This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Jayron32

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

Zika[edit]

Can't we just have a to the point blurb like The spread of Zika in Latin America leads the WHO to issue a Public Health Emergency?

The three line "The rapid spread of the Zika virus in Latin America leads to the World Health Organization issuing a Public Health Emergency of International Concern" is excrescently over-superfluous. μηδείς (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Post the suggestion at WP:ERRORS. If someone else doesn't get to it, I will. Best to not make it look like you're making special requests on my talk page. --Jayron32 02:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ref-desk drama[edit]

In reaction to the current troubles on the reference desks, I've been thinking about whether pending-changes protection could successfully be used to combat the trollery while still allowing IPs and unconfirmed editors to pose and answer queries. I can see some problems with this "solution", but before mulling it further, I need an apparent contradiction clarified. On WP:PC, there's a statement, "It was determined by consensus that pending changes could only be used on articles." In the most recent discussion of PC1 implementation that I can find, however—Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 3—the closer concluded, "There was very strong consensus to enable the use of Pending Changes throughout all namespaces." I've glanced through the archives at WT:PC and can't find any consensus that PC should be used only in mainspace. Can you shed any light on this matter? Deor (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could. I rarely use PC, and am not aware of the background of its implementation. I tend to make use of the edit filter instead, but leaning on people like SamWalton who know how to make the Edit Filter do magic as needed. --Jayron32 20:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Also regarding the ref desk[edit]

Hi, thanks for your posts expressing that long-term semi-protection is a bad idea/not helping. If I were an admin, I would just remove the semi-protection. Since you are, then I wonder why you do not? Or any other admins? Surely you can't be the only one who both participates at the refdesk and dislikes the current situation of having several of them locked down? I understand the reticence to get into edit wars and deep disputes with other admins, but I just don't know what the other alternatives are, because nobody is going to be able to convince the one semi-protecting admin that he's not helping, and in fact doing harm. I mean, I guess it could happen, but when I've tried to have a civil discussion about it with him, he just gets rude and pointy. It seems to me that if an admin is doing something problematic, only other admins can force the issue. I'd be willing to help on any other potential solutions you can think of, including sandboxing an RfC, refining guidelines for semi-protection, etc, just let me know if I can help. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Because if I do, FPAS will just put it back immediately. No use fighting when it's going to get reverted immediately. I tried that. He just put it back. I have better things to do than deal with someone who is determined to win a battle instead of being useful. --Jayron32 23:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
How about sticking to the truth? You unprotected the Lang desk on 5 January; we discussed it and came to the conclusion that you wouldn't object to my reprotecting it (still on this very page, a few threads up); I nevertheless held off reprotecting for more then two weeks; I then even unprotected the Hum desk of my own accord (which you had left protected all the time); only when that led to an immediate renewed attack on both boards did I reprotect both, on 21 January. Fut.Perf. 00:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I said I wouldn't do anything about you reprotecting it. I've never agreed it was a good idea, at least for the long term. The course of action I've always espoused has been to revert and block when the troll has revealed themselves, and only protect when admins aren't active to do that, and only for very short term periods. There's a difference between "I won't undo what you've done" and "I agree that you're doing the right thing". --Jayron32 00:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

latest RD polls[edit]

Thanks. But is there some kind of typo in proposal 2's rationale? ("...except for that they are banned. T") —Steve Summit (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss fixed it, but you'll want to check. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Locked ref desk topic[edit]

Hi Jayron. You locked my topic here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#plastic_surgery. I was asking a rather serious question, if you can't tell and you marry them it's the same as false advertising and financial fraud. I never said anything about marrying a girl solely for her looks (another guy accused me of that), not to mention girls care a lot about what a guy looks like as well. I forgot to add if the law has anything to do with this. Can you please consider unlocking it? Money is tight (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Nazi Reference Desk Troll: Additional Socks Uncovered[edit]

Thanks for your work on this. I have done some research and identified a large number of past (mostly blocked) socks of Soft skin, and I'd appreciate if you could add them into the SPI:

My apologies if these duplicate any already in the SPI archives. Thanks, GABHello! 00:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You know, the time you took to add these here, you could have saved the step and added them to the SPI case. You don't need me to copy-paste this message onto the SPI case for you, do you now? --Jayron32 00:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if putting them in spi would even be necessary, so I wanted to ask if you think it's worth the time. I mean, this isn't time-urgent in any way, since they are rather old. Sorry for the trouble. GABHello! 01:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Added to a question on humanities refdesk - curious if you have a response to post there[edit]

