User talk:Jayron32

Happy New Year, Jayron32!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

Jayron32,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 04:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 04:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[edit]

Hi @Jayron32, I wanted to thank you for defending my position in the disagreement I've been having with Fram. I felt strongly supported, and even though I know you weren't standing up for me as an editor but rather for the actions I performed, the result was the same. I could definitely have conducted myself better in the way I communicated with Fram, and I will do my best to be less reactive when my buttons are pushed. I also accept the point about my seeming alacrity to "bite" new editors (though it isn't my intention to do so) and will strive to be more patient in that area. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do want to make clear I wasn't particularly supporting your position in the debate per se. I'm not entirely sure who is right and who is wrong, but that's a content matter to be resolved via the normal dispute resolution processes. My only concern is that Fram's position that you were vandalizing was beyond the pale, and they needed to walk that back. --Jayron32 04:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added
readded Stephen
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Nihiltres

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Fifteenth Adminship Anniversary!

[edit]
Holy fuck. 15 years. Damn it. This feels less like a congratulation and more like a condemnation.... --Jayron32 20:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

First, thank you for your kindness. I felt extremely humbled being described as a friend by a respected and experienced editor of the encyclopedia. I have a small request, if you could spare the time. Can you go through my contributions, to the article namespace and the project namespace, and give me a general review of my editing, as well as some advice about what I can do to improve my contributions?

Thanks in advance.

The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing lots of good work. Your recently created article on the Territory of the Comoros looks really good, and your contributions to the Wikipedia space looks civil, thoughtful, and well presented. Keep up the good work! If you've got any more specific questions, please let me know! --Jayron32 12:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of This Is Fort Apache for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article This Is Fort Apache is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is Fort Apache until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...

[edit]

Regarding this,[1] it seems like the editor is being deliberately obtuse. I posted him at AIV for ref desk trolling, but the admin rejected it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't agree with that. There's some WP:CIR stuff going on here, likely some problems with English as a Second Language, but I don't see anything that leads me to believe they are acting in bad faith. Not every trainwreck is deliberate... --Jayron32 18:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mail

[edit]
Hello, Jayron32. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Therapyisgood (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therapyisgood: The best way to handle this is to file a report at WP:ANI. --Jayron32 09:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for help with Cochise County

[edit]

Unfortunately, the editor in question enjoys "making things up" (I'm being far too polite there). His/her claim "According to www.cochise.az.gov no films and television films shot in Cochise county" is false, as also a previous claim "Imdb states that no film or tv series were filmed in Cochise county". With regard to the latter, IMDB lists 10 locations for the The Sheriff of Cochise TV series, all of which are in Cochise County. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159207/locations

I understand that IMDB has been declared an unreliable source; be that as it may, the point is the editor's false representations. (And other sources confirm the location, such as https://www.myheraldreview.com/news/cochise_county/when-the-sheriff-of-cochise-ruled-the-land-and-tv/article_f3487fe8-35e1-11ed-adca-d3bb48315c05.html .)

The editor was left "If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia..." messages on the talk page User talk:Daniu99 in late November '22 regarding similar behavior, all apparently to little or no avail then, and nothing seems to have come of the warnings. The disruptions have now started again, repeatedly, in the Cochise County article. As an administrator, could you please help to cool this person's jets? His/her dishonest disruptions serve only to waste the time of more responsible editors. TIA for any help. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question has not, since I made the fix, done any further editing to the Cochise County article. If they continue to be disruptive, WP:ANI may be the place to go. I don't generally respond to personal requests to use my administrator tools on my user talk page, I prefer to keep such requests in a public forum like ANI where they can be scrutinized. --Jayron32 18:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the text to "filmed on location in Cochise County". If s/he continues disrupting for no justified reason, I'll go the ANI route. As you see on the editor's contribs page, the issue is by no means just this instance. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recusal?

