Have you considered requesting theautopatrolled permission? You seem to meet the general criteria (only stumbling block being a couple of copyright notices) and this could be helpful in reducing theWP:NPP backlog. If you have questions or wish to discuss don't hesitate to ping me here or leave a comment on my talk page. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)03:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jon698, I just wanted to let you know that I haveadded the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload onnew page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, seeWikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!Swarm♠05:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jon698. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them aspatrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at theNew Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, youmust read the new tutorial atNew Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the variousdeletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread atpage reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.Swarm♠20:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblockedindefinitely from editing forabusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts areallowed, butnot forillegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bansmay be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --Scott Burley (talk)03:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

Jon698(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have made one account and used it for illegitimate purposes. However, I ask that I be unblocked, but banned from participating in AFD discussions and only be allowed to edit as my contribution history shows that I am the only person that has edited articles such asGeorge W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign,Alaska Libertarian Party, andLibertarian Party of Massachusetts and there are many articles like Bush's that are in need of greater editing to be completed or to be proper for Wikipedia. I came to Wikipedia two years ago to improve political articles and I have went too far. I acknowledge that I have broken the rules, but as this is the first time I ask that I be given a second chance. If I renege on this then I wish for the next blocking to be permanent.

Decline reason:

Yououtright lied about the connection before being blocked. You can take thestandard offer.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)09:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Comment I understand. I am not good at apologies especially online and I have had the account since 2017. I rarely used it and did not use it for disruptive editing. I ask that it will be reconsidered and that I be limited to only editing or at least limited to editing only George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign as it is close to completion, but I am the only one who edits it.Jon698Jon69814:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics.
  However, you don't even seem to be that sorry for what you did... You've been using this sock of yours since at least 2017 (Diffs fromScott Burley:[1][2]). That is long termscrutiny evasiason.
  Have you disclosed all your accounts publicly? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖05:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case forWP:SO. Barring any substantive objections, I wouldn't have any problem unblocking you in six months. --Scott Burley (talk)17:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But not likely to happen when you continue to sock withUser:DailyVermonter. -DJSasso (talk)14:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Jon, come on... you're really hurting the case here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖18:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who accepted the request.

Jon698(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello it has been six months since my block in May and I would like to begin thestandard offer process. My provided clear reason is Scott's statement "I agree with MJL in that it looks like you've made some really significant contributions to the project and it would be a shame to lose you as an editor. This seems like a textbook case for WP:SO." and MJL's statement "If I may chime in here and say that Jon has been incredible in improving our coverage of american politics." Also in the past six months I have improved my understanding of copyright and public domain and I hope to use it to improve the images of political/election articles and I have learned election mapping and hope to improve many Washington, D.C. election articles. The next year will be important for election/political Wikipedia editors and will have a large amount of work and I hope that I will be able to help and participate in that. It has been hard to not edit Wikipedia for six months, but I would still like to thank Scott for the block because it has helped me become less addicted to editing and MJL for helping me get a LPedia account that I could use to edit that site on if I ever had the urge to. --Jon69802:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Jon698&ilshowall=1https://lpedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jon168[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the conversation below (Special:PermanentLink/924708850), you are unblocked. Conditions for your unblock include a 6 month topic ban fromArticles for Deletion and a reminder to keep aware of general sanctions pertaining to American politics and other areas as you've acknowledged. --ferret (talk)13:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't really understand how the standard offer process works and I hope that I am doing it correctly. Apologies in advance for any mistakes.

