User talk:Jason Quinn

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

Jason - I was an occasional user of Wikipedia and I am becoming a more frequent user and learning more about how Wikipedia works. I just read your bio and all that I can say is "WOW!" and "THANK YOU !!"

Mdelapuente (manuel)

Happy New Year[edit]

Wikipedia logo new year sk.png Happy New Year !!!
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Interlanguage links[edit]

Hello, I saw that you had added a link to the Spanish version of List of birds of Chile as a hatnote. Similar edit with List of birds of Poland. I'm working on the whole series of "List of birds of ..." articles and I haven't seen that before. I would have thought that it would be unnecessary as there are already the "Languages" links at the bottom of the left column. Alternatively, if they are a good idea, they could be added to the other couple of hundred articles in the series. What is your thinking? SchreiberBike talk 04:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, SchreiberBike. To be honest, I'm not sure if they are a good idea. I'm actively considering them. It seemed like a good idea when I first added it to List of birds of Poland and it's definitely helpful in that case. But, then I added it to List of birds of Chile and now I'm not so sure. My main concern is that it's unclear when to stop using this. Should all articles directly about Poland or Chile have hatnotes to their corresponding language wiki? Probably not. If permitted, this type of hatnote could become ubiquitous. At the moment I'm leaning towards removing my own hatnote edits but I still am still unsure. Maybe it could be permitted on a case-by-case basis when it "makes sense". I started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Advice on hatnote to foreign language version the other day about this. Nobody has yet responding but there you can read my thinking on the matter. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Advice on hatnote to foreign language version. I'm curious what others will think. SchreiberBike talk 18:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion[edit]

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy adminship birthday![edit]

Wikipedia Administrator.svg Wishing Jason Quinn a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! George Edward CTalkContributions 10:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, geez. I didn't think anyone would remember. :-) Thanks, George Edward C! Jason Quinn (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you for your determined improvement of the project as a Wiki-Gome and copy-editor, without ownership of articles, for unquestionably improvements, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (31 May 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 384th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 384 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Damion Scott Infobox photo discussion[edit]

Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy note on image in your essay[edit]

I've had to delete File:JacquelineAnderson.jpg as a copyright violation. You shouldn't have much problem finding another example though. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Great page. I am new to Wikipedia and had difficulty in finding how to get a message to you. I have done some new research on Fitzgerald's text in which you might be interested. Could you please contact me at Proto-Gatsby (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Proto-Gatsby. I do all my editing directly onlineon Wikipedia so please just use my talk page to contact me. I posted a welcome message on your account's talk page to help get to started being a Wikipedia. It contains some important things to know like our editing policies and how to use Wikipedia. The easiest way to learn in my opinion is to start small (fix spelling, grammar, and links) and work your way up to more complicated things. One of the important policies we have at Wikipedia (and it may apply to what you are doing) is "no original research". All material added to Wikipedia should be verifiable though reliable sources. Congratulations on becoming a Wikipeidan. Just learning how to use a talk page is a big step and means you are well on your way! Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Typo Team pledges page.[edit]

Dear Jason, Face-smile.svg
I hope you are keeping well?
I wanted to let you know—out of courtesy to you as its creator—that I recently re-structured our Typo Team's pledges page, seeing as it had become somewhat dishevelled of late.
As you will see, I created a section for each year, because I thought this might help in shepherding new members into the 'current' section. All entries are now also in strict chronological order, which is pleasing to the mind... Face-wink.svg
Also added a reminder inviting new members to sign/date their pledges, as there were some that had been left unsigned. Since I wanted to restore the whole list in chronological order, I also signed & dated those retrospectively, after re-tracing their entry point by way of 'View history'.
I am hopeful you will approve of these changes, but if you have other preferences for the structure of the page, then please feel free to apply any changes you deem appropriate.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 21:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks great. Glad to see the changes you made, Pdebee.. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Quinn: Excellent! Thank you for supporting my initiative. Face-smile.svg
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 10:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I made couple more tweaks to your layout, Pdebee. Hope you like. I haven't been as active lately with Typo Team as I once was. I'm still a major wikignome but I just don't visit the project's page often anymore. One of the things I used to do was welcome our new pledges personally on their talk page. They tend to be new users so it's a nice gesture. I would basically just say hello and that if they have any questions they can feel free to ask me. Not many people actually asked anything but I think it's worthwhile. If you are interested in helping run Typo Team, it's an idea you may be interested in helping continue. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jason Quinn: Dear Jason;
I really like your improvements! Face-smile.svg So much better than my earlier "From/to" labelling! Thank you for taking the time, Jason.
Thank you also for your trust in suggesting that I consider welcoming new members here at the Typo Team. I occasionally welcome & help other editors when I can and when it feels natural (i.e. connected with something I am already doing in the vicinity). I have the page on my watchlist so it'd be easy to adopt a little routine for this, but I would be concerned about coming across as in a position of leadership in any way; I might feel more comfortable if there were several of us sharing this otherwise pleasant task. Please let me consider this; meanwhile, I'll continue sprinkling help-dust all round, spontaneously. Face-smile.svg
Please keep well and thanks once again for taking the time to review, support and improve; good team work! Face-wink.svg
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 13:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Persondata RfC[edit]

Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Kim family tree[edit]

I changed the lines because is more logical to have it that way. On the top of the boxes we (should) have the ancestry/descents. On the right/left we should have the relations of that person, like marriage(s). From the way that it is now, it seems that Kim Jong-il is the brother of Kim Young-sook and Ko Yong-hui. And the that dotted line doesn't matter without a legend. But, it's your call ---Daduxing (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Query about the Pak 40[edit]

Some time ago you added some text - assuming I'm reading the diffs correctly - to the article on the 7.5 cm Pak 40 article, mentioning that British sources indicate an intro date that disagrees with German sources. However, I can't any good examples of either, and the only one I did find mentioning dates at all was a scrape of this article. Do you have any pointers to any other sources, especially the two you imply exist in the text, I'd love to add them to the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz:. Hi. My lone change to that article (on 20 March 2013) was just a technical fix to a template used by the comment you are referring. The actual author of the comment was Kubanczyk who added it on 29 August 2011. Kubanczyk appears to still be an active editor. You may wish to contact him/her.
By the way, I notice there is also the statement "German sources differ; the Official Firing Table document for the 75 mm KwK 40, StuK 40, and the Pak 40 dated October, 1943 gives 770 m/s on one of the APCBC tables" in the article, which is related to your question. That statement has its origins all the way back to 27 March 2008 with this IP edit. Many people in the meantime may have tweaked the wording from the original.
You may be curious how I found these edits. The manual way is to look at the history (see Help:Page history and view diffs by jumping around and narrowing in on the edit that added or removed the text which interests you. I often do that on articles without many edits but it's tedious and boring in general. For articles with longer histories, it's better to use the "Wikiblame" tool. When you click on the history tab you'll find a section of "External tools" given near the top. One of them is called "Revision history search". That's what I used to find these diffs. I just pasted in the text I wanted to find out who added it and when. Wikiblame takes a while to get the hang of (uses a binary search) and it helps sometimes to tweak its input parameters (like I had to do with "Versions to check" in this case) but it is a very valuable tool. Lastly, to create the links I used the {{diff}} template. Just copy and paste the relevant parameters from the URL of the diff page. See its documentation for more info. Hope this helps. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out Wikiblame, I am definitely going to make use of this! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thank you for explaining why the switch to HTTPS by default on Wikipedia is an important one, and taking the time to talk about why this is not as "paranoid" as some users may believe. Here's a cup of coffee! Tony Tan · talk 21:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 451[edit]

Hi. the spaced slashes looked like very poor editing, so I used the only text I found on Google Books, a 2012 version.[1]. Go ahead and use the original if you have it (but readers like me may find a better-edited version less distracting). Cheers. Michael Z. 2015-06-28 01:46 z

Hi, Michael. First, thanks for noticing that there were some transcription errors in the quoted text. Those had been around for a long time without anybody noticing them! My main concern is that ref used for the blockquote is the one that supports the particular version of the blockquote. I'm less concerned with the particular version. I've been very fatigued the last couple days, so I'm not in the mood to edit much at the moment. But investigating this issue is on my mental to-do list. I'm curious to know when this new editorial version first appeared. Did it appear with the 2012 book or earlier, etc. I'll keep in contact with you about this. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a suggestion at Template talk:Infobox software.[edit]

So I have been waiting for over a week just to hear a response for my request to add something until I have concluded that nobody seems to be interested in improving the template, so I have come here (on my birthday—today is my birthday.—) to notify one of you administrators about my request. I certainly would love a response from thee. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Doite[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Doite has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Only independent ref is a dead link, found one that might replace it but that only adds up to one independent source. Tagged with notability issue since 2012.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vrac (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Some development on relative scalars[edit]

Thanks a lot for this page on Relative scalar!

I noticed one inconsistency that I would like to discuss before editing: I don't agree with the statement in the end of introduction: "There are many physical quantities that are represented by ordinary scalars, such as temperature and pressure." More specifically, it is either temperature or pressure that is an ordinary scalar.