Hi, regarding the question on the humanities refdesk about general walker wanting to resign his commission, I added a comment in response to yours (the "congress can throw a spanner in the works" comment). Given that the question is a few days old, I thought you might not notice it, so I'm calling it to your attention in case you have something to add in response (there, not here). I would sincerely be curious to hear if you think my opinion is correct. Eliyohub (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw it. Didn't feel the need to correct anything you said, since it is factually correct. --Jayron32 14:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


Time flies[edit]

Hi Jayron, your "concrete proposal" RfC [1] is now 30 days old. I'd say that Proposal 2 is supported easily and broadly, while Proposal 1 is supported by consensus, though less strongly. So what do we do? Do you close it down and with a note saying these are now our consensus-based guidelines? Do we write it into some of the extant guideline materials? Do you just point to that if you want to unprotect the desks any time they've been protected longer than 48 hours? Any insight will be appreciated, let me know if I can help. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well apparently it got closed with no result. I think that's the wrong call, especially on proposal 2. Oh well. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
You blocked that trolling IP user pretty fast, one minute after I warned him! You deserve this. Peter Sam Fan 15:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Concern about a close[edit]

Jayron, an editor voiced a concern about how you closed a discussion at village pump. See Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)#Incorrect close of an RFC at VPP for discussion. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for blocking the user who impersonated me! Peter Sam Fan 22:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks[edit]

WP:NPASca (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Meaningless URL provided, there is no personal attack there. Time for precision. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Sca, can you explain what the personal attack was? --Jayron32 18:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Jay:
...what sca is saying is that because he PERSONALLY wishes that news outlets were not covering this story extensively, that we should ignore those reliable sources, and instead make Wikipedia decisions based on his personal feelings about the matter.
– You are maligning my motives. (WP:AGF) That's a personal attack. The issue raised concerns notability, which may be debated. Sca (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about your motives. I was saying that notability is assessed by looking at reliable sources, not based on your personal opinion. Stating that is not an attack. I've never once said anything that any reasonable person could take as a statement about your motives. --Jayron32 01:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. I think we're in PC-land now. Time to get a grip. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Who asked you? Sca (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
@Sca: Sorry but the other two editors are correct. The above-quoted comments don't approach violation of AGF, let alone NPA. BTW, people are allowed to make comments in user talk without being asked for them, unless requested to stay off the page by its owner. There are very few private discussions at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss  02:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference Desk[edit]

I noticed that you sometimes tell Ref Desk questioners that they should have looked up the answer by themselves by posting the same question at Google, rather than posting it on the Ref Desk. A recent example is [2]. Your suggestion is certainly true, although it can come across as a bit unwelcoming toward some posters who may be new to Wikipedia. How about if we just added your suggestion to the guidelines at the top of the Ref Desk page, right after "How to get your question answered," rather than having to post it everytime someone asks a question for which they could have found the answer by themselves on Google? Regards. Edison (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to that at all. Certainly useful. I'm not being unwelcoming, I always try to keep a helpful tone when I make suggestions. I am merely trying to educate the asker of the question on how to get their question answered faster than waiting. --Jayron32 16:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
It would be faster for them in many cases, but they might need help figuring out which sources on Google are reliable. If the question were"Is vaccination safe?" the first 2 Google results say it is and the third says it isn't.(We could just say "No medical advice" but some ref desk editors might be helpful in sorting out reliable (health dept) from unreliable (advocacy group) results). If the question was "Was Obama born in Kenya?", three out of the first five Google results say "Yes, he was born in Kenya." Ref Desk might helpfully point to our article which debunks the conspiracy theories. "Just Google it" is a pretty good rule when the subject lacks conspiracy theories and whackadoodle advocacy groups. Ironically, I once asked for help using tools to find biographical information about an obscure political official, whose Wikipedia article I wanted to improve, at the public library reference desk, and was greatly amused when the reference librarian said "Why don't you just look it up yourself on Wikipedia?" Edison (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
All of that is very true, which is why I only ever give the advice to people who ask questions where the simple Google search would work. I don't give in response to every question; only where it works. If you checked all of my ref desk contributions, you'll see I rarely give the advice, except where it works. --Jayron32 18:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I believe that is so. Edison (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry to say, but your responses come off as passive aggressive. Some users hope to see responses that enable them to gauge the credibility of the sources and find experts/people with knowledge in the field. I'm sorry if I sound a bit angry, but I'm one of the "Ref Desk Questioners" that you responded to. 151.207.250.61 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Motherboard interview on Saskatoon Police banning[edit]

