This user is an edit filter manager on the English Wikipedia.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Jackmcbarn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tech News: 2016-20[edit]

16:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi Jackmcbarn

I have seen wikipedias rules, the question is if you have? First of all I was given 2 weeks to translate my article into English by one of your editors? How come, if you agree that Iridescent based on that reason can delete the article? I guess you now have to see which editor you like the most :)

Second, the algorithme was proven to be working perfectly, with the code provided, so there shouldn't be an issue there.

Third, the only thing you had to check was if it was true I invented the algorithme, and that I am sure one of your editors with lots of knowledge about algorithmes could have given you an answer to.

If you still thinks that Iridescent shouldn't be removed as an editor, then provide me with your supervisors phone number, so I can talk with that person about this issue.

Regards David Hyldkrog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cop77 (talkcontribs) 20:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Cop77: You would have got 2 weeks to translate your article if being written in the wrong language was its only flaw. However, that was not the case. Nobody cares whether the algorithm works. See WP:42 and WP:N for rules about what's allowed on Wikipedia. Also, the fact that you invented the algorithm is actually a strike against it; see WP:COI and WP:A11. Wikipedia is self-governing, so none of us have "supervisors". In fact, both Iridescent and I are both administrators here, and any other administrator you ask will also agree with us. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

1. So how come the language part was mentioned as a reason for being deleted. 2. An obvious reason why it does matter if the algorithme works or not is that it can help software developers who face mutual exclusion problems. 3. At least you are honest enough to admit that editors protect each other no matter what, which is a big flaw in the way wikipedia works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

1. When things are wrong with an article, correct procedure is to mention all of them, even if they're not all necessary to get it deleted. 2. That's not important to Wikipedia. 3. The fact that people agree with each other and disagree with you doesn't mean that they're protecting each other. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News addition[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your addition to the current Tech News draft. Since Tech News goes out to a lot of non-native speakers of English, I've tried to simplify it a bit, hopefully making it a bit more accessible for non-technical en-2 editors. Please edit/tell me if I've misunderstood something. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Johan (WMF): That still seems accurate. Thanks. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-21[edit]

18:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-22[edit]

16:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-23[edit]

20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-24[edit]

18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-25[edit]

19:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:European migrant crisis[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European migrant crisis. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-26[edit]

15:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Location map switcher logic[edit]

I just noticed the "switcher logic" at Module:Location map. Thanks for implementing that! As far as I can tell, it's not documented anywhere, but people are starting to quietly use it in infoboxes (which settles at least one recent disagreement)

I am not very good at Lua --- could you explain the feature to me, so that I can write some documentation? As I understand it, if you specify more than one location separated by a #, then the first one will be displayed, but the reader can select from any of them with a switcher UI element. Is that right?

Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hike395: Your understanding is correct. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I added documentation to {{Location map}}, and noticed a bug where the radio button selector does not line up with the map. If you'd like to take a look, see Template:Location map/doc. —hike395 (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Hike395: Yeah, I see what's going on. Apparently I only ever tested this inside of infoboxes, where the radio buttons look nice outside the map. I'll try to make it look good standalone too. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry to say, I found another bug, and this one is more urgent. Take a look at Mono Mills, California. Ser Amantio di Nicolao has been running AWB on articles with {{Infobox settlement}}, changing the map parameter from (e.g.) California to California#USA. However, this particular article uses the |AlternativeMap= parameter to {{Location map}}. The switcher logic doesn't work when this is supplied -- as a short-term fix, the logic should ignore |AlternativeMap= and |overlay_image= for the second and subsequent maps.

As I said above, I am a terrible Lua programmer. I can try to fix this, but am not confident that I will do it correctly. Could you put in a fix?

