User talk:Penlite

Hello Penlite, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!. I just wanted to let you know about citation overkill. Generally, four solid reliable sources are enough for each idea (i.e. a single sentence or multiple sentences all dealing with the same statement). Your edits have been backed by many good sources, but adding five or more citations to a single idea may be a bit of an overkill. On Wikipedia, we'd all like to assume good faith about each other's edits; however, adding too many citations may ironically put edits under more scrutiny. A large clutter of citations may be perceived by some as an attempt to back a controversial statement as fact, even if said statement is [proven to be] fact. This can generally be avoided by adding citations to the information it is specifically referencing instead of cluttering them at the end of an idea, or just leaving out less reliable sources in favour of the four most reliable. For example, if I had three scientific studies, a document from a [generally] reputable organisation (such as the UN or NASA) and two news sources quoting the other examples, it's probably best for me to pick the three scientific studies and the one document. Just something to keep in mind whilst editing, since nobody wants to unintentionally cause doubt in a reader. All the best, CentreLeftRight ✉ 01:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight:, while I've attempted to take this guidance largely to heart, since my first couple of years of (infrequent) Wiki-editing, I've occasionally strayed, and have been recently been slapped around by another editor citing this comment on my Talk page. While I'm sure I understand the guidance on WP:CitationOverkill, and generally try to respect it, there are substantial reasons for varying, including:

• WP:Linkrot, which is a chronic problem with most of the material I edit, I've discovered -- because much of it requires citing major news media -- most of whom, unfortunately, do not keep their articles online indefinitely (and with a decline in print media, and a sharp reduction in its archiving in libraries, often leave few, if any, traces that the article ever existed). To avoid that problem, multiple citations are absolutely needed (though I'm learning to bundle them, now).
• Citation clutter resulting from having to sprinkle far too many citations throughout a paragraph, resulting in sharply diminished readability. For instance (as often happens in articles I'm editing), if I have sources 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 -- for various elements of a paragraph -- the normal (widely accepted) method of citation would look like this:

While 400 widgets were produced by RonkleKonkle Systems in 1940^[1][2] -- during their conversion from a plastics fabricator to a metal-products manufacturer^[1][3] -- their industry-shaping whatchamacallits^[4] remained the industry standard.^[2][3] Because of their popularity,^[2][4] they continued to sell in the thousands,^[3][5] topping 3,200 in 1942.^[2][4] This resulted in a splitting of the company into two divisions -- plastics and metals^[2][5] -- with the owner's son taking charge of the new metals division,^[1][3] while his father remained in charge of the plastics division.^[2][3]

Instead, bunching references at the end yields a much more readable product:

While 400 widgets were produced by RonkleKonkle Systems in 1940 -- during their conversion from a plastics fabricator to a metal-products manufacturer -- their industry-shaping whatchamacallits remained the industry standard. Because of their popularity, they continued to sell in the thousands, topping 3,200 in 1942. This resulted in a splitting of the company into two divisions -- plastics and metals -- with the owner's son taking charge of the new metals division, while his father remained in charge of the plastics division.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

• Expedience in editing: which is prevented by "citation clutter". It is far more difficult to efficiently and productively edit a paragraph when you have to insert reference citations at various places within the paragraph -- as opposed to posting them all at the end of the paragraph.

Moreover, it is even worse for the next editor (or oneself) to, later, try and edit that tangled paragraph, in which it is often nearly impossible to quickly identify which text is body text, and which is elements of a reference citation. Many mistakes often result, further delaying and frustrating attempts at good editing, and discouraging careful documentation. The resulting editor inefficiency and exhaustion -- and resulting editor indifference -- sharply reduces the volume of productivity and precision of Wiki-editors, and thus reduces the total quality and quantity content of Wikipedia.

