User talk:Jenks24

Welcome to my talk page! Here's a few notes that may be helpful to read before posting: I will reply here and I probably won't ping you—unless you specifically request otherwise—so you may wish to watchlist this page. If I've left you a message I will have watchlisted your page, so there's no need to leave me a {{talkback}} or ping me (but you can if you want). I prefer to keep conversations on Wikipedia, but you can email me. If you do, you should definitely leave me a note about it; I rarely check my Wikipedia email account without first being prompted here. If you do leave me a {{talkback}}, {{you've got mail}}, or similar, please remember to sign it so that it gets archived by the bot. Click here to leave a message. Remember to sign your post using the four tildes (~~~~).

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Attacks

I hope this was tongue-in-cheek. Some people make not have taken it that way. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. It's only a few weeks until The Ashes starts. TRM sent me a 'thanks' notification for it so I think he took it in the spirit it was meant. Jenks24 (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

See my comment to TRM on my talk page. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Tobias

Looks like we protect conflicted ;-) Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 07:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Hah, yes just saw that. Feel free to change it back to your time duration if you want. Jenks24 (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your no consensus closure of First observation of gravitational waves move discussion

No consensus seems the correct summary of the naming criteria issues.

However, you did not address the questions regarding non-neutrality WP:NPOVNAME and WP:NDESC. (The last comment on this issue was a bald denial that this was relevant, there was no response as you closed the discussion shortly afterwards.)

It is actually a matter of strong controversy whether to call the 2015-Sep-14 observation by LIGO "first observation", and of minor controversy whether to call it "first direct observation". If you need a RS to the existence of these controversies (well-known to astronomers) see Chapter 8 of Harry Collins Gravity's Kiss. He ends up summarizing the internal LIGO debate (2500 e-mails from 500 members) as being all over the map on this question. The reason not to call their observation "first" is because that honor perhaps belongs to Hulse-Taylor-Weisberg and their "indirect" observation some thirtysome years before.

Choosing sides on this issue strikes me as POV.

FYI, Collins was an "embedded" sociologist of science, with LIGO longer than almost everyone except the founders. His perspective is as informed and as neutral as is humanly possible. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, noted and I did read through your opinion at the time. It is perhaps worth pointing out your position did not pick up much (if any) traction with others in the discussion, including those who supported the move. Jenks24 (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters. Neutrality is policy, and can't be ignored or overruled just because the participating editors are mostly unaware of the issue here.

As it is, I believe that most of the current editors on gravitational-wave articles are well-meaning amateurs, but simply don't know any of the nuances of the subject. I've been fixing quite a few howlers, more politely called OR in my edit summaries. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Because it is an interpretation of how that policy relates to the issue. Not a fact because you yourself note that there is debate about whether or not to call it "first". As to your second point here, Wikipedia is almost entirely written by well-meaning amateurs. It one of the great things about the site and also one of the worst things about it. Jenks24 (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

But I don't see anyone "interpreting" the debate, just ignoring it because they don't know it exists, even when told it exists. If the very people involved with LIGO think it's a debate, we shouldn't take sides. My second point comment was neither praise nor criticism, just observing why the issue was ignored, not interpreted. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Move review for First observation of gravitational waves

An editor has asked for a Move review of First observation of gravitational waves. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

Thank you for your comments, but I think it needs fuller discussion. 129.68.81.71 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)