrod Baniqued: Hi, I would like to solicit your input on a debate around the launch cost of the SLS rocket.

Jadebenn made an edit here : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Space_Launch_System&diff=929316586&oldid=929241314

And since no one challenged his edit at the time he now considers it a consensus and refuses to revert back to old (and most importantely real) figures.

He refuses to debate my argument therefore I solicit your input into this.

Thanks - Moamem (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I’ve only seen snippets of the argument from the past four days or so. I’m not at liberty to say anything on the matter in sufficient depth. My only preliminary assessments are that while Jadebenn has made an excellent point that newer, more up-to-date sources should be sought to supplement older, more official sources, you have the upper hand regarding the procedures and principles of wiki etiquette. You win this one so far, but be sure to read the others’ advice. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, User:Jarrod Baniqued I just wanted to let you know that I removed the picture that you added to the gallery of Bob Behnken being offloaded as per WP:MOSIMAGES, since the picture along with the doug offload picture were both very low quality and did not add anything to the article that could not be explained in text. The Article is already quite image dense and those two pictures were quite dark and blurry. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Terasail^[Talk] 18:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's rocketry-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Rocketry? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's rocketry-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 09:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

No thanks. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Glad to hear about the opportunity, but I don’t want to be too entangled I’m [sic: in] too many things. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, no problem. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 10:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Green wall, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Liriope, Mint and Sage.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zeynep Tufekci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WGBH.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Electrical system of the International Space Station

added a link pointing to Cargo Dragon

Integrated Truss Structure

added a link pointing to Cargo Dragon

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from COVID-19 drug development into Use and development of software for COVID-19 pandemic mitigation. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for notifying me. I will try to carry out this procedure in depth in the future. Have a good day. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Since you are doing some good work with article short descriptions, you might want to read the guide here. Particularly about what it says about description length. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Duly noted, thanks Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yo im pretty sure u got the temp. butane burns at like 1000° too hot... should be like 2400°F not 3500°F??

Maybe i misunderstood, or misinterpreted. Hell idk.

         BUT

Have a lovely day tho, peace and love ✌🏼

Which article would that be? I’m weak on memorizing chemical properties, too, so be sure to cite a chemical society’s sources. I’ll gladly be open to correctionsz Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

• corrections. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Kerry Raymond. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Alley Family Graves, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kerry (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

What if I was only editing the short description? As I recall, I only wrote a short summary of the article as a “cemetery in Australia”, which falls within standard precedent for description writing. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I was trying to revert the previous edit but on a mobile device I managed to click the wrong edit to revert. I have restored your short description. Kerry (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the restoration. Have a good day Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 10:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You've reverted my correction of a German title on the page of Pavel Florensky. Please note that in German we use k in Perspektive. Drkazmer   ^{Just tell me...} 07:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Pump" is more known for being the american term for the shoe... Maybe it came from northern england but it definitely is far more commonly used in the USA. It is also under no circumstances I can imagine mistaken for a galosh. A galosh is an entirely different shoe altogether.... No one but thr misguided would call a plimsole a galosh. A galosh and "rubbers" which are a name for a galosh are, as the name infers, a rubber shoe..not unlike a welly but without a long boot. Just a shoe welly. Plimsoles cannot be worn in the rain..neither can they be shined in any way. So the army could not have required people to shine canvas shoes except perhaps as a cruel and hopeless task to break their spirit. Which is I'm sure possible... There's a lot that could be added to the artical too. Like people for some reason never wore socks with them and they cut the ankles off you and made horrendous blisters. And that they were nothing like a barefoot, vulcanized rubber soled, modern shoe in that they created an almighty slap on the sole of ones feet every time one ran in them...akin to being slapped on the foot till it stings! 64.43.50.240 (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 'A' You're Adorable, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zed.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bahay na bato, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan de Dios Hospital.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colonial Origins of Comparative Development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French Empire.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Docere, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doctor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Contraction and Convergence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IEA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Philippines–United States relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agila.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pentagon Papers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Galvin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don't add them to redirects. It stops it from being a redirect. e.g. [1]. Thanks and happy editing. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand, but since I do most editing on mobile, there needs to be a disclaimer that shows which redirects are present on the "add short description" portal, or even a feature that locks the portal. I am drafting a request for features at the moment on the matter, and I'd like your support. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