[edit]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On the 1st you wrote "Perhaps I would have had more to say about the matter had it just come here first, but given the prior inappropriate attempt to cherry pick me as an admin to respond, I am recusing myself from any further involvement."[2] but the editing history which follows is curious because instead of recusing yourself you become extremely involved... We have [3] on the 2nd, [4][5] on the 8th, and [6][7][8][9][10] on the 9th. Seems like you need to do some striking, either of the recusal or of all of the comments violating that recusal. I hope you appreciate me bringing this to you privately instead of making it a big deal at ANI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I had any further comments on BeanieFan11's behavior, or on sanctioning him, I don't believe. They are all about issues related to AFD and the NSPORTS policy discussion. As far as I am aware, I made no further comments on sanctioning BeanieFan11 as I said wouldn't. I have a standing policy not to use my admin tools when anyone requests me directly to do so here on my talk page, and I have not done so. If you have evidence that I have used my admin tools inappropriately, then by all means, provide diffs for that. The diffs above show me commenting on a policy discussion. --Jayron32 16:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you under the impression that recusing yourself from a discussion means not using your admin tools? Thats not recusal, that's expected of all involved admins automatically. Your statement makes it very clear that what you're recusing yourself from is further involvement and the discussion. If you're not going to do that then strike the false recusal. You do also explicitly comment on sanctions[11]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x2 Actually, I do see that there was one further comment I made on BeanieFan11's behavior. I have struck that comment. Thank you for pointing that out. My other comments were not related to the matter I recused myself from, however, and I stand by them. They were clearly about a different matter. --Jayron32 16:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't recuse yourself from further comment on BeanieFan11's behavior, you recused yourself from "any further involvement" which literally all of the diffs fall under. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also, I was never "involved". At the point where Therapyisgood contacted me above, I had never met either him, nor BeanieFan11, to my knowledge, nor had I ever to my knowledge, been involved in any of the AFD discussions mentioned. (Post EC comment) I think I have explained my understanding of my statements, if you understand them differently than I intended, there's not much I can do about that. If you feel that I am abusing my admin authority, and need to have the tools taken away for that, please start that discussion in the appropriate venue. --Jayron32 16:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said you were involved, you said "further involvement" which means you were already involved. If you weren't that's ok, but then you told a fib. I don't want your tools taken away, I just want you to be honest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, let me lay out the timeline of events for you. 1) On 05:11, 31 January 2023 (see above) Therapyisgood sent me an email. Without getting into the details, it asked me to intervene on the matter at hand. I had never, at any point, been involved in the AFD discussions, with BeanieFan11, or with Therapyisgood, in any manner at all. Never met them, never saw the AFDs, never been involved in the Wikiproject, none of it. Out of the blue, he sent me an email. I told him to go to ANI instead, because I don't respond to private requests to use my admin tools. The thread was started at ANI. 2) At 16:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Bagumba asked at that thread "Was there any attempt to deal with this one-on-one before escalating to a noticeboard?" where I replied explaining that I had directed Therapyisgood to start the thread, and that I had not intended on commenting on the matter further. 3) Someone started a different discussion on a policy matter I thought was interesting and I commented on that thread at 16:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC). I had not, at this point, been involved in any dispute over the policy matter at hand, and I didn't (and don't) consider my backing away from the sanctioning discussion over BeanieFan11's behavior to have prevented me from commenting on a policy discussion. I did not fib, I did not lie. It is true that on Feb 8, I did make a comment on BeanieFan11's behavior, which I have now struck, as you requested. I'm not going to strike comments that had nothing to do with my original statement. If that bothers you, seek relief elsewhere. --Jayron32 17:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of that explains why you wrote "further involvement" if in fact that wasn't true and you hadn't been involved. How can it be true that you were already involved and also not involved at all? One of these statements has to be a fib, either Jayron32 who said they were involved is fibbing or Jayron32 who said they weren't involved is fibbing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the off chance that this is a misunderstanding due to an imperfection in the English language, and I can somehow make a small incremental contribution to peace on Earth: "Involve" has more than one meaning in English, and WP's interpretation adds even one more meaning to those in the dictionary. When Jayron says "further involvement", it's pretty obvious to me that he means "further participation", not "further WP:INVOLVEment". Jayron never said he was WP:INVOLVED in the WP sense of the word (and, looking things over, I would agree he is not WP:INVOLVED in any way). Speaking of meanings of words, "fib" can only ever mean an intentional lie, albeit about something minor. I'd stop using it 3-4 times in a sentence. I'ds stop using it at all. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also interpreted it to mean "further participation" but I was told that wasn't the case by Jayron32. Nor does it appear accurate as they participated a *ton* after that (hence my challenging their participation and them countering by only striking a single edit which pertained to sanctions and not their participation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, short for "further participation in decisions about BeanieFan11", then. Anyway, I guess I didn't help, so I'll bow out before I contribute to making this molehill into any more of a mountain. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Isn't the "further" still a problem because the claim is that there was no participation in decisions about BeanieFan11 prior to that? Anyways I'm dropping the stick, I hope that Jayron32 will understand that going forward that their statement was most obviously interpreted as a pledge to recuse themselves from "further involvement" and not as whatever incredibly nuanced thing they apparently meant by it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) As I noted, my meaning was further participation in the sanctioning discussion. The discussion over policy was unrelated, in my mind, to the initial discussion. Also, since you really seem hung up on "further", I meant "subsequent to this comment" not "I've been dealing with this previously". Also also, have we beaten this dead horse enough? Either you think I'm a lying liar who lies, or we're having an inconsequential misunderstanding over a difference regarding some minor word choices. If it's the former, fine, whatever, I'm not going to convince you I'm not. You believe whatever you want to believe, I can't convince you out of something like that. Continue to believe it if you want. If it's the latter, I'm pretty sure I've adequately explained what I had meant at this point; further elaboration is unlikely to put any more light on my initial intent. Either way, can we let this matter go, at least in terms of my user talk page. If you need any more action done on this matter, take it to ANI or ArbCom or something like that. I have no intention of doing anything further discussion here. Please let it drop or escalate it elsewhere. --Jayron32 18:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're going to find widespread support for the idea that a subtopic is unrelated to its topic. Keep that in mind going forward. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of doing anything further discussion here. Please let it drop or escalate it elsewhere. --Jayron32 18:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was my final reply, hence its finality. Congrats, you've forced me to post on your talk page again? Have a nice evening. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comment

[edit]

Hello Jayron32, could you please sign your comment on Talk:2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake? Thanks! Renerpho (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. Desk