In the longer term, I fear that feeding a #-separated list of maps is not a robust way of specifying multiple maps. The common way of doing this is to use extra parameters, such as |map1= or |map2=, and hence allow extra control parameters such as |AlternativeMap1= or |overlay_image2=. If we do decide to add extra parameters, we'll need to surface them in infoboxes (such as in {{Infobox settlement}}, where I just hacked out these parameters today!). We would also need to run AWB to redo the work that Set Amantio has been doing over the last few days.

I do like the multiple map feature -- {{location map}} is just tricky to get perfectly correct. —hike395 (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hike395: I added an emergency fix for now that disables AlternativeMap when using the switcher. I'll come up with a solution that lets you specify different AlternativeMaps for different maps. As for why I used #-separated names instead of multiple parameters, I did that because of the sheer number of infoboxes that currently wrap location maps, to avoid all of them having to be changed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
And it's fixed properly now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-27[edit]

19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Module:Protection banner/sandbox[edit]

Hi Jackmcbarn, was there any reason your updates to Protection banner weren't synced to the main template? I've added awareness of the extended-protected level for edit request links on top of your changes, which should go in itself regardless at some point. I think your edits can go live as well, right? Thanks, let me know. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 23:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: The only reason I didn't add them was that they were too inconsequential to edit such a widely-used template for. Now that a more important change needs to happen, by all means, please add them along with it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-28[edit]

15:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-29[edit]

12:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan location map[edit]

Hi. Can I ask you why you moved Template:Location map Pakistan to its new name? Mar4d (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mar4d: The move log history is a little bit misleading. I actually converted it to Module:Location map/data/Pakistan, but this had to be done as a C&P move for technical reasons. See Template:Location map/doc/Converting map definition templates to modules for details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-30[edit]

19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-31[edit]

21:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


Unprotected. Thanks for bringing it up :) --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-32[edit]

15:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Pasterski Dear Jack McBarn,

Thank you for preventing vandalism on so many wikipedia pages. However, you locked the barn door on the Pasterski article after the horses were already stolen.

Can you please revert the page to what it was before the Greek and Netherlandian physics post-docs gutted it?

One appears to be Pasterki's former officemate and was turned down, if you know what I mean. The other tried to prevent her from joining their group in 2013—when she did join, she was the ONLY female—since then 8 other females have joined. They are livid with Pasterski for bringing in so many females.

The Greek one has been upset ever since he added his name to the Strominger page as a Doctor and then the strominger page was completely gutted. He seems to think Pasterski did it. It does not appear that she did.

Everyone outside of Harvard/Cambridge thinks the reason why Pasterski is getting media attention is because Hawking cited her. When in fact, it is because Strominger and Hawking and Perry mis-applied her Triangle and Memory Effects. She gave a Harvard Faculty Conference talk that Lubos Motl helped set up, where she warned, six months before the paper was published, that her ideas should NOT be applied to black hole hair. Lenny Susskind agrees with Pasterski—that is why Susskind and Pasterski were cited, as a 'different way to approach' the problem.

Hawking came to Harvard and had the strongest reactions to Pasterski (uncontrolled jaw movement and shaking) asking her to leave just about anytime he noticed her near him. Pasterski was then invited to Cambridge (by two physicists with a sense of humor that don't agree with Hawking) to talk to the issue. In those two talks, she called Strominger, Perry and Hawking's application of her work “naive” !!!

That resulted in Perry giving an afternoon talk to rebut. He was not originally on the schedule. He cited her work 7 times, cited her by name 7 additional times, and then invited her to spend Spring semester at Cambridge to 'work this out.'

Recently, Hawking deleted his citation of her in the PRL article by dropping the last arXiv digit of her completing the triangle for EM single author paper.

If the page is allowed to survive (Pasterski would be the first to admit that her ideas are not as great as Hawking thinks they are) please revert it to the point just before the two Greek edits (IP addresses, no names then -eg UVAL now, they point back to the Greek university where the post-docs father is a professor of computer science.)

Thank you,

Course 6 guy (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-33[edit]

19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-34[edit]

21:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Noël Coward[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Noël Coward. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-35[edit]

16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference given to add Christianity as a religion in the page "vellalar"[edit]

Vellalar's are also Christians from the early 16th century.

