Jump to content

User talk:Jayron32/Archive34

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

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow on last Nov. Ref. Desk discussion

[edit]

In reference to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 147#Ref. desk protection, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the current discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Indefinitely protecting the refdesk. --RDBury (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dune (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandworm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partial government shutdown explanation

[edit]

Your common-sense explanation of the "partial government shutdown" on the Humanities RefDesk is concise and helpful. May I please copy it to post outside of WP?--Thomprod (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you give credit, sure! --Jayron32 14:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!--Thomprod (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Teahouse response

[edit]

I'm way behind. Here you gave an interesting explanation about being autoconfirmed, although you said the person had to edit 4 articles before they could be autoconfirmed. You actually meant 10 since it's 4 days and 10 edits, but in fact it could be ten edits to the same page. And that wouldn't even have to be an article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several really good explanations in that archive.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I'm not sure why you're digging up a mistake I made over 3 months ago in the Teahouse, but I humbly apologize for my catastrophic mistake in judgement, and I hope that the damage I did in writing the wrong word 3 months ago will not cause undo destruction to Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

indefinite protection of talk:tropical year

[edit]

It seems to me rather strange that you protected a talk page indefinitely. I can see that there was a long track record of disruptive editing that merited a lot longer than the usual weeks or even months. I can see a case to protect a main space article indefinitely though it ought to be a really exceptional case for a high profile biography of a living person. Setting a time limit forces a review, even if it has to be because of renewed disruptive editing. Hard cases make bad law. In the case of tropical year and talk:tropical year, it looks like an anon editor is trying to make a good faith edit and the discussion about the change is happening in the edit summaries instead of the talk page. Would you unblock please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is a wider discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inability to use talk page at "Tropical year" so you may wish to see that resolved first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you probably don't have to read the whole ANI thread. I'm pretty sure you misread the protection log (or whatever) as you said when protecting the sock came back within minutes. It was actually over a year later, protection expired on 13:19, 31 January 2017 and you protected on 15:59, 31 January 2018 [1] so may be better to just unprotect. If you think this case has probably drawn their attention and decline to unprotect at the moment because of that, then maybe explain that at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the prior 1 year protection started in January, 2017, and ended a few minutes before VXFC edited in January 2018. That pattern (waiting on a protection to expire, then immediately starting to disrupt the page again) is standard VXFC behavior. I fully expect VXFC to start editing that talk page again. However, I have unprotected the page, per your request. Via con dios. --Jayron32 12:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Beggars Banquet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Clave
Let It Bleed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ian Stewart

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Lam

[edit]

Yet most of the content is already covered at Carrie Lam as Chief Executive of Hong Kong. It is not necessary to have the exact same information on two different articles. Doesn’t matter if it’s “repeated elsewhere in the article”, if another article already covers it, there should only be a brief summary and a hatnote on the primary article. Hayman30 (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you didn't leave a summary and a hatnote. You wholesale removed the entirety of it. If you just tightened up the language, or left a summary and a hatnote behind, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. So, go do that if you want to. Shorten the summaries, leave the hatnotes, etc. But you removed entire chunks of relevant text with no further reading or summary left behind for others. --Jayron32 15:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean I didn’t leave a summary? I literally said that the content is repetitive. If I had to be as specific as saying that it’s repeating content from another article, I apologize. And there is already a hatnote in the section, and I did left a short summary. Apparently you saw me removing a great deal of content and you exercised poor judgment by not looking into the matter first and hastily undid my edit. I won’t be touching he article now and I’ll just let the people who’s been working on the article handle it. Will be leaving a message on the article talk page. Hayman30 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't follow. Here you removed all of the short summaries and hatnotes for a good half dozen sections. You didn't leave behind, as you say "a brief summary and a hatnote on the primary article." You quite literally did the opposite; you removed all of the summaries, hatnotes, and everything else. For someone calling someone else "hasty", you put very little effort into complying with the very guidance you just told me to do; you simply blanked out a half dozen sections of the article, and left no summaries or pointers behind to the content you called repetitive. --Jayron32 16:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my word can please examine closely. All those sections were supposed to be placed under “Chief Executive” and I left that section behind along with the hatnote. That section was all the primary article needed as somebody literally just copy-pasted content from/to the secondary article (compare Carrie Lam#Disqualifications of localists and Carrie Lam as Chief Executive of Hong Kong#Localist candidates' disqualification). It was you who put absolutely no effort looking into my edit and assumed bad faith because of the amount of content I removed. And can you not assume that you’re always right for literally one second? Shit happens, take it. Hayman30 (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I always assume I'm always wrong, so I'm one step ahead of you there. --Jayron32 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

How does an actual "new" user know to go to a specific user and proclaim that they're a new user?[2] The user's approach reminds me a little bit of the banned Bowei Huang or whoever the name was, but it could just be a brief shot. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ska punk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sublime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your unilateral move of Ashmont–Mattapan High Speed Line to Mattapan Trolley