@NinjaRobotPirate: I am sorry about the ping, but I have noticed that there is a large backlog in Requests for unblockJon698 (talk)03:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your unblock request posted to theadministrators' noticeboard, I could do that. Due to a quirk in policy, unblock requests that fail to get consensus at a noticeboard turn into acommunity site ban. The difference ismostly academic, but site bans can only be appealed at noticeboards. Noticeboard appeals are settled via the consensus of the community (more-or-less a vote), but standard unblock requests are resolved by unilateral action by a single administrator. If you don't like the idea of a bunch of random people voting to ban/unban you, the alternative is to wait for a random administrator to get around to your unblock request. That shouldn't take more than a few days, but it could potentially take several weeks. If you want to speed up the process and increase the likelihood of success, you should list all the registered accounts you've used to edit Wikipedia.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)04:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I would rather wait for some random administrator to get around to my request rather than putting it up to a noticeboard vote. The only registered accounts that I used wereUser:DailyVermonter andUser:ImBadWithUsernames.Jon698 (talk)04:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm willing to go forward with this unblock, if checkuser is clean (or you feel it's not necessary) and he agrees to the topic ban for AFDs that he originally proposed 6 months ago in his prior appeal. I would additionally add that he read aboutGeneral Sanctions and acknowledge doing so by listing the active sanction he believes would apply to his preferred area of editing related to political topics.@Scott Burley: as info as blocking admin. --ferret (talk)23:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any obvious block evasion.NinjaRobotPirate (talk)23:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate:@Ferret: I agree to the topic ban for AFDs and as forGeneral Sanctions sanctions could be placed on areas such asabortion,Eastern Europe,gun control, and other areas like those.Jon698 (talk)03:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, works for me. Also be mindful ofAmerican politics 2. This sanction is core to your editing areas. --ferret (talk)13:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the correct time to claim points for DYK in the WikiCup is after the hook has appeared on the main page. So you can claim forTed Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign now, while some of your other submissions have been premature.Cwmhiraeth (talk)07:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth Thank you for telling me. I am new to Wikicup this year and I will remember to wait for the rest of my DYK hooks. -Jon698 (talk)11:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I enjoyed reading your articles; thank you for writing them. I did have to make a change with theWilliam Jefferson Hardin article; he served in the Wyoming Territorial Legislature not the Wyoming State Legislature. The territorial and state legislatures are two different legislative chambers serving different political divisions-territorial and state in Wyoming-many thanks-RFD (talk)13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I have to remove the Wyoming Legislature template from the article aboutCathy Connolly who served in the Wyoming Legislature. The Wyoming Legislature template place the Members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category on the the article. This happen on some other articles. I had to go through the members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislature category and there 2 or 3 others this happen. I am not sure why the Wyoming Legislature template is doing this-many thanks-20:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)RFD (talk)20:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the Wyoming Legislature template; the template covers the Wyoming territorial and state legislatures. This would explained why he members of the Wyoming Territorial Legislatures were put on some articles that should not be put on some articles like the Cathy Connolly article many thanks-RFD (talk)20:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Jon698, and welcome to Women in Red. With the enormous experience you have of writing about politics and politicians, it's great to see you now intend to devote more of your time to women. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through ourTen Simple Rules and ourPrimer for creating women's biographies. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk)09:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you about your position on the position of whip. Seems obvious to me.Activist (talk)21:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your 6 months ban was a travesty, IMO. It's absurd that such a good editor was hit with such awful sanctions. This is an example of why I totally regret having startedWP:AN, which led to the farce that isWP:AN/I. -Aussie Article Writer (talk)19:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected asEditor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions!(courtesy of theWikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Vami IV submitted the following nomination forEditor of the Week:

I nominate Jon698 for Editor of the Week because of their outstanding contributions to our coverage of American politics, but especially US State legislatures. I have personally bore witness to their dedication to the topic, trawling through thousands of Newspaper.com clippings, and their obvious interest and openness about the topic through conversing with them onthe Discord server. On-wiki, he has several Good Articles to speak to the quality of his work, such asDavid Duke 1988 presidential campaign. He has made it his mission in the two years he's been actively editing to vastly improve our coverage of US State legislators, and has not disappointed. For that and his level-headed and humorous conducting of himself I wish to commend him.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎14:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just wanted to give you a heads up of a Wyoming-related state legislator article that I recently created, as I recall you are active in the Wyoming Wikiproject and with American state legislator bios. I unfortunately don't have much more time to expand it further, but there are a number of Newspapers.com clippings that I came across and think offer some good material, if you ever feel the urge to expand it!Connormah (talk)05:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain whythe police stopped Moran in the first place? Thank you.DS (talk)03:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: The bookThey Came From Within: A History of Canadian Horror Cinema on page 38 does not give a reason for why he was initially stopped, but I have looked through the author's sources and they corroborate most of his claims. I ordered Filmfax #25 which was the only source I couldn't find online and will check that one out.Jon698 (talk)15:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: Apologies for the time it took me to finally get around to editing the article using the Filmfax source. I was unable to find anything about why they stopped it so I removed it. However, the magazine did have a lot of other, more useful, information. This was back on December 7.Jon698 (talk)17:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Women in Red 8th Anniversary
	InJuly 2015 around15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As ofJuly 2023,19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary!Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk)11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

