Jump to content

User talk:Jayron32/Archive 39

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

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help on draft

[edit]

I am a newer editor who is working on his first draft and I think I got everything except for the box score. I have searched everywhere, it has taken days away from me, I am ready to publish it, I just need to find the box score, it has been purgatory for me, I have the article, except for the box score, I am asking for your help to find the box score for the 2022 A7FL Championship game, where the Trenton BIC and the Paterson U played in a BIC victory 32-30. Please, please, please! I will most likely respond in the morning/afternoon, if you find it, great! If not, then if you can, you can at least fix up my draft, anyway you can help will be great for me. Sportsfangnome (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't find anything either! --Jayron32 12:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Hello J. I hope you are well. Thanks for the removal. In an interesting coincidence I read this comic an hour ago :-) Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 16:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous physicists

[edit]

You make a good point at [1]. Gauss appears to have fewer degrees of academic-advisor+family separation from Olivia Newton-John than Euler does. I hereby propose from now on we instead call Gauss "the Greasier of the two famous guys" and Euler "the other guy". DMacks (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what is Olivia Newton-John's Erdős number? --Jayron32 10:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking 4? Max Born is 3 (via intermediacy of Walter Ledermann and Kurt Mahler), and ONJ and Born presumably collaborated on some "got your nose" and similar granddaughter/grandfather projects. DMacks (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chad Taylor (guitarist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livewire.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funny

[edit]

I didn't want to call attention to it on the help desk itself, but I found your "tweak" quite funny. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I found the tone of my initial message to be less than helpful, so I fixed that. --Jayron32 11:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note of appreciation regarding your contributions at the Reference Desk

[edit]

Hi Jayron: I don't find much time to contribute to the RefDesks these days, but I do still check in frequently, and I just wanted to say how much I have noticed and appreciated the tone and value of your your contributions there for a long while now. Your responses are invariably cogent, and as concise as they can be, being short on speculation, but well anchored in the relevant scholarship, and appropriately referenced where needed. You're an able communicator of science in particular and perhaps most importantly, you treat the space respectfully as part and parcel of Wikipedia. I don't mind saying, it's nice to have an admin there regularly these days, and that would be true for any admin, but I think that the fact that it's you helps set the tone there. So, sincerely, thanks for your contributions! SnowRise let's rap 05:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk Barnstar
For consistently high-quality and valuable contributions to the Reference Desks over a considerable duration, please accept this as a mark of appreciation from a fellow member of the RefDesk community. SnowRise let's rap 05:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Your command of the scientific literature on a wide range of topics never fails to impress me. Plus, you communicate clearly and in a way that everyone who reads your answers learns something from the exchanges, and you never make anyone who asks a good faith question feel bad. You make me wish that I had spent more time as a university student, but at least I learned enough to appreciate your expertise. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your kind words! I am an educator by profession, and I'm glad that my skills are useful to someone (even if it doesn't always feel like they are to my students). Thanks again! --Jayron32 10:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. Jayron, thank you for being there. 142.116.194.246 (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC) (formerly AstroHurricane001)[reply]

Disruptive IP

[edit]

Good morning/afternoon. I recently started an ANI thread about an IP who's been engaged in some tendentious editing regarding copyright issues. You commented in that thread, warning the IP about their behavior and asking the IP to confirm that they will make efforts to edit collaboratively.

Well, not only has the IP refused to acknowledge your warning and continued to insist that they're right and everyone else is wrong because they say so, they've gone even further, removing large portions of the article and even going so far as to suggest that us editors should be responsible for changing the sources to match his views. And they've continued to post to the ANI thread, misrepresenting facts to cast aspersions on me.