[edit]

This is a bush move. Don't do this. Nobody gives a rat's ass about what the official name is. What matters is what people call it. See WP:COMMONNAME. Also see the two recent discussion on the talk page where it was decided not to move the article. Either you are aware of these, in which case you know perfectly well that the move was way out of line, or else you're not aware of them, in which case you shouldn't be moving articles. Herostratus (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the problem. As a side note, if you had not have been an asshole in the tone you took with me, I still would have done so. You can be polite and still get things done. --Jayron32 15:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

[edit]

Hi - I tried to ping you from the "Meaning of life" paragraph at the Teahouse. I think you ping someone if you responded to their comment or edit. I didn't realize you were an administrator so I'm sorry for taking your time on my learning experiment. Eschoryii (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. --Jayron32 13:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

US 311

[edit]

NCDOT made it official last month, US 311 is no more south of Winston-Salem. I figured you would want to make the edits to U.S. Route 311 since you have made recent changes to it first. --WashuOtaku (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They had received permission to do so from AASHTO. Do we have sources showing they are taking down the signs? If so, we can start fixing the article based on the sources. --Jayron32 14:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In the news

[edit]

You broke the 'hidden' stuff here, and the words "readd if Lagerfeld is promoted to blurb" were displayed on the main page. I've attempted a fix but you might want to take another look in case I've misinterpreted what you were trying to do... GiantSnowman 15:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just fixed it. --Jayron32 15:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FAC: Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies

[edit]

Hi hii. Would you care to review or offer comments to this nomination? Apart from one substantial review, it has been relatively stale so far. Dan56 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion notice - Wikipedia talk:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Requested move 25 February 2019

[edit]

Hey there! I'm Psantora. There is a move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Adding open license text to Wikipedia#Requested move 25 February 2019 requiring more participation, please consider commenting/voting in it along with the other discussions in the backlog (Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings). - PaulT+/C 16:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk

[edit]

If that user persists in asking about his favorite subject, vasectomy and its variations, do you recommend just hatting it right away, to be done with it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recommended things, but that's what I plan to do myself.--Jayron32 02:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rogereeny. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not trolling

[edit]
OK. I think we're done here. This has moved into "not useful" land. --Jayron32 16:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello friend from the USA It's Ahab You did a bad move shutting down the discussion on Harriet Owen/Sophie B. Hawkins I am asking where sources are that show that they are different people and instead you guys are being unhelpful, thinking i'm doing something else. You had better have a good reason without links to long-winded policies for shutting down that discussion. thanks. 199.101.61.34 (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we aren't here to disprove every insane thing you say just because you demand that we do. You can't say "Here's two random people. Prove to me they aren't the same person" and then argue with everyone who does actually show that they are, in fact, different people. Your combative nature and your insane debates over these sorts of things have worn the patience of the community thin, and if you can't stop, you can take your craziness elsewhere. I don't care what word you describe your behavior, it is problematic and you will stop it. That discussion has ended, and will not be restarted. Please do not start similar ones in the future. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 13:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop calling me names like insane dear friend. It only reinforces my feelings towards you guys in the red white and blue country. Also since you're an admin, I invite you to read why it is that I will not take orders from an American like that, "you will stop it" as opposed to the request "please sto pit". I have no problem discussing things wit hyou, and I have no problems taking suggestions from you or any other users, but you will not give me orders. I can't take orders from Americans because you guys continue to attack my country of origin, and you guys support the Saudis, who have destroyed the area I live in. As for the discussions themselves, Im' being combative because everybody links me to long long policy pages. I can't just skim through them like you sighted people can. What I have to do is use my creen-reader called JAWS to listen to the whole page in hopes of finding somethign that relates to what's going on. Try listening to a monotonous voie read out pollicies, and it's as interesting as watching paint dry.