Respectfully,

~ Penlite (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

~ Penlite (talk)

~ Penlite (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I get what you are trying to do there, but honestly a post along the lines of "no Muslims must edit this page" is a borderline violation of NOTFORUM; the only reason I didn't remove it was because it had some tangential mention of actual content. In such a case, I'd suggest you limit yourself to a single response; nothing good comes of lengthy debate. Not that it's wrong on your part, just not likely to be productive. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: for the record, to people dropping in and viewing this, out-of-context, I am not the person who made the disgusting "no Muslims must edit this page" remark (referred to in the message, above). Vanamode was referring to my negative responses to that remark -- and that the whole debate topic (on another page) that the other poster instigated, was not proper for Wikipedia. (I concurred, and encouraged its deletion, as noted below). ~ Penlite (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde. Noted. Thanks. Please feel free to delete that entire section (if you also delete the remarks I was responding to). The whole conversation should never have come up, IMHO, and I sure didn't appreciate having to say what it seemed had to be said to make the point. Would really have preferred if another editor had nipped his edit-bigotry in the bud. Don't like "playing cop" on WP. ~ Penlite (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That's alright: this is more of a general suggestion than a request with respect to this discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde. Your remark "nothing good comes of lengthy debate" may be true, but in my limited experience with online posting (at Wikipedia and elsewhere), short posts seem to invite endless debate -- while a long, solidly presented, comprehsnsive, well-documented "lecture," either bores people to sleep -- or shuts them up by leaving no exposed avenue for invalid and spurious arguments (except where I'm demonstrably wrong).

It's a lot more work at first (a miserable, tedious chore), but seems to save a lot of follow-up that might otherwise be required to deal with countless additional spurious arguments by a stubborn party or faction.

I'm very uncomfortable and embarrassed about being so combative and domineering, when I'd rather just focus on editing the article, constructively -- but if I don't swat all the flies, at first sight, they swarm the cake as soon as it's baked.

Thanks for your gentle guidance. ~ Penlite (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Whilst I appreciate your interests, please do not participate in defending nonsense stuff.Winged Blades^Godric 12:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Godric is quite correct, Penlite. When users engage in original research, the proper response is to ask them to support their assertions with sources, not to engage in OR yourself to try to refute them. Again, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but it's better in the long run to avoid such a dispute. Vanamonde (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You might find the current two/party discussion on the Sam Brownback Talk page somewhat interesting, given your prior comment which I just noticed. 23:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(added wikilink). ~ Penlite (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Penlite:@Vanamonde93: Hi, want to show you these figures here, as I'm banned on the article page.

−

1869 24,637

−

1872 census 64,315

--Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sidoroff-B:, as you've been told multiple times, you are engaging in original research. I couldn't care less about what conclusions you draw from the census, because they are your conclusions, and carry no weight. Please find reliable sources to support your position, or prepare to be ignored (or possibly sanctioned). Vanamonde (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: OK, I'll take you out of the discussion. It was a reply to @Penlite: American example. And considering the sources, which of them do you consider "reliable"? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Mo Udall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Democrat, Audubon and National Observer

James M. Perry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Washingtonian and National Observer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Penlite, please don't do this kind of thing--the last thing we want is editor speculating about living people in article space. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I take it you're referring to my speculating, in the article, that the two New Jersey Michele/Michelle(s) with the Hispanic surnames, who both sued the church around the same time, were possibly one and the same. If so, I agree, wholeheartedly. You're quite right to advise against such speculation in an article, and I'm baffled at my having done so. Was probably thinking out loud (in print), inappropriately. The two did seem strangely coincidental, and I was afraid that I was overblowing the lawsuit angle, if the suits were simply the work of one party (name changing with marriage). I recall that something in the sources gave me that impression, but don't remember what. But, again, you're right to strip that speculation from the article. Thanks.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William J. Casey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page OSS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Free Malaysia Today, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reformasi (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) 14:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ascension (company), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wired and Google Cloud (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Negative pressure ventilator, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diaphragm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently done, already. ~ Penlite (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The Administrator's Noticeboard is not the place to discuss the content of Iron lung. Your post there will be archived very quickly and no trace will be connected from Talk:Iron lung. By all means copy and paste it to the correct location, but don't expect other editors to go chasing after your contributions made at the wrong venue.

In addition, you are giving the wrong impression by simply posting a link to your statement. The talk page isn't a place for you to merely expound your position as if it's unquestionable: it's a place for you to collaborate with other editors in finding ways of improving the article, and to do that you are going to have to make your proposals on that talk page. Any changes to the article will only arise from those participating there. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS:: Thank you for this guidance. Frankly, this is the first real edit conflict, taken to this level (or anything like it), that I've ever had in my years of wiki-editing. I'm not conflict-focused, just content-focused. I'm simply unfamiliar with all the elaborate wiki-rituals and protocols for dealing with this kind of situation, and a little taken aback by some of the responses I've received. At the same time, I have (had) a life, and need to get back to it.