In a small volume dV, we have dN mol particles and according to the Ideal gas law

    p.dV = R.T.dN

that is,

    p = R.T. (dN/dV)

where the last factor is n the number density, that is,

    p = n.R.T

But n is a scalar density, that I will note n̂ :

    p = n̂.R.T

And it hurts our sense of homogeneity, as we would have a weight 1 tensor on the right hand side and weight 0 on the left hand side. Hence either we give temperature OR pressure a weight 0, but the other one must have non-zero weight.

Next I advocate that it is pressure that has a non-zero weight, namely 1:

    p̂ = n̂.R.T

by noticing that

    p̂.dV = -δW

is a Work exchange element, that we can integrate. Which in turn lead us to see pressure as a work density.

Some homogeneity between the two can be seen in the general relativity stress-energy tensor

Would you agree with this? Bixente5691 (talk)

Hi, Bixente5691. Thanks for spotting and investigating this. What you've written seems reasonable but to be honest I'm not sure if it's right or not. It's been some time since I've thought about this subject. And I know from past experience that figuring out a physical quantity's weight can very subtle and prone to error. It is concerning that the equation doesn't match up. I'll ponder it for a bit and let you know if I come to a conclusion. Sorry that I can't be much more help at the moment. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Amar a Deus sobre tudo[edit]

Ser um bom cristã de verdade Justino guilherme (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Stradivari violas[edit]

Category:Stradivari violas, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Warning weeks later[edit]

You gave someone a warning for a comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders made 24 days ago? FYI, he retired after your comment. Ssscienccce (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the discussion was not in the last few days and considered not issuing a warning for that reason. Many warnings make little sense if too much time has elapsed. This is particularly true of "drive-by" incidents, where the warning is unlikely to actually reach the intended audience, or, if it does, it might encourage them to re-engage in behavior they had already ceased. This is not a case like that. First, while the comments were somewhat old, the discussion the editor was involved with is still current and the article is still undergoing back-n-forth in edits over the same issue. Most importantly, unlike a drive-by incident, this editor was engaging in uncollaborative discussion and had indicated in writing that they thought it was a good thing and that they would continue with it. When you couple this with the fact that the editor was behaving inappropriately on a sanctioned article that specifically cites requiring good behavior and the editor was currently engaged in another discussion where they were endorsing mockery of other editors (which further indicates a desire to continue with inappropriate behavior), it is clear that this was an editor who wishes to play by their own rules. My warning was appropriate and the editor has multiple avenues to voice their opinion if they feel otherwise (including just taking it in stride, which they maximally did not do).
The decision to retire or not is fully their choice. Just prior to retiring, the editor was involved in other discussions over behavior and mentioned they were under wiki-stress. I hope my interaction with this editor was atypical for him/her but I personally think an editing break might benefit this user; so I wish them the best. From my brief dealings, I find the editor extremely argumentative and difficult, finding contention even in matter-of-fact, neutrally-given statements. If you wish to say, Ssscienccce, that the linked comments of the editor are appropriate and I made a mistake, please say so and address the comments directly. If you think I should feel guilty for enforcing policy or encouraging civil discussion because this particular editor retired, I do not. As for that loss, I ask you to consider the number of editors that aggressive editors like this one scare away: this retirement may be a case of a net positive to editor retention and Wikipedia itself. Jason Quinn (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism in The Great Gatsby[edit]


I was the IP that pointed out some similarities between wikipedia and sparknotes in The Great Gatsby's plot summary in 2013. For some reason today I thought to check those comments, and it seems you eventually did reply. I still see some odd similarities, and they're outlined in the talk page over there. I'd be interested to hear what the story behind this is, if we can know it. Brightnsalty (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Gifford Pinchot historical marker in PA.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Gifford Pinchot historical marker in PA.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly hi! 18:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiclaus Cheer ![edit]

Wikiclaus.jpg Wikiclaus greetings
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you the happiest of Wikipedia Wikiclaus' good cheer.
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages we all spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus ! Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg Face-smile.svg Christmas tree.svg

Monobook.js listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Monobook.js. Since you had some involvement with the Monobook.js redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Jason Quinn![edit]

Dear Jason, Face-smile.svg
Thank you once again for your helpful assistance in support of our Typo Team, and have a great New Year in 2016!
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Request re Multiverse article[edit]

I see that you are a mathematician. Could you please take a look at User talk: and finite sets, where it said that "Thus there is another set that consists of all positive integers and all fractions under 10 - an infinite set plus an finite set." This relates to a discussion of the Multiverse article. Thank you! Wahrmund (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Consumer Project[edit]