So yes, I will take suggestions from you, I will have discussions from you, but I will never take orders from any American until the USA stops attacking Yemen and the Aden area, that I called home for the first part of my life. The bad people are gone, please, leave Yemen alone. That is why I cannot take any orders form Americans. here's something to remember, أنا صديقك وليس المرؤوس الخاص بك 199.101.61.34 (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it means i am your friend, not your subbordinates. 199.101.61.34 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never called you any names. I said your discussions were insane. I have no idea who you are, nor do I care. It is your behavior, not your person, that I am concerned with. Your behavior has been problematic, and you should change your behavior. Also, your rampant xenophobia is noted, and will be remembered. Also, I never said you were my subordinate. I am not ordering you to do anything. I am informing you of the consequences of your future actions. You do what you want, I am just letting you know what others (including, possibly myself) will do if you continue as you have. Good day. --Jayron32 13:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I am willing to engage, but not to take orders from you guys from USA. Taking orders from Americans just goes against everything that I am and against my universal protest against attacks on where my original home was. It was the Americans that destroyed my home, I had to move to the UK for years then come to Canada for a better job. The life I had is gone, and it is thanks to the United States. That is why I wll take suggestions, I will discuss with, and I will even be friends with, I will seek advice from, and debate with Americans, but I will never ever ever take direct orders from any American, administrator or not, until the United States stops going after Yemen. A couple bad apples does not warrent the destruction of my home town. I hope you understand that, you're a good person so I know you do. 199.101.61.34 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep calling me an American. Where do you get that from? --Jayron32 13:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You live in NH and NC, two U.S> states. and no I don't mean it in a bad way. 199.101.61.34 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You live in NB, a Canadian province. Or at least, you're connecting to the Internet through one. --Jayron32 14:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have requested a block of this user, on the grounds of incompetence and racism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, back down man. --Jayron32 14:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He deleted a post of mine on the ref desk. I could add that to the complaint list, unless it falls under the "incompetence" umbrella. Speaking of which, aren't the troubles in Yemen primarily due to warring Middle East factions? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, for now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may help explain why I don't take orders from Americans baseball bugs. Let's say an arsonist comes around and burns your house down. You ended up finding out the arsonist is Mr. Jones. Then a time later mr. Jones comes and starts bossing you around. are you going to let Mr. Jones order you around? no! Mr. Jones goes to jail and comes out a changed man, wiling to discuss things and what not. But then he comes and starts ordering you around again. Are you going to follow his orders, knowing that he burned down your house? I wouldn't. I hope that helps. Also cut the racism and xenophobia crap, if somebody came and destroyed your home you'd dislike them too. and I said I'd engage with Americans I just won't take orders from them. 199.101.61.34 (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one on Wikipedia destroyed your home. To lump everyone together has a lot of names: scapegoating, xenophobia, ethnocentrism, racism, religionism, etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think we've had enough here.--Jayron32 16:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]

apparently I'm a troll now?

[edit]

Hello Take a look at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment where some guy with a long number username tries to do this big huge exposé on me. He links some IP addresses with similar numbers to the one I use, and tha thave some similarities to me (one's blind the 23 one that I'm wondering if he messed u pwith that one), but hasn't explained how I match this troll to a T. By the looks of things, the troll is anti-American while I just ask that they not essentially boss me around due to the war in yemen. As for the blind guy at the 23 IP address this perosn mentions, he's Eritrean, and I have no idea where the 199 addresses are from. We geolocate to the same general area, maybe there's a wiki troll in the area I am in, i don't know. I can see we both are bad typists too (not insulting anyone) Can you please weigh in on my talk page and help me move the discussion there rather than on the ref desk? thanks 199.101.61.34 (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I do want to point out something that I remember from my time in the UK when I edited from some UK IP addresses, I was accused of being a troll, linked to a guy named Cuddlyable3 (an odd name hence why I remembe rit, sounds cartoony), and they said we had similar behaviors, save th elack of asking Americans not to come after me. marnetteD and 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 had better have some damn good explanations for claiming i am trolling. I mean it. After the Cuddlyable incident a couple years ago I'm not really willing to take an accusation at face value. 199.101.61.34 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Update: Apparently now I am Comet Egyot or maybe I'm Nissae Isen's man or I don't know wh oelse, on my talk page I'm also being linked to User:Eric Ramus The one making the accusations there is this user. Can all this bullshit stop lease? I'm losing my patience here big time. First, it was cuddlyable3 when I lived in the UK. I move to Canada, have some time to edit, and now I'm Commet Egypt or Nissea's man or Eric Ramus or eric the red or whatever whatever i'm going mental here! Seriously, can you please talk to these people because short of me showing them my immigration papers I have no way of proving I moved to Canada in June of 2018, and I don't like the idea of having to go to suc hlengths to prove I am who I am. This is cuddlyable3 all over again and I will not have it. Maybe Wikipedia is a toxic environment after all. I sure as hell feel poisoned after all of this crap, it'sa disaster. I can't speak to whether any of these users used my IP before me, I can only speak to what I know, and I know that I have never had an account, unless somebody used my e-mail address to create one several years ago. I did have my e-mail hacked i nlike 2015 or so, but I don't know if there was an account because when I tried creating an account last year my e-mail was associated with an existing account. SO I am begging you, help help help! thanks 199.101.61.34 (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a test, I created a user called "Baseball Bugs test" and it accepted the same email address that's associated with my normal logon. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, when I'm back from Africa I may just look into an account if it will get all these troll accusations to stop. 199.101.61.34 (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bimetric gravity

[edit]

About the ongoing discussion at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks,_POV-pushing,_refspamming_and_attempts_to_unilaterally_override_AfD_consensus_by_91.169.1.118_and_probable_socks

