User talk:Bejakyo

Hello, Bejakyo. Thank you for your work on Outback (lesbian newsletter). North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start. IMO an edge case regarding wp:notability but I'm marking as reviewed. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@North8000: Thank you very much for the review! Looking forward to being able to expand the article

Bejakyo (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

In your 21:15, 3 September edit summary you wrote "The National is a Scottish publication, not a UAE publication". Clicking Contact Us in the menu at the foot of https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/uk/2024/07/05/jeremy-corbyn-re-elected-chants-of-free-palestine-as-former-leader-beats-labour/ leads to "The National is copyrighted and trademarked by The National FZ LLC. Its postal address is PO Box 769555, Abu Dhabi. The National headquarters is temporarily located at Yas Creative Hub, Tower 2, Entrance 8, Abu Dhabi, UAE.." on https://www.thenationalnews.com/contact-us/. The paper you're referring to, from which https://www.thenational.scot/news/24556596.jeremy-corbyn-independent-mps-form-alliance-challenge-labour/ appears in another citation, is a completely different paper, which is why there are National (Abu Dhabi) and The National (Scotland). The National indicates at least two other papers with the same title. Mcljlm (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

well that is surprising, I hadn't expected a paper from the UAE to pay much mind to domestic UK politics. thank you for the correction Bejakyo (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bejakyo. Thank you for your work on Mid Cornwall Metro. Another editor, Cremastra, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Happy to mark this as reviewed. Thanks for writing about transport.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Cremastra}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Cremastra — talk — c 19:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

LoomCreek has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

LoomCreek (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at November 2024 Amsterdam attacks shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andre🚐 08:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Already got a small notification from a fellow contributor, but thanks for the more extensive heads up regardless. The other person involved in revert-waring has taken things to the talk page (as requested in the edit summery, and then by ping on the talk page) so I'm happy to leave the mainspace page as is regarding this issue so that discussion can take place in the talk page.

Also for future ould it be correct to assume that the 1-revert rule (mentioned bellow) trumps the three-revert rule on a page under activeArb? thank Bejakyo (talk) 08:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this page is under 1RR, not 3RR. But it seems that this is the first time anyone is informing or warning you of this, but now you know about it. You are welcome for the heads-up. Andre🚐 08:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. This is a standard message to inform you that the Arab–Israeli conflict is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Additionally, editors must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert on the same page within 24 hours for pages within this topic. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Andre🚐 08:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Scottish Young Liberals.png. 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) 18:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

		The Home Living Barnstar
		For your work relating to housing articles Des Vallee (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Bejakyo (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:English Young Liberals.png. 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) 18:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bejakyo. Thank you for your work on Tenant Union Federation. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a very blessed weekend!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bejakyo. Thank you for your work on Lester P. Barlow. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Have a very blessed weekend!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cornish Main Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IET.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Bejakyo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of tenant unions in the United States, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bejakyo. Thank you for your work on Housing in Vienna. Another editor, JustARandomEditor123, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good quality and interesting article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|JustARandomEditor123}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Could you please undo your re-insertion of the passage in the lead of Cornwall about the Cornish people being a recognised national minority. The last stable version of the lead did not include this passage, so that is how it should be left until the discussion has concluded. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I was of the understanding that WP:BRD meant that a contested bold edit could likewise be boldly reverted to lead into discussion Bejakyo (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You know what, it doesn't really matter. I find it's helpful if a passage under discussion is left as it was immediately before the first bold edit until that discussion is over, as it avoids the appearance that the bold editor(s) are trying to force their change through and so helps to keep other editors on-side and focussed, but so long as it's left alone it doesn't so much matter which version is used. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Bejakyo

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Musk presidency for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

–DMartin 04:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Cambridge Dictionary: to pretend to be or to do something, especially in a way that is not easy to believe:

They purport to represent the wishes of the majority of parents at the school.

The study purports to show an increase in the incidence of the disease. The tape recording purports to be of a conversation between the princess and a secret admirer. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

purport: "To convey, imply, or profess" Bejakyo (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you added back Cornish as the main way to describe Dan Rogerson. Since when did we lead with county of origin instead of just British or English, if there is any reason why you prefer this please enlighten me. Mewhen123 (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I restored the article to lead with the appropriate nationality in question. Hope this was englightening Bejakyo (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Wales Green Party shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Enforcing an edit via constant reverts.

Doug Weller talk 12:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bejakyo. Thank you for your work on Majority (organisation). Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

I think that it's too soon to know whether this currently rather small, local movement will last or have a significant impact. It might be better to merge the content to Jamie Driscoll, the founder and key figure in this group. Many of the source relate to him as the primary topic, rather than to the movement.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

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

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)
• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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) 16:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Bejakyo,

Let's please work together to make the page informative, concise and neutral. Not create an edit war.

Please feel free to talk to me about edits and disagreements and we can resolve them positively :)

Otherwise we should have to rely on concensus. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Matthew-Hopkins,

Glad to hear you want to improve the page, happy to help :)

Feel free to raise any concerns and we can work through them constructively :)

Lets stick to wikipedia policy in the meantime Bejakyo (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Can I suggest reading all of the relevant citations before editing that section of the page eg. the ideology 'nationalism' was sourced. I also don't think that the description should state the fall out, thats not weighty enough. It should of course be mentioned within the background/history. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the sole source. I don't think however it's sufficient to put such in the infobox, partiuclarly whilst not having put it in the body. Might be better taking it to talk page

As for the WP:LEAD, the lead follows the body Bejakyo (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Has been put in the main body. Its a relisble national news paper with no political leanings. Please stop mass reverting my edits... edit the parts you disagree sith and leave the rest alone. For example the lead is better as three paragraphs which more succinctly describe the article in overview, history and policy. Matthew-Hopkins1981 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your reversions of my edits.

The Facebook and Instagram videos are clips taken from the BBC in what way are they unreliable? It's content from BBC Sounds not from Meta.

I take the point about Lib Dems / Senior Green Party members but it's from verified reporting and they're off the record.

As for the Rest is Politics that's also on record via Apple Podcasts as well as YouTube. I don't think your removal was justified.

Further to that why was the Private Eye article amended? Your edits distort their reporting to provide a more favourable view. Greenpark79 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

If there is BBC reporting on the topic, I would recommend citing the BBC's reportage, as opposed to facebook and instagram, which are not reliable sources.

About the LibDems/ Senior Green Party members, if we're talking about criticism of someone, we need to know who is actually making the criticism, which the articles mentioned do not share

The Rest is Politics is not a reliable news source, but is instead a political talk show

In a nutshell we need to ensure that information is as neutral and attributed as possible. If I can help in any way feel free to reach out Bejakyo (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

The rest is politics was a media appearance and it was an interview. There are two transcripts available to what was discussed and it is on public record. It is also notable enough to have its own wikipedia page which wouldn't be the case if it wasn't legitimate. See here: The Rest Is Politics. I've since added a number of press articles which occured after his appearance and believe that satifies the criteria of noteworthiness.

Yes, I'm afraid the journalist couldn't persuade their source to put their name to the criitcism.

I've also cited the BBC Sounds directly for their episode in which he makes his declaration alongside its appearance on Apple Podcasts. Greenpark79 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

If we don't have someone to attribute it to, we can't include it unforunately

I'm aware the Rest is Politics talkshow podcast has a Wikipedia interview, but citing the episode itself for it's own contents is unfortunately a sourcing issue. We would need independent secondary sources, not the primary source. This is likewise the case for BBC Sounds Bejakyo (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I've provided secondary sources which refer to it and even a comment from Polanski himself over it. Greenpark79 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)