If a wiki page suggested that you should add a short description to a redirect, then i'm all for fixing it. Feel free to ping me, if you need my support, when you've finished drafting the request. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello Jarrod Baniqued!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I will check it out Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why did you add a more citations needed template to Cesar Vergara? There are no uncited statements. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I misjudged, wrongly assuming it would be a stub. Sorry for the error. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Even if it was a stub, the appropriate action would be to add a stub template, not a more citations needed template. A one sentence article could still be sufficiently cited that a more citations needed template wouldn't be appropriate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tagalog people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nipa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited As We May Think, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trenton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inflation Reduction Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy efficiency.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inflation Reduction Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merck.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Space Launch System core stage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stringer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exploration of Neptune, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hiram Bingham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CHIPS and Science Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fiscal Responsibility Act.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Jarrod. I just wanted to mention that your large addition to this article seems to go into much more detail than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I don't have the exact link, but there is a Wikipedia guideline that we should only include content that will be of interest to readers ten (or more) years into the future. At the very least, WP:NOTNEWS applies. Your post is too massive for me to even attempt to reduce (it added >20% to the article's byte length), but I hope that you will look through it to consider reducing its size in the context of the rest of the article. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RCraig09 I think that’s fair. It will take some time to determine what exactly should be trimmed out, I’m open to some suggestions. What I want to start with is the “clean jobs” portion, and then remove several unnecessary list items in the last paragraph of my addition. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the key determinant is: What part of that content will readers really want to know in the overall context of US climate change policy — in 2034? I would have thought the description of the different laws would have been described, in that context, in ~five sentences each. Right now it reads like a thorough analytical essay. Transclusion(s) bloat the content further. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@RCraig09 I see your point. Thanks for the guidance on description lengths, I think that's the most important part. I'll remove the transclusion, and then after that, I'll improvise from there. How does that sound? Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like a good start. Remember that, in general, the burden is on editors to justify including content, rather than skeptics etc having to justify its exclusion. That principle is usually applied to contentious material or unreliable sources, but I think it applies in general. —RCraig09 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

How does it look now? Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The word length of the additions now passes the straight face test. I've made a quick first pass at reducing what is editorial commentary and violations of WP:NOTNEWS etc. Please look at the edits individually and see my edit comments. I still question whether the long lists of particular amounts would be of any interest ten years from now. It's notability that matters, so that readers have a "takeaway" after reading an encyclopedia that is not just a collection of facts and figures. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Overall the edits were well-done. I think the current version looks near perfect. Given the level of detail the Obama and Trump administration sections contain, though, I think it would be fine to leave in some backstory and the 51-50 vote. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many, many Wikipedia articles have grown bloated over two decades. Streams of drive-by editors see news articles, and add their two cents worth here, before moving on. The result can be bloated and uncoordinated articles populated with random and disorganized facts, with too many cooks spoiling the broth. As a result, unfortunately, a substantial part of today's editing is removing what coordinated, holistic, circumspect editing would not have added in the first place. This burden is especially applicable in "hot" topics like climate change. . . . . Here, using other (Obama and Trump) sections of the article as models for newer (Biden) sections takes us in the wrong direction for readers in 2034, 2044, etc. I admire your enthusiasm, but you will save yourself time in the long run if you place a higher threshold on what content is notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. Another thought experiment: would you see this particular piece of content in the Encyclopedia Britannica? —RCraig09 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I agree in principle with your views on WP:NOTNEWS, holism and higher standards of inclusion (and have even begun to elide some parts of the Obama sections), I respectfully disagree on practice.

There is a huge amount of nuance each president has within his own approach to policy, particularly with the current one. The importance of such additions is to be as accurate as possible in portraying such nuance, and thus complexity. My thinking as to how this affects notability is: Hewing to accuracy is better for the reader in 2034 and 2044. Climate policy is multifaceted and diverse, and Wikipedia's coverage should reflect that. In this regard, there is a limitation of Encyclopedia Britannica that is not inherent in the more flexible, potential-filled Wikipedia. Adding some regulatory and fiscal actions within reason (at editor’s discretion) help convey how much each president and Congress contributes to meaningful action and what areas of policy they prioritize. For that reason, I don’t call it bloat.

This is my final word on the matter; I would prefer to let other editors than us resolve this in the next ten years as we wait and see, until then, kindly get off my talk page. Good day. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Andrew Wiles, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World Game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cooperative gameplay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inflation Reduction Act, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scott Peters.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) Reply

@BGerdemann I've taken it already, thanks for the offer Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply