User talk:Jake Wartenberg

This is Jake Wartenberg's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

I Hate Sex

Dear Jake — I recently submitted a draft article on the band I Hate Sex for review. I didn't realize at the time that there was a previous version of the article that was deleted several months ago. Since you were the administrator who carried out the deletion, I wanted to invite you to take a look and provide feedback. Thanks! Qmwne₂₃₅ 14:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned on the draft talk page, your draft has non-primary sources. I'm very optimistic that it will be accepted. Thanks for your work on this! ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LTA

That LTA you blocked is back as 49.186.59.12. - ZLEA _T\^C 06:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For future reference, specifically which LTA was this one? I've seen them around, but I've never known which one it was. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, though I've also seen it before. User:Loafiewa was the one to report it to AIV the first time around, I wonder if they can tell us? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel kind of awkward starting a game of telephone, but I think BilCat is more familiar with their MO than I am. But from what I do know, it's an Australian LTA who edits military aircraft articles, adding 'that was' into the opening sentence, and whose edit summaries usually involve insults directed specifically towards the education/intelligence of Americans. Loafiewa (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, among other things, they tend to follow tedious prescriptivist grammar rules that either are no longer followed, or aren't applicable in American English. They're either very old or very young, or possibly both! Sometimes they engage in insults, and sometimes they don't. It's possible they're actually meatpuppets, but I really don't know. the location of the IPs in Australia can be from widely spaced cities, so it's hard to know. BilCat (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goya Menor

I wanted to move this article to mainspace and found out that it was (correctly) protected by you. Can you kindly unprotect it? I’m keep tab on the article to keep away promo-socks. Best, Reading of Beans 08:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Jake. Best, Reading of Beans 14:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Bomyy

I'm not sure I understand why you blocked this user. To be sure, there was some edit warring at Manipulation (psychology), but you blocked them for spam, and I don't see what is promotional about their edits. Can you please explain? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the AIV report that I was responding to. The report states "all refs have this link." This is not the case, so I can certainly see why you reached out. That said, the user subsequently created a new sock account and resumed edit warring. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

I'll wait a while on resubmitting the Buck Arnold page, since I'm not sure how or why some of those decisions were made. You got me back the text and other information I'd researched and published, and as you can see, there were five references.

But again, I'll just wait a bit to do a resubmit. Thanks Hubdb39 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to help. To understand why the article was speedily deleted, you can refer to WP:CCS. Based on WP:NCOLLATH, it's not enough to say that he was the head coach at a Division II school. If there isn't another way to make an assertion of notability, the other option is to find sources that discuss him in a substantial way. You can see WP:BASIC for more information about that. Please fell free to let me know if you have more questions. Wikipedia's notability guidelines and deletion processes are really complicated. Another great resource is to submit your draft for review, rather than moving it to article space. That way, if it still needs work, it will merely be declined, rather than deleted. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not try to delete Wiki pages

Sorry about this, but I wasn't trying to vandalize Wiki pages. All I did was a minor edit on a page involving programs on The WB 100+. It was just a mistake that it was vandalism. 173.207.89.188 (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was reverted by a vandal, which is why I deleted your talk page. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and please let me know if you have any further questions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't like it when the edits were reverted by random people even though I was being honest about the edits, and especially bad users who likes to purge Wiki pages. 173.207.89.188 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:JDELANOY" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:JDELANOY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 10 § Wikipedia:JDELANOY until a consensus is reached. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 02:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've gone ahead and deleted this. 2009 was a very different time... ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and sorry for the trouble :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have deleted this and you need to restore it. It was not eligible for G7 speedy deletion because there were good-faith recommendations for actions other than deletion in the ongoing discussion, the discussion was also no eligible for snow closure. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the discussion precluded me deleting the page, so long as the page met the criteria for speedy deletion. WP:DP says, "Pages currently on proposed deletion or deletion discussion [...] may be deleted through speedy deletion." ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions do not preclude speedy deletion - but only if the page actually meets a speedy deletion criterion, which this did not. Speedy deletion is explicitly only for pages that are uncontroversial, the existence of good-faith recommendations for something other than delete means deletion is controversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't share that interpretation. Your recourse at this point would be to unilaterally reverse the deletion yourself or to open a DRV discussion. That said, I really think it would be unfortunate to waste more of the community's time discussing an ancient joke redirect. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 12#Wikipedia:JDELANOY because this is not a matter of "disagreeing with that interpretation" it is contrary to the explicit wording of the CSD policy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:JLCSan

Hi Jake! User:JLCSan got blocked but I think that the things they were saying on their talkpage about Tabacalera, specifically the name is not "Tabacalera, S.A." anymore, the type is not "Sociedad Anonima", the predecessor is also wrong, the date it was founded is wrong, it is not Defunct, Products are not those anymore, and the article is almost empty from what the company is and does.. is mostly, but not entirely, correct. Maybe you wanna take a look as a sanity-check? The block was completely unrelated to factual accuracy. I made some edits. Nothing makes sense on that article. Polygnotus (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. I blocked them for their conduct on the article, including edit warring and inserting promotional language. Unfortunately, they were not receptive to being asked to make requests on the article talk page, instead of editing the article directly, and seemed to be unwilling to work with us. They eventually resorted to making a legal threat, and I revoked their talk page access. All that said, I'm not surprised at all that there are some inaccuracies. Given the research you've done, do you think the article meets our notability guidelines? They did request that it be deleted at one point. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did some digging, and they are not going to like what I found. Not a 400 year history; they started in 1945 in a dictatorship. Somehow they forgot to mention that on the timeline on their website. Polygnotus (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Thanks for your work on this article. Please let me know if you need help with anything, such as the page move. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 23:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladiators S2 vandal

The IP you blocked from adding unaired info to the Gladiators 2024 article has been doing it again! block them again immediately! Visokor (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Dafna Lemish page updates

Dear Jake,

Would you please review my latest attempt to update Dafna Lemish? I left you a note to continue our thread.