XOR'easter is misleading, is distorting facts by giving microscopic and insignificant details, and is giving voluntarily a very biased/erroneous view; a quick read of the article's Talk discussion should be enough to agree. But this is not my point. I wonder why nobody ask why XOR'easter is constantly scratching the surface of the debate (and agreeing with some gentle words he/she was wrong to begin 3RR with me), instead of discussing the root fact : his/her opinion on theories disqualify him/her to contribute on cosmology related articles, because of total lack of NPOV! Detailed examples : 1) why is it strictly impossible to publish a single sentence about the crisis in cosmology whatever the huge number of valid primary and secondary references ? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Bimetric_gravity 2) why having failed this simple test, is XOR'easter still allowed to be a WP admin, without even starting a debate about a ban? cf URL provided by XOR'easter himself : https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Black_hole#Absence_of_central_singularity_according_to_new_scientific_articles 

    You say the proposed sources are not enough. Please answer these questions :
   1) where is written that the present article should be considered with different rules than others WP articles ?
   2) to clarify Notability, give us a precise list of the minimum mandatory criteria (qualitatively and quantitatively) to add the proposed sentences in the article, according to yourself (for instance: the authors must received Nobel Price, one of them has to be named Time's magazine Man of the Year).
   3) map each criteria with a WP rule (not a guideline)
   If you fail to provide 3) in a few days, then this would mean your approach is arbitrary. Such approach, a.k.a censorship, has no place in WP. --80.215.195.0 (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Have a nice day, --91.169.1.118 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, I never claimed to be one, and I have no inclination to become one. The rest of these complaints are at least as misguided. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Ok. I didn't realize how much I didn't give a shit about this until I read this discussion on my talk page. --Jayron32 02:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Computer network

[edit]

Hi - you just reverted my request for page protection - did I do something wrong? thanks GirthSummit (blether) 17:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I did. It was a stray click on my part. I have fixed the problem. --Jayron32 17:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Should I resubmit the request for PP? I see that the IP user has already vandalised the page again (and been reverted). GirthSummit (blether) 17:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, sorry, I see you reinstated my original request. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 17:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick alternate history question

[edit]

Hi,

I want to ask you a quick alternate history question. I'm asking it here because the Ref Desks aren't supposed to be for AH questions. Anyway, here goes:

Had there been no Spanish-American War (for instance, as a result of the USS Maine being sunk in US waters rather than in Cuban waters), do you think that Puerto Rico would have remained a part of Spain up to the present-day or do you think that Puerto Rico would have eventually acquired independence from Spain and become an independent country? Futurist110 (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Spain had divested itself (or been forced to, because they revolted) of nearly all of the rest of its Western Hemisphere possessions by then anyways. There is, of course, a chance they would have held on a little longer, i.e. many other European powers still had colonies until the middle 20th century, but between 1945-1980, virtually every other European colony worldwide had been granted independence, or had taken it by force. In 2019, naw, I don't see any way that Spain would have held Puerto Rico until now. Remaining European colonies still exist, but they are so rare as to be exceptional, and playing the odds, I don't see it happening. --Jayron32 11:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Small island colonies were more likely to remain a part of the metropole up to the present-day, no? I mean, Britain, France, and the Netherlands still control some small island colonies even right now (New Caledonia, some Caribbean islands, et cetera). For that matter, France also still controls French Guiana (which isn't an island) right now.
I do agree with you that larger colonies would have very likely eventually acquired their independence. I'm just less sure about smaller colonies--especially (but not only) those that are small islands. I mean, there don't appear to be large independence movements in Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, or Guam right now in real life. Rather, all of these territories appear to prefer continued US rule. Futurist110 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your T formation diagram

[edit]

Hi Jayron. I did this: Commons:File:T formation.PNG. OK with you? Leviv ich 04:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Give 'Em Enough Rope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mick Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

[edit]

I did get some sort of edit conflict message there, and apparently I did not handle that correctly, and mistakenly removed stuff that wasn't there when I first asked my question. SteamboatPhilly (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. --Jayron32 18:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Science Reference Desk

[edit]
Thanks for keeping it real - yes, I know that we have several regular contributors who ought to be better and ought to be held to higher standards, and who have exhausted the benefit of the doubt that we normally pay to the "newbies"... but, we try, nonetheless. After all, we are trying to educate the world, and the world is a decidedly under-educated place.
One only hopes that an overabundance of civility can soften the edges...
Thank you for your continued efforts to help educate the uneducated! It ain't isn't an easy job...
Nimur (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words! --Jayron32 17:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

block evasion

[edit]

hi. i noticed that you blocked a user called Dean12065 some time ago for nuisance editing. they appear to have opened a new account to evade that block

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Musicfan245

the subjects and edits are identical in style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:bac5:7800:4956:3352:2797:929c (talk • contribs)

