Jump to content

User talk:Jayron32/Archive30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zika

[edit]

Can't we just have a to the point blurb like The spread of Zika in Latin America leads the WHO to issue a Public Health Emergency?

The three line "The rapid spread of the Zika virus in Latin America leads to the World Health Organization issuing a Public Health Emergency of International Concern" is excrescently over-superfluous. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post the suggestion at WP:ERRORS. If someone else doesn't get to it, I will. Best to not make it look like you're making special requests on my talk page. --Jayron32 02:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

still to say

[edit]

I should have said this on the RD itself, but for reasons. (BTW, it's a question titled About Transformers, hope you will be able to find it. You did reply there). What I actually wanted to know was that if we wrap an very much thick copper wire as secondry coil of a step-down transformer, it lowers voltage of course but the ends of thick secondary coil when touched can melt almost all metals!... how — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.198.23 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref-desk drama

[edit]

In reaction to the current troubles on the reference desks, I've been thinking about whether pending-changes protection could successfully be used to combat the trollery while still allowing IPs and unconfirmed editors to pose and answer queries. I can see some problems with this "solution", but before mulling it further, I need an apparent contradiction clarified. On WP:PC, there's a statement, "It was determined by consensus that pending changes could only be used on articles." In the most recent discussion of PC1 implementation that I can find, however—Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3—the closer concluded, "There was very strong consensus to enable the use of Pending Changes throughout all namespaces." I've glanced through the archives at WT:PC and can't find any consensus that PC should be used only in mainspace. Can you shed any light on this matter? Deor (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could. I rarely use PC, and am not aware of the background of its implementation. I tend to make use of the edit filter instead, but leaning on people like SamWalton who know how to make the Edit Filter do magic as needed. --Jayron32 20:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the ref desk

[edit]

Hi, thanks for your posts expressing that long-term semi-protection is a bad idea/not helping. If I were an admin, I would just remove the semi-protection. Since you are, then I wonder why you do not? Or any other admins? Surely you can't be the only one who both participates at the refdesk and dislikes the current situation of having several of them locked down? I understand the reticence to get into edit wars and deep disputes with other admins, but I just don't know what the other alternatives are, because nobody is going to be able to convince the one semi-protecting admin that he's not helping, and in fact doing harm. I mean, I guess it could happen, but when I've tried to have a civil discussion about it with him, he just gets rude and pointy. It seems to me that if an admin is doing something problematic, only other admins can force the issue. I'd be willing to help on any other potential solutions you can think of, including sandboxing an RfC, refining guidelines for semi-protection, etc, just let me know if I can help. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because if I do, FPAS will just put it back immediately. No use fighting when it's going to get reverted immediately. I tried that. He just put it back. I have better things to do than deal with someone who is determined to win a battle instead of being useful. --Jayron32 23:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about sticking to the truth? You unprotected the Lang desk on 5 January; we discussed it and came to the conclusion that you wouldn't object to my reprotecting it (still on this very page, a few threads up); I nevertheless held off reprotecting for more then two weeks; I then even unprotected the Hum desk of my own accord (which you had left protected all the time); only when that led to an immediate renewed attack on both boards did I reprotect both, on 21 January. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said I wouldn't do anything about you reprotecting it. I've never agreed it was a good idea, at least for the long term. The course of action I've always espoused has been to revert and block when the troll has revealed themselves, and only protect when admins aren't active to do that, and only for very short term periods. There's a difference between "I won't undo what you've done" and "I agree that you're doing the right thing". --Jayron32 00:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

latest RD polls

[edit]

Thanks. But is there some kind of typo in proposal 2's rationale? ("...except for that they are banned. T") —Steve Summit (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss fixed it, but you'll want to check. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Locked ref desk topic

[edit]

Hi Jayron. You locked my topic here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#plastic_surgery. I was asking a rather serious question, if you can't tell and you marry them it's the same as false advertising and financial fraud. I never said anything about marrying a girl solely for her looks (another guy accused me of that), not to mention girls care a lot about what a guy looks like as well. I forgot to add if the law has anything to do with this. Can you please consider unlocking it? Money is tight (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Reference Desk Troll: Additional Socks Uncovered

[edit]

Thanks for your work on this. I have done some research and identified a large number of past (mostly blocked) socks of Soft skin, and I'd appreciate if you could add them into the SPI:

My apologies if these duplicate any already in the SPI archives. Thanks, GABHello! 00:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the time you took to add these here, you could have saved the step and added them to the SPI case. You don't need me to copy-paste this message onto the SPI case for you, do you now? --Jayron32 00:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if putting them in spi would even be necessary, so I wanted to ask if you think it's worth the time. I mean, this isn't time-urgent in any way, since they are rather old. Sorry for the trouble. GABHello! 01:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added to a question on humanities refdesk - curious if you have a response to post there

[edit]

Hi, regarding the question on the humanities refdesk about general walker wanting to resign his commission, I added a comment in response to yours (the "congress can throw a spanner in the works" comment). Given that the question is a few days old, I thought you might not notice it, so I'm calling it to your attention in case you have something to add in response (there, not here). I would sincerely be curious to hear if you think my opinion is correct. Eliyohub (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. Didn't feel the need to correct anything you said, since it is factually correct. --Jayron32 14:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Time flies

[edit]

Hi Jayron, your "concrete proposal" RfC [1] is now 30 days old. I'd say that Proposal 2 is supported easily and broadly, while Proposal 1 is supported by consensus, though less strongly. So what do we do? Do you close it down and with a note saying these are now our consensus-based guidelines? Do we write it into some of the extant guideline materials? Do you just point to that if you want to unprotect the desks any time they've been protected longer than 48 hours? Any insight will be appreciated, let me know if I can help. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well apparently it got closed with no result. I think that's the wrong call, especially on proposal 2. Oh well. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Special Barnstar
You blocked that trolling IP user pretty fast, one minute after I warned him! You deserve this. Peter Sam Fan 15:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about a close

[edit]

Jayron, an editor voiced a concern about how you closed a discussion at village pump. See Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)#Incorrect close of an RFC at VPP for discussion. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for blocking the user who impersonated me! Peter Sam Fan 22:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

[edit]

WP:NPA – Sca (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless URL provided, there is no personal attack there. Time for precision. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sca, can you explain what the personal attack was? --Jayron32 18:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jay:
...what sca is saying is that because he PERSONALLY wishes that news outlets were not covering this story extensively, that we should ignore those reliable sources, and instead make Wikipedia decisions based on his personal feelings about the matter.
– You are maligning my motives. (WP:AGF) That's a personal attack. The issue raised concerns notability, which may be debated. Sca (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about your motives. I was saying that notability is assessed by looking at reliable sources, not based on your personal opinion. Stating that is not an attack. I've never once said anything that any reasonable person could take as a statement about your motives. --Jayron32 01:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I think we're in PC-land now. Time to get a grip. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who asked you? Sca (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: Sorry but the other two editors are correct. The above-quoted comments don't approach violation of AGF, let alone NPA. BTW, people are allowed to make comments in user talk without being asked for them, unless requested to stay off the page by its owner. There are very few private discussions at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Desk

[edit]