I feel quite comfortable asserting that the IP is here to right great wrongs, and not to build an encyclopedia. Happy (Slap me) 14:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you may be right. I was hoping for some self-moderation, but I think we may be approaching time to move on this. Let me look through their recent edits. --Jayron32 14:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Happy (Slap me) 14:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked into it. I am actually going to decline to block at this time. Since being warned, the user doesn't seem to have strictly violated any behavioral "rules". They have made an admittedly ill-advised edit, but afterwards have not edit-warred to restore it. They are using talk pages and engaging in discussions, even if a bit aggressively. People are quite allowed to be wrong, but insofar as the major behavioral problems I noted (using warnings as a form of harassment and unwanted engagement on user talk pages) don't return, I don't think we're at a point to block today. There may be some WP:BLUDGEON-type problems coming down the pike, so we'll monitor, but I'm not sure we're at a blocking stage yet. To be clear, I'm not saying they are correct, but as long as they are engaged in discussion, and not harassment or edit warring or other "blockable" offenses, there's not much to do. Letting people scream impotently into the void is fine so long as they only do that. I'm not saying they won't cross some line in the future, but what I am seeing now is at least some good faith attempt to meet the letter of my request. --Jayron32 14:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also to clarify; there are other admins out there, if my response here leaves you less than satisfied. I don't object to you seeking a second opinion on this matter. --Jayron32 14:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do, in fact, disagree that the IP is demonstrating any good faith efforts. They've simply adapted their behavior slightly to try to avoid consequences, as evidence by the gross misrepresentation and continued casting of aspersions at the ANI thread, and the above-linked call by them for us to alter what the sources say to suit their agenda.
I'll see if I can get any more attention in the ANI thread, because I do not appreciate the way this IP continues to hurl insults at me as I'm trying to discuss the issue with other editors. I'm a little disappointed that I have to do so in order to stop this aggressive behavior of theirs. Happy (Slap me) 15:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, seek a second opinion. I will monitor as well, but there are other admins out there who are a little, shall we say, more liberal in their use of the blocking tool than I am. I won't object if anyone with the power to block them does so after assessing the situation differently from me. --Jayron32 15:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Blue News

[edit]

Thanks for your detailed reply to the Blue News RSN discussion, my concerns have been addressed. VickKiang (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit has been deleted but my research was thorough and I cited all sources - why was the deletion allowed?

[edit]

Everything I said in the edit was true - all research and backed up by the sources provided. Kellogsricecrispies (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kellogsricecrispies: I don't think anyone ever said it wasn't true or backed up by sources. Being true and backed up by sources is necessary, but it not sufficient for some bit of text to be included. There are many reasons why a person may object to something you have added to a Wikipedia article. You need to pay attention to why people are removing what you are adding, what they are saying in edit summaries and on article talk pages, and if they disagree with something you have added, you have to convince people and build a consensus that your addition is a net benefit to the article. Find out for what reason people object, and convince them that you are correct. If you can't, your text will not remain in the article. --Jayron32 15:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all this, and I know it’s controversial, I’ve tried to talk to whoever is deleting it on the talk page but no one is replying. Also I’m not getting any feedback from the edit summaries. If a person has not provided a reason for deleting my edit why has it been approved? Kellogsricecrispies (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I deleted a section of the entry which I felt was inappropriate considering the deceased’s family, but was told by another moderator that my edit had been rejected because Wikipedia is “free from censorship” yet the user who deleted my edit was allowed to censor the page? It seems a bit one sided you must admit Kellogsricecrispies (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were given reasons. One user said they were removing your additions because it was "WP:UNDUE" coverage of a single article. A second wrote "Five paragraphs on one RS article is WP:UNDUE". I see that you very recently started a discussion at Talk:Taylor Hawkins. That's good. Now, wait for a while to see what other people have to say on the matter. Unless and until people agree that your additions are necessary, you should avoid adding them back again. Spend a few days discussion, listen to suggestions for improvement. Give it time. --Jayron32 16:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, I will see if I get any replies to my thread. In the mean time can you tell me why my deletion of text from the Taylor Hawkins wiki page was denied and subsequently reinstated? I gave reasons which I think are pertinent. Why is it that my text is deleted and the other text which is disrespectful the the family of the deceased remains active? Kellogsricecrispies (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So as it stands at the moment my deletion has been refused on the grounds of it “censoring” information, whilst at the same time my edit has been censored. You have to admit it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Kellogsricecrispies (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I cannot answer for another person. You will have to ask the person who did so to explain why they did so. --Jayron32 17:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other moderator? I’ve asked them and they are not answering. I just want to know how it is possible that my edit is deleted and the deletion I made is reinstated, no questions, just simply reinstated. If I were a cynical person I’d say that some of the wiki editors are working to an agenda of sorts. Kellogsricecrispies (talk) 17:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by moderator. Wikipedia doesn't have moderators. There are only volunteers, such as yourself, who do this for fun and enjoyment on their spare time. Perhaps that person isn't available because they had to go do something else. I do see that you are currently in the midst of a conversation with several other people trying to explain to you various reasons why your edits were altered, removed, or reverted. You should take their advice, listen to what they say, and ask clarifying questions where it is confusing. Also, assume good faith. --Jayron32 17:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if Kellogs means me or one of the other editors who reverted their edits in referring to a "moderator", but you can see on my talk page how they dealt with being reverted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware. Been keeping track of it myself. --Jayron32 17:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Narada Michael Walden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John McLaughlin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the Western Musical Canon