I'll try to fix this, as best as I can figure out how, within the severely limited time frame I have to work with (while dealing with my other numerous, pressing responsibilities), and post a suggested revision to my sandbox, for others to review and comment upon, if that's proper. Is it? ~ Penlite (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Penlite: That's perfectly fine, and there really is no deadline. Of course we all want to improve articles, but sometimes that involves discussing changes patiently when others don't see particular sources or content as an improvement. By all means use your sandbox to illustrate the text and sources you want to use. Please link to it from Talk:Iron lung as that provides not just a convenience for other editors who may wish to review, but a record for future editors of how the article was developed (that's why we want to keep the article talk page as the hub for discussing improvements). Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iron lung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. ~ Penlite (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

hi Penlite. For the moment, several sources refer to crimes against humanity in the Tigray War, but the term Tigray genocide, despite being overwhelmingly obvious to an uninvolved outsider browsing the sources, is so far not on the lips of any UN or other official sources, although strong concerns have been expressed. On the other hand, War crimes in the Tigray War would quite likely be justified by the sources, if someone wished to create the article. See Template:Tigray conflict, in particular the Ethnic profiling, massacres, sexual violence, and the combined civilian+military Casualties articles. The analogy with the Rohingya case, is, unfortunately, highlighted by Abiy Ahmed also receiving the Nobel peace prize. As evidence accumulates and court cases go forward, the title would quite likely undergo changes, as happened in the Rohingya case. A difference between the two cases is that part of the genocide in the Tigray case is being done by starvation. A similarity is that Abiy might not have realised how genocidal the Eritrean soldiers would be and might not hold direct legal responsibility.

The only risk with creating the article right now is that it would risk having too much overlap with existing articles: executions of civilians without any military necessity - i.e. war crimes - are already reasonably well covered in the en.Wikipedia articles, based on the sources that seem to be known. The sources that see a deliberately designed genocide tend to be somewhat opinionated and wouldn't necessarily be accepted as WP:RSes. Boud (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Boud and Boud: Perhaps you could simply refer to these combined issues, past and present combined, as the "Tigray persecution" -- although, perhaps, segregating events by time frame is appropriate for this, in the title (e.g.: "Tigray persecution (2020-2021)" as the title for current events). Also this title-enhancement may be appropriate for the article(s) about Tigray War, since there have been previous conflicts involving Tigray (and Ethiopia).

~ Penlite (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Another (somewhat impulsive) thought: refer to all conflict issues involving Tigray -- Wars, Persecutions, War Crimes, Genocide -- under the catch-all title "Tigray conflict". This is a more WP:NPOV title, reducing (hopefully) the risk of subsequent title changes by someone disagreeing with the characterization of something as "persecution" or "genocide" or "war crimes" (the latter two having specific legal meanings in some situations, and thus theoretically subject to legal-nomenclature standards -- especially if the term is used to describe a specific perpetrator, running the risk of defamation that could violate WP:BLP guidelines, and even trigger litigation against Wikipedia). (Yes, I'm painting a worst-case scenario here).

~ Penlite (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. On the question of BLP issues, I once raised the question of Template:ICC_indictees_(NavBox) at the BLP noticeboard, since being labelled as an ICC indictee after your case has been dropped or your conviction has been overturned is much worse for your reputation than being accused of an "ordinary" non-war crime. There was very little concern expressed that the inclusion of legally absolved living people in the template might violate their rights. I think the motivation was that you don't get indicted by the ICC without a huge amount of public information, and once this information is overwhelmingly in the public record, it's un-erasable; and that it's better to have the charges and the full results of the court case and why the person had the case dropped or no conviction or a conviction that was overturned remain in the public record. As long we stick to the sources, there's no BLP violation.

