User talk:Jrtuenge

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Contronym, 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. Your source does not show both usages. The edit notice saying "Provide a reliable source or get consensus for new entries." does not mean that you can just source one meanng. And please read WP:MINOR Meters (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Meters. I just undid your rejection, noting that you apparently hadn't seen the Did You Know text below the definition. Jrtuenge (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

And I've undone you. Your source does nto actually list both meanings as dictionary definitions. It gives the definition in one sense and then goes on to mention that that there is some use of in the alternate sense, but, as the cited source says "This meaning ... is not yet fully established". Please discuss it on the talk page, per the edit notice. This not an exhaustive list, so we don't need more examples. Anything that is at all questionable simply should not be there. Meters (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Need secondary sources

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:National Labor Exchange and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I've revised and resubmitted accordingly. Just let me know if it's still inadequate. Jrtuenge (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Jrtuenge! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed your request to rename Electric light from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. This request is not at all uncontroversial. If you want to move that page, you will need to start a discussion on the talk page and achieve consensus in support of the move. There has been a lot of discussion over the years on "electric light" vs "lamp" vs "light bulb" and there are reasons why the article is where it is. Note that usage varies between countries, and that technical usage differs from common usage.-- Srleffler (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

So you simply discarded all of my edits (which I had sufficiently supported with relevant citations to the International Electrotechnical Commission and Illuminating Engineering Society) and didn't bother citing anything in support of your position? Note that the edits and the proposed move are not inextricably linked. Jrtuenge (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Let's discuss further on the article's talk page. Refactoring the page to prepare for an article move without discussion is not OK. Changing an article title requires a discussion. No amount of references will justify a move by themselves. You need a consensus that the new title is the right one. If there is material in your edits that works independent of the article move, I will be happy to restore it. Nothing has been lost...--Srleffler (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Jrtuenge, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Beam angle (optical), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

GTrang (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Awesome -- thanks @GTrang! Jrtuenge (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

List of file formats for luminaire radiometric data, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 4% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You may also consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's "Did you know" section.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Whoa -- thanks @Monkeysmashingkeyboards! Jrtuenge (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the (very) late accept, and my brevity in my decline. (I definitely should've elaborated, but essentially the article at that time jumped straight into the content without explaining anything about the subject itself - your changes after the decline addressed this)

Happy holidays! monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up -- no worries, and happy holidays to you as well! Jrtuenge (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for your recent work on Professional Lighting Designers' Association! That's the way to update and reference a neglected article about a small, has-been organization. Well done! — voidxor 00:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Woo-hoo, my first barnstar! Thanks for the helpful cleanup after me (citing Wikipedian support) and encouragement along the way. I'm sure the PLDA and ELDA (with help from VIA-Verlag) did a lot of good while they were active, but I felt something needed to be done to close out. They confusingly used many domain names over the years, most of which are no longer valid (e.g., unresponsive, phishy), and the Wikipedia content gave the false impression the PLDA and the various things associated with it were still active. Although the via-verlag.com domain is still responsive, its links to the magazine (PLD) and convention (PLDC) are not. Thanks again, and Happy New Year! Jrtuenge (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'd done some light editing and noticed that the organization seemed dead, but I wasn't sure what to do with the article. All the various names and domain names made it more confusing; I'm really glad you were able to sort through it all! — voidxor 19:56, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jrtuenge, Thanks for you edit to the crystalloluminescence section which improved the article. Would you consider assessing the article and giving it a class rating on the talk page; it's been unassessed since publication eight months ago. Thanks. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Sure, I'd be happy to take a look—at least once I wrap up my luminescence-related edits elsewhere. A couple articles I created recently cleared AFC, but this'd be my first time assessing an article, so I'll have some learning to do in terms of both crystallography and assessing.

One thing in the interim: I had noticed my 1-step citation format/approach differed from your 2-step approach, but punted on matching (sorry), so thanks for tidying up after me to harmonize. However, it'd be great if you could point me to any Wikipedia policy/guidance indicating a preference for your approach, which seems to have some downsides here (e.g., incomplete info via tooltip, extra space added by large Citations section, extra step needed to reach Works Cited section). I do understand that limited use of your approach can be helpful when using multiple citations for different pages of a given reference, but I'd suggest reviewing WP:OPCIT for more concise alternatives.

In any case, it seems clear you put a lot of time/care into developing this article and providing support for it! Jrtuenge (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Jrtuenge, I only use the 2-step approach in complex articles which reference many different pages in some of the sources. The rationale for shortened footnotes is at the following help page:

Multiple references

They allow the editor to cite many different parts of the same source without having to repeat the entire citation.

Easier wikitext source-editing

When full citations are gathered in a separate section, the wikitext in the article body is less cluttered and easier to work with.

Single place for full citations

It is easier to edit all the full citations at once. However, if you are removing a source that is no longer being used, then you have to edit both the body of the article (to remove the shortened footnote) and the appendix (to remove the corresponding full citation from the list).

Other

The list of full citations can be sorted or alphabetized.

Thanks. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I had subsequently realized that the tooltips provide additional info via 2 steps, and understand that most readers probably won't even look at the references.

I gave the article a B rating after making some editorial changes, mostly to improve structure. I think a little more work is needed, but it's already in good shape.

• I am not an expert in the field, so cannot judge article relevance, but I think you need to more clearly explain why X-ray discovery was a pivotal event (hence the title).
• Sentences are well written, with plentiful references cited for support, but sometimes sentences do not logically flow from one to the next.
• Sections, subsections, and paragraphs similarly do not always logically flow from one to the next -- but I understand that in some cases such flow should not be expected (as you had noted in the intro).

Jrtuenge (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You have significantly improved the flow of the article by rearranging the sections. Thank you for your efforts. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Great, glad you approve -- and happy to help! Jrtuenge (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

...oh, and I'd add something about Symmetry in the intro. Jrtuenge (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, looks delicious! Jrtuenge (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey Jrtuenge,

You're invited to the February 2026 meetup in Portland, Oregon! Join us at the Northwest Library at 2:00 PM on Saturday, February 28.

Please RSVP at the link above, even if you might be interested, so we can know how many people to expect. Hope to see you there!

(To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey Jrtuenge,

You're invited to the March 2026 meetup in Portland, Oregon! Join us either in person at the Northwest Library or online at 10:00 AM on Saturday, March 28.

Please RSVP at the link above, even if you might be interested, so we can know how many people to expect. Hope to see you there!

(To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)