Hey there,

I'm a reporter for Motherboard, VICE Media's tech news site. I'd like to speak with you briefly about why you banned the Saskatoon Police Department's Wikipedia user account on February 28. If you're interested, we can talk here or you can email me at jordan.pearson@vice.com. Hope to hear from you soon. Thanks. -- neuwaves

Hey Jayron32. My bad—looks like you instituted the block in 2012, I misread and believed it was 2016. The page is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SaskatoonPolice&action=edit&redlink=1 -- neuwaves

Thank You[edit]

Thanks a lot Jayron, for the answer on the Covalent Bonds. :)

You certainly have a lot of Chemistry knowledge. I especially love how you boiled down the answer in simple terms.

You specifically told me why the answer was so, and went beyond the line of duty. Haha :)

Thanks. You rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imad Sawal (talkcontribs) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words! --Jayron32 00:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

User:178.101.224.162[edit]

Given this http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/178.101.224.162 is a static IP, cannot you just not here him indeffly? μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Good afternoon, @Medeis:. As this is an IP we cannot indef him blockly. My guess is that it's the "Best known for" IP. If you want to follow up you would need to take the matter to SPI. All the best, 92.19.170.43 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The ENGVAR variations[edit]

Hi, Jayron. You were right to endorse the use of British English in this article. See this discussion on the talk page which Zzuuzz deleted Special:Diff/708606332#The ENGVAR variations. Future Perfect at Sunrise would appear to have WP:CIR issues. He undid your edit to make the article be written in a mixture of British and American spelling. Policy says that an article may be written in one or the other but not both. Would you consider unprotecting the article so that editors can clean up the mess? All the best, 92.19.170.43 (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Note[edit]

One of the funniest things I've read all week.[3] Jolly good. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

ANI[edit]

You're one admin that I trust. Am I in the wrong here?[4] Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Bugs, I'm not an arbiter of right or wrong. What I can say is that the concept of "IP-hopping" is meaningless in the modern world, and has been for at least 4-5 years, and doubly so for IPv6 addresses, because of the way that IP addresses are assigned. A decade ago, when all we had was IPv4, and when many users accessed the internet from a single desktop computer with a static IP address, that may have been different. The vast majority of devices no longer have static IP addresses, and can change randomly, with no input from the user, anywhere from every few days to every few minutes, depending on which type of device they are using and which ISP they have. It should not be the default assumption that any user has any control over their IP address anymore, especially for IPv6 using ISPs, where static IP addresses simply do not exist. --Jayron32 12:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Is it the business of some random IP (1) to question the block length of someone he's supposedly not connected with; and/or (2) to mess around with entries on AIV that are not his? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Was he wrong in the incorrect block length? The admin in question, both times, has admitted to clicking the wrong option, and then corrected their problem. So, it doesn't really matter whether they have a username or not, they noted an error, and the error was corrected. Wikipedia has a clear policy that users are not required to have user names to be taken seriously. Your own personal policy on the same appears to be different. While at Wikipedia, site-wide policy overrides personal policies. --Jayron32 19:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
No, he wasn't wrong to report it. But how did it come to his attention? And, again, should he be messing with AIV entries that aren't his? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
How does it come to anyone's attention? It doesn't matter. He's not more suspect than if he had a long-standing account through which he reported it. The person who reported it may have been editing Wikipedia and participating here for longer than I have. They don't become more suspect merely because they haven't created a user account. --Jayron32 19:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Fine. What about messing with AIV? I recall a user (though not his ID) who was doing similar busybody work a few years ago, and was told to stop it or be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no idea what was going on at AIV, I was only responding to the two requests at ANI to amend problematic blocks. If you believe this is a specific editor which has been banned or blocked before for disrupting AIV, you should indicate who it is. --Jayron32 19:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hard to do when I can't remember the user's ID. And checkusers won't do anything with IP's. But thanks for your input. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment request[edit]