[edit]

Why do you put yourself through elaborate self-humiliation rituals when you give a wrong answer on one of the Reference desks?? It really does not gratify my feelings in any way when you do this in response to a mere factual error (it might if it was in response to something personally involving me, but the only such incident was the Chinese cuisine authenticity thread, and you did not abase yourself in that case, as far as I remember). If the elaborateness of the grovelling is disproportionate to the severity of the error, it may give rise to suspicions of insincerity, in which case you're undermining your own apology... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry I gave the wrong information. I really am. I was mistaken, I struck through my incorrect information, and I apologized for being wrong. What further action do you require me to take? --Jayron32 17:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not alleging any inadequacy of apology, but exactly the reverse. In many cases a mere acknowledgement of error would be enough, so I really don't see the need or the purpose of grovelling self-abasement. I would be perfectly happy for you to leave the excess drama out when I was the one who pointed out the error... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, all I can say is that most people realize I'm an asshole within seconds of meeting me; I'm honestly shocked when it takes someone as long as you have to come to that conclusion. --Jayron32 18:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only know you via your work on WP, but I find you to be an extremely helpful and knowledgeable person who's been more than patient with my own dumbnitude. I don't think there's a single regular respondent on the desks who hasn't been caught making a mistake from time to time. My impression is that most people just issue a mea culpa (if that) and move on. Before I got used to them, I thought your apologies were facetious or sarcastic because of their extreme tone. My concern now is more along the lines of your well-being; it's distressing to think how badly you must beat yourself up over real-life blunders. Please treat yourself with care; you deserve it. Matt Deres (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the Richard Belzer ITN nom

[edit]

To make my intent clear to you, I'm only describing your comments as unproductive because Andrew has spent literally years ignoring countless almost identical comments and not only should know better, but does know better. He isn't going to change and so I think it's best to shut him off before he can waste the energy of too many others. I'm actually not far off proposing topic banning him from ITN all together tbh. Thryduulf (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a bad idea. --Jayron32 18:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Muller's video, thank you for posting it.

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for all your contributions.:-) It's been awhile since I read about Muller's sources. Muller's video was most certainly relevant to the OP's query. Thank you for posting it. In the 80s, I would often hang-out in the NCSU library bookstacks researching the physics' literature and I'm an hour's drive away now. I continue modeling and will likely deposit a paper on Zenodo this spring. Again, thank you for all your contributions. Modocc (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bans

[edit]

Here's a hypothetical: Supposing I have an interaction ban with a user, and that user subsequently retires. How, if at all, does that change the terms of the ban? Does it mean I can never work on subjects that user worked on, even though that user would no longer be working on those subjects? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I find that, 95% of the time, retirements are extremely temporary, though, so keep that in mind. I think, in general, if you have questions about the extent of a ban, asking the admin who notified you of the ban is a good place to start, though, if you have more specific questions. --Jayron32 12:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I'll give it some time. There's no rush. Thank you for your advice. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent update to Count Rumford entry

[edit]

While your update to the article is accurate, your "reason summary" is in accurate. A typo of course, but in 1853, very definitely did both American and British identities exist. I'm sure you meant to put 1753, the year of Rumford's birth. JackME (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant that. It was an anachronism in 1753; American nationality did not exist. --Jayron32 18:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, not a big deal and nothing about the correction you made to the actual article, but I think you misunderstood my comment to you. You have given as summary explanation for your changes that the American identity did not exist in EIGHTEEN FIFTY THREE. When I'm sure you meant to type SEVENTEEN FIFTY THREE (the year of Rumford's birth) because by 1853, most definitely an American identity DID EXIST. JackME (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant to say 1753. I screwed up when I typed 1853 in the edit summary bar. I though I just said that. Why are you yelling at me for confirming both that a) I was wrong and b) you were correct to say that I was wrong. How many more times do you need me to tell you that I was wrong when I wrote 1853. Do you want to try yelling at me louder, so I can confirm a third time that I was wrong. Would that make you happy? --Jayron32 18:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take the stick out of your ass! The uppercase was NOT yelling, but for clearly emphasizing the difference. Sorry I misunderstood your first response. JackME (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I was an asshole. I'm sorry I responded the way I did, I have no excuse. You did nothing wrong in correcting me. You're right, and I'm wrong. I continue to be the biggest asshole at Wikipedia. I'm not sure what else to do about that, other than offer my sincere apology for letting it out against you; you did nothing to deserve that. --Jayron32 19:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wjemather

[edit]

Wjemather has been unnecessarily undoing good edits from editors (myself and others ) for three years now. Editors have tried reasoning with that person over time, but that person does not want to listen. Several people in private chats have expressed their frustration with that person, simply because they don't know where else to turn to talk of their frustration.

That person's behaviour has not only been unproked, unneeded undoings of valid edits that no one else has ever had a problem with, but hypocritical also; the list is long of the times that that person would spitefully undo the very same type of edits that they themself have done before, throwing logic out the window. In other words, it's okay for themself, but not for others.

One other behaviour that makes that person unreasonable is making things up on the spot: An editor will do a good edit in the traditional way, but then this person in question will undo the edit with the excuse (paraphrasing), "Just because this is the traditional way is not an excuse to keep doing it that way.".

Trying to reason with that person has failed for years with many who have tried.

I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2007 and had never had any real problems from an editor until that one. I've been doing the same type of edits in the same way since the beginning, and in early 2020 that person came along and decided to be the first to take their own personal feelings and force feed them onto the Wikipedia community with uncalled for retractions that no one else had ever had a problem with. Nitpicking at every single turn, unJusifiably.

Most of that person's edits are undoings,, not additions, meaning the main purpose that person has had over the last three years has been to unneededly undo other people's edits, even when having to make up a reason to do so.

Simply to spite me, that person went and undid a good edit of mine on a page concerning a topic that they no absolutely nothing about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_State_of_the_Union_Address&type=revision&diff=1063538815&oldid=1063093800

Also last year, that person went back on a previously agreed upon standard for preparing the WGC MATCH Play page, one in which that person had willingly agreed to the year before:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2022_WGC-Dell_Technologies_Match_Play&diff=1079435859&oldid=1079434098

It gets worse, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't; If you do an edit one particular way, that person undoes it and criticizes you, but then if you do the edit the opposite way, that person still undoes it and criticizes you.

I would have to go and do weeks' worth of finding and citing all the examples of that person's gross, uncalled for undoings. For now, I will show a few recent examples of the kinds of edits that no one else ever had a a problem with, but this person is hell bent on interfering with anyway:

Undoing a perfectly good preparation that is done each week on the PGA Tour, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masters_Tournament&type=revision&diff=1141795948&oldid=1141795855

Undoing more preparation that is done as a normal thing in Wikipedia, for no reason ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AThe_Masters_champions&type=revision&diff=1141796145&oldid=1141796054

And those are only two examples of a half a dozen interference type of undoings in the last 24 hours. It takes time and trouble to go and post these here, so I'll stop there for now.

Other times, that person will try to get a page deleted, because in their OPINION the page was made "too early", something of which no one else has ever been known to complain about in recent years. There are links to show proof of this.

After three years of constant interference of spiteful, uncalled for undoings, we will not tolerate it any longer. I have been on here for sixteen years without serious trouble for 13 of them. Over the last three years, this constant hypocritical and unneeded interference won't be tolerated. Even the simple act of letting that person know, they lash back as if you are wronging them in some way, playing the victim.

Since no one has been able to get through to them because of their unreasonableness, we hope maybe you could have a chat with them to see if you can get through. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnsmith2116: Sorry, I have a personal policy against responding to private requests to act in an administrative capacity here at my user talk page. If you need administrator intervention for a behavioral issue with another user, the correct place to do so is at WP:ANI. --Jayron32 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica massacre

[edit]

What needs to happen before I be allowed to edit that aricle again? Also while I am banned from editing the article, does my opinion still count with regards wider discussion? --Coldtrack (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I ask the above is because I still have access to the talk page. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd let that matter go for a while. Try editing in other areas of Wikipedia. --Jayron32 09:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JRRobinson

[edit]

Greetings. Was kind of curious as to why this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1121#Problematic editor, darts articles was not acted upon? They are still continuing their problematic behavior. Onel5969 TT me 11:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was not acted upon because it was archived before anyone acted upon it. If the issues have not been resolved, start a new thread at WP:ANI with a pointer to the prior discussion, noting that the behavioral issues have not improved. --Jayron32 18:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Album credits are their own source

[edit]

Regarding your "In the News" nomination of David Lindley (musician), you said the article is 90% ready, needing just a few things including sourcing for the discography. I thought I might mention that album liner notes and record sleeve credits are akin to books: they have a publishing date, identifying number and a publisher (the record label). Basically, they are their own reliable sources. I threw some book credits in the discography as a convenience, kind of like having two cites for important facts. But the "uncited" entries are explicitly naming their source when they name an album title. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with you, but anticipate nearly everyone else who will say we need to cite every entry to some third party source. I have always been fine with not requiring every item in a -ography being cited, as one generally assumes the citation is to the work itself, but alas, some people flip their lids unless they see a footnote in every section, common sense be damned. --Jayron32 18:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Georgina Beyer

[edit]

On 9 March 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Georgina Beyer, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Beato

[edit]

I restored the reference to his recent Keith Jarrett video, but added cited material affirming this particular video is singularly notable in Beato's output and not in fact "a video I watched that I liked" as per your edit summary, though I understand it may have appeared that way without the extra context. Hope there might be some consensus around this. Walton22 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. --Jayron32 17:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Also thanks for chronologising. I thought to break the chronology to delineate the take-down notices and copyright claims as an implied new subtopic, but your take is appreciated. Walton22 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evackost

[edit]

is at UTRS. OK to leave blocked, but vanish? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, yes, leave them blocked, but help them with the Vanish procedure would probably be best. Whatever needs to be done to complete the WP:RTV request would be great. --Jayron32 16:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just need to make an explanatory note and click some buttons. (Vanishing is not really possible. We delude ourselves, but it always leaves traces.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; talk page signatures and stuff like that. But if we can do the standard "rename the account and lock everything down" that we usually do, that'd be fine. Thanks again! --Jayron32 17:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User asked at the global renaming queue four times, was denied, and was blocked by the Stewards. So it was an end-run that failed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they had come to me first, I could have helped them. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hubris67