I noticed that you sometimes tell Ref Desk questioners that they should have looked up the answer by themselves by posting the same question at Google, rather than posting it on the Ref Desk. A recent example is [2]. Your suggestion is certainly true, although it can come across as a bit unwelcoming toward some posters who may be new to Wikipedia. How about if we just added your suggestion to the guidelines at the top of the Ref Desk page, right after "How to get your question answered," rather than having to post it everytime someone asks a question for which they could have found the answer by themselves on Google? Regards. Edison (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to that at all. Certainly useful. I'm not being unwelcoming, I always try to keep a helpful tone when I make suggestions. I am merely trying to educate the asker of the question on how to get their question answered faster than waiting. --Jayron32 16:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be faster for them in many cases, but they might need help figuring out which sources on Google are reliable. If the question were"Is vaccination safe?" the first 2 Google results say it is and the third says it isn't.(We could just say "No medical advice" but some ref desk editors might be helpful in sorting out reliable (health dept) from unreliable (advocacy group) results). If the question was "Was Obama born in Kenya?", three out of the first five Google results say "Yes, he was born in Kenya." Ref Desk might helpfully point to our article which debunks the conspiracy theories. "Just Google it" is a pretty good rule when the subject lacks conspiracy theories and whackadoodle advocacy groups. Ironically, I once asked for help using tools to find biographical information about an obscure political official, whose Wikipedia article I wanted to improve, at the public library reference desk, and was greatly amused when the reference librarian said "Why don't you just look it up yourself on Wikipedia?" Edison (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is very true, which is why I only ever give the advice to people who ask questions where the simple Google search would work. I don't give in response to every question; only where it works. If you checked all of my ref desk contributions, you'll see I rarely give the advice, except where it works. --Jayron32 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is so. Edison (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry to say, but your responses come off as passive aggressive. Some users hope to see responses that enable them to gauge the credibility of the sources and find experts/people with knowledge in the field. I'm sorry if I sound a bit angry, but I'm one of the "Ref Desk Questioners" that you responded to. 151.207.250.61 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motherboard interview on Saskatoon Police banning

[edit]

Hey there,

I'm a reporter for Motherboard, VICE Media's tech news site. I'd like to speak with you briefly about why you banned the Saskatoon Police Department's Wikipedia user account on February 28. If you're interested, we can talk here or you can email me at jordan.pearson@vice.com. Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. -- neuwaves

Hey Jayron32. My bad—looks like you instituted the block in 2012, I misread and believed it was 2016. The page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SaskatoonPolice&action=edit&redlink=1 -- neuwaves

Thank You

[edit]

Thanks a lot Jayron, for the answer on the Covalent Bonds. :)

You certainly have a lot of Chemistry knowledge. I especially love how you boiled down the answer in simple terms.

You specifically told me why the answer was so, and went beyond the line of duty. Haha :)

Thanks. You rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad Sawal (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! --Jayron32 00:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:178.101.224.162

[edit]

Given this http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/178.101.224.162 is a static IP, cannot you just not here him indeffly? μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, @Medeis:. As this is an IP we cannot indef him blockly. My guess is that it's the "Best known for" IP. If you want to follow up you would need to take the matter to SPI. All the best, 92.19.170.43 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ENGVAR variations

[edit]

Hi, Jayron. You were right to endorse the use of British English in this article. See this discussion on the talk page which Zzuuzz deleted Special:Diff/708606332#The ENGVAR variations. Future Perfect at Sunrise would appear to have WP:CIR issues. He undid your edit to make the article be written in a mixture of British and American spelling. Policy says that an article may be written in one or the other but not both. Would you consider unprotecting the article so that editors can clean up the mess? All the best, 92.19.170.43 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

One of the funniest things I've read all week.[3] Jolly good. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

You're one admin that I trust. Am I in the wrong here?[4] Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, I'm not an arbiter of right or wrong. What I can say is that the concept of "IP-hopping" is meaningless in the modern world, and has been for at least 4-5 years, and doubly so for IPv6 addresses, because of the way that IP addresses are assigned. A decade ago, when all we had was IPv4, and when many users accessed the internet from a single desktop computer with a static IP address, that may have been different. The vast majority of devices no longer have static IP addresses, and can change randomly, with no input from the user, anywhere from every few days to every few minutes, depending on which type of device they are using and which ISP they have. It should not be the default assumption that any user has any control over their IP address anymore, especially for IPv6 using ISPs, where static IP addresses simply do not exist. --Jayron32 12:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the business of some random IP (1) to question the block length of someone he's supposedly not connected with; and/or (2) to mess around with entries on AIV that are not his? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Was he wrong in the incorrect block length? The admin in question, both times, has admitted to clicking the wrong option, and then corrected their problem. So, it doesn't really matter whether they have a username or not, they noted an error, and the error was corrected. Wikipedia has a clear policy that users are not required to have user names to be taken seriously. Your own personal policy on the same appears to be different. While at Wikipedia, site-wide policy overrides personal policies. --Jayron32 19:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, he wasn't wrong to report it. But how did it come to his attention? And, again, should he be messing with AIV entries that aren't his? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does it come to anyone's attention? It doesn't matter. He's not more suspect than if he had a long-standing account through which he reported it. The person who reported it may have been editing Wikipedia and participating here for longer than I have. They don't become more suspect merely because they haven't created a user account. --Jayron32 19:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. What about messing with AIV? I recall a user (though not his ID) who was doing similar busybody work a few years ago, and was told to stop it or be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no idea what was going on at AIV, I was only responding to the two requests at ANI to amend problematic blocks. If you believe this is a specific editor which has been banned or blocked before for disrupting AIV, you should indicate who it is. --Jayron32 19:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to do when I can't remember the user's ID. And checkusers won't do anything with IP's. But thanks for your input. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment request

[edit]

Hi Jayron. Any comment on this [5]? I mean, of course the ref desk isn't a great venue for "why" anything in fiction, but that in itself isn't grounds for removal. I thought your answer was useful, and I thought I had a bit to add. I don't intend to make any fuss over it, just curious what you think. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) I didn't do that removal, some IP did. 2) read David Johnson's comment at the end of the removed section. That should be all you need to know. If you want to know more, ask those involved.--Jayron32 21:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know how to read the edit history. I thought about contacting the IP, but as you know IP talk pages are not usually a good way to contact any user. I read DJ's comment and did not think that was good grounds for removal. I thought you were involved insofar as you answered the question and seemed to think it was fine. I thought you might like to comment on the efficacy or desirability of such removal, but it seems I was mistaken. Oh well. In the mean time, you inspired me to check out the IP's contributions [6]. Now that's pretty suspicious in my book, but I guess I have better things to do than defend against the potential white-washing of a shitty exploitation flick :) Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Of Pelham 123

[edit]

When Camonetti spoke to Ryder for the 1st time, the [Audience including Us] knew that Ryder [seriously specifically threatened] to kill the Motorman if Garber did not return.

1. Why didn't Camonetti call for Garber immediately?

2. Don't you Try to Tell me that Camonetti is Innocent, so Isn't it True that Camonetti is Stupid for Unintentionally causing the Motorman to Die?

3. In real Life, would Cops take Threats seriously or would They screw Up just like Camonetti?(76.20.88.33 (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)).[reply]

Why are you asking me this? --Jayron32 19:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believed that you automatically saw that movie before well did You?(76.20.88.33 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)).[reply]

Whether I have or haven't, why would you come to my talk page to ask me these questions? --Jayron32 20:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's becuz you didn't reply to my Entertainment Questions specifically, directly, individually, etc.

