User talk:Jpgordon

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Archive #1 Archive #2 Archive #3 Archive #4 Archive #5 Archive #6 Archive #7

For older history, check [1] as well as the archives.

RevDel on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.

Thank you for RevDeling the nasty edit that 97.76.251.91 (talk) left on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr. Would you mind going through their contributions, particularly on August 14 and today, and RevDeling the rest of them? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I've got 'em all. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:24.119.20.133

I extended the duration of their block, since they were making legal threats both at User talk:24.119.20.133 and elsewhere, but restored talk page edit access so that they could withdraw the legal threats. If they don't, of course, then removing such access again is no problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Induction Cooking

Hello Jpgordon, I see you raised a NPOV and disregarded few lines in the page on Induction Cooking. Please note that the dropped part reads "Apart from DOE findings, little information exists on (hopefully) reliable unbiased efficiency tests and efficiency comparisons among different cooking technologies. A worldwide survey of information sources available on this matter was conducted and resumed in 2014-2015 Australian reports…"

The first sentence just says that few institutions / researchers / independent bodies have attempted to make a screening on available data on efficiency of cooking technologies and present them in an organic way. The second one suggest an Australian report that seems to met these criteria and summarises the average efficiencies coming out from this survey.

The word "hopefully" stays there to alert the reader about the need, on this matter, to rely only on figures from experts able to identify reliable data and make such a screening.

One of the two versions of the report stays on the site parliament.nsw.gov.au, that is the Parliament of New South Wales Australia. The information given herein on Induction cooking efficiencies - an on other cooking technologies - seems to have been carefully collected and analysed by experts. So I believe that the part you disregarded - despite the "hopefully" word - adds high quality information on the matter.

Please, take the time to check again the dropped part and reinsert it agin, if you agree with my observations.

Regards

 Guido from Italy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.107.67.216 (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC) 

Feel free to use the article talk page to discuss this. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

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

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

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

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

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

ANI Thread

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just notifying you. I mentioned you some what tangentially in the thread. The thread is located here Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Bury St Churchill

What do you make of our two sparkling new arrivals: [2], only three days apart? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser-wise, they're related only in that they are both in the UK. Nothing else useful to be gleaned. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. How very frustrating, as it looks far too suspicious to my eyes. I guess we can do no more. I suppose if they both use the same ISP, that's just a spooky coincidence? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

If they had, I wouldn't have said there was nothing to be gleaned. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh right. I must have thought you were just being "coy". Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Request about the User:MehrdadFR

Hello.

The User:MehrdadFR (talk) reverted your neutral edition in the article Hijab by country, because he is constantly reverting neutral and third party information and sources about the hijab in Iran, and is almost exclusively using POV (that is pro-government) language about the hijab in Iran (that may contradict academic sources which have no internet links) and is relying on sources based in Iran that naturally favor the Iranian policy on the hijab (and not on all third party and academic sources), as you can see in the Iran section of that article as well as in the Women in Iran article. He uses weasel words (that are commonly used by Iranian government sources) such as "the official reveiling in 1984" in both articles about the mandatory hijab for women. I reverted his reverts and clarified the sentences. Could you check this user and warn him about his use of POV and almost the expropriation of this subject? As I can see from this user's talk page, he also has a history of edit warring with other users in various articles, and has received warnings (including from you [3]).

Thank you.

SednaXV (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)