[edit]

I left a comment over at User talk:Hubris67 about a block you made, get this, almost 15 years ago. Looking for your thoughts on a possible unblock. -- Yamla (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

[edit]

All's good. :) Valereee (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NBA Inside Stuff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OTD

[edit]

Given the amount of work that went into this discussion – 900 words from 11 users – it might have been appropriate to leave it for a while for others interested in the topic. History is complex.– Sca (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Given the amount of work that went into time that was wasted on this discussion – 900 words from 11 users – it might have been appropriate to leave it for a while for others interested in the topic actually have deleted it a long time ago, because it was a complete embarrassment to everyone involved. It looks like you had a few typos in your comment. I fixed them for you. --Jayron32 15:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeoning

[edit]

Please allow me to return the favor of directing your attention to some good practices: Wikipedia:Don't_bludgeon_the_process#Dealing_with_bludgeoning_the_process

I really did learn something - thanks! Shoreranger (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bro. --Jayron32 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notification

[edit]

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Thanks for your strong defence of how important AGF is. Your eloquence and sharp writing on this topic is greatly appreciated and a delight to read. I'm glad someone can describe my thoughts on the proposed canvass changes better than I can. Hope you enjoy your weekend and catch plenty of spring sun.

— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 01:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very kindly! --Jayron32 11:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Workshopping the god-awful ITN significance standard

[edit]

Hi Jayron32,

Let's put aside our cynicism for a moment: I have been working on creating a new path to assessing significance at ITN using a criteria that isn't so subjective. This is a long post, so I am going to hat it for your sake.

Purpose
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Wikipedia:In the news significance criteria currently states that the following principles are useful for assessing consensus:

  • The length and depth of coverage itself
  • The number of unique articles about the topic
  • The frequency of updates about the topic
  • The types of news sources reporting the story

In my opinion, these principles would be excellent in determining whether a story is worth posting. However, in practice, we rarely see consistent adherence to these principles leading to the unfortunate outcome that consensus is usually based on a head count. Indeed, the threshold for "length and depth of coverage" could be narrow for some users (like myself) and wide for others. It's clear that demolishing the significance standard outright would not be workable either, for it risks creating the perception that WP:ITN is a news ticker. Yet at the same time, the current standard is contentious and the divides between users are deep and in some cases irreconcilable.

This thread seeks to workshop the idea of what a less contentious, less subjective criterion would look like. There is no point in attempting to prescribe a change to our procedures or guidelines as to what kind of items we should be posting to ITN, because there would never be any consensus to achieve this. Instead, the goal should be to find a common ground on rewording the current standard so as to reorient users towards a less adversarial approach to ITN/C.

Background
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Let’s look at the things that presumed notable items do have in common, and those things that presumed non-notable items have in common. Note that all of these would have reliable source coverage:

  • Examples of notable items: National elections, national or international sporting events with large viewership, disasters that affect lots of people, first rocket launches for a nation, wars, assassinations of a major political figure.
  • Examples of non-notable items: Celebrity gossip, subnational elections, political intrigue, athletic records.
  • Examples of grey area items: Lawsuits between two major companies, business mergers, major archeological or scientific discoveries, United Nations directives, moderate disasters in areas that are known for disasters.

By categorizing these items, we can see the following commonalities:

  • Notable items impact large amounts of people on a wide scale, whether it’s the population of a country or the whole world. They do not necessarily have to be injured or killed in order for this to happen, nor does there necessarily need to be international crossover, but it is an item that grabs public attention and may impact daily life in a significant way for those concerned
  • Non-notable items are usually ignored because they don’t affect as many people. Or if they do affect people, the impact is not very tangible and at times the news coverage outsizes the actual notability.
  • The grey area items fall somewhere in the middle, in that they affect a lot of people, but the actual degree of the impact is difficult to pinpoint for those outside of that sphere. This is the area that causes the most contention at ITN.
Proposed standard
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Therefore, it seems that rather than a significance standard, we should be assessing based on an impact standard. This would not change how we operate at ITN/C, as the assessment method is still the same. However, the focus would change to determining the degree and scale as to how people are impacted. We can measure this by assessing the news coverage and answering the following questions:

  • Depth: How much news coverage is this item receiving?
  • Impact: How does the story define the impact on people in the region affected, if there is any?
  • Ramifications: For the news category this story is posted under (politics, art, science, sports, etc.), what sort of ramifications are there?

Functionally, the types of items that are being posted to ITN would not change, as we are still assessing the significance of the stories, but we now have a clear standard in which we can review items as opposed to the waves of voting that essentially boil down to “it doesn’t affect me, so it must not be important.” In making the criteria more specific and objective, we would no longer apply a blanket, abstract “significance standard”. Instead, we qualitatively assess based on the above criteria, by actually reviewing the news coverage and exploring the details within it. From there, we can reach a consensus around whether these criteria have been satisfied rather than based on a head count.

The other advantage to this is that as we continue to use this system, the global consensus on ITN around what items are posted becomes clearer and more definable, which will help other users who might not understand what is required in order for a newsworthy item to actually be posted. Furthermore, we can document the changes over time as consensus changes.

I know you and I have talked before, and you have explained that we already have standards in place for which we should assess something objectively. But I do believe that establishing clarity on significance would create a path to which those standards you speak of can actually be employed and thus enforced.

If you think this is worth trying, I can post it to WT:ITN and get people's input on it. It might be a better idea than just doing away with significance criteria entirely. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to face an up-hill battle, because people who's purpose is to be cultural gatekeepers will fight vehemently to that role they have created for themselves. I support these efforts, and have no problem with you writing up a proposal of this type. I only hope there's enough consensus to grant some clarity here. --Jayron32 11:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for all your good work Andre🚐 18:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I try! --Jayron32 18:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think youre a very fine admin, and very far from the worst. Thanks for re-opening the RFC, nableezy - 14:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying so. If that were true, I wouldn't keep screwing things like this up, however. --Jayron32 15:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Making a mistake (and it wasnt even really that) isnt a sign of a poor admin, refusing to fix it is. nableezy - 15:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: UTRS

[edit]

Hey. Thanks for your thoughtful closing note. That said, my understanding is that WP:UTRS is for when a blocked user's talk page has been revoked (i.e. {{uw-tparevoked}}). Which is to say, its intended use being to convince UTRS admins—or rather, admin ;)—that talk page access can be restored for the purposes of posting a normal unblock request. El_C 17:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll adjust. --Jayron32 17:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General Question / Curiosity

[edit]

Hi there, Jayron. Seeing how you have taken some interest in the current RM over at National League I figured I would pose a question to you, being an administrator. I'm curious to know where the line of WP:Canvassing is. There were a few posts that made me raise an eyebrow.

I will say that I made a similar post over on WP:Baseball, but it's the language of the other posts that made me most interested as to where the line was between notification to interested parties and canvasing with the intention of influencing an outcome. Given the current state of the discussion on the RM, I figured this would be worth questioning.

Please don't take this inquiry as anything other than a general curiosity. I actually !voted in favor of the RM and I think it's a good idea, so I'm certainly not attempting to influence in the other direction. Thanks, Skipple ☎ 00:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the wording of those notices could be taken as non-neutral. They should really only be worded as "There's a discussion you may be interested in" and that's about it. --Jayron32 09:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is helpful: Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification. Ocaasi t | c 14:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of content, not the contributor

[edit]

Jayron32, in order to not keep the discussion at Talk:United States#US territorial evolution animation on topic, I respond to your accusation here. Again, I'm sorry that you felt personally attacked, but according to WP:What is considered to be a personal attack?, I still disagree with your accusation that my explicit criticism of the proposed exclusion of mention of Native American removal and assimilation from the caption about US territorial expansion as conforming with narratives of denial, constitutes an attack against you personally. I clearly commented on the content, not on the contributor.

I know you're my colleague and not my enemy, and that's why I want to clear up this misunderstanding. إيان (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're cool. Apology accepted; though be careful of ascribing motive where you don't know it. Carefully choosing your phrasing doesn't change the nature of the attack; and the issue wasn't that you called me a name, it's that you accused me of engaging in an action (denialism) that I was not. Playing games with the words doesn't change how the commentary lands. If you want to say it wasn't a personal attack, fine. But it was rude, incivil, and a clear violation of WP:AGF to say that I was engaging in things I had not done. Still, I don't want to belabor this anymore than it has, your apology is accepted, no hard feelings, I am aware that we both are trying to improve the article in question. Carry on. --Jayron32 16:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to have a look at my ANI request

[edit]

Hello. I have chose you randomly to ask you to have a look at my ANI request made days ago: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Arkenstrone: baseless accusations. Veverve (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have disqualified me from commenting. I have a personal policy that I don't respond to personal requests to administrate. You'll have to wait for someone else. --Jayron32 11:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(WP:TPW comment) - I have to say, that is a rather interesting self-policy. I tend to try to be a nice person and often will at least go look if someone leaves a note on my talk page. But the more I think about your policy, the more I like it. : ) - jc37 15:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be helpful all the time if it doesn't involve my role as an admin. Like, if you say "Hey, I wrote this bit here, can you read it over and clean it up a bit" or "Hey, I'm trying to find sources on this, but am running into some trouble, can you help a but", I will almost always pitch in. There's something kinda dirty about hand-selecting the judge-jury-and-executioner you want to deal with your enemies, however, and I'll have no part of that. --Jayron32 15:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. And I think it's a fair position on WP:INVOLVED. The more I think about it, the more it grows on me. That said, myself, I think I'll still wobble towards helping. But you've really given me some food for thought. - jc37 15:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I chose you randomly... Veverve (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, I'm still not going to act on your request. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 15:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ren (British musician)

[edit]