Are you Willing to Answer any of my Questions?

Is there Another Website for my Questions about Pelham Movie?(76.20.88.33 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)).[reply]

The reference desk is not an appropriate venue for speculation. Fictional characters do not have motivations, internal thought processes or reasons, because they don't exist. That's why they are fictional. That's what fiction means. It means something someone just made up. We can't ask make-believe characters why they did something. --Jayron32 13:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Website?

[edit]

That is why I'm asking you if There is Any Other Websites that would Appropriate for my Questions about Pelham movie?(76.20.88.33 (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)).[reply]

RD trial

[edit]

So, we got our way, despite us probably arguing around each other and yet still advocating the same position. Let's make sure the trial works! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/720541161

[edit]

Why did you tag the file with |date=27 April 2016 instead of today's date? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So corrected. --Jayron32 15:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note2

[edit]
alright, that's enough. Hatting the other discussion was not an invitation to keep it going here. --Jayron32 19:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

After a long period of relative peace and calm, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) seems to have gone off the deep end. Just FYI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you dove in after him. I boxed it up. --Jayron32 18:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should have let it alone. I can tolerate a lot of stuff, but being called a liar is not on the list. Thanks for boxing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully Bugs will eventually learn there's no prize for trying to answer every question at the RD, especially when he can't do it without making numerous errors. We should start an Errata section at the RD to cover the false and unsourced claims of "hard facts" that our poor readers have to tolerate with such amateurish bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McMurray

[edit]

OP admits he has no intention of doing anything useful for Wikipedia regarding this issue.

– What is this supposed to mean?
I have no objection to closing the discussion – only to the implication that I "admitted" something. That's your interpretation. And BTW, I had no opinion re Ho's forlorn bid to repost the story to Ongoing. The only reason I posted those links on Talk was that on May 15 I said, "as news, it seems to be over." After I found this was not the case, I felt a responsibility to correct that statement. Sca (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were asked by two people whether or not you intended to either improve the article or nominate it for inclusion. You answered in the negative. --Jayron32 13:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But Jay, that's simply not true. No where in the discussion do I "reply in the negative." That phrase means in effect saying no. Nowhere do I do so.
In the second paragraph, you make your (valid) point about updating before re-posting. But I had not proposed re-posting, and I did not reply. My only actual reply was to the "blog" question. (I tried to lighten that response with a touch of humor – no doubt a futile effort.)
Please dial back your assumptions enough to reconsider, and post a less judgmental hatting statement. (BTW, I note that the instructions say hatting "should only be used by uninvolved editors.") And please dial back what seems to be your hostility toward me. Thank you. Sca (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not hostile. My toes are just fine, also. --Jayron32 14:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear it. In both cases. Sca (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Why always me?" The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3

[edit]

70.171.213.174 (talk · contribs) has filed a potentially libelous complaint against a couple of us at ANI, and of course did not notify the parties. I also brought up your name there, as another of his sea of IP's made a similarly potentially libelous complaint against you recently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"At" or "in".

[edit]

One reference doesn't prove the common grammatical use. You are simply incorrect on this matter and you ought to revert yourself. It is universally accepted English grammar to write that a person died "at" rather than "in" a building even though the latter is also acceptable. Your comment that this has anything to do with American English was erroneous. Afterwriting (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reference states that "in" is used when the location is contained. A home is a thing which has an inside and an outside, so "in" is appropriate. This style guide says to use "in" for buildings. This one does as well. Your assertion that it is wrong is in contradiction with every reliable source I can find. You cannot claim to be right solely because you say you are. Provide sources. --Jayron32 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided any sources which indicate that this has anything at all to do with American English for this specific matter. There are numerous American publications which have said that someone "died at his/her home" so this argument has no substance. As you said yourself, "You cannot claim to be right solely because you say you are. Provide sources." As you have also said, this is a "waste of fucking energy" so I'm not wasting any more of it on this. Afterwriting (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've already won the war. Gravedancing does not become you. --Jayron32 14:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stale?

[edit]

The IP user has been warned three times for doing exactly what they just did yet again. If you allow a small delay in processing to let them get away without being blocked it is all but guaranteed that they will come back and do it again. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dynamic IP address, and you already note he's using different IP addresses since. A block does nothing, since the person who used that IP address is no longer using it. --Jayron32 13:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that isn't the case here. The other IP address I noted has been editing in a slightly different subject area that is still related. If they are in fact sockpuppets (based on the similar subject areas and the extremely similar addresses, as well as the times of editing) they would be splitting up their editing so as to remain under the radar. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk nonsense

[edit]

Since you hatted yet another section of that shite section of the chat desk here with an edit summary that appeared to imply that edits neither answered the OP's question nor provided any sourced responses, please could you apply that to all such posts in future? Otherwise it would seem a little odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a volunteer job. You can't expect me to monitor every thread at all times. We help out where we can in our own ways. --Jayron32 21:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I guess not. But I'm glad you've set the precedent. I'll be spending a lot more time there in future, hurrah for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Garrett

[edit]

Another Who R U sock, I believe.[7] --‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 21:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it's been got.  :) --‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 21:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management & Technology, Tezpur (GIMT-Tezpur)

[edit]

Could you please unprotect Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management & Technology, Tezpur (GIMT-Tezpur) and delete. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE RfC v2

[edit]

As you commented on WP:IBE RfC Grant exemptions to users in good standing on request, you may wish to also comment on my alternative proposal, WP:IBE RfC Automatically grant IPBE to users by proof of work alone . Sai ¿?✍ 11:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Living person category

[edit]

Jayron32, thank you for notifying me of discussion on the admin page regarding my category proposal. I look forward to talk on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest11111 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian Milky Way

[edit]

I personally am conflicted about writing about this, but surely you remember this, right? I just saw them ask this. I admire their passion for learning, but this is the second time I found their question to be ill-posed (the first time was this), and I am somewhat concerned by the fact that most of their edits are to reference desks rather than content. Granted, this is nowhere near as severe as what prompted you to start that thread, but I think they would benefit from staying away from the reference desks. As of now, I think their questions would be better directed to other forums - I am making a good faith effort to answer the questions, but I think they need to slow down, and realize that we're not stack exchange.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Power Trio

[edit]

Respectfully, the term 'power trio' arose in the Chicago press in the 1930's to denote trios like Muddy Waters who had amplification. The interplay of musicians in a power trio is the key to their success, not whether they had a louder bass player. This is why I chose to replace the irrelevant passage about louder bass amplification (all instruments became louder, so what?), with a passage about group dynamics which actually enable power trios to exist (which you deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatorshoes (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding new information is good. Removing information, which was well referenced and cited to reliable musicologists and music historians, is not good. Adding a new definition is fine, but when you do so, do not remove stuff which reliable and well respected writers have thought relevant. Add, don't replace, and you'll get no objection from anyone. --Jayron32 02:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk troll?

[edit]

Hey -- I just saw your post at User_talk:Jpgordon/Archive_7#Ref_desk_troll_back.2C_need_a_checkuser_quick_check... in regard to my post Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2014_June_22#Frying_in_human_fat. I am NOT the Ref Desk troll, and I didn't even know there was such a recurring user as a troll who posts questions at the Ref Desk. If you must know, I needed to know that question about the human fat word for a conlang I was creating (but don't let it get out that I conlang). Enzingiyi (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MASH (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Blake. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Lambs

[edit]

Not meaning to offend you or anything, but I find there's something rather bestial about your sense of humor. Maybe that's just me. 😏 Kurtis (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical problem when editing an article?