Hi Jayron. Any comment on this [5]? I mean, of course the ref desk isn't a great venue for "why" anything in fiction, but that in itself isn't grounds for removal. I thought your answer was useful, and I thought I had a bit to add. I don't intend to make any fuss over it, just curious what you think. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

1) I didn't do that removal, some IP did. 2) read David Johnson's comment at the end of the removed section. That should be all you need to know. If you want to know more, ask those involved.--Jayron32 21:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes I know how to read the edit history. I thought about contacting the IP, but as you know IP talk pages are not usually a good way to contact any user. I read DJ's comment and did not think that was good grounds for removal. I thought you were involved insofar as you answered the question and seemed to think it was fine. I thought you might like to comment on the efficacy or desirability of such removal, but it seems I was mistaken. Oh well. In the mean time, you inspired me to check out the IP's contributions [6]. Now that's pretty suspicious in my book, but I guess I have better things to do than defend against the potential white-washing of a shitty exploitation flick :) Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Taking Of Pelham 123[edit]

When Camonetti spoke to Ryder for the 1st time, the [Audience including Us] knew that Ryder [seriously specifically threatened] to kill the Motorman if Garber did not return.

1. Why didn't Camonetti call for Garber immediately?

2. Don't you Try to Tell me that Camonetti is Innocent, so Isn't it True that Camonetti is Stupid for Unintentionally causing the Motorman to Die?

3. In real Life, would Cops take Threats seriously or would They screw Up just like Camonetti?(76.20.88.33 (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)).

Why are you asking me this? --Jayron32 19:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I believed that you automatically saw that movie before well did You?(76.20.88.33 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)).

Whether I have or haven't, why would you come to my talk page to ask me these questions? --Jayron32 20:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's becuz you didn't reply to my Entertainment Questions specifically, directly, individually, etc.

Are you Willing to Answer any of my Questions?

Is there Another Website for my Questions about Pelham Movie?(76.20.88.33 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)).

The reference desk is not an appropriate venue for speculation. Fictional characters do not have motivations, internal thought processes or reasons, because they don't exist. That's why they are fictional. That's what fiction means. It means something someone just made up. We can't ask make-believe characters why they did something. --Jayron32 13:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Extra Website?[edit]

That is why I'm asking you if There is Any Other Websites that would Appropriate for my Questions about Pelham movie?(76.20.88.33 (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)).

RD trial[edit]

So, we got our way, despite us probably arguing around each other and yet still advocating the same position. Let's make sure the trial works! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/720541161[edit]

Why did you tag the file with |date=27 April 2016 instead of today's date? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

So corrected. --Jayron32 15:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Note2[edit]

McMurray[edit]

OP admits he has no intention of doing anything useful for Wikipedia regarding this issue.

– What is this supposed to mean?
I have no objection to closing the discussion – only to the implication that I "admitted" something. That's your interpretation. And BTW, I had no opinion re Ho's forlorn bid to repost the story to Ongoing. The only reason I posted those links on Talk was that on May 15 I said, "as news, it seems to be over." After I found this was not the case, I felt a responsibility to correct that statement. Sca (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You were asked by two people whether or not you intended to either improve the article or nominate it for inclusion. You answered in the negative. --Jayron32 13:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
But Jay, that's simply not true. No where in the discussion do I "reply in the negative." That phrase means in effect saying no. Nowhere do I do so.
In the second paragraph, you make your (valid) point about updating before re-posting. But I had not proposed re-posting, and I did not reply. My only actual reply was to the "blog" question. (I tried to lighten that response with a touch of humor – no doubt a futile effort.)
Please dial back your assumptions enough to reconsider, and post a less judgmental hatting statement. (BTW, I note that the instructions say hatting "should only be used by uninvolved editors.") And please dial back what seems to be your hostility toward me. Thank you. Sca (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not hostile. My toes are just fine, also. --Jayron32 14:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. In both cases. Sca (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"Why always me?" The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Note 3[edit]

70.171.213.174 (talk · contribs) has filed a potentially libelous complaint against a couple of us at ANI, and of course did not notify the parties. I also brought up your name there, as another of his sea of IP's made a similarly potentially libelous complaint against you recently. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

"At" or "in".[edit]

One reference doesn't prove the common grammatical use. You are simply incorrect on this matter and you ought to revert yourself. It is universally accepted English grammar to write that a person died "at" rather than "in" a building even though the latter is also acceptable. Your comment that this has anything to do with American English was erroneous. Afterwriting (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This reference states that "in" is used when the location is contained. A home is a thing which has an inside and an outside, so "in" is appropriate. This style guide says to use "in" for buildings. This one does as well. Your assertion that it is wrong is in contradiction with every reliable source I can find. You cannot claim to be right solely because you say you are. Provide sources. --Jayron32 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You have not provided any sources which indicate that this has anything at all to do with American English for this specific matter. There are numerous American publications which have said that someone "died at his/her home" so this argument has no substance. As you said yourself, "You cannot claim to be right solely because you say you are. Provide sources." As you have also said, this is a "waste of fucking energy" so I'm not wasting any more of it on this. Afterwriting (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
You've already won the war. Gravedancing does not become you. --Jayron32 14:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Stale?[edit]

The IP user has been warned three times for doing exactly what they just did yet again. If you allow a small delay in processing to let them get away without being blocked it is all but guaranteed that they will come back and do it again. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP address, and you already note he's using different IP addresses since. A block does nothing, since the person who used that IP address is no longer using it. --Jayron32 13:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that isn't the case here. The other IP address I noted has been editing in a slightly different subject area that is still related. If they are in fact sockpuppets (based on the similar subject areas and the extremely similar addresses, as well as the times of editing) they would be splitting up their editing so as to remain under the radar. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ref desk nonsense[edit]

Since you hatted yet another section of that shite section of the chat desk here with an edit summary that appeared to imply that edits neither answered the OP's question nor provided any sourced responses, please could you apply that to all such posts in future? Otherwise it would seem a little odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a volunteer job. You can't expect me to monitor every thread at all times. We help out where we can in our own ways. --Jayron32 21:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
No, I guess not. But I'm glad you've set the precedent. I'll be spending a lot more time there in future, hurrah for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Brad Garrett[edit]

Another Who R U sock, I believe.[7] --Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 21:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been got.  :) --Ebyabe talk - State of the Union ‖ 21:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management & Technology, Tezpur (GIMT-Tezpur)[edit]

Could you please unprotect Girijananda Chowdhury Institute of Management & Technology, Tezpur (GIMT-Tezpur) and delete. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

IPBE RfC v2[edit]

As you commented on WP:IBE RfC Grant exemptions to users in good standing on request, you may wish to also comment on my alternative proposal, WP:IBE RfC Automatically grant IPBE to users by proof of work alone . Sai ¿? 11:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Living person category[edit]

Jayron32, thank you for notifying me of discussion on the admin page regarding my category proposal. I look forward to talk on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest11111 (talkcontribs) 14:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

  • Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sagittarian Milky Way[edit]

I personally am conflicted about writing about this, but surely you remember this, right? I just saw them ask this. I admire their passion for learning, but this is the second time I found their question to be ill-posed (the first time was this), and I am somewhat concerned by the fact that most of their edits are to reference desks rather than content. Granted, this is nowhere near as severe as what prompted you to start that thread, but I think they would benefit from staying away from the reference desks. As of now, I think their questions would be better directed to other forums - I am making a good faith effort to answer the questions, but I think they need to slow down, and realize that we're not stack exchange.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Power Trio[edit]

Respectfully, the term 'power trio' arose in the Chicago press in the 1930's to denote trios like Muddy Waters who had amplification. The interplay of musicians in a power trio is the key to their success, not whether they had a louder bass player. This is why I chose to replace the irrelevant passage about louder bass amplification (all instruments became louder, so what?), with a passage about group dynamics which actually enable power trios to exist (which you deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatorshoes (talkcontribs) 01:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding new information is good. Removing information, which was well referenced and cited to reliable musicologists and music historians, is not good. Adding a new definition is fine, but when you do so, do not remove stuff which reliable and well respected writers have thought relevant. Add, don't replace, and you'll get no objection from anyone. --Jayron32 02:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ref desk troll?[edit]