[edit]

Good morning - I just wanted to say how much I appreciated your recent comments on the recent Reference Desk discussion about Portuguese composers. It's always nice to see someone forcefully pointing out that the reason that dead white German males make up a disproportionate fraction of "good" music (I cannot put enough quotes around that) is that dead white German males are ALSO who were writing the definition of "good."

In a specifically Wikipedia context, there's been ongoing back-and-forth on the pages for Philip Ewell, Journal of Schenkerian Studies, and Heinrich Schenker over these issues. If you ever care to add your thoughts to any of those discussions, I'd be interested to hear them. On the other hand, if I were you, I'd probably "nope" right the hell away after reading just a few sentences, definitely including my own failed attempts to remain civil. :)

Cheers! PianoDan (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! --Jayron32 11:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That 9/11 reference desk stuff

[edit]

I can read your comment starting with So, here's the question in two ways. It can be a steelman of the original poster. Or you could be asking the question yourself for real.

"Here's the question" can equally be interpreted as "here's his question" as well as "here's my question".

After your later comment I'm pretty sure I know which one you meant.

Peace! 85.76.9.156 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was purely a rhetorical device. The idea is, that a fireball is created by an explosion. Fireballs are masses of expanding gas, propelled forward rapidly by thermal expansion. Which is, under any meaningful definition of the term, an explosion. A fireball is just an explosion where the material exploding is also on fire. --Jayron32 16:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desks

[edit]

We're getting various weird stuff emanating from the 166 subnet. Maybe it's time to semi-protect the ref desks for a week or so? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine playing whack-a-mole for a little while longer. There are far too many good contributors from other IP ranges to shut the whole mess down for one problematic person. --Jayron32 19:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've had enough of trying to defend the ref desks against that IP-hopper, so I'll leave it to the admins to play whack-a-mole. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False pretenses

[edit]

Figured I'd ask you this before it slips my mind. What exactly were the false pretenses in my now-archived 9/11 reference desk post? Even the one other person I've asked says he can't detect any false pretenses in my question. Hmm1994 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was that there was something to the effect that something was a "fireball...not an explosion", but explosion is such a nebulous term, it wasn't really a contradiction. It would be perfectly fine to describe a fireball as an explosion. Some people may not define it so, but since there are not really clear boundaries or definitions of what makes an explosion "an explosion" beyond "a rapid expansion of air and other materials", to say there was "not an explosion" would depend on having a more precise and well-agreed-upon definition of what makes something "an explosion". The false pretense was that "explosion" is well defined enough to draw the conclusion that there wasn't one. --Jayron32 15:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy!