Hi Jason - I'm working on a project with a couple friends to crowd-source information about consumer brands to allow people to more easily make informed purchases. We're planning to have an administrator community on the site, but haven't worked out exactly how it should function yet. You obviously have significant experience in site administration. I would love to pick your brain for a half an hour or so if you would be willing.Megaryel (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguous spelling correction.[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Typo Team. Tabletop (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Typo Team#a misspelling of more than one word Tabletop (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Hi, Tabletop. Perhaps {{Collapsible list}} might be of assistance. For example,
This template had some indenting issues that would have to be worked out.
I took a look at the Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/Doppelgangers page you are making. I think it would help to delete the discussion that lead to the creation and add a introductory section that explains the purpose and meaning of the list. As it currently is structured the page is rather confusing. And I'm not sure some of the entries should even be there. For example, "wind" (weather) "wind" (up a clock) are homonyms. If the list is supposed to be about "misspelled words that have more than one possible correction and needing context to decide", why would they be included? Jason Quinn (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking for source of material[edit]


I believe you posted an edit to the following Wikipedia entry:

It says that "scientia ex lux lucis" is the motto of the Vermont State Colleges system. Can you provide your source for this? I am researching this at the VSC and can find no reference to this in our historical documents. Can you please show where you obtained this information?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

You have the wrong person. The only edit I've made to that article was this one and it was just a formatting change to the phrase. The sentence about it being a motto was in the edit by User:GearedBull that created the article in 2008. That editor's last edit was in 2014 so they may no longer be active. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked editor Kh94h returned?[edit]

Hi Jason Quinn,
You blocked Kh94h (talk · contribs), and now there is Khy92 (talk · contribs) exhibiting much the same behaviour i.e. cut and paste moves to 'correct' page names. The first account wanted to "... change page name of "Uttar Pradesh Medical Sciences University" into "Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences" ", which the second account has now done. 220 of Borg 12:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been blocked before I saw your message. I agree the patterns are suspiciously similar. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Re:coauthors is deprecated[edit]

Dear User:Jason Quinn, thank you very much for fixing my talk page and for the message. Yes, I simply click on "Cite" and then click on "Book" or "Website". The "Coauthors" parameter is there. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 16:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Anderson Silva[edit]

More specifically having the refs regarding the Diaz fight violates WP:REPCITE section of WP:CITEKILL. References are to be placed after the sentence(s) they support. In this case, both statements were supported by the same references and citing after each sentence is unnecessary.--Rockchalk717 18:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a guideline or policy. While the advice given in WP:REPCITE regarding multiple statements from the same source may sometimes be good, this practice has several major problems. For one, it is totally unclear to readers how many of the preceding statements the cite covers. It also renders the text more vulnerable to "ref tearing", which occurs when the last sentence with the cite is removed or additional unrelated statements are inserted before the last referenced statement. Given the extreme importance that WP:BLP places on having inline cites for contentious material, the ambiguity that comes with the advice at WP:REPCITE is unacceptable. Even in general, I think the practice is bad. I've spent far too much time trying to discern what statements are covered by what sources when improving articles by editors who cite like that. Regardless, the semi-colon change, I hope, is acceptable to us both and avoids the matter. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah its totally fine. Its the presentation of the citations that was my issue not anything else included with the statement.--Rockchalk717 05:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding gender bias[edit]

Hello, I saw your comments in the recent SIgnpost regarding the gap in Wikipedia content. Have you seen this rough collection of data? I thought you might be interested. Take care. Ckoerner (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that page. I'm not sure the motivation behind your message. Just for clarity, my comments do not dispute the numbers regarding ratios of existing articles but are intended to point out the complexity of interpreting those ratios. This paper was nearly entirely dedicated to measuring biases via article ratios by gender.
I'm glancing at the study and it seems well done. The paper mentions factors such as "sociohistorical bias" and asks whether the imbalance of articles by gender are "simply a reflection of our gender-unequal reality, or is it also a contributor issue?". Those are the right kinds of questions to ask and the paper knows it doesn't know the answer. As far as I know, nobody has convincingly answered that question. Nevertheless, there are no shortage of editors on Wikipedia who assume that the imbalance is due to contributor issues and the ratio "must be corrected". This is jumping to a conclusion.
I'm a little disappointed to see how little information the authors provided about their funding. There's no mention in the paper and the "Funding" section of the project page is empty but they do have an easy-to-miss "Wikimedia supported" template on the right-hand side of the project page. No links the project proposals or anything like that though. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I really didn't mean anything by it. Just thought you'd be curious. :) Ckoerner (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite within[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Cite within has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Jason Quinn. 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)