[edit]

I have been trying to edit Welfare state article but can't see the changes that I have done after editing. I believe it is technical issue with database or something. Can you please fix it? 70.51.84.138 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the data base. As you can see at Here you haven't made any changes to the article overall. That's because as you can see in the Article history, every edit you've done, you late went back and undid it. So, you haven't changed anything overall. That's why it shows no changes. You made changes, but then immediately went back and undid them. --Jayron32 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Page Issues

[edit]

Hi Jayron32, I see you are an Administrator on the Wikipedia, and that you have made previous edits to the page David Packouz. There have been some recent edits to Mr Packouz's page that are extremely disturbing, and the page is becoming very self-promotional. The page for this individual is also poorly written, as general. The sources also do not claim what they say they do - for instance, see source [1], which does not mention "entrepreneur" nor "inventor". Source [9] does not mention music technology. The entire article reads like an advertisement. Please read through the page which is not verylong and discuss as to the best course of action. THank you kindly. --Asenathson (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an editing dispute over the neutrality or the sourcing, try a noticeboard such as WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN to gain the attention of editors who have a special interest in those areas. --Jayron32 15:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Jayron32. --Asenathson (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

horse shit

[edit]

we've got at least six threads by this person now, all IP hopping from moldova to nigeria. Unless you enjoin me, the next time a new such question arises I am simply going to delete them all as wp:deny and obvious socking. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they're obviously using some anonymizing proxy service. Just delete and move on. That's what I'm going to do. --Jayron32 18:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ron Carey (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatso. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

question about non-notable crime victim

[edit]

I was curious about the request for help at Humanities finding the ethnicity of a very tangentially related person in regard to a crime. Very "off". It turns out the victim and the weapon are not named in the source, even though claims were made in our article. See here where I have removed the uncited material. I suggest this should be shut down as a violation of BLP and VICTIM at Humanities and wherever else. I don't have the time to file an ANI, my usual computer is shot and the one I am using now is 12 years old. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it. --Jayron32 10:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I would mildly recommend to remove a minor personal attack in a form of a joke ("inside his head"). Of course, he was calling for it, we knew this all along. Perhaps part of the problem we were taking him too seriously, but IMO not mocking a non-aggressive krank is a bit more humane. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So amended. --Jayron32 18:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my personal information

[edit]

Hi, jayron could you please remove my personal information at the long term abuse page for ref desk antisemitic troll. I don't think it's right that you are allowing people to give out where I live, since that's none of your business. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.245.77 (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The geographic information of your IP address is publicly available. I have nothing to do with that. --Jayron32 20:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you were the one who created that page and said the place where I live.24.255.245.77 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP address already tells everyone that. If you don't want everyone to know where you live, you should have not used Wikipedia. --Jayron32 20:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, you should not have trolled, at least not long-term, and then the page would never have come into existence in the first place. Not that I condone brief trolling either, but only long-term repeated abusers get pages on WP:LTA. Hence the page. But if you are the troll, and you stop trolling for long enough to the point that we think it's over for good, your entry will be changed to "inactive" status and archived. Eliyohub (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exit numbers in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I-540. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the club

[edit]
"Dreaming the same Impossible Dream"
The Like-Minded Persons' Club
For displaying here common sense and uncommon good taste by agreeing with me or saying something I would have said if only I'd had the presence of mind, I hereby bestow upon you Provisional Membership of the Like-Minded Persons' Club.

To qualify for Full Membership, simply continue to agree with me in all matters for at least the next 12 months.

(Disagreements are so vulgar, don't you think? And, as Bruce Chatwin said, Arguments are fatal. One always forgets what they are about)

The usual expressions of admiration.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. If certain not to be named editors didn't say stupid shit like claiming I didn't do something I clearly did (including, while ignoring the very reference I provided, accusing me of doing what he does every fucking time he posts) I needn't have gotten so snippy. But seriously, some people have no clue... --Jayron32 12:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't life wonderful ... ?  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 13:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

[edit]

Hello, Jayron32. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC

[edit]

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete LTA/Ref-Desk Antisemitic Troll

[edit]

If you delete it, I promise that I will never come back to ask any questions. I'm already in trouble with my ISP for so-called hate speech, so please delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.189.45.6 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vote no. The troll has promised not to come back before, and not kept his word. Besides, the LTA doesn't name him. Hopefully his ISP terminates his account and he can't find another willing to take him, and we'll be gone with this grating annoyance for good. If this post is by the troll and he's telling the truth, apparently WP:ABUSE DOES sometimes work. Eliyohub (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stop trolling for long enough, and your entry will be moved to the "inactive" section. Eliyohub (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

[edit]

Really? Pointing out that someone is posting nonsense on the science desk (not for the first time, this user repeatedly posts innacurate or made-up information) is not a personal attack. It might not have been civil, but it wasn't a personal attack. It is a serious issue that detracts from the reputation of the desk. SpinningSpark 22:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone is everything. Pointing something out is fine. Choose different words next time to do so. --Jayron32 01:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

language desk glitch

[edit]

I seem to have done something that has messed up the most recent posts at the language desk, could you take a look? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the markup for the hidden comment about your address. DuncanHill (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix it, but because the tildes for signature had not expanded it then looked like I had written the comment. I've undone it so if you make it again with the right markup it should work. DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of people from Nashua, New Hampshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Welch. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on AN/I

[edit]

Too much vandalism tonight. Huggled out. Not worth the time to pursue it. Thanks again for the note. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cashless society

[edit]

Article created. Stub only so far. Thank you for the help at REFDESK! FT2 (Talk | email) 11:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start! --Jayron32 11:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstable

[edit]

Hi Jayron- Just a note to explain my revert on the Barnstable County article. That IP editor before you changed the population density to 544 based on the land area, which is how pop density is typically expressed. A couple refs: census.gov quick facts for Barnstable, census.gov article on pop density, Population_density#Other_methods_of_measurement. Census Quick Facts is a really good resource for census stats, and they've reduced some of the heartbreaking navigational chaos of the site over the years. On another note: I'm sure the water area we give in that infobox is wrong--unless there is some definition of the county that includes a lot of surrounding bay and ocean--but I can't find a good figure yet. I have GIS software that would tell me in a second, but, alas, the license has expired. Eric talk 22:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. That's totally fine; the IP's behavior was suspicious as they were rapidly changing numbers in articles with no explanation at all. Such behavior is common vandalism behavior; now that I know there is a reason, that's fine. If you would check over the rest of my reverts on that, that'd be fine too. --Jayron32 12:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I find IP editing like that to be a drag, even if it's well-meant, because there's almost never communication. Maybe I'll check over those county edits when the weather drives me inside again. Eric talk 13:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem?