[edit]

Your knowledge level on a variety of subjects seems vast. Have you ever considered trying out for the Jeopardy! TV show? I suspect you would do well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied several times. I never seem to make the cut. There's an entrance exam, and everyone that does a certain score on that gets put in a lottery for the next season. I never seem to get my number drawn. Maybe in the future. --Jayron32 11:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah interview

[edit]

Hi Jayron32, hope you are doing well. I noticed that today you reverted edits by User:Adrivelaja on the article Oprah with Meghan and Harry, as they appeared to unconstructive. Since then, I have been forced to revert his/her edits twice myself as s/he keeps removing sourced content from a page that has been stable for a very long time, not to mention the grammatical errors and half sentences. In short, the page contains sensitive topics and covers info on several living people, so even though it's not a biography it should be treated as WP:BLP. With this in mind, I personally warned him/her on his/her talk page to avoid removing information and edit warring as s/he could end up being blocked. Nevertheless, shouldn't the page have some sort of protection? 'Pending changes' protection, perhaps? I would like to hear your opinion and I'd be glad if you could also keep an eye on this page. Many thanks. Keivan.fTalk 01:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a page needs protection, the fastest way to get it is WP:RFPP. As I am just one admin, and not online all of the time, I don't always have time to respond to exigent situations in a timely manner. I will look into it now though. --Jayron32 11:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked, and it appears they stopped after you warned them. If they resume, WP:ANEW is the place to request admin action for edit warring. --Jayron32 11:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, they did stop. However, I will keep an eye on the article and notify the other admins through the links you provided. Keivan.fTalk 19:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

Thankyou for the notice about the sockpuppet issue. I have done nothing at all with either of these accounts since before this was last openly discussed in September 2021. I did not even know they still existed, because I do not use them at all. The fact that this issue was brought up in the recent AN discussion, and yet is being brought up again after that is closed does not seem right to me. I am trying to avoid drama. I have this fear that commenting at ANI, even with what I said in the opening, is going to be used against me. This whole thing, bringing up an issue from over a year ago, that was addressed over a year ago, and was factored into the discussion of the restrictions I received at that time, just does not seem right. I would close these accounts if I could, but part of me is a little afraid even doing that would be used against me some how. I am not even sure what the passwords are to the accounts, and would have been hard pressed to even remember their names if I had been asked before this came up. If you think it will help you can make a statement on ANI saying that I have indicated I have not used them since the late summer of 2021, before the point at which they were first publicly announced, and have no intention to ever use them, and would like it if someone could close them. You can word why I want someone else to close them as best you see fit. I am not sure how easy it is for others to close accounts, so I have no idea if that is a thing that could be done. If not, then do not bother bringing that up. I thought after the AN discussion closed, things were settled if unless I did something else. It appears some want to rehash things that have already been discussed. Sorry this is so long. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was no accusation of guilt or anything; it was just the pro forma notification. I hold no further opinion on these matters other than what I stated in the AN discussion already. I appreciate that you're trying to avoid drama. That's a good outlook. --Jayron32 17:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you were accusing me of anything. Thankyou for what you have done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent post at ANI

[edit]

The second part of your post at ANI seems to have been inserted into the middle of my response. [2] I assume this was unintentional? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was. I was having a hard time figuring out where one started and one ended. I will correct. Thanks for letting me know! --Jayron32 18:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent ANI discussion

[edit]

Hi! Could you take a look at this IP's contribution at ANI from earlier today? I have concerns that this was a clear attempt to WP:LOUTSOCK to personally attack an editor. It may have been done either to avoid scrutiny (and consequences), or to circumvent an ANI WP:PBAN, or to try to frame Supporters in a negative light to steer consensus. Regardless, blocks have been handed out in similar cases in the past, and I've laid out policy-based arguments why I think an indef block is warranted here.

Given how obscure ANI would be to anyone not deeply familiar with Wikipedia, I don't see how it could be anything but a sockpoppet. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With one edit from that IP, it's hard to assess anything. There's basically nothing I can do given it was a singular comment. IP users are not required to create an account, we have many thousands of editors who have been editing solely via IP addresses for well over a decade. The way modern IP addresses work, there is not necessarily anything nefarious going on; basically no one keeps an IP address very long, they're all assigned dynamically and change so frequently it doesn't mean that the user in question is trying to be nefarious. WP:AGF applies in this case. I did do a range search to see if anything turned up within a wider range of IPs, and this shows nothing nefarious at all. I don't see any evidence of it being a sockpuppet. I'm not even sure the personal attack in this case is blockable. Surely it is an NPA violation, but I wouldn't consider this an immediate block, merely a warning. Warning a dynamic IP address that was last used 2 days ago is likely never going to reach the right person. You can do so if it makes you feel better, but there is really nothing from an admin end. --Jayron32 18:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair; thank you for looking into it. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin's Barnstar

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
For all your hard work. BorgQueen (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very kindly. I try. It's all I can do. --Jayron32 15:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100,000!