You did a fantastic job with the 2019 Seattle City Council election page! If you have time, could you please help me bring the 2023 election page up to the standard of the one you made?C. W. Edward (talk)04:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C. W. Edward: Thank you for the invitation to edit. I loved making some of those local election pages and I would love to do it again. I just need to finish a few bookmarks on a book I've been reading recently and I'll be able to get to it.Jon698 (talk)17:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filmhunter (talk)02:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the like on my post. I also have autism. How do I add the ASD tag to my profile? I mostly edit Wikimedia content and then put it on Wikipedia pages. So I might put it up there as well. Thanks again for the like.MonkeyBBGB (talk)02:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @MonkeyBBGB: I put it up on your page for you. BTW would you like to have it formatted to be right-adjusted so that it fits nicely next to your text?Jon698 (talk)02:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  wow thanks! I appreciate that. Yeah it would be cool if you did that. I'm going to tag you on my Wikimedia page, because your stuff is cool. What about my edit of adding that poster caught your attention? Right place at the right time?MonkeyBBGB (talk)02:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @MonkeyBBGB: Yeah right place at the right time. I previously made a large edit to the page and have it on my watchlist.Jon698 (talk)02:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  that's cool. i also look at pages I used to edit too. but most of my wikipedia edits of more substance are from the first few months here. I enjoyed editing about Oswald Rabbit when he became public domain. I madea page with him.MonkeyBBGB (talk)02:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The only real page I maintain isthis one. But it gets my local politics interest and keeps me up to date on cannabis laws in Virginia. And then that benefits others!MonkeyBBGB (talk)02:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm reaching out because I saw that countless election articles have had huge amounts of sourced (or easily sourceable) material removed. This is information that innumerable other editors have objected to the removal of, and your defense is either that it's unsourced (in many cases against WP:CALC practices) or irrelevant (which I and many others would argue is a contentious assertion in many of these cases). Notable instances that come to mind are various state articles on the 1964 presidential election or the 1972 election in the Deep South. Please let me know your thoughts, as I'm fairly inclined to reverse (in part or in full) a large number of these edits. Best,Cpotisch (talk)21:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpotisch Please allow me a few hours to look through the 1964, 1972, and 1988 pages.Jon698 (talk)22:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it.Cpotisch (talk)00:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look?Cpotisch (talk)00:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpotisch Yes.Jon698 (talk)02:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I appreciate you reviewing it and restoring some, but I still see a very large amount of sourced and important material that got taken out with your purges. One of the most egregious examples being the1964 United States presidential election in Georgia, where, despite your restorations the other day, now does not even acknowledge that this is the first time *ever* that the state voted Republican. That's covered in multiple sources and it's very historically significant. Also, along the way, that article ended up with a very incomplete sentence in the "Results" section.

Another (less problematic) example is the1964 United States presidential election in Indiana, which now acknowledges that one particular county did not vote Democratic again until 2008, but not that the whole state did too.

Another example was the1972 United States presidential election in Georgia, which carved out huge amounts of easily verifiable material, such as the fact that this was the best ever Republican performance in the state.