You should report this to WP:SPI instead of me. They can run a checkuser utility to see if they are the same person. I don't see enough to link them behaviorally; there are many fans of music in the world. --Jayron32 12:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

they're editing the exact same articles in the exact same style. what kind of new user edits templates?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:bac5:7800:4956:3352:2797:929c (talk • contribs)

You should report this to WP:SPI instead of me. They can run a checkuser utility to see if they are the same person. --Jayron32 13:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Arbitration Case

[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous listing as a party

[edit]

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 special circular

[edit]
Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick alternate history question

[edit]

I've got another quick alternate history question for you, Jayron32: Had there been no Spanish-American War, do you think that there would have eventually been a Spanish-Japanese war over the Philippines? Futurist110 (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether or not the Spanish would keep the Philippines or if they would have fought for their own independence before the 1930s. See Philippine–American War. --Jayron32 12:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref desk

[edit]

Do you remember Tamara Press? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, yes. I couldn't list everyone so accused. --Jayron32 15:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your close at ANI was modidified

[edit]

Hi Jayron, I don't know if you noticed, but one of your closes at ANI was modified by extending its scope (see this edit), then the entire discussion was archived. I restored the discussion to ANI, with your original close scope, but the archived version remains unchanged, looking as if you closed the entire discussion. Paul August ☎ 10:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should have left the second closure. It was fine. Dead horses should remain unflogged. --Jayron32 10:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps so. But I was disturbed by the subjects subsequent edits following your close. Paul August ☎ 11:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re block of Special:Contributions/Jtcampbell_baseball

[edit]

While I strongly believe there is off-wiki canvasing and/or meatpuppetry involved here, I am a bit skeptical that there is socking (so far). In this case, I do not see how the edit you refer to is a self-admission of socking. Did I miss something? - SummerPhDv2.0 16:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He uses the first-person pronoun and quotes the edit of another editor account. He said "I correctly stated MGTOW is not on SPLC list" which previously that account had never said. Indeed, before showing up out of the blue to jump into the edit war, that account had not edited since 2014. It suddenly jumps into an edit war and instantly quotes, as a rationale for reverting, the edit summary of a different account, using the phrase "I correctly stated". This one is clearly the same human. --Jayron32 16:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!

[edit]

Sorry for pinging you in something and then changing it. On the off chance you read it before my changes, this was what I actually think makes more sense. I didn't realize that ARBGG hadn't been updated with the clarification about how it should be interpreted... Anyway, sorry for any confusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mauretania Caesariensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mauri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swing feel

[edit]
cool story, bro! --Jayron32 10:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

You said, "Also, "swing feel" is wrong; it is not a dotted rhythm, which is what "swing" means."

This is patently false. From here: https://www.howmusicworks.org/510/Meter-and-Rhythm/Straight-and-Swing-Timing "You will sometimes see this type of rhythm notated using dotted eighth-notes and sixteenth-notes, as shown below.

This seems convenient, but it is incorrect, and should be avoided. Listen carefully to how this notation actually sounds and you will hear it is not the same as swing timing."

Also, the citation from the YT channel Signals Music Studio has many incorrect assumptions. Such as timing a song with a stop-watch. You don't count music using microseconds. You use rhythm.

21/32 timing

[edit]

"the time signature is often reported as 5 8, but is closer to 21 32, though it is unlikely Metallica actually intended to count 21 beats"

At that tempo there are zero people on earth that can count 21/32 beats.

You could at least know something about music before you get authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:4B5A:1D00:F07D:3D8B:F0EA:9C30 (talk • contribs)

You could check the actual source used. I know that you believe in "I can just make stuff up just because I think it", but that isn't how Wikipedia works. --Jayron32 16:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, considering you made up that thing about swing feel and dotted rhythms are the same thing. And I did check the source. It was wrong. Dissecting music using a stop-watch leads to the wrong conclusions. Which if you would simply conduct this experiment for yourself by starting with the lyrics "End of passion play..." For each beat of the song, count it. 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 1 2 3 4 5 Repeat. You would't be taken in by this bogus "proof" you keep citing. But good luck trying to convince dilettantes of anything. Especially ones that refuse to do tests.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:4B5A:1D00:F07D:3D8B:F0EA:9C30 (talk • contribs)

Who, pray tell, is Rich? --Jayron32 20:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy and immature. Great. I'm sure you'll find those flat-earth videos compelling proof too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:4B5A:1D00:F07D:3D8B:F0EA:9C30 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, what are you rambling on about now? First you call me the wrong name, and now you're calling me rude things and bringing up some unrelated issue? I don't see how we can have a civil discourse here if you're going to resort to that. Also, Mandruss below has excellent advice. This problem all goes away for you if you actually provide the source for your information. As I said above, and as Mandruss notes below, you can't just say you figured it out for yourself. You need a source for you information that others can look at on their own.--Jayron32 20:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) If you can find a source of equal or greater reliability that clearly supports what you say, that would be good enough for me. I don't care about the subject, and other editors may differ. If you can't, you're in clear violation of Wikipedia:No original research. You can't replace sourced content with personal "knowledge", full stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for being cross with you. I didn't appreciate you lying to me. Anyway, the trouble with citing a source is that the sheet music is copyrighted. Making an honest discussion about whats going on in the music, difficult. So, I guess people will just have to have bad info.