[edit]

Because the comments here seem like you have some sort of problem with my responses [8]. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. I was merely trying to supplement your good answers with additional links and resources. Yes, the information I posted was also available by clicking through several links from the articles you posted, but I thought I'd add a short sentence of summary. I'm trying to avoid off-topic comments on the desks, so after putting some comments there, I thought better of it and I thought I'd just ask here. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I thought you gave really good answers that were well researched and very useful to the OP.--Jayron32 02:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry for any confusion, I must have been misinterpreting tone- always a risk! In the moment, it sure seemed like your "when I said [quote] I meant [exact same quote]" comment was sarcastic, and not really about flowers at all. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The voting question on the humanities refdesk - would love for you to reply

[edit]

Jayron32, you seem to have a reasonable knowledge of law. I posted a question in response to a question on the humanities refdesk "voting question, united states", asking whether there was any implied right to a "speedy vote". (I.e. if the queue at the polling booth is hours long, whether as a result of simple under-resourcing or a deliberate by-design Voter suppression tactic, resulting in many potential voters giving up or not even trying, does the election's integrity get legally called into question?). Anyways, you can answer there, not here - I just thought you'd have some intelligent thoughts on the matter, or maybe even dig up legal precedent. Eliyohub (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

[edit]
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer on the humanities desk re NASCAR ads

[edit]

Judging by your response, I'm obviously missing something that you seem to be understanding from the Washington Post article you linked to, and I posted a reply on the refdesk to this effect. Please go there and post a reply showing me what I'm missing, as far as you understand the article in question. Much appreciated. Eliyohub (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A thanks, and a request

[edit]

MUCH appreciated for your link on refusing secret service protection. Perfectly clarified things. Not sure if you have anything to dig up about the British counterpart, and rules for those for in the line of succession to the throne, and their partners, in similarly refusing protection.

Also, my Nevada "none of these candidates" question. Thanks for your reply, but I followed up with a question as to the state's power to dictate what options do and don't appear on an internal party ballot. If you have some thoughts, please do go there and offer them. Much appreciated for your hard work. Eliyohub (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

[edit]

Hi Jayron32.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Jayron32. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

←==still to say== I should have said this on the RD itself, but for reasons. (BTW, it's a question titled About Transformers, hope you will be able to find it. You did reply there). What I actually wanted to know was that if we wrap a very much thick copper wire as secondry coil of a step-down transformer, it lowers voltage of course but the ends of thick secondary coil when touched can melt almost all metals!... how — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.198.23 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me this?--Jayron32 21:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for any misunderstanding,Jayron. I am asking why it is so. (Also sorry this question got posted twice here due to Edit Conflict).Posting on your talkpage because question is already too old for anyone to consider it again. Had to choose one among the responders...apologies again for bothering you. 210.56.109.232 (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry then. I have no knowledge on this subject. Was never involved in any meaningful part of the discussion.--Jayron32 02:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

recently deleted question

[edit]

I wanted to post the Laws against Holocaust denial link to it. It was poorly written, but answerable with references to resources. Llaanngg (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stud fees and viral videos

[edit]

Hey, I did answer the question, sort of, with reliable sources (wikipedia articles), though I filled in the rest with what were admittedly "best guesses" and "concepts" from the two real examples I gave. I could only talk of animals which made real movies, not viral youtube clips - it's the closest analogy I could come up with. Both had puppies which commanded significant value. Any criticism? Eliyohub (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I? --Jayron32 22:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Hello J. 31.48.251.146 (talk · contribs) has returned from your block to make the same kind of post as before. Cheers and enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 22:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Ronhjones kindly took care of things. Thanks to you both for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 01:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion inquiry

[edit]

Was wondering if you'd kindly be interested in assessing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heap_(company) (since you participated in the Mixpanel deletion discussion). It seems users DGG and SwisterTwister routinely vote for deletion together without offering analysis, so I wanted to get a third-party involved. I'm not fishing for a keep, but I am looking for a legitimate discussion if possible. Thanks for any consideration. GDWin (talk) GDWin

Merry Merry

[edit]
Season's Greetings, Jayron32!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 17:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Play calling system

[edit]

Hello! I saw that your Overview section was vandalized and incompletely repaired last month; after doing that, I stuck around and copy-edited it, turning your three bullets into five to give a better sense of sequence.

I'd be happy to copy-edit the rest of the article, as I think there is too much back-and-forth on the pros and cons of each system. Moreover, there is a template calling for the article to be expanded, but it strikes me that there is too much detail; for example, the reader doesn't need the complete list of passing routes (though if he does, an illustration would be better). And it is futile to try to convey through examples how to understand any particular play call; the focus here should be on your text that contrasts the three play calling systems in the types of information the play call tries to communicate. Separately, the history of each system should come after the definition, and probably after the examples.

Anyway, I don't know the material, so I await input from you if you are interested in further work on this article. You might move this and your reply to Talk:Play calling system to put the conversation where readers would be most likely to look for it. Cheers! Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry!

[edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

FYI

[edit]

I'm pleased to see that you've made a miraculous recovery! Actually, this is just FYI, for possible future reference.[9] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me too. I was quite concerned there, for a couple of minutes. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, if I do die, I'll make sure to let you all know... --Jayron32 16:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could provide for that in your will. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images

[edit]

I noticed that you deleted a supposed fair-use image yesterday because it appeared seemingly days after the demise of an individual. On a DYK queue right now we have File:Warren Allmand greyscale photo.jpg which is in use but only one month after this notable Canadian's death. What's your interpretation of whether this is usable under fair use, given the feedback I've had means for such public individuals we typically wait for 3 to 6 months before uploading a fair use image. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. The other image was a screen of a broadcast program and was not used under terms, which can ONLY be used to illustrate the program in question. That's why I deleted it. This one looks like a publicity headshot, and may be more appropriate. I would start an FFD discussion instead of just deleting outright. --Jayron32 23:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar RD "friend"

[edit]

Hmm, I get the feeling from [10] and a quick look at the contrib history Special:Contributions/Blooteuth that our grammar "friend" is back, a 20 days aftet the last sock was blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the troll at Ref Desk Humanities

