This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Jayron32

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017[edit]

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


Administrator changes

added KaranacsBerean HunterGoldenRingDlohcierekim
removed