Where did I lie to you? --Jayron32 21:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

swing feel and dotted rhythms are the same thing

That's not lying. You'll find many sources that will use dotted notation to indicate a swing feel. There's some small controversy about it such that a few music theorists are upset about it, but that doesn't change that fact that it is. The fact that a small number of music theorists don't like that notation doesn't mean I lied. But you know all of this already. I don't know why someone as smart and well read as you needs such things explained. --Jayron32 22:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. The relationship between "swing" notes is 66/33. The relationship between a dotted eighth note and an eighth note is 75/25. Please graduate from a conservatory. Or at least buy the music theory syllabus and study to grade 8. Yet another citation concerning swing rhythm vs dotted rhythm: http://www2.siba.fi/muste1/index.php?id=99&la=en Just because you "can represent it that way" doesn't mean it "IS that way". "You'll find many sources that will use dotted notation to indicate a swing feel." I'll also find many sources that use the phoneme ax to indicate ask. That doesn't make them correct.

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Football League uniform numbers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gunner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I-99

[edit]

Which other highway(s) had their number(s) designated by statute, breaking the numbering system? ~ cc

There are dozens of interstates that violate numbering conventions. I'll not insult your intelligence by listing every one. Singling out 99 is not particularly useful. It's also a convention, and not an unbreakable law, and noting every time it happens is beyond trivial and not needed. --Jayron32 14:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sparing my intelligence, but could you give me some examples? Of two number highways? deisenbe (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I-69C. I-11. I-49 (compare e-w location to I-39, for example). I-82 (between 84 and 90 for its entire route). I-83 (lies entirely east of all of I-85). (--Jayron32 17:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Mjs1991. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Adding "Nigerish" in the Demonym, needs to have a references for it Mjs1991 (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jayron32, you added "Nigerish" to the Demonyms, which is the Demographics of Niger. The word "Nigerish" is an offensive racial remark. Unless you can give an appropriate references that Nigerish is part of the demographics, I've removed it --Mjs1991 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jayron32, just checked on it. Seemed I confused you with another user while I had your tab open to congratulate you on your first edit day. Please excuse me

Congratulations!!

[edit]
Hey, Jayron32. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Mjs1991 (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kölsch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IBAN

[edit]

Hi there. I believe you oversaw the interaction ban I have with another editor here and here. The ban had been problem-free until this edit today. I have no issue with the violation (perhaps he forgot the IBAN, who knows), but I disagree with his edit. If I revert the edit (for the same reason I reverted the edit prior to his), then we're back at the same place we were before the much-needed IBAN was enacted. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations to reliable sources

[edit]

Thank you for your edits to Commonwealth of England (in April 2019}. Unfortunately you did not add any citations to support you additions. I have placed a template at the top of the article requesting citations (see WP:CHALLENGE) You need to supply inline citations to reliable sources to support your new text as the WP:BURDEN is on you to do so.

I appreciate that a lot of the text does not have inline citations to reliable sources, however that is because in the past verification was laxer than it is now. In the end all of the text in the article will need to be supported by inline citations, but we should not be adding new text to articles unless it is supported by inline citations to reliable sources. -- PBS (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Also during you edit you changed some of the section headers. One of which contained an intext comment:

to

  • == The end of the Commonwealth, 1659–1660 ==< !-- This section is linked from The Protectorate -- >

But you did not change the redirect

So any article using that redirect would no longer link to the appropriate section. The best way to fix that problem is to include a {{anchor|1659–1660}} in the article when you see such an intext comment -- PBS (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scholz Research & Development, Inc., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polaroid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

[edit]
Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder! --Jayron32 12:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as advised from WP:RD/M

[edit]

Some one from the ref desk, said to give the info. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not much with technical matters. I wish I could help, but I'm afraid I would be useless. I am not even sure I understand the nature of your problem. Maybe someone with checkuser permissions could help? --Jayron32 21:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I go for that? Err, my short problem was that. I just moved and for the next two months, I don't know if to add the template? If I'm around for a short time. But the only thing is, the ip number didn't made an account. So I'm not sure what is the next course of action from there? Tainted-wingsz (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, as I think about it, I'm not exactly sure you need to do anything. Your IP address is entirely hidden from everyone except those few that HAVE checkuser permissions, of which not even normal admins have access to. Since you are editing from a registered account, basically no one will ever know that you've changed IP addresses or physical locations. What sort of problems are you anticipating or having? If you aren't anticipating or having any problems currently, I can't actually foresee any in the future. The only time WP:SHARE comes into play is where there is the appearance of impropriety going on; it is just a reminder that checkusers can tell only if two users are sharing an IP address, but that there also needs to be behavioral evidence that there is shenanigans. You can't get dinged merely because you just happen to edit from the same address as someone else. --Jayron32 01:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, for taking up your time. As I have no other further issues. Tainted-wingsz (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see at top