[edit]
I was not even a participant in this. Please carry on discussions to change Wikipedia policies in a more public location than my talk page. These are good discussions, but here is not the right place to have them. If there are questions about my actions, start a thread and ask again, I will gladly respond. But this discussion doesn't help Wikipedia by being here. --Jayron32 20:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How do you know he's the troll? If you have proof, why hasn't the troll's IP been blocked? The Transhumanist 21:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DUCK. Also, it has been. Today at least. You do know that the concept of a static IP address used by a single person on a single device for eternity no longer exists, right? IP address blocking has little to no effect, we do it anyways to slow things down a bit while he resets his IP address (which is as easy as turning off your phone and then turning it back on again). But the IP was blocked by FPAS (the first person who removed the post). --Jayron32 21:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, what was trollish about the question I answered? The Transhumanist 21:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the question. It was NOT removed for the content of the question, it was removed because the singular human who asked it is unwelcome here. --Jayron32 21:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to just answer the questions? The answers make for good reading. The Transhumanist 21:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above. If you would like to change Wikipedia banning policy, please do so before deciding to override community consensus over what you think may or may not be good reading. --Jayron32 21:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. I didn't override anything. I answered a post that had been reverted without explanation, and when I was reverted, I responsibly looked into it by inquiring about it here, with you. So please, don't get accusative. We're on the same side. Reversions of valid questions would be less likely to be reverted by innocent bystanders if edit summaries were included. Your edit summary of your reversion of my post was good, so I knew what to ask about. Thank you. The Transhumanist 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "troll" posts quite accurate summaries of the misbehaviour of certain admins, perhaps that's why they're so keen to stop him? The continual removal of these posts and protection of the ref desks is a running joke and exactly what the IP wants. That long-term admins just act like automatons and hit the revert and (sometimes) the block button with no thought to actually solving the problem is an endemic issue which is showing no signs of resolution. That I was blocked for restoring this "troll"'s post to my own talk page is a sign that this has spiralled out of control yet again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's mostly because we're worthless people who do this for our own power trip, and really all should be thrown out of Wikipedia for good because we do nothing worthwhile. But thanks for your input! --Jayron32 21:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't recall spending my entire admin life trying to stop perfectly reasonable questions being added to the ref desks and then shutting them down in a kind of vendetta-style. So yes, some of you are now power-tripping and doing nothing good for Wikipedia. Sometimes you yourself make serious infractions of WP:ADMINACCT and I've yet to act on that, but it's all there, so we'll see in due course. But FPAS is a special case and gets away with anything, clearly an Arbcom Angel. Can do no wrong. Is "doing the hard work" (i.e. pressing "revert" three times every six hours). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron, this is a serious issue, and I'd like to have a well-mannered discussion about it if you don't mind. Taking a defensive sarcastic tone doesn't help. The Rambling Man has pointed out that ref desks have been page protected over this. Doesn't page protection have the result of closing down that department? What kind of page protection was it? The Transhumanist 22:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Jayron... Getting back to my question above, you cited "WP:DUCK". That's pretty subjective. It means you're guessing that those posts were from that guy. But you don't know for sure. So you could decide one way or the other, and still be in compliance with WP policy. So let me rephrase my question: Is it worth the cost? This guy has admins running around frantically spending a great deal of time policing (and page protecting?) a ref desk, reverting legitimate questions (and answers), keeping you all from doing good works elsewhere on Wikipedia. The questions at the ref desk look harmless enough. And if you let it be, maybe he'd get bored and quit. Maybe it is time to rethink the approach. The Transhumanist 22:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The troll's behavior is obvious once you get familiar with it. And he's been at this for years, so apparently he's not bored. He could get himself reinstated, but that would require submitting to the rules, and he's not willing to do that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transhumanist's entire point is that he is never given the chance to become bored. Translated, he's playing us like a fiddle, and we are determined to be played. His m.o. depends on rigid opposition and falls apart without it. This point has been made countless times to deaf ears. I search for an understanding of why the other approach is never even given a fair try, and I can come up with nothing besides an excessive need to win and control on the part of a few individuals, yourself included, which is very close to the term "power trip". ―Mandruss ☎ 03:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you're OK with him posting neo-Nazi garbage at the ref desks? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not. This thread is about innocuous, harmless questions. I haven't looked into it, but Transhumanist says there was such a question and Jayron32 did not dispute that, so I assume it happened. Jayron's reply was: It has nothing to do with the question. It was NOT removed for the content of the question, it was removed because the singular human who asked it is unwelcome here. which is what I'm talking about here. We simply ask users to leave the harmless questions alone.
Look, I completely understand that policy says blocked users don't get to do edits of any kind, ever, full stop. Clearly, that policy is not working in this case, despite being applied for years, so it's past time we stopped mindlessly repeating what doesn't work and tried something else. WP:IAR is all you need.
Yes, that means the troll wins in a sense. They have shrewdly forced us to ignore a core policy in their favor. Too bad, we can't avoid the current limitations of an anonymous Internet, we can only try to minimize their impact. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't harmless. Transhumanist doesn't have the experience to recognize the troll's M.O. when he sees it. Jayron does. So do several other admins. The troll has a lot more eyes on him than he used to. There are many of us and only one of him. In fact, the pages aren't getting semi-protected very much anymore, which I would think you would be happy about. So despite the "it's not working" line that some of you still use, clearly it IS working. The troll only "wins" if his edits are allowed to stand in defiance of the rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't harmless. Ok, now I've looked into it. I believe the question was: "Did Great Britain ever plan to use anthrax against Germany during ww2?" That is a harmless question. Would you remove it if I asked it? If not, you should not remove it if the troll asks it. Look at the question, not the poster. His motive for posting it is irrelevant. As long as the thread discussion proceeds as RD is supposed to work, with sourced factual responses, absolutely no harm is done. If the troll starts using the thread to push some neo-Nazi agenda, deal with it as you would any abuse of the desks. The question itself didn't do any such thing.
You really need to try to get out of RD users' heads. Just as we do with articles, we should focus on content, not editors. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The troll only "wins" if his edits are allowed to stand in defiance of the rules. Sorry but that's patently incorrect. Every troll's mission is to cause as much commotion and disruption as possible. If an edit is innocuous, and I'm speaking only of that case, letting it stand causes exactly zero commotion or disruption. And our letting it stand is a loss for the troll, not a win, because they have failed to cause any commotion or disruption. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear you are woefully underinformed about that troll's M.O. That "harmless" question would soon lead to why the poor little Nazis were so mistreated and misunderstood. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, I've said it before, you have a remarkable tendency not to hear what other people say. Seriously, have you been diagnosed with a reading disability? Do you have a difficulty with reading comprehension in general? If not, people have every right to be extremely aggravated by your failure to respond to what is said. It suggests that you have no interest in real debate.
Less than two hours ago, a mere three posts above, I said: If the troll starts using the thread to push some neo-Nazi agenda, deal with it as you would any abuse of the desks. The question itself didn't do any such thing. Do you care to continue this with a newfound understanding of my position, or shall we just drop this and move on? I frankly DGAF. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People, this thread is a mess, since all of you are talking past each other. You are all talking about two entirely different banned people, each of whom have very different modes of operation and (most likely) very different motivation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's only Baseball Bugs that's talking past others. None of us were talking about the Nazi editor. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they were. The edit that TheTranshumanist reinstated was by the nazi editor, obviously. And Mandruss keeps talking about somebody who keeps "asking question". The other banned person on the RD (Vote X) never asks any questions, so who else if not the nazi guy was Mandurss talking about? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. I was probably only referring to myself then. But I'll leave this in case you get all trigger happy again and block me. Again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking about two people, that's beside my point, which is that a harmless question was unnecessarily removed because of who the poster was, thereby feeding a troll. What part of that do I have wrong? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bugs that these questions are never harmless. All of them are simply attempts at finding opportunities for cramming some favourite neo-nazi talking points on those pages. If you let them stand and answer them, the next response from the troll will be a link to some Stormfront website saying "see how nazi Germany was the innocent victim of evil allied aggression". Been there, done that. Sure, the anthrax thing is less obvious than "How did Hitler help save Europe from communism?" or "Why are Jews so greedy and evil", but once I know it's part of that pattern I'm not going to sweat over whether it's already beyond the pale or still acceptable; one revert more or less doesn't make a difference. Sure, it means the troll is having fun, but the alternative of letting these things stand would mean we'd allow the RD to turn into a place where every innocent passer-by would get the impression that 50% of what Wikipedians do all day is exchanging right-wing propaganda points. That is simply not an option, no matter what your theories about the nature of trolling say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have to admit that's a better answer than I have seen in all the years of sporadic discussions on the subject. And I'm aware that some problems are simply intractable, especially at Wikipedia. This might be one of them. But if we ever have a serious public referendum on the existence of the desks, I might very well !vote to shut them down and redirect those resources to Wikipedia's core business, building an encyclopedia. I would like to hear the OP's response. The Transhumanist? ―Mandruss ☎ 14:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Ignorance and silence are the greatest aids to racism, hate and stupidity. Anything offensive should be redacted, but "Why are Jews so greedy and evil", for example, can be factually retorted with evidence (eg from the USA) about their incredible charity giving which extends way outside of their community causes and massively exceeds their gentile neighbours (or "neighbors"). But that's part of the forthcoming discussion that I call for below. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And for all the legitimate editors to have to hurry and refute every racist question every time the troll "asks" one, engaging in debate with them and turning the page into an endless repetition of nazi talking points, would somehow not mean the troll playing us like a fiddle? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<-People contribute at the Ref Desks because they like answering questions. If you don't want people answering questions, MfD the Ref Desks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FPAS, I get it that you disagree and think we should just carry on the way we have been going, but equally you must see that it's possible a) that it's been very far from "perfect" b) there might be a better way c) there may be a different flawed way that actually reflects consensus, rather than your opinion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "perfect" solution (yet) because of the constraints by the Foundation, namely that they want to allow "anyone" to edit. But the current approach is working optimally. It's just that sometimes a new user (such as the OP here) doesn't know the history and raises questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