Hey -- I just saw your post at User_talk:Jpgordon/Archive_7#Ref_desk_troll_back.2C_need_a_checkuser_quick_check... in regard to my post Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2014_June_22#Frying_in_human_fat. I am NOT the Ref Desk troll, and I didn't even know there was such a recurring user as a troll who posts questions at the Ref Desk. If you must know, I needed to know that question about the human fat word for a conlang I was creating (but don't let it get out that I conlang). Enzingiyi (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MASH (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Blake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Re. Lambs[edit]

Not meaning to offend you or anything, but I find there's something rather bestial about your sense of humor. Maybe that's just me. 😏 Kurtis (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Technical problem when editing an article?[edit]

I have been trying to edit Welfare state article but can't see the changes that I have done after editing. I believe it is technical issue with database or something. Can you please fix it? 70.51.84.138 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the data base. As you can see at Here you haven't made any changes to the article overall. That's because as you can see in the Article history, every edit you've done, you late went back and undid it. So, you haven't changed anything overall. That's why it shows no changes. You made changes, but then immediately went back and undid them. --Jayron32 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Extreme Page Issues[edit]

Hi Jayron32, I see you are an Administrator on the Wikipedia, and that you have made previous edits to the page David Packouz. There have been some recent edits to Mr Packouz's page that are extremely disturbing, and the page is becoming very self-promotional. The page for this individual is also poorly written, as general. The sources also do not claim what they say they do - for instance, see source [1], which does not mention "entrepreneur" nor "inventor". Source [9] does not mention music technology. The entire article reads like an advertisement. Please read through the page which is not verylong and discuss as to the best course of action. THank you kindly. --Asenathson (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If there is an editing dispute over the neutrality or the sourcing, try a noticeboard such as WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN to gain the attention of editors who have a special interest in those areas. --Jayron32 15:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Jayron32. --Asenathson (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

horse shit[edit]

we've got at least six threads by this person now, all IP hopping from moldova to nigeria. Unless you enjoin me, the next time a new such question arises I am simply going to delete them all as wp:deny and obvious socking. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, they're obviously using some anonymizing proxy service. Just delete and move on. That's what I'm going to do. --Jayron32 18:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ron Carey (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fatso (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

question about non-notable crime victim[edit]

I was curious about the request for help at Humanities finding the ethnicity of a very tangentially related person in regard to a crime. Very "off". It turns out the victim and the weapon are not named in the source, even though claims were made in our article. See here where I have removed the uncited material. I suggest this should be shut down as a violation of BLP and VICTIM at Humanities and wherever else. I don't have the time to file an ANI, my usual computer is shot and the one I am using now is 12 years old. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll look into it. --Jayron32 10:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories[edit]

I would mildly recommend to remove a minor personal attack in a form of a joke ("inside his head"). Of course, he was calling for it, we knew this all along. Perhaps part of the problem we were taking him too seriously, but IMO not mocking a non-aggressive krank is a bit more humane. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So amended. --Jayron32 18:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Please remove my personal information[edit]

Hi, jayron could you please remove my personal information at the long term abuse page for ref desk antisemitic troll. I don't think it's right that you are allowing people to give out where I live, since that's none of your business. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.245.77 (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The geographic information of your IP address is publicly available. I have nothing to do with that. --Jayron32 20:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but you were the one who created that page and said the place where I live.24.255.245.77 (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your IP address already tells everyone that. If you don't want everyone to know where you live, you should have not used Wikipedia. --Jayron32 20:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Exit numbers in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I-540 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the club[edit]

"Dreaming the same Impossible Dream"

The Like-Minded Persons' Club
For displaying here common sense and uncommon good taste by agreeing with me or saying something I would have said if only I'd had the presence of mind, I hereby bestow upon you Provisional Membership of the Like-Minded Persons' Club.

To qualify for Full Membership, simply continue to agree with me in all matters for at least the next 12 months.

(Disagreements are so vulgar, don't you think? And, as Bruce Chatwin said, Arguments are fatal. One always forgets what they are about)

The usual expressions of admiration.  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If certain not to be named editors didn't say stupid shit like claiming I didn't do something I clearly did (including, while ignoring the very reference I provided, accusing me of doing what he does every fucking time he posts) I needn't have gotten so snippy. But seriously, some people have no clue... --Jayron32 12:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Isn't life wonderful ... ?  :) -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 13:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Jayron32. 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)

NPP & AfC[edit]

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)