Missions and Empire (Oxford History of the British Empire Companion Series) 1st Edition by Norman Etherington. page 112. ISBN-13: 978-0199253487.

Caste, Catholic Christianity, and the Language of Conversion: Social Change ... By S. Jeyaseela Stephen. page 97. isbn=8178356864.--Chronicleof COGRLAHEPETA (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Chronicleof COGRLAHEPETA: If you want an article to be edited, post an edit request on the article's talk page, not on mine. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry. readdressed accordingly.[edit]


Request for edit posted on the page.

Thank you. --Chronicleof COGRLAHEPETA (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-36[edit]

17:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-37[edit]

18:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-38[edit]

22:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Module:HS listed building[edit]

Hi Jackmcbarn, recently, there's been an effort to move the #coordinates call that Template:Coord does separately into Module:Coordinates. This almost became stable until a compatibility issue with Module:HS listed building was noted, that the direct Module call is no longer working. I've made updates to Module:HS listed building/sandbox (testcases) and intend to sync it in a few days when the Coordinates template and module go live with the #coordinates call moved. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 20:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Why did you change it to make it go out to the parser to run Template:Coord, that will just in turn have to go back to Lua to run Module:Coordinates, when it previously just called the module directly? Your first change to just remove the parser function call while keeping the module call seemed correct. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jackmcbarn, this revision still caused red errors (nil global frame) at Template:HS listed building row/testcases (though let me try it one more time). I'm not well-versed enough to discern whether there's a way to call the module directly without the issues. Restored the revision you suggested, but not getting the results — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 22:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC) 22:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: Ah. What's actually happening there is that Module:HS listed building has stricter bug-checking than Module:Coordinates does, so there's no problem at all in the former; rather, it's uncovered a bug in the latter, namely that there's no variable called "frame" in scope on line 657 when it tries to reference one. I'll see if I can figure that out. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: Okay, I confirmed my theory by adding the same bug-checking to Module:Coordinates/sandbox, which made it break everywhere with that error. I found and fixed that error, so now it seems to work everywhere. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's great! Thanks for looking into this. I plan on re-syncing when I'm confident that other modules don't have this coordinates situation. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 23:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Jackmcbarn. 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. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-39[edit]

18:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-40[edit]

21:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


templates and modules

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for helping newbies and biting vandals, for creating templates and modules, for concise arguments and clever solutions, - user with fluent mathematical skills, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: "minor" reverts of edits that aren't vandalism[edit]

[134] [135]

He explained in the summary of this other, identical edit that wasn't marked as minor that he thought these citations inappropriate as the websites are promotional in nature.

It's subjective, but "I don't think these are appropriate references" is not the same as reverting unambiguous vandalism. I don't generally like using references that weren't written by professional scholars (I think Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia if topics not covered in scholarly literature did not get articles), but most Wikipedians, including, no doubt, Burninthruthesky, appear to disagree. And most "reliable sources" are trying to sell the audience something (that's what advertising revenue does), so the difference between what Burninthruthesky calls "references" and what he calls "promotional websites" is never going to be agreed on by everyone, which means marking those edits as minor is almost certainly inappropriate.

I only looked at the two most recent ones (where he reverted named accounts rather than IPs, mind you).

Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What!? This has never happened before when starting a new section on someone's user talk page. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I didn't see those ones. I agree with you in that case. And what was the "this" that happened when you posted here? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Edit conflict. No idea what happened, because the diff only showed my edit not happening, and now I have two edits included in the history. It seems my comment was posted successfully but I was shown a screen that indicated I had an edit conflict, and then edited my comment to address this, but it showed up as two separate edits... Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-41[edit]

20:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


Because failing to do so just made the news:

Someone will have to go through november 9th and drop them back down to a more reasonable level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talkcontribs) 21:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-42[edit]

16:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-43[edit]

17:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)