Thank you for removing the Notability template. I was almost through checking that all the citations were in order when half of the article was removed and some of the citations we had just timestamped. Kiwatts (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't put citations for the remaining items that need them without it essentially being a revert. They deleted the birth registry citation, the the YouTube community page citation where Ren writes the month and day of his birth, all of the Justin Hawkins YouTube Interview timestamped citations from the Early life section. I was under the impression they were okay. was I wrong? Kiwatts (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the discography change. Kiwatts (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved these comments to the talk page Kiwatts (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After I reworked the Trick the Fox section based on the Justin Hawkins Interview you added I started working on adding all the timestamps to the citations and making sure the rest of the article was properly cited. I had done a large percentage of it and had to take a break.
23:20 12 May 2023 is when Drmies started editing and removing several areas. Including the YouTube timestamped references along with secondary references and information from the infobox. You can see the comments made.
You will need to select to view the last 100 edits
I agree with what was done to the Discography.
Mackey79 and I were already talking about it in the Discography section @ 19:36, 12 May 2023
I wasn't sure exactly what to do about the youtube citations being removed or what I needed to do differently about sourcing The Big Push section they completely removed saying there were no secondary sources for the claims. I had two sources at the end. That is when I made that post to you. That is also why I asked if there was a tutorial on citation placement.
I waited a bit but decided to work on it by myself and added additional sources, removed a line, and added another. I added info back to the infobox with citations. and recited the removed YouTube citations with this in the edit box.  Citation from Justin Howkins' Interview with Ren. This is information Ren would be reasonably expected to know)
21:54, 14 May 2023‎ Drmies started editing again.
you can see the comments (and why I said what I did about the instruments he plays and occupations)
I used a different secondary source because the one I used prior to that didn't state all of the things he was questioning and the new source did.
Then Drmies posted on my profiles talk section. You can look rather than me going into detail. I
I wanted to answer here instead of the Ren talk page so it didn't make things worse and have the talk page be something it shouldn't.
Sorry if you were blindsided. I don't think Drmies is reading the talk page anyway. I'm up early today because my nurse came early. They had an appointment. Kiwatts (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't have a lot of insight into specifically why Drmies did what they did, so you'll need to ask them directly, but all I can say is that having a source (like the Hawkins interview) is a necessary condition to add something, but it is not sufficient. Just because something has a source doesn't mean that it fits in the article (it could be irrelevant or trivial or inaccurate or badly written or any number of other issues that are too many to all list here) and just having a source doesn't prevent something from being removed for an issue that is unrelated to verifiability. If you want specific reasons why Drmies removed some specific text, however, you'll need to ask them. --Jayron32 18:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for you to get involved just letting you know what is going on. I'm obviously not cut out for this. Thank you Kiwatts (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vyyyrhastar:

[edit]

We need a [funny] in addition to [thanks], for things like [12] DMacks (talk) 03:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

[edit]

Jayron32, This is a new editor and this IP address is shared by hundreds of people, what is with that long list of names and dates on the method of loci article? Should not it be turned into a clickable link216.168.139.240 (talk)anany 216.168.139.240 (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but the names serve a purpose. The names are a citation showing which sources one can find the original information in. When you remove those sources (no matter how they are formatted), that makes it impossible for anyone to know what the sources were. Also, replacing those sources with personal commentary is not useful. --Jayron32 15:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. I apologize for the trouble I have caused, I will make sure to remember this in the future. Thank you. 216.168.139.240 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am a recent changes patroller. There is a link but the url rotted; I have redirected note 2 to the correct content.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I apologize. I hope we're good.

[edit]

I wholeheartedly apologize for making it come off as if I was accusing you of anything or for anything I said where it came off as if I was putting words in your mouth or anything. Was never my intention~ I'm just generally annoyed by the amount of controversy lately that these version history articles have created, generally by the same general group of editors who would much rather have articles deleted rather than improved, where in most cases, Wikipedia policy recommends deletion only as a last resort, if articles can't be improved to no longer violate policy. I also just generally disagree with the ways in which WP:CHANGELOG have been interpreted, mainly to use a very loose definition of what exhaustive means, but that's why i originally created the proposal. I just generally don't understand why tables create so much controversy but thats a debate I don't want to have on your talk page. I just wanted to genuinely say that I'm sorry. :( I am very argumentative due to brain chemistry stuff, and sometimes it makes me argue irrationally. I try to control it but it's just really hard, sadly. But yeah I genuinely do hope that we're okay. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 17:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're fine. I recognize the investment you've made in this topic, and I want to make clear I'm not disagreeing with you on most points just to be antagonistic. I generally find myself in the middle ground on this matter; I think Wikipedia covering the history of important software is fine, but I also think that the content of these articles goes too far into the weeds, and could stand for better narrative flow. I think the entire area could stand for a wider amount of voices (which I was trying to provide) and that the same people on both sides could stand to let it rest for a bit.--Jayron32 17:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis, Missouri - Union or Confedrate?