[edit]
This user has earned the
100,000 Edits Award.

☀️💎😊 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

woot. --Jayron32 19:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting there too. Tee hee. --BorgQueen (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Just wanted to drop a note and say thanks for some of your edits. For someone who has described himself to the "left of Marx", you sure have done a impressive job adhering to wiki policy and putting your personal views in the backseat. We need more of that here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My politics is irrelevant to anything I do except in the voting booth. Right is right regardless of anything else. --Jayron32 21:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The English

[edit]

Page 53 of Bayeux_Tapestry_tituli contains the statement HIC CECIDERUNT SIMUL ANGLI ET FRANCI IN PR[O]ELIO, which the article translates as "Here English and French fell at the same time in battle." The thing I'm wondering is how they meant "English". Was it just their way of saying "Anglo-Saxons"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angli here refers to a culture we now refer to as "Anglo-Saxon" or "Old English". The culture was largely contiguous with that that migrated to England in the 5th century onwards, the "Angles, Saxons, and Jutes" noted by the Venerable Bede in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. This culture was highly disrupted by the Norman Invasion of the late 11th century, and what we call "English" in the following centuries through to today only shares a common name (which is why "Old English" or "Anglo-Saxon" are the preferred terms used). Similar to how the "Ancient Egyptians" have very little cultural commonality with the modern Egyptian nationality; we're using the same word for two very different and essentially unrelated cultures. --Jayron32 12:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The thread is Toa Nidhiki05. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Half Barnstar
Just so you know I value your opinion even though we are in disagreement! I appreciate your arguments, as they help give perspective Curbon7 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you. I also value the input from others. Thoughtful input, even if I don't agree with it, is always useful, and for that I thank you as well. --Jayron32 19:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"For the readers"

[edit]

Hi Jayron! Re your comment here, I have to strongly disagree with you. Yes, we don't have an exact understanding of who our readers are, but we know quite a bit, so we shouldn't throw up our hands and pretend we have no clue. It would also be the epitome of systemic bias to say that we should only ever take our own preferences into account rather than trying to place ourselves in the position of those who we're writing Wikipedia for. WP:READER and related essays like Barkeep49's Elite go into this further. Perhaps it's not useful to talk about this in the abstract, but I just felt compelled to reach out, since I find it dispiriting that we seem unable to agree even on the goal of serving readers, let alone on the specifics of how. Please feel free to let me know if I'm misinterpreting your comment in some way or if you have other thoughts about this; I'm always happy to chat. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: I never said any of the things you said I did. I also never said anything about my preferences. I have no preferences, and if they did, they don't enter into my thinking at all. What I said was that people who state that something is "for the readers" generally has just given us a Bad Idea. People who are doing things for the readers are busy writing encyclopedia articles and aren't participating in discussions where they proclaim that their own personal preferences they intend to enforce and coerce others to agree to by declaring that their own unique, personal, and wholly singular experiences qualify them to announce by decree that their commands for the rest of us are "FOR THE READERS". I believe that we should be writing Wikipedia articles with the audience in mind. I have zero use for anything that is couched as required to be done at Wikipedia because it is "for the readers". --Jayron32 16:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, my experience of what's happening in most discussions where something is proposed "for the readers" is that editors are considering doing something editor-centric that would make the user experience worse for non-editing readers, and someone familiar with basic UX best practices comes along and rightly points this out. Others who want the editor-centric thing then respond by accusing them of just proclaiming that their own personal preferences represent those of readers. Because 100% of the people who edit Wikipedia are Wikipedia editors, editor-centric bias is necessarily the most severe form of systemic bias on the project. I don't see how we can hope to overcome that unless we're allowed to let our best understanding of what readers want enter into our thinking. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a false dichotomy there though; merely because something makes things better for editors doesn't mean it must make things worse for readers. First and foremost, better experiences for editors means improved content; which is better for readers all around. --Jayron32 11:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Military commanders