I think there are a lot of good faith editors (and admins) who try to work on the desks. There are undoubtedly trolls and bad faith IPs and SPAs that pop up there. It doesn't seem like we handle the situation well. Let's face it, it's not working, is it? Not only are the trolls not going away, we have good Wikipedians being censured and even blocked over tripping over the fallout. And there are other ways we could go, as Mandruss is trying to suggest. Wikipedia is built on discussion and consensus and I think this could benefit from some proper discussion, as there is considerable disquiet over this, some of which has popped up at Arbcom in the recent past. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we open a subpage of the Ref Desk talkpage and structure a conversation there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're aware of all the past discussion? Do you have any new ideas? I don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) "New" ideas may not be needed 2) Hopefully I wouldn't be the only participant, so if a new idea was needed, it may emerge from any one of dozens of interested Wikipedians. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I shall watch with interest. Be prepared for people telling you that the discussion itself is feeding the trolls (don't think they won't be aware of it because it's on a subpage). ―Mandruss ☎ 15:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every hamfisted step along this path has been feeding the trolls. For goodness sake, TRM was blocked over this nonsense. We need to care more about Wikipedia and less about the trolls. We need have it out. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is under control. Enough admins have their eyes on the troll(s) that it's dealt with quickly every time it happens. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned non-free image File:87ers-Primary-Logo-PNG(220).png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:87ers-Primary-Logo-PNG(220).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my error

[edit]

My bad. I made a very stupid error. I only looked at the diff and thought that Robert McClenon had closed the thread. I thought I was reopening the thread (hence the edit I made here [11]). That was quite a stupid mistake for me to make and I was not looking carefully. I see now that RM had added a section, rather than closing the thread. Many apologies for that. I should have looked more carefully. Anyway thank you for reverting my stupid edit. I certainly did not mean to revert Robert McClenon's edits no matter what I think of them. Any way, sorry again and thanks for reverting me. Mathsci (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hirshberg

[edit]

Hi Jayron,

re this edit, are you sure it's the same Hershberg? The article says he was a sportswriter; seems a little out of his line. --Trovatore (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the same guy. I've been researching and writing the stub on Hirshberg. While Hirshberg was primarily a sportswriter, he co-authored a LOT of autobiographical memoirs. His by-line as a co-author does extend outside of sports, especially in cleaning up various autobiographies. He did two books with Duffy during the 1960s, Sex and Crime and 88 Men and 2 Women, as well as a few other non-sports memoirs, like this one and this one. He did a LOT of work in the area of other people's memoirs, "with Al Hirshberg" shows up with alarming regularity in such works from the 1960s. --Jayron32 19:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Just checking. --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjaminikuta

[edit]

Benjaminikuta (talk · contribs) continues to ask vague, ambiguous questions, and fails to give useful followup answers to the questions his questions raise. This behavior sounds very familiar, but I don't recall which editor was infamous for it, as I don't keep any kind of formal "log" of these things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to cause any trouble.
D =
Benjamin (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then start answering the questions you're asked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iberia

[edit]

Hi there Jayron32. Please note that the IP that kept adding images in Lanzarote Airport is doing the same and also warring in Iberia (airline). Protection of the article will help, although the IP seems to be pushing their preferred version across a number of articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is...

[edit]

this appropriate? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Photo permissions

[edit]

Hi Jayron~

I've recently uploaded a pic (at Modi Rosenfeld) and have permission to post it by Modi himself. In the past, I'd upload it, tag it with an OTRS tag and then connect the subject with the permissions email address...but something has changed, and now one needs to be permitted to place an OTRS tag. Can you please help me? What am I supposed to do? Thanks! DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 20:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to help. I don't have OTRS access, and image uploads are not really my area of expertise. Sorry!--Jayron32 13:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious

[edit]

You hatted then unhatted the concerns I raised on the refdesk talk page about the nature of many of Futurist110's questions. Just curious what happened. I don't give a damn what Futurist110 does with his nuts, I agree that's not our problem - but his behaviour on the refdesk (and the ever crazier questions) is our concern, I would think? Just wondering what went on there, did you have a change of heart? There are definitely others agreeing with my topic-ban proposal (I assume any decision would require consensus, unless there were clear violations of refdesk rules in the questions of concern), was I doing anything wrong in raising this issue? Please don't bite, policy is not my strong point, that's why I asked for your opinion on the issue. Eliyohub (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was my talk page where the concern was raised. When I realized it wasn't my user talk page, I undid my mistake. Otherwise, I have no opinion at all on the matter. --Jayron32 15:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I don't like being the one to initiate drama, particularly as I'm hardly an editor in high standing, mostly asking refdesk questions. Hoping Futurist110 voluntarily agrees to our request to take such questions elsewhere, and the matter will be peacefully resolved. Eliyohub (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder :)

[edit]
The 'Flying In On A DC-10 Tonight' Award
Classic. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

I thought you should be aware of this thread. Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Regarding Principles 3 and 4 of User:Jayron32.2FJayron32.27s Principles of Vandal Fighting. I suspect you would have seen it eventually but this will cut down on the lag time. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wentworth family in Australia

[edit]

Jayron32

I am a member of the Australian branch of the Wentworth family. William Charles Wentworth IV. I am trying to contact members of the Wentworth family in the U.S.A. Since you have written an article on the Wentworth family in the U.S.A., perhaps you know the address of the U.S. Wentworth family website. Perhaps you could put it on your talk page. Many thanks Trahelliven (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any relationship between the Australian Wentworth family and the American one it would be very remote. The first Wentworth in the US settled in New England in the 17th century and the American family descends from him. If there is a common ancestor it would have to be before William Wentworth (elder) --Jayron32 04:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are remote but they are certainly connected and have the same coat of arms. Do you have a record of the US Website?Trahelliven (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no information on any such website. Sorry! --Jayron32 01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another note

[edit]

Would it be unfair to compare the horse troll with a quarter-horse? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

He's just horsing around. Making a horses ass of himself. --Jayron32 13:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's the quarter I was talking about. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited This Is Fort Apache, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Harding. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Dutch-Turkish diplomatic incident