Back to your suggestions: there are both wider and more specific articles that will very likely be written on this broad topic sooner or later. As more people from the Horn of Africa develop the motivation and skills to contribute constructively to en.Wikipedia, this seems inevitable to me. We'll see. Boud (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for "more people from the Horn of Africa develop the motivation and skills to contribute constructively to en.Wikipedia" could be a very long wait. English is, at best, an infrequent second language for most in the Horn of Africa -- where computer ownership and literacy, and internet access and competence, are in extremely short supply.

Moreover, passions run high in the Horn, and surrounding regions, making it rather challenging to find a WP:NPOV approach to any issue there. Honest, accurate and fair Wikipedia reporting on this issue probably must fall on the shoulders of those far away, and more detached, personally, from the issues, in my humble opinion. ~ Penlite (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done I prefer to assume that those who live in the Horn are fully able to look at the evidence, and my qualitative guess is that most of them (on site and in the diaspora) are indeed keeping an eye on and editing en.Wikipedia articles on the topic very constructively. The irrational locals point of view doesn't convince me much. That doesn't mean that global editors cannot contribute. If you're interested, feel free to keep an eye on War crimes in the Tigray War. My judgment, based on the sources, is that as "war crimes", the topic is well-established. The long-term question will be whether to switch to crimes against humanity or genocide. My prediction is that the sources will converge on this within a few years. (My personal guess of "genocide" is only speculation, especially since I don't follow all the quite subtle legal arguments between the different categories of mass extermination and I'm unlikely to be especially interested.)

As a footnote to my comment above: the claims of genocide make sense, properly attributed, within an article on war crimes; and I think (as the first author, so I'm biased) that the article, as it currently stands, focuses on the topic without overlap with the other articles beyond what's relevant. Boud (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battery recycling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Business Today.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Burlington Liars' Club, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC 11 and Michael Cohen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Betsy DeVos

added a link pointing to Vanity Fair

Dick DeVos

added a link pointing to Vanity Fair

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Jack N. Green

added a link pointing to Variety

The Way West (film)

added a link pointing to Variety

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dmitry Muratov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International Press Freedom Award.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed your lengthy edit, but inadvertently deleted your most recent edit. My apology. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Apology accepted. I reverted your last change. Please be patient for another hour or so. I'm making some fixes (was making one of the condensations you made). Please read my edit summaries before acting. Thanks. Also see the article's Talk page.

~ Penlite (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to say that your recent edits add a redundant source, twice, to the introduction. So, reversed. Please do expand on the content, such as the content of that deposition.Lindenfall (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, FYI, I've moved your (blanked) sandbox into your own user space, at User:Penlite/Sandbox2, as it should never have been in the main article space to begin with. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing:Could you just delete it? I've realized the error, and before I could delete the old sandbox, I'd already created a User:Penlite/Sandbox/2 (please don't disturb that page).

~ Penlite (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• DoubleGrazing is not an admin and unable to delete it directly. However you can request its deletion under wp:U1 -- Dolotta (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Buidhe has nominated CSI effect for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed it. ~ Penlite (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on JusticeInfo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969:, @Bbb23:: While, in retrospect, I can appreciate the impression you may have gotten, that this was some promotional article developed by a person connected to that enterprise, that is NOT the case, here. I have absolutely NO connection to any of the entities or persons named in the article, let alone the subject, itself -- JusticeInfo.

The only reason I wrote this article was because I kept running across JusticeInfo almost everywhere that I looked for information on certain crimes against humanity -- primarily in Africa, but also elsewhere around the globe.

Not only were Google searches on those subjects responding with JusticeInfo articles, they were also responding with articles, statements and other documents from other media, organizations and institutions -- which, in turn were citing JusticeInfo as a source. And these were not just stray references from obscure sources. They were from some of the world's most important major media, and from major institutions and organizations in the field of human rights (as I clearly and thoroughly document in the section "Distribution and use"). Clearly they think JusticeInfo is a substantial and important source.

Despite the fact that JusticeInfo articles seem firmly congruent with these other major sources on these issues, I, personally, didn't have any real faith, or put much stock, in it until i saw, repeatedly, that they put faith in it. After seeing such references to that source, everywhere I looked on the topics I was researching, and seeing that only Wikipedia, itself, seemed to have no idea who they were, I figured it was a gap in Wikipedia that was severely overdue for a fix -- especially since dozens of Wikpedia articles (only a handful of which I've contributed to) already cite it as a source.

