User talk:JeBonSer

Home Talk (Archives · Newsletter) E-mail Contributions Edit count Articles Awards This is JeBonSer's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 10. Welcome! Hello, JeBonSer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: The five pillars of Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page and How to develop articles How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish) Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure! Hi JeBonSer! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started. The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge The Teahouse new editor help space Wikipedia Help pages -- 17:47, Monday, May 25, 2015 (UTC) Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7 Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together Get Help About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge Good article reassessment for Philippe I, Duke of Orléans Philippe I, Duke of Orléans has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] In appreciation The Good Article Rescue Barnstar This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Philippe I, Duke of Orléans retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Cohors equitata unblocked I have deleted the redirect that was holding up the move of Draft:Cohors equitata. Feel free to accept at your leisure. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^Talk to Me! 12:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] WikiProject Crusades WikiProject Crusades Hello! I'm here to reach out to you about WikiProject Crusades, a proposed revival and expansion of the Crusades Task Force. I've noticed your contributions to articles about the crusades and wanted to ask for your input regarding such a project and potential membership. For more information about the idea (and to sign up), please visit the page for the project. Thank you! 🌷Reverosie🌷^★talk★ 15:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Orphaned non-free image File:Saturn in Ascension album cover.jpg ⚠ Thanks for uploading File:Saturn in Ascension album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hoax article Hello JeBonSer, I saw that you have accepted the article Nieuweschans dialect. I want to tell you that this article is almost certainly a hoax. There is also an article in the Dutch Wikipedia, and it has been nominated for deletion. The so called 'sources' in the articles are all complete nonsense, and though it is suggested that they have been published some years ago, they were actually uploaded only a few days ago. F.i. the 'photo of an newspaper. Which newspaper? And why is it unreadable? The other so called sources, they have no name of an author at all, so that nobody can determine of this has been written by a relyable linguist or by someone who wants to make a joke. I am an experienced contributor in NL-WP but I am not familiar with the procedure of nominating articles in EN-WP, so I hope you are willing to nominate this nonsense for deletion here. Btw: all other contributions of this person are nonsense, too. So I think a cleaning / reverting operation will be necessary on several articles. Erik Wannee (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Erik Wannee:  Resolved: The user has now been indefinitely blocked and the hoax article has now been deleted. JeBonSer (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thank you! Erik Wannee (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Inappropriate approved article Hi JeBonSer, you've accepted an AfC submission for Danubian Wars, a supposed historiographical concept in Roman history which does in fact not exist in academia [1]. None of the sources verify the existence of this concept, they simply list events the author deemed related enough for inclusion into a common article. Actually, all of the sources are of terrible quality, Wikipedia itself is cited twice out of 16 sources, and then there are sources vaguely dealing with related topics (an article by the UNESCO on the Danubian Limes, Encyclopaedia Britannica's article on the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest and another on the Danube River, an article by Oxford Bibliographies on the Roman-Germanic Wars) or even random websites which do not qualify as reliable sources (Warfare History Network, War History, Stories Preschool), none of which verify this "Danubian Wars" concept made up by the author of this Wikipedia article. Respectfully, it was crystal clear that the article shouldn't have been approved, and it should be moved back to draft mainspace. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 00:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Super Dromaeosaurus:  Done. The page has now been pulled back to draft. JeBonSer (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Excellent, thanks for understanding. Regards, Super Ψ Dro 10:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] Happy Birthday! Draft:Danubian Wars Hia @JeBonSer Just wanted to let you know that a draft you accepted, Draft:Danubian Wars, which you then drafitied, is subject of an ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Wikipedia qcne (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] About article Soda Forest Hi , i just added supported references at article Soda Forest , that you have tagged. Thank you Lanceloth345 (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Added +1 new source that support all article. Lanceloth345 (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Hello This isn’t a question I just wanted to thank you for accepting my page “The battle of Brecon”. Also all the topics you are interested in are highly interesting and diverse (it is excellent to see another history lover especially an Ancient history lover.) KeyolTranslater (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Inappropriate draftification: 63rd Airborne Brigade Hi there, and thank you for your help with NPP! I wanted to reach out because I noticed you recently draftified 63rd Airborne Brigade. Because this article was created more than 90 days ago, it is not eligible for draftification (see WP:DRAFTNO). The script you're using, MoveToDraft, should have a bright red notice stating when an article is not eligible for draftification, either due to age or active editing. Make sure you page attention to this! Additionally, you did not provide a rationale for deletion nor notify the article creator, both of which can be automated through the MoveToDraftScript. If you think I've missed something or made an error, please let me know. I'm open to feedback. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Cyrillization of Polish under the Russian Empire was also draftified without explanation, despite being over 90 days old. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @Significa liberdade: Sorry for the inconvenience, but I would like you to know that the MoveToDraftScript that I am using doesn't have a bright red notice every time I encounter an article that has been created for more than 90 days. That's why I didn't know that it was not right to draftify an article that was created for more than 90 days. Maybe the script that I have used was an old script. JeBonSer (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the reply! I just noticed that you're using a different MoveToDraft script than I thought, so I apologize if my comment came across as harsh! I use User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js, whereas it looks like you're using User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js. Because the latter has not been updated since 2020, I would suggest switching over to the former. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Precious anniversary Precious Three years! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Quick draftification Hello there, and thank you for your help with NPP! I wanted to reach out because I noticed your recent draftication of Draft:Vila Praia de Âncora, which occurred three minutes after the article was created. Per NPPHOUR, articles shouldn't be draftified if they are actively being edited. In practice, this means articles shouldn't be draftified if they have been meaningfully edited in the past hour. Draftifying articles too quickly can come across as bitey -- especially considering that articles in mainspace do not need to be complete, and editors are allowed to develop articles in the mainspace. Additionally, I noticed that you did not inform the editor that their article was draftified or provide rationale for the draftification. To help with some of these processes, I recommend switching your draftification script to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js. The Evad37 script hasn't been updated since 2020, and the MPGuy2824 does more automatically, including notifying editors and providing rationale for draftification. It also alerts you to articles that may not be eligible for draftification. I hope this makes sense. Thank you again for all your help with NPP. It's definitely appreciated! Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] Diocletian boundary stones Hi JeBonSer, thank you for reviewing the above-mentioned article. Q: why did you tag it as uncategorized when it is included in two relevant categories? Cheers רמרום (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply] @רמרום: Error tagging because of the late refresh of the page during the time I tagged it with the "uncategorised" tag using the Page Curation Toolbar. JeBonSer (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]