[edit]

Hello. Please, can you help me with those last questions? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.182.207 (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my knowledge and research abilities in those areas are spent. You'll have to wait for someone new to come along to help. --Jayron32 14:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you could also control the corresponding wlinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.245.233.18 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. I don't control anything. I, like you, am just a random person on the internet. I have no "control" over much of anything. --Jayron32 18:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ITN and admins

[edit]

With Stephen no longer holding the mop, we are short a very competent and capable admin that we would normally count on to appropriately assess consensus at ITN. I've thought for a long time about trying to pursue adminship in order to assist the ITN process. But I know I am missing a lot of qualities that one would normally associate with adminship - article creation and editing, examples of clear judgment, demonstrating WP:CLUEness... can you think of anything else?

More importantly, do you think this is something I should even bother trying to pursue, or should I continue to stick with my current role with participating at ITN/C without having the tools? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me try to answer you in two ways
  • What I think: I think you would be an EXCELLENT admin, largely because you already do a lot of admin work; you're very experienced with mop-adjacent tasks and do very good work in the area. You're not, as far as I have ever seen, prone to rudeness or unfairness, and you've never done anything that would make me think you would abuse the tools. You're a perfect admin candidate as far as I can see, and I would easily vote to support your candidacy, and if you desired, I would even nominate you!
  • What others will say: People who aren't me (and they exist. I've met them from time to time) will often find fault with candidates that don't have a certain amount of content creation experience. I think this is wrong headed, but nonetheless, they will vote that way. Can't stop them. You're averaging about 5-10 article edits per year. That's... not a lot. I don't edit articles as much as I used to, but I still manage 5-10 edits per week, and probably create a new article or two every few months. Someone is going to find fault with that.
Will there be more people who think like me or more that put a greater weight on content creation? No idea. If you want, you'll have to roll those dice and see where they land. But I will gladly back your candidacy, and nominate you if you wish. Just let me know. --Jayron32 19:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) I haven't used it so can't vouch for it being useful or useless, but WP:ORCP exists, and its goal seems to be to tell people what veteran RFA-watchers think a candidate's chances, strengths, and weaknesses are. Take a look and see if you think it would be helpful or not. Having spent zero time looking at your (Walt) contribs, if what Jayron says is correct, my own RFA-watching makes me think that 5-10 mainspace edits per year is going to be an RFA killer. Not because it should be, necessarily, but because that fits with what I've seen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I thought too. I have always had a deep interest in the machinery of Wikipedia, more so than the articles themselves. think the problem is when I look at articles in areas of interest, apart from obvious grammatical fixes, it's hard for me to think of any substantive changes that I can make to them. I'm not a historian; I don't possess the academic bona fides to really go in and perform exhaustive source analysis to say something is wrong or right. But I know it's a hurdle that I need to overcome before I can even make that next step. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again prefacing this with the caveat that this isn't really how I think it should be: article writing as a condition for adminship waxes and wanes; I don't do much, and I made it in 2010. There are other times when that exact same experience probably would have resulted in a failed RFA. Not everyone requires true article writing (some do, not all); you might be able to justify, I don't know, just article edits dealing with copyright, or article edits dealing with vandalism, or copyediting... all those would be a crapshoot. But less than 10 a year at all seems like an RFA killer. I've made only 40 in the last year, but I'm semi-retired, and doubt I'd pass a fresh RFA without picking up the pace substantially. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (butting in) Oh! Oh! Call on me!! Have you ever looked into Project Merge? It contains a big backlog of articles that (probably) should be merged to others. Some of them are from discussions happening on the articles' talk pages, while others are those from deletion discussions where consensus is that a nominated article should be merged into another, rather than deleted. There's a whole category list of those (108 at the moment, but I'm chipping away at that). Ideally, a good merge involves more than just the cut-&-paste of big chunks of text. There's choosing the information that should be moved over, deciding where to put it, copy-editing to smooth the transition. I really enjoy it, and it would be a way to contribute to the "machinery of Wikipedia," while still getting you in there with some mainspace edits. Joyous! | Talk 23:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I greatly appreciate the input from all of you, and I'll be sure to explore Project Merge. Thanks for all of the advice, everyone. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asabe Shehu Musa Yar'Adua