I agree that there isn't a lot of chatter about this source, itself, on the internet. And, in researching it, I was very frustrated by that. But, frankly, new media usually doesn't attract much attention for itself unless its part of a large-scale commercial operation -- which automatically is the focus of massive amounts of coverage in the business media world (Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, Fast Company, etc.), and in media industry publications (E&P, CJR, AJR, Deadline, AdWeek, etc.), and in local media of the "Northeast megalopolis" (New York Times, Washington Post, The Washingtonian, etc., reporting on media in their own turf).

Apparently JusticeInfo is a non-profit -- and coverage of such media (especially if it's non-Anglo/American) is usually avoided, or very tardy, in the English-language commercial media world. And I don't have the proficiency in French, or any other European language, to effectively scour the European media for their coverage of this topic.

Moreover, JusticeInfo is European (and, though co-published in English, is not British). English-language Wikipedia is notoriously Anglo-American in its focus, and its coverage of new media outside that realm is seemingly tardy, if it happens at all. I thought I was helping to rectify that.

Frankly, for a new media outlet -- take, for example, Punchbowl News or even early Politico -- Wikipedia articles about those new media essentially establish those media's notability, initially, by citing their affiliations (in the case of JusticeInfo, none other than Oxford and Harvard), and by citing the prior media connections of its staffers. I followed that protocol for JusticeInfo with as exacting and thorough documentation as I could, within a reasonable timeframe.

Because I remained a bit skeptical of JusticeInfo, i did not take their promotional claims about their staff at face value. Instead, I took care to further research them, and ensure that at least some independent validation of the claims about them existed, and I documented those very carefully with appropriate ref cites. I only listed those JusticeInfo staffers who had notable credentials that I could independently (and randomly) check and validate from some of their claimed prior connections. Most of those were major media or substantial institutions in their own right, as wikilinks in most of my references demonstrate.

Since my judgement on the matter is not being taken seriously, I urge the critics to do their own research, to see whether JusticeInfo is a substantial and notable medium in its field of focus (transitional justice for crimes against humanity, and related matters). In fact, I would like to know if there is any more prominent periodical or website focused on transitional justice.

I will revisit the article as my (heavy) workload permits, and attempt to provide more detail. But, in the meantime, please keep it in Draft, so that the demanded changes can be made (if I can find the time and further online references).

Respectfully,

~ Penlite (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

An article you recently created, JusticeInfo, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I strongly urge you not to move the article back to article space on your own but to go through WP:AFC to get feedback from other editors as to what you need to do to make the article ready for article space. From the article itself, as well as from your comments on the article Talk page, I don't see you as being in the best position to make editorial judgments, although you are probably in a good position to do the necessary research and hopefully implement changes requested by others. As it stands, the article is way too long, and although I didn't think it qualified as a WP:G11, it is far more promotional than it should be. It does not come across as a solid, neutral encyclopedia article. Finally, it needs a lot of proofing; in just skimming it I found many errors that should be corrected before it is moved back to article space.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23:Thank you for saving it from the dumpster. Please see my response to the previous post by the deleter.

Respectfully, ~ Penlite (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Please try to keep discussion civil and focus on content in talk page discussions. I don't appreciate the ad hominem attacks you've made against me in Talk:Constitution of the United States. Freoh (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.      — Freoh 19:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chuck Todd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inauguration of Barack Obama.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks.

Penlite (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Penlite. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:JusticeInfo, 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) 13:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fatou Bensouda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian annexation of Crimea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I hope you're not discouraged by the somewhat tempestuous reception your very good edits received in Audie Murphy. I noticed your absence and hope you reappear and continue contributing, which I intend to do as well. I've read two of the Murphy bios, and I found the Graham book is especially helpful. Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Coretheapple:: Thank you for the kind encouragement. ~ Penlite (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Certainly. I'm just trying to gin up some interest in the article. It is funny how that talk page blows hot and cold. I feel like I am sitting in an auditorium talking to myself. LOL. Coretheapple (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please note WP:UGC user generated content such as from forums or web polls are not considered reliable and should not be added to Wikipedia articles.