All of which is to say, while I understand where you were coming from with these edits, I think it completely goes against the recommendation that editors try toWP:FIXTHEPROBLEM before doing wholesale removals.Cpotisch (talk)20:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpotisch all classes for my university have been canceled today and tomorrow (and quite likely Thursday). if you want, you could go through the pages and list what should be added back in and I'll personally go through with finding sourcing.Jon698 (talk)21:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan, thanks.Cpotisch (talk)22:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm TheApex150. I saw on thepage for the 1984 U.S. Presidential Election that you added additional info to the national exit poll. I wanted to ask if you have access to exit poll info from certain states? For example, an exit poll from California or one from Texas. I know the election was a landslide, but I'm curious to see if there were differences among the states themselves. If you have access to that info, can you please link it to me here? Or you can link it to my talk page. Thank you! :-)TheApex150 (talk)09:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheApex150: I could do some research to see if there are exit polls at the state level. It would be interesting to see them.Jon698 (talk)09:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alrighty, sounds good! I'm curious as well.TheApex150 (talk)10:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you found anything yet?TheApex150 (talk)05:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheApex150: I have not started yet. I will notify you when I find something.Jon698 (talk)07:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thanks! Sorry if I sounded impatient.TheApex150 (talk)07:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheApex150: Don't worry. I am interested in finding this information as well.Jon698 (talk)07:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Awesome!TheApex150 (talk)08:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheApex150: Hello, I have found an exit poll for Utah.https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/7R1OON/67MMQU&version=1.0&toolType=PREVIEWJon698 (talk)01:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice! That's great you found that. Did you find info on other states?TheApex150 (talk)05:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have access to any of the ones here?https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/ipoll/search?end=1984-12-31&org=a58eef63-ee8d-4636-b321-36f5763c51c9&q=election%20day%20survey&start=1984-01-01&tab=STUDY They're also available through here:https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/ICPSR/studies/08368/summaryTheApex150 (talk)05:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Thank you for your work on the 2023 election page. There's going to be a city council special election this year. Would you mind making the page for it? I would, but my summer is going to be extremely busy. I have some links for the article.
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/01/seattle-city-council-appoints-tanya-woo-fill-district-8-seat
https://crosscut.com/briefs/2024/01/here-are-8-finalists-seattle-city-councils-vacant-seat
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/05/three-progressives-take-tanya-woo-seattle-city-council-race
https://crosscut.com/politics/2024/01/72-people-applied-seattle-city-councils-vacant-seat
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/tanya-woo-launches-race-to-retain-seat-on-seattle-city-council/C. W. Edward (talk)06:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C. W. Edward: Thank you for informing me of that. I am interested in doing it.Jon698 (talk)14:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently noticed you put upHundreds of Beavers for GA nomination. Looking over the article, and working on gettingthe filmmaker's previous effort to FA status, I am impressed with the structure you have on this second film. Though I am still debating about reviewing it, I do want to thow out a few pointers and concerns I have noticed. If you wish to wait for that until an actual GA review occurs I understand.Paleface Jack (talk)22:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack Please go ahead and tell me.Jon698 (talk)00:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sections preceeding the plot are incomplete. While I don't know if you have found every piece of reliable information on the film's production, release, reception, and accolades have a great deal of expansion needed. While that is very strenuous, it is necessary. Not every piece of info is needed, but the film was released to many film festivals and to many awards. You don't need to cite every single one. The best example would be how I structured the release section ofLake Michigan Monster as it covers notable ones while citing how it was consistently screened in film festivals since the original release date. The reception section needs more reviews and should be structured in paragraphs, each one going into each aspect noted (positively or negatively) by critics. It might be a bit more work than you expected, but it helps significantly in fleshing out the article to the high quality we strive for in articles. if you have any. more questions or need advice, just message me on my talk page.Paleface Jack (talk)01:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paleface Jack: Thank you for the information. I have gone to great lengths to find every online news and many print magazine mentions of Hundreds of Beavers since I started this summer. I even have many Google alerts related to it. I have made some edits to the Reception section and plan on expanding the Accolades and Release section using the IMDB page as a launching point for good sources.Jon698 (talk)18:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC){{re|[reply]

  Do you require assistance?Paleface Jack (talk)18:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paleface Jack: I would be very grateful if you aided me.Jon698 (talk)18:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Will do later today.Paleface Jack (talk)18:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jon698:Just so I am not overriding your own style or taking over editing duties, I did a little structure changes to get you off on the right track of the reception section. You can always look at my work onLake Michigan Monster for a template on structure and make your own spin on that.Paleface Jack (talk)21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jon698:Just looked over your expansion of the article, and I am impressed. With a little more work you have a very high chance of passing this.Paleface Jack (talk)18:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me what you consider to be valid sourcing for the county flip information? Because onthis page, you anduser:GatewayPolitics seem to have agreed to allow that source to stand: "I'll let the county flips stay up" as you put it. Yet, when I used that same source forthis page, suddenly it was not acceptable, and to top it all off you reverted the edit from the previous page as well. As for the other 5 edits you reverted on January 1st over sourcing issues, I return to the first sentence because almost every statewide election in every state going back to the early 20th century has this information (typically without the detailed sourcing that you ask for), yet you are constantly removing this info on random pages. I say all of this because I want to establish consistency on this issue instead of playing whack-a-mole like I,user:GatewayPolitics, and others have been playing for a while now.