[edit]

Just as I was preparing a point for point rebuttal based on policy to counter all those "it's important !votes", you close this per SNOW? I really don't get it. First there's the hurry to create an article on an event that is already disappearing from front pages and then there's this hurry to close a discussion? Just out of curiosity, which one of the criteria of Wp:EVENT does this meet? Which of the !votes during this abbreviated AfD were policy-based? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no chance this will be deleted. No use keeping an argument going when there is no chance of it being deleted through this discussion. I have no opinion on which criteria it meets, I was not a participant in the discussion, and I don't get a "supervote" However, the arguments of the "Keep" votes are that it does meet those criteria. The fact that you disagree with their assessment doesn't make those votes invalid. If you have a belief this was incorrectly assessed and closed, WP:DRV is the venue to go to. --Jayron32 15:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that SNOW applies where all participants !vote the same way. In this case, there were several argued !votes to delete. The arguments of most "keep" !votes were something like "this is important", which is an argument that should be ignored when closing a debate, because it is not policy based. The discussion was clearly still ongoing. Cutting that discussion short like this is, in my eyes, highly inappropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW applies when there is no chance of any result except the obvious one. There was no chance of this being deleted based on the votes already cast. Again, if you think this was inappropriately closed WP:DRV is the proper venue. --Jayron32 15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it. I'm really getting very tired of this sort of thing. If you can't see (or admit) that that close was inappropriate, well, so be it. --Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, If I thought it were inappropriate to close it, I would not have closed it. If you think it is inappropriate (which I assume you do, else you wouldn't have started this conversation) then you should start a discussion at WP:DRV. If you don't start that discussion, it only proves you like starting arguments to be argumentative, and that you don't really want the closure overturned. --Jayron32 15:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I reviewed this closure (after seeing this post) and I agree with Jayron32's WP:SNOW closure. There was no chance the discussion would have been closed any other way. If you disagree, Randykitty, please open a DRV discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS vs. WP:SCOUTMOS

[edit]

You closed the discussion at WT:MOS yesterday, but the same editor who brought things up in that discussion is now doing so at WT:SCOUTMOS. See WT:SCOUTMOS#Capitalization. If you have any input on dealing with him, that would be great. He's still carrying on about the capitalization rules at SCOUTMOS. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate 85 in North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metrolina. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk

[edit]

Getting a last barb in and then closing the discussion is not kosher. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comments post-collapse

[edit]
Calculate the shits I give about this. If you get a positive number, you're wrong. --Jayron32 02:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please see this behaviour. I hope you can address it. Thanks for your comments about the issues with incorrect medical advice being offered at the ref desks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when a user takes a confrontational tone instead of simply being factual. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. This is what happens when a user is determined to get the last word regardless of the fact they are clearly making incorrect edits. You don't get to edit closed discussions just because you think something I might have said was "confrontational". Hopefully you won't do it again so Jayron won't need to take further action to prevent you from abusing your account. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revert your revert this time. Just be more careful in the future. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a revert, it was an undo with an edit summary. You're the one who needs to be more careful I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Same effect. Actually, the boxed-up stuff could easily be deleted, or else removed to your talk page and out of sight of the OP. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're doing it on purpose but you missed the point again. The OP needed to know that the advice he/she was receiving was factually inaccurate, unsourced and anecdotal. Hiding it away on some user's talkpage misses the point entirely. Sorry Jayron about this, I'm sure there'll be at least one more post... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were right to correct it and wrong to cop the attitude. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, I should have taken it to the user talk page to begin with. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Capital Boulevard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Expressway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians user group

[edit]

I thought you might be interested in participating in the North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians user group. You can sign up here!--Pharos (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't really check into META that much. I left my name there; will I get notifications here at en.wikipedia of upcoming events? --Jayron32 01:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pretzel Logic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Hodder. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Center Line: Spring 2017

[edit]

The Center Line
Volume 9, Issue 1 • Spring 2017 • About the Newsletter

—delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Imzadi1979 on 01:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Jill Saward

[edit]

The supposedly free image ‎File:Jill Saward 080627b.jpg was deleted on Commons for missing permission. Also, I could not find a picture of Jill Saward at Flickr. How long must I wait until File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png, which you deleted, is ready to be reused? I contacted a foundation dedicated to Saward, but I've not yet received a response from them. Recently, I contacted her brother with the words indicating paying respects to her. --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the photo was not free to use before, it doesn't become magically free to use any time soon. The copyright will expire in 70 years. I probably won't be around by then.--Jayron32 10:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Her surviving twin Joe gave me an email address of Jill's husband Grant, so I emailed Grant, who may have good photos of her. I'm still awaiting his response. Meanwhile, I addressed the backlogging of OTRS at Meta-wiki, and I read that OTRS has current major issues. --George Ho (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about OTRS; if there is a backlog there you'll just have to wait for it to be cleared. I'm am not involved with that in any way. WP:IOWN covers the proper procedure to secure permissions to publish photographs. --Jayron32 17:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Check Your Head
added a link pointing to Adam Horovitz
Pete Thomas (drummer)
added a link pointing to Supergroup

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garner, North Carolina

[edit]

Hi! You declined my revdeletion request at Garner, North Carolina because "we can't eliminate the 11 years of edit attribution since then". I'm a little surprised, because I've made many, many hundreds of these requests, as an absolutely routine part of everyday copyright clean-up, and no-one has ever declined one before. Has there perhaps been some recent change in policy? Because our standard understanding is that revdeletion does not eliminate attribution, which remains in the history; it merely removes the ability for mere mortals to see the content of the edit. Could I ask you to reconsider, and perhaps either restore the request template or discuss with someone who does a lot of these such as Diannaa (not pinging her in case you choose not to). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of which, a recent comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revdeletion WOULD remove attribution, because we would have to rev-delete every contrbution that contained the offending text. We simply can't ditch 11 years of attributions for this. Everytime someone changed the article with the offending text in it we would have to remove their name from their addition. Can't be done. Please read the text of WP:RD1 carefully. And I quote: " If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used." --Jayron32 14:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you misunderstand. Attribution is not removed by revision deletion, although it is removed by history deletion (which is why we don't use that for copyvio); and yes, the documentation at Wikipedia:Revision deletion is considerably less than fully clear on this. The only clear confirmation I can find for what is our long-standing and consistent practice in this area is this clarification by Moonriddengirl from early 2014, when I had just become a copyright clerk and absolutely no idea what I was doing; but see also this discussion. Anyway, I don't expect you to take my word for this. Would you like to invite opinions from experienced copyvio admins here, or start a discussion somewhere else (AN, MRG's talk-page, wherever you think best)? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, ask someone else to do it then. I'm not particularly interested. It's no skin off my back if someone else takes care of it. --Jayron32 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's now been dealt with. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of acting on this statement of yours. For future reference, attribution only requires that we track that someone contributed, not what in detail they contributed. Otherwise every copvio detected would force a nuke + pave over. The fine print in the RD1 criterion is mostly to alert admins that there's almost never a good reason to delete more than just the revision text under RD1 (contrary to some of the other criteria). It's like publications with several authors - we don't have to identify who wrote what when we quote from such works. Cheers, MLauba (Talk) 17:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayron32/Archive30&oldid=1085958105"