This means that web polls such as the IMDB user votes or the Rotten Tomatoes audience score should not be added to Wikipedia film articles. -- 109.78.196.145 (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Ellis (swimming coach), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LaSalle University. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it.~ Penlite (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Penlite. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "JusticeInfo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

The Hallelujah Trail

added links pointing to Paramount and Variety

Paris When It Sizzles

added a link pointing to Breakfast at Tiffany's

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

OK. I fixed the "...Tiffany's" error in "Paris WHen it Sizzles."

Thankfully, User:Rodw has already fixed The Hallelujah Trail errors.

~ Penlite (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terry Carter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Foxy Brown.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it. ~ Penlite (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ellen Corby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I Remember Mama.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Earl Hamner Jr., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joanna Lee.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Paragon Solutions

added links pointing to Antifa and Democratic Party

Pegasus (spyware)

added a link pointing to Antifa

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

added a link pointing to Antifa

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

These have all been corrected. ~ Penlite (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Then next time you revert someone fixing your mistakes, I would suggest you do not continue to make those same mistakes. - Adolphus79 (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

If you are interested, he met Charlotte Maria (Birch) Salwey in latter part the century and the two corresponded over many years (starting July 1875 in London? and to after 1910) . I have several letters from him on the Mikasa, off Port Arthur (April 4, 6 Oct 1904) with some details of the Japanese mindset against the Russians. He returned to Japan on the "Tsukuha?" and became sick, hospitalised and had an operation. May 1908 he was appointed student of the higher naval college, studied 1.5 years and posted to the Yakumo (1910). These come from the correspondence ~2025-36822-36 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. This is interesting information.

However, to be cited in Wikipedia, it must be published in some substantial way (a professionally published book, a professional news media outlet -- a newspaper, magazine, public radio article, or television documentary, for instance -- or in an academic journal or textbook). Your own personal knowledge, nor arguably the letters in your own possession, are not acceptable source material for Wikipedia, which forbids content based solely on "primary" (a contributor's personal) research.

HOWEVER, if you could contact a Japanese or American historian, or any military historian, or academic or military history journal, and send them photocopies of the letters -- along with a letter from a museum that has verified their authenticity -- and then get them to publish the letters, or summaries of them -- that would make excellent source material, which I (or others) could add to the Wikipedia article. And it would be good information to share with the entire global history community.

An important first step is to contact reputable, respected museums in your area, or your country. Tell them what you have, and offer to briefly loan (not give) them the letters to exhibit for a few weeks or months, in exchange for them providing you with documents "authenticating" the letters (of which you MUST keep photo-copies). This is important to getting the history community to believe the letters are real, not fake.

Be sure you have a written contract, signed by the Museum Director or Curator, which includes photocopies of the letters, and which says, clearly, that you are the owner of the letters, and saying that the museum must return the items to you in original condition at a certain time and place.

The museum -- maybe working with a historian -- will ask a bunch of careful questions to determine the "provenance" (chain of owners) of the letters, to be sure they are real. They may also do a "forensic" examination of the letters, checking for other evidence that they are authentic.

Once they have given you documents verifying the letters are authentic, you can then approach the various historians or history media contacts, with copies of the Yamamoto letters and the museum's documents of authenticity, in exchange for their commitment to publish them, or a detailed summary of them.

Approach just one outlet at a time, starting with the most important ones. Give each one "a few weeks to respond, before I approach another party with the offer." Do NOT engage in any contracts with them, but assure them you will give them until a specific date to publish, before going to someone else. Expect them, once they start, to take several months to get it published.

If you want this information to be used in Wikipedia, it's best to get the letters (or summary) published in a paper publication, that also appears online, so Wikipedia can link to it.

Wikipedia has this List of history journals, though it is far from complete. Other examples include Naval History magazine (by the U.S. Naval Institute), and the International Journal of Naval History. This article names and describes many of the suitable journals for this kind of material.

The U.S. Naval War College produces 3 journals, including Naval War College Review, which has published much about Yamamoto. Also, the United States Navy has a Naval History and Heritage Command (formerly the Naval History Office), which may be interested. The National Museum of the United States Navy may have some interest, as well.

This process takes much time -- maybe a couple of years. But it could be a permanent asset to history, forever -- and you can make it happen.

Very respectfully,

~ Penlite (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2025 (UTC), historian