[edit]

Sir, I have posted my request on top of your talk page by mistake and I don't know how to bring it at bottom. Please! see that. Thank you. (223.230.145.71 (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

To add some information

[edit]

Sir, I am new to Wikipedia and don't know how to add information in an article. I found some important information about Dr. Shamsheer and want it to be added in the article. At first I tried myself but it lead to disruption of the article. That's why I posted the request on his talk page. Since you are an administrator you must be knowing about the procedure to add information in the article. Please! visit Dr. Shamsheer's talk page and add those informations in the article on my behalf. I will never mind that whole credit(of adding new informations)goes to you. This is the link to talk pageTalk:Shamsheer Vayalil Thank you. (223.230.145.71 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  • Sorry, I don't have a lot of background in the area. I'm not sure I would be much help evaluating sources or knowing what to write. --Jayron32 14:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had provided links of those informations which I asked to add in the paragraph.

Thank you. (223.230.161.1 (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

minor apology

[edit]

Hi Jayron, you replied to an editor at the humanities help desk who turned out to be an LTA. I initially redacted just enough to remove the outing, but on reflection I removed their whole comment. Your comment was a direct reply, but it seemed useful so I left it in. Sorry if it makes you look a little like you're pontificating for no reason. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, if you need to remove my response, feel free to do so as well. I hold no particular ownership over it, and I don't really care if you need to remove it if I have inadvertently fed a troll I was not supposed to. It's really no big deal to me, and feel free to go ahead and clean up any messes, including removing my comments, where necessary. --Jayron32 13:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I assumed you felt that way. In this case I didn't leave your comment alone out of deference to you, but because it seemed useful info for future readers of the thread. But I just made it look like you kind of brought up a subject out of the blue, and that's what I'm saying a (minor) sorry for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

I just sent you an email. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Jayron32 11:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN 71st Emmys

[edit]

Hi Jayron32, could you take a look at the ITN nom for the 71st Emmys? Looks like the article has been updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. --Jayron32 15:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hordern

[edit]

It appears incivility towards other people's work is catching. Having an article I worked hard on being described as a "crap article" and one that is "sub-standard", are just two phrases that makes me think why I bother to write anything at all. I'm apathetic towards the main page and TFA is a waste of time. I care not one bit about your opinion towards my writing abilities as I've gone through your contributions and see nothing special, but your rather obvious display of contempt towards those who bother to write anything decent, is utterly disgraceful. And I'm not entirely surprised to see that you're an admin. You seem to be a pretty sub-standard one. Not nice, is it. CassiantoTalk 16:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never use the words "crap article". I have no idea what your writing abilities are. I have made no comment on your writing abilities at all. I haven't even looked that closely. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else. I would never say something like that. --Jayron32 16:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Try opening the diff. You described the Hordern article as being "substandard". For what reason? Because I had a date wrong? I had a questionable source (that's since been fixed)? You've written off an entire article as being "substandard" because of one minor quibble? You are being disrespectful. And it's no good gaslighting me; you know exactly what I'm on about. CassiantoTalk 17:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calm your liver. I wasn't even talking to you, I was telling the people who didn't want to fix the tag to fix it. I was agreeing with you, and arguing against the same people you were arguing against. You really need to read things before you fly off the handle. Get a grip. --Jayron32 17:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, gaslighting me won't do you any favours. Who said you were talking to me? I wrote this article. To quote: "I'm not exactly sure why, but those of you fighting to ensure that a maintenance tag goes unfixed have not yet proposed a replacement article 2 days out so we can avoid having a substandard article on the main page." What you are saying is that having an article with a tag on it makes it "substandard". It doesn't, it makes it fair game to be fixed. CassiantoTalk 17:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. Just stop. Your article is fine. It's continuing to be fine. It will continue to be fine. I will clarify again. I was not saying that your writing was a problem. You're writing is perfectly good. I was saying that the people who were arguing against fixing the link. The same people you were arguing against, with the same point you were trying to make, that those people should fix the link rather than editwar to put a tag in. If I was not clear, and gave you the impression that I was trying to besmirch your reputation, let me re-assure you, I didn't even know your name before you started this pointless argument on my talk page. And in case you still want to continue this argument, let me state it, in no uncertain terms: Your writing is very good, and the article is excellent, and well worthy of being posted on the main page. Nothing I said before should give you the impression that it wasn't, and if what I said gives you that impression, let me assure you the blame for that lies entirely on me for not writing clearly. I apologize fully for what I said, it was unfair to you, and I should have read what I wrote and stated my point more clearly. I hope that we now understand each other. --Jayron32 17:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about what you think of me, or indeed if you've ever heard of me before, but I do care very much about people making such dismissive slurs towards FAs which have taken a lot of time and money to write. This does not include editorial critiques. This is not the desired response I was hoping for; but in amongst all the gaslighting and patronising comments here, there's at least an apology, which I'll have to take as a way to end this. Good evening. CassiantoTalk 17:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening. --Jayron32 18:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 US Banknote Contest

