User talk:BubbaJoe123456

Sara Ganim

Thanks! I didn't know how to get the citation to look right on the page.

Methodologicalisationalistics

Just a minor language point. Quite a few scientists get asked to write about their methodology in grant applications, even though they don't really aim to study methods, they really only aim to use methods to study something more concrete (like a population). The methodology article explains the difference reasonably well it seems to me. I'm not blaming you :), you only used it on a Wikipedia talk page, not in a journal article submitted for formal peer review.

I've now coined methodologicalisationalistics as an even higher form of the study of the study of the study of the study of methods (or something like that) - this is for really really high-level scientists and philosophers of science - although I do tend to worry that the article may be weak in terms of WP:RS and notability. Boud (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Quique discussion

Hey BubbaJoe. Just curious what the status was of your going over the talk page on Quique. No rush, just curious what the status was. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Florida A&M University. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Donald Albury 16:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leechjoel9 (talk • contribs)

UK places

Hi BubbaJoe, I've noticed your edit to the Greater London article, in which you reinstated the wording "Greater London is an administrative area and ceremonial county" in the first sentence of the lead, which was introduced by Jonnyspeed20/86.14.189.55. I assume you became aware of the situation here from this ANI report filed by the user. Several editors have reverted the user's edits on this page - this is because there is no such status as "administrative area". The user has made a series of incorrect edits to this page, including by describing Greater London as an administrative county. It is, of course, an administrative area in that it forms a set of administrative boundaries, but we don't explicitly describe every local authority district, county council area, etc, as such. The London Government Act 1963 indeed established it as an "administrative area" to distinguish it from administrative counties in that the Greater London Council was not a county council, and to outline the purpose of the newly-created area. The link used takes you to the article about non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties, which Greater London is not. You might want to revert this edit - it's complicated stuff, I know, but Greater London isn't a metropolitan or non-metropolitan county. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a metropolitan or non-metropolitan county, but if we have an RS, plus the actual text of the law, saying that it is an "administrative area," then why not describe it as such? The non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties article discusses Greater London as an administrative area and exception from the non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties system.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Because every set of boundaries used by government bodies is an "administrative area" in the same way - it just so happens that this is the way in which it was described in law when it was formed. The fact Greater London as a region is the area governed by the Greater London Authority makes it an administrative area - this is already mentioned in the lead. Local government across England has been reformed several times since 1965, when the LGA 1963 was implemented. Administrative county status has since been replaced with non-metropolitan/metropolitan counties (so no need to distinguish from administrative counties which covered the rest of England as there was in 1965), and Greater London is now governed as a government office region, which includes the City of London (outside the ceremonial county of Greater London) - these are the GLA's administrative boundaries. The administrative area is therefore larger than what is currently described as such. Hope I haven't confused you too much! PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So, the term "Greater London" refers to both (a) the ceremonial county of Greater London, and (b) the current administrative area, governed by the GLA, that covers the same geographic footprint that used to be covered by the counties of Greater London and the City of London. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, you've got it. The administrative area which consists of Greater London and the City of London (known as both Greater London and the London region) has the status of government office region. You're putting Greater London and the City of London in the past tense, though. These still exist as separate entities (both as ceremonial counties), and still exist for administrative purposes (unlike historic counties). PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Good. Well, the Greater London article certainly doesn't make it clear that the term refers to two different legal entities (a region and a ceremonial county) with different geographic footprints. I'll think about how to reframe it. With that said, the ceremonial county of Greater London clearly appears to be genuinely ceremonial, while the region is the actual operating government entity. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Hello. I did check your message on my talk page. I'm actually new to Wikipedia hence, I was just trying to contribute to Wikipedia pages based on my research. I'm not a paid advocate. If there's anyway you could help me understand better I would be really thankful. Also I did understand that we should create articles via the Articles Creation process. I will keep that in mind. Do let me know when can I start creating articles as you said not to make any edit further before replying. Thankyou so much. Annaspencer13 (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Counting On

Hello, please consider reviewing the source you removed again. Your revert reason is that it does not support the statement. But the source does actually tie the group, it's founder, the duggars, and the shows together 107.202.75.102 (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Counting_On&diff=1059156051&oldid=1058543334 - the diff