• I was mistaken when I accepted that source. I did not realize at the time that it was a user-generated site with no editorial control. I agree about the whack-a-mole problem. There are many articles about county flips for recent elections, but not for older ones. I will try to look for sourcing on Newspapers.com tomorrow.Jon698 (talk)01:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apprciate your efforts, and I look foward to hearing what you find.GigachadGigachad (talk)02:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GigachadGigachad I apologize for not being able to do the edits I promised. I do not have access to a good internet connection at the moment. However, I did find some good sourcing for 2024 county flips (along with some history attached). Here are the articles:1234567Jon698 (talk)18:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source for counties Biden flipped back in 2020.1Jon698 (talk)18:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And there is no rush for you, but it is much appreciated.GigachadGigachad (talk)20:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jon698:

2024 has wrapped up, and what a full year it was forWikiProject Women in Green! Over the past year, we hosted two edit-a-thons, one themed aroundwomen's history and another onwomen around the world. We also managed to achieve most of our2024 annual goals, nominating 75 articles for GA, reviewing 64 GA nominations, nominating 8 articles for FAC, peer reviewing 3 articles and reviewing 10 FAC nominations. Excellent work, and thank you to everyone involved!

For 2025 we havea new set of goals for nominations and reviews. In particular, we would like to see more articles on ourHot 100 list being improved and nominated for GA this year. If you take a look at the list and see an article you are interested in contributing to, feel free to add it and yourself toour Hot 100 project discussion. You might even find someone interested in collaborating with you!

This year, as with every year, we hope you will join us in helping improve our coverage of women and women's works on this encyclopedia. Every contribution helps. We'll see you around!

Grnrchst (talk)

You are receiving this message as a member of theWikiProject Women in Green. You can remove yourself from receiving notificationshere.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JonI’m Ed Adrian former City Councilor mentioned in your Kurt Wright edits. How did you happen to decide to edit Kurt’s page? We are both curious!

BestEd2601:19E:8780:5DC7:70B2:1E31:71FA:463A (talk)00:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am just interested in Burlington's politics (despite never setting foot in Vermont) and Kurt Wright was one of its major figures for a long time.Jon698 (talk)01:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, your focus was the citation's info. But whoever includedWaltz with Bashir before me might be inclined to include it again, so just curious: Do you think it's worth mentioning at all, or does it veer into superfluous territory?

The reason I created the footnote was because I was finding it difficult to word it eloquently enough, jugglingBashir being the first animated nominated for Foreign-yet-NOT-animated. Might require a hidden note within to deter recurring attempts. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk17:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinemaniac86: Your suggestion would be fine. I emailed IndieWire to offer a correction for their article so maybe that is a 1 in a 1,000 chance of them updating it to mention Waltz with Bashir.Jon698 (talk)17:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I sent an Instagram DM to the article's author as well! (Since he didn't provide his own e-mail.)

Proactive minds think alike. Though I have no clue if he'll even notice such a message, but we shall see… --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk21:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In theList of tallest people the entry looks unwieldy. Why don't you make it into a separate page. Google appears to givequite a few refs. --Altenmann>talk07:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann: I don't know. I have never made an article like that before and I am concern about its notability.Jon698 (talk)07:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG, as well as "William Patterson Bane, the Greene County Giant, one of the tallest soldiers in the Civil War, earned an almost mythical place in popular culture of late 19th-century America."[3] --Altenmann>talk07:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann: You know what, why not. It will be pretty interesting to see what I get from Newspapers.com.Jon698 (talk)07:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, at the second glance google hits are not very promising. Maybe old newspapers help. --Altenmann>talk07:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the Leland Dudek page. Very well done! Had to click on Who Wrote That?

Kudos.Selbsportrait (talk)14:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk)06:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, welcome, welcome Jon698! I'm glad that you are joining theNovember 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk)10:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First you objected that it wasn't sourced. (The usual ettiquette is to add a "citation needed" tag, not to revert. So I added a cite.