[edit]
US Banknote Contest
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

ITN Canadian election

[edit]

Several of the concerns have now been dealt with, including a significant prose summary of results with references. However, no one is looking that far down on ITN anymore. Maybe you could take a look at the article and update the nomination, if you find it appropriate? (As I wrote on ITN, I don't think the paring down of the article can happen for at least a couple of months, the emotions are that high -- but your concerns were primarily with the results section.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it too old to make it? Is it older than the currently oldest blurb? --Jayron32 11:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is now. The election was a week ago yesterday (Oct 21, very tight local results, so preliminary results were not available until Tues Oct 22), but it was less than a week ago when I dropped you this note (granted, the weekend). The country is a member of the G7, so I leave it to your judgement whether it is still worth posting. Of those who opposed, not one person had revisited the article to note its improvement, even well before I finally posted. I don't usually weigh in on political articles of any stripe, but its absence was becoming a bit embarrassing. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is an embarrassment that you did not clean up the article on time to get it on the main page. In the future, please work harder at improving articles so they can be posted in a timely manner. I would hate for you to go through this kind of embarrassment again. --Jayron32 17:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who raised it with you, so in that sense the "you" would be accurate. I will not otherwise take ownership (or responsibility, if you prefer that word) for any political page of any stripe. Believe me, I have no personal embarrassment in this regard. I simply chose to speak for this one page this one time, and on the basis of your answer, I now return to my previous habit of not speaking for it or acting upon it at all. I do also notice that you do not address the related issue of the abandoned votes on ITN being treated as fixed, regardless of *their* not checking back on the subject of their criticisms in a timely manner. Your prerogative. I leave it here. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, nothing gets done on Wikipedia unless people who want it done so it themselves. Getting the Canadian election on the ITN ticker was not a goal of mine. It had to have been a goal of yours since you literally tried to get it posted. That's why it was your responsibility. Because you wanted it done, you should have done it. Asking other random people to do work just do you can make things happen if not what happens here. I'm just another volunteer, equal in all ways to you. I am not more important. As such, taking the extra step of expecting me (or literally any other person in the universe) to do anything to fix a situation you care about is not going to happen. Next time, if you take care of it yourself right away, (and the ONLY thing that means is "make the article in question better") then your goal of getting it posted on the main page will happen. Or don't. Butt if you didn't fix the problem yourself, don't also act as though anyone else should have. Because none of us are getting paid either. So it isn't anyone else's responsibility more than yours. Again, I'm not anyone important. --Jayron32 01:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really did mean to leave it there, but that last post of yours has a few rather significant misconceptions in it.
(1) Nearly all of the work in question had already been long done -- by others, not me -- by the time I posted here and at ITN. However, not one person who had posted negatively on ITN had bothered to check the article for several days prior to my posting. If anyone had, they would have seen that their opposition points had been addressed -- again, I stress, by others, not me. Since it took you several days even to answer me here, that includes you. You chided me above that I "did not clean up the article on time" -- yet even though others had actually done so, any changes made between Oct 24 and my posting four days later might as well not have been made, as far as ITN is concerned.
(2) I did not "try to get it posted" at ITN. I did not even vote there. I simply asked you, as someone who had voted negatively at ITN and had clearly not looked again between then and my posting, to take another look. I was late in posting (Oct 27), but I still asked that of you before it was too old to post. My first comment here is dated, so you can readily check this for yourself. I will readily take ownership of those comments, but otherwise you are choosing to lay responsibility on me which is not mine, for no other reason than because I am the one who spoke up.
And btw (3) you are not equal to me at WP or at ITN. You are an admin, I am not. You do not set sole policy at ITN, but whether you choose to admit it or not, others do follow your lead. If people such as you make a negative vote and then do not bother to return to the article after you vote to see if your points have been addressed, why should others?
Now that I have corrected the misconceptions in your post, I really will leave it up to you at this point. Based on your previous pattern in this thread, you will continue to answer me as though this were entirely my responsibility as a volunteer at WP. You can say that all you like, but that will not make it true. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayron32/Archive34&oldid=1259568650"