[edit]

Great catch on that article, noticing that the "arrest" story was misrepresented in the text. Joyous! | Talk 23:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding...

[edit]

...this,[3] if the OP is serious (which is hard to tell), they need to contact their doctor, to at least rule out ovarian cancer and other bad things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Banned user at RDH

[edit]

That would be User:Joseph A. Spadaro, whose posting style is unmistakable. Thank you, --Viennese Waltz 13:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't even realize he'd been banned. I will follow up with researching the matter so that I can recognize him better. Thanks! --Jayron32 13:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Sorry, but could you please explain why this comment at MPTalk/!voting was deleted? —

  • No – Per Jayron, Modest, Khajidha. In my view the blurbs based on interesting facts, especially from history articles, are preferable to those that try to be funny. (Also more appropriate to the encyclopedic ethos.) – Sca (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. – Sca (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion in question was closed here at 10:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC). You made your comment here, some 8+ hours later, at 18:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC). Discussions which have been closed are not to be edited. You already knew that because, at the top and bottom of the blue shaded box surrounding the discussion you edited, in bold red letters, it says "Please do not modify it" and then says "No further edits should be made to this discussion". I hope that makes sense to you. If you need further clarification, please ask. --Jayron32 12:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry I overlooked the discussion-closed notice & just focused on the question. Sorry to bother you, thanks for reply. -- Sca (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 World Series

[edit]

An editor seems to be edit-warring against several other editors, on the matter of the reported distance of Alvarez's home run in Game 6. I'd like your opinion on this. Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for intervening. Putting it in the photo caption seems like a fair compromise. But the user seems to have an aversion to article talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Here's a kitten, as appreciation for your speedy and useful reply on the Reference Desk

סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 13:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

awww... kitteh! --Jayron32 14:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Socratic Barnstar
Thank you for your nuanced and well-reasoned post at WP:Help Desk about the annual fundraising RFCs and the WMFs approach. I hope you don't mind, but I've swiped it for my userpage :) (with attribution, of course) ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 23:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Jayron32 12:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of 3 RS Noticeboard discussions regarding British news orgs

[edit]

Hi, I'm just dropping by for advice regarding the open RS noticeboard discussion regarding The Economist, The Times and The Daily Telegraph and trans issues. I chose you because you were the last admin to close and summarise a discussion on that page.

I feel that the discussion on these 3 publications is concluded now, there has only been one comment on each in the last ten days. Given the significance of the publications concerned, I really think we could do with a formal close for these discussions before they are archived. Would you be willing to do this, or do you know a good candidate to do so?

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(to Jayron32) In view of this intemperate comment to me at RSN [4], it is my view that you are too emotionally invested in this subject to make a close on anything to do with this subject. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, sorry. I had assumed Jayron was uninvolved, but I hadn't checked the LBC thread. Advice on potential closers would still be welcome though. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I have nominated List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 18:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting my nomination!