Today you revert citing your personal lack of insight as a reason. It was relevant enough to be reported in the New York Times. Perhaps the fault here is your lack of understanding of relevance.

Please act with integrity.DCLawwyer (talk)16:47, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such "usual etiquette" as you claim. Unsourced information has no place on Wikipedia. Any bit of irrelevant trivia can be sourced to a page as well. It is incumbent on you to prove its relevancy.Jon698 (talk)16:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A brief examination of the source you provided clearly shows that you misread the source. It states that the residents of the town were the first to vote for black candidates for mayor, governor, and president. This is not relevant to Warren's page.Jon698 (talk)16:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of72 hours foredit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia'sguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger_{One ping only}21:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

Jon698(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

When I made my fourth revert I was under the impression that it would be allowed under the "Reverting edits of banned or blocked users is not edit warring." statement inWikipedia:Edit warring. DCLawwyer was blocked at 17:56 and my removal of the text occurred at 17:59. If I am incorrect on this matter then I completely accept my 72 hour block. (PS: I would be fine with my revert being reverted and having the information remain on the page while waiting for further discussion after DCLawwyer's block expires.)Jon698 (talk)22:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you are carefully counting reverts, you are edit warring and just trying to avoid the bright line 3RR. Consider this the next time you are repeatedly reverting, and note that you are not blocked for 3RR.--jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇}23:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Furthermore, DCLawwyer was blocked for violatingWP:EW. This wasn't a case of an account evading a block. That is, the exception you claim toWP:3RR doesn't apply in this case. If DCLawwyer was instead an account set up to evade a block, you'd be able to claim that exception. --Yamla (talk)23:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Thank you for informing me of that.Jon698 (talk)23:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not think your FA nomination ofHundreds of Beavers is gonna pass again. However, I would not get too discouraged these things happen. I have tried numerous times to getBegotten up to featured with no success. I still plan on nominating it again once I feel it is of the highest level of quality. That being said, there are some parts I have noticed in your article that could be adjusted for better flow. Minor things that can be touched up and whatnot. If you wish to move on to other projects that is fine, I can always lend some advice or suggest some projects. Happy editing mate.Paleface Jack (talk)16:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jon698, I see you've been reverting edits on the page of Marinus Bee. The edits are done by one of his policy coordinators, also I am a verified intermediair between the Surinamese government and Wikipedia. I have a signed document saying the Surinamese government allows their images to be used on Wikipedia if Wikipedia mentions them as the source and copyright holder.

I would please ask you to let me and my colleague @IvanaBetterson proceed with edits without you reverting them.Nassov (talk)22:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide proof of this?Jon698 (talk)22:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure how can I do that? Also it's in DutchNassov (talk)22:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provide any proof that you are affiliated with the government of Suriname.Jon698 (talk)22:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, how can I show you? I have the documents in PDF.Nassov (talk)22:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something easier. There should be a government website featuring the portrait of Marinus Bee. Add text that expressly states something along the line of "This image is in the public domain".Jon698 (talk)22:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing like that yet, the digitalization process in third world countries goes slower.

With regards to adding text to the biography of the page, please let us edit without reverting.

Here is a link to a government website where you can clearly see Marinus Bee is the current minister of internal affairs:

https://gov.sr/ministeries/ministerie-van-binnenlandse-zaken/minister-en-staf/#Nassov (talk)22:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works. Wikimedia Commons only allows images that are public domain or fall outside of copyright for some reason.Jon698 (talk)22:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the information on his page, not the images. Stop reverting edits please. I have been verified (in official letters) by both the Surinamese government as well as Wikipedia.

@Ymnes Weet jij hoe we dit het beste kunnen oplossen?Nassov (talk)22:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral here, but can say that the source for the fact that Bee is government minister now can be found in the Dutch article. The issue whether the photo has the correct license is something to address at Wikimedia Commons, not here.Ymnes (talk)23:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On25 November 2025,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleEdward Beard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... thatEdward Beard won reelection to theUnited States House of Representatives despite not winning his party's endorsement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Edward Beard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Edward Beard), and the hook may be added tothe statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free tonominate it.

History6042😊(Contact me)00:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleJohn Holmes Jackson isunder review. Seethe review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofLastJabberwocky --LastJabberwocky (talk)21:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]