Thanks,

TheBlueHeronofHopewell TheBlueHeronofHopewell (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Lemish page

Hi Jake,

Would you please take a look at this thread and advise me? I'd really appreciate it! https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Dafna_Lemish?markasread=331329314&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Axad12-20241101155900-TheBlueHeronofHopewell-20241101124200 71.168.164.97 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Axad12 gave you some really good feedback that mirrors a lot of my own suggestions. In keeping with that, I would start a new section on that page and only make a single request. There are two requests in your comment, so you would need to remove one and save it for later. Make sure you use {{edit COI}} at the top of the section and format the references correctly. Lastly, it's important to make sure that you are logged in when editing. Thank you as always for your patience and attention to our processes. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC for a research

@Jake Wartenberg hi Jake, thank you for guiding me through recruitment on Wikipedia - I've already had a project page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:How_LLMs_impact_knowledge_production_processes, and I attached RFC template in the project page and started a RFC thread on the discussion page. May I ask for some guidance on what to do next please? Thank you so much for your help! Phoebezz22 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to carefully follow the instructions on the page I linked you to, in order to create a project page on the English Wikipedia, distinct from the page on Meta Wiki that you linked to above. Once you fill in the name of your study and click "create a project page," you will be presented with a template to fill out. Please be sure to mention that you plan to recruit editors through either talk page messages, the Email User function, or both. Thank you for your careful attention to our policies and do not hesitate to let me know if you have any further questions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refer to essays as policies, especially to newcomers. I can understand the confusion if you missed the essay template on WP:Research recruitment and mistook it for a policy as it repeatedly describes itself as a policy, but it isn't actually policy. Photos of Japan (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was coming here to say the same thing. It’s an essay that was a proposed policy at one point but never got consensus. I have found nothing to suggest that the English Wikipedia has any requirement for researchers above and beyond the WMF/meta-wiki approval process. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Photos of Japan @Berchanhimez Thank you for clarifying this for me! Would you suggest to leave as it is for now, given that I have a WMF/meta-wiki project page? Phoebezz22 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These editors are correct about the status of that page, and it would have been more appropriate for me to have said, "thank you for your attention to our procedures" or "best practices." That said, a number of other editors have identified your attempts to recruit editors as disruptive and have objected the volume of talk page messages and emails. I was attempting to resolve this matter by asking you to solicit community input before continuing. As no other suggestions as to how best to do this have been offered, you may wish to use the aforementioned instructions to open an RfC before continuing. Your involvement in Wikipedia is appreciated and I apologize that this feedback was not more straightforward. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the advice of that essay on how to solicit participants is good advice, so I thank you for linking it. I just took issue with the way it presents itself as an official policy and tells researchers they must follow it. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the friendly discussion, I totally thought I got into big trouble in the beginning... Jake thank you for providing the information for better recruitment, I really appreciated it! Will definitely try my best to recruit in a better way Phoebezz22 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this too. "Procedures" or "best practices" implies that it is a guideline, if not a policy. The community has been asked multiple times if they want a set policy/guide/requirements for researchers, and as far as I can see, each and every one of those proposals have failed. Wikipedia:WikiProject Research is all but defunct, Wikipedia:Subject Recruitment Approvals Group is defunct and was not accepted by the community, and the page you initially linked was proposed as a policy but not accepted by the community.

Ultimately, since there is no community prohibition on mass invites through talk page or email for research purposes, there is no policy/guideline based method for you to "identify your attempts to recruit editors as disruptive". People do research on Wikipedia - that's a side effect of being in the top 10 websites worldwide. As meta:Research:FAQ states Observational research generally does not require approval from anyone. And later it references the now defunct community processes for approving survey invites.

Feel free to start a discussion regarding what the community should accept. But as of now, the emails are for a legitimate purpose (research that's been advertised on Meta by appropriate processes) and there does not seem to be any policy based reason to try to prohibit them. I doubt any proposal to limit researchers will get anywhere - it takes no effort whatsoever to ignore an email or talk page comment if you don't wish to participate in research. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about whether the user needs permission to do research, which they obviously don't. Rather, I was trying to help them mitigate the objections that they are facing to the large volume of automated or semi-automated edits to user talk pages that they have been performing. We do have policies and guidelines about that kind of activity. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that they are automated or semi automated? Copying and pasting a statement to talk pages of those potentially interested in the message someone has is not prohibited.

Again, if people want to make a research policy, go for it. Until there is such a policy, researchers shouldn’t be hampered for trying to recruit research subjects for their research on Wikipedia. Regardless if they copy and paste a message or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that is in WP:MEATBOT. If I were to open a dozen editing windows, paste the same talk page message in all of them, and then save them one by one, the effect is the same as a script that sends those messages on its own.

There are more appropriate venues for recruiting research like the village pump. Awesome Aasim 17:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a research policy, WP:NOTLAB. —Alalch E. 12:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

israels liberation of syrian golan towns

Sorry you feel that way, but i will state the facts, the residents of the town voted to join israel and therefore is is not an invasion but rather a libration 212.199.62.133 (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]