[edit]

The Brittney Griner story was my first nomination for ITN, thank you for supporting it! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me. It meets all of the listed requirements for ITN. I just recognized what already existed. --Jayron32 12:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nandi Bushell

[edit]

I've reverted your good-faith edit; the data is already in the article (second graf same section). DaydreamBelizer (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good. I just missed it. --Jayron32 15:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the great thing about GAN. Once I got to the point where I said, 'there's nothing more I can do for this article', I knew that getting extra eyes was the only way to elevate it. DaydreamBelizer (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... in fact, now that it's officially nominated, when you have a few minutes to kill would you be so kind as to have a gander at the article to see if anything leaps out? TIA. —DaydreamBelizer (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Talk:Christopher Columbus

[edit]

In response to the message you sent:

"You're entirely new at Wikipedia, so I'll give you a little bit of a pass, but you should read WP:BLUDGEON. It's fine to start a discussion to seek input. That is a very good practice, and I commend you for doing so. However, once you've made your point, it is vital that you get out of the way and let others comment so we can see where WP:CONSENSUS lies. Repeatedly making the same points over and over, responding to every comment that disagrees with you, and other methods of bludgeoning discussions can be considered disruptive to the smooth running of Wikipedia. You've made your point; I advise you to desist further comments on that discussion and let it play out. --Jayron32 13:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)"

I find that link to the WP:CONSENSUS page to be helpful, as that page documents an English Wikipedia policy that is worth understanding more as someone new.

I am fine with letting that discussion sit for a while, however many days it takes to see how things play out. I may like to, a while later, discuss one-on-one with you, on this page, both the merits of the scholarship I was trying to discuss, the history of that specific edit or issue on that page that I found, as well as what my experience was like only being engaged on the merits of the scholarship by one user, and another user not engaging with the content of sources or their validity while interrupting threads of discussion in which another user was asking questions and making requests of me related to establishing a better sourced article. SiciliaOliva (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An ANI thread you had closed

[edit]

Hi, Jayron. I just opened an ANI thread you had closed to add a PS (I've indeffed the OP, after reading the thread and their talkpage). I hesitated about the etiquette, but IAR'd it on the principle that my information was helpful. Anyway, I very much hope you're not offended. Bishonen | tålk 09:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

You're all good, Bish. No trouble at all. --Jayron32 11:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts, old timer?

[edit]

I'm curious about your take on this question: we've had WMF trustee elections, who have now hired multiple CEOs after the various big debacles of yesteryear. So why aren't things better now, or, more better? The community elects trustees, who hire the CEO, who is the boss of everyone else, and enough time has now passed that we should have an effective WMF, one that is satisfying the community's needs, but for some reason, this system doesn't seem to be working. What's your take on this, as someone who's watched it unfold over the years? Thx, Levivich (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the persons in charge are largely irrelevant to the problems. It's just a problem with the immobility of large power structures. The system is the problem, not the personalities of those whom the system uses. I mean, maybe things will change. I've worked for a lot of organizations where the leadership changes drastically every few years, and the problems persist despite the leadership changes. I suppose we can hope that changing people out changes the system so things become better. I've literally never seen it happen anywhere, ever, but you know, maybe this time? When I was young and hopeful, I used to believe individual people mattered. It's taken decades, but that illusion has been beaten out of me.--Jayron32 19:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think you're on to something about systemic problems. Thanks for making me feel young though, despite being middle aged, I guess I'm still young enough to believe that individual people matter :-) Thing is, the WMF of today is 3x the size (by revenue) as the WMF of 10 years ago, so I'd expect to see more problems today than years ago. I'd expect people to talk about the good old days when the WMF was smaller. But in reality it seems the trajectory is the opposite. Maybe after a certain size, systemic inertia kicks in, and stays there, and the WMF reached that size within the first few years? I have a theory that the problem is a lack of professionals: amateurs elect amateur representatives who make amateur hiring decisions, and that's why there's mismanagement (with all due respect to the many people whom I've just called amateurs 😁). Either way, it's interesting to watch it all unfold. Levivich (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference desk

[edit]

Hello. I sometimes check the reference desk for interesting questions and answers, and I’ve been wanting to say for a while now a big thank you for your answers and participation there. Your comments are informative, interesting, helpful, and knowledgeable. I don’t know how you’ve garnered such a breadth of experience to provide such insight, but a heartfelt thank you from my side is the least I can offer. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words! I guess since I'm not really good at anything, I have learned to be okay at a lot of things...--Jayron32 01:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]

MBlaze Lightning (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

[edit]
Happy Holidays
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayron32/Archive_39&oldid=1143910537"