[edit]

In the Little House on the Prairie season 4 episode The Inheritance, a lawyer from St Louis had a box containing Confederate money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#St._Louis,_Missouri_-_Union_or_Confedrate? 86.130.77.121 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest carrying on ref desk threads on my user talk page. --Jayron32 16:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A small, humble request

[edit]

Hello Jayron32. About 6 million years ago, I spent hours upon untold, unending hours arguing my head off in a fever swamp discussion about whether or not every single school in the US should have its own Wikipedia article. That permanently warped my brain. I can't read those fever swamp threads anymore. My soul is sucked into a negative vortex and the universe collapses into a mote in a used car salesman's eye. So just now I posted on that d*mn Fox News thread, but I have no idea where my post should have gone.... you seem to know what's going on... as a tiny favor... pretty please... could you refactor it for me? Thanks. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Jayron32 16:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

[edit]

I have a question for you. Is there any reason why when it is posted on someone’s talk page about a notice (i.e. AnI and the such) that it doesn’t link to the actual conversation so that users do not need to scroll through all of the discussions to find the one they are listed at? I’ve noticed the topic does not always include the user name. I’ve noticed this at other boards as well. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{ANI-notice}} does contain fields to link to the exact topic name on ANI. Sometimes, people don't fill it in. The reason is behavioral, and not technical, and there's nothing we can really do about it, we can't force people to fill in that field of the template, or to link to the correct conversation if they choose to post a notice by manually typing it out. Simply put, people can do it, people should do it, but we really have no way to make people do it. --Jayron32 17:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

[edit]

Remove your ban of discussion about this or I will report you to the site moderators and have them remove your ban. I do not need your permission to defend Jacobin and Wikipedia is not censored. Chances last a finite time (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly advise you to not report anyone (read WP:BOOMERANG), and wp:cir. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you insult me by calling me incompetent? Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am warning you why a report is a bad idea when someone displays as much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as you are (pointed out by a number of users, not just me). The RFC was closed as it asked for a ruling on a point no one but you made. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chances last a finite time (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closure

[edit]

What an excellent summation of the facts you made at that closure for Jack. Very nicely written and a great conclusion. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Jayron32 14:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second MaxnaCarta. That was a very difficult discussion to read, with many different factors and opposing/overlapping arguments, and your close was very well written with a good explanation. Thank you for your work! JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your time off!

[edit]

As it says on the tin. DMacks (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor shenanigans by the archive bot

[edit]

Greetings! Spotted something funny: you hatted two discussions at VPP; then one was archived on May 29 without the hat, then the other was archived on May 31 with the hat, but the bot placed the hat above the wrong discussion. Seems like the bot doesn't keep hats intact when they span multiple discussions. (This confused both me and the good ActivelyDisinterested; I've now fixed it).

I'll report it to the bot operator in case there's a way to fix it. And by the way, enjoy your holidays! DFlhb (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bot operator is inactive so I've notified Wikipedia:Bot request instead. Best, DFlhb (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're back early.

[edit]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm like a ninja. You never know when I'll appear. --Jayron32 12:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ref desk

[edit]
I've had enough sealioning for one day. --Jayron32 11:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Reference Desk is for "Ask research questions about any topic except Wikipedia itself", and I came here about Wikipedia's strong attachment to mainstream corporate media. Tetrasgetras (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story bro. --Jayron32 17:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was only there because Wikipedia is only attached to mainstream media, and not any other alternative resources whatsoever. Tetrasgetras (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not attached to "mainstream media" (which, as an intelligent person, you clearly already know is a dog whistle announcing your own political feelings). Wikipedia is attached to reliable sources. --Jayron32 17:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not attached to "mainstream media" Seems pretty self-contradicting since you always use commercially-controlled media as sources, which even if you say its a 'reliable source', they're allowed to lie legally. Tetrasgetras (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool story, bro. --Jayron32 18:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you actually respond instead of that? Tetrasgetras (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that fully captures my feelings, and does not need to be further elaborated. --Jayron32 18:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I guess you cant argue even in the slightest of logic. Tetrasgetras (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other British monarch requested move discussions currently taking place

[edit]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFUND

[edit]

Welcome (back?) to WP:REFUND. You may find using the RFUD-helper tool to be helpful. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You kids and your fancy tools. I'm good typing things in by hand. <old man yells at cloud> --Jayron32 17:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend using RFUD-helper. You restored Draft:Archie Drake but didn't make a minor edit to the page so it was tagged for speedy deletion, CSD G13 again. You have to make an edit to the page after restoration or it becomes immediately eligible for deletion again. So, I untagged it and doing this made an edit to the draft. But if you use the helper tool, it will take care of that step for you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting my mistake! Besides being old, I'm also incorrigibly incompetent. It's always good to have someone around who isn't. --Jayron32 11:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Civility Barnstar
This is something which needs to be said, and you said it well. jp×g 22:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, kind sir! --Jayron32 10:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generative AI and Wikipedia research

[edit]

Hi Jayron32,

My name is Dr. Tim Koskie and I am a researcher at the Centre for Media Transition (CMT) at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). We are conducting a study on the implications of content-generating AI systems such as ChatGPT for knowledge integrity on Wikipedia, and are approaching you because you have participated in discussions on this topic on Wikimedia pages.

If you are interested, we would like to invite you to participate in our study. It would involve joining either a focus group discussion or an interview (around 1 hour), in person at Wikimania in Singapore if you are going to be there, or online at a future date. At these sessions we would ask you questions about how you think generative AI will impact Wikipedia, as well as about the kinds of work you do on Wikipedia.

The project is funded by the Wikimedia Research Fund grant programme. You can find out more about the project here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Implications_of_ChatGPT_for_knowledge_integrity_on_Wikipedia If you are interested, let me know and I will forward you some more detailed information on the project. Tbkoskie (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but I'm not really interested. Good luck with your study though! --Jayron32 11:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, and we appreciate your contributions to the larger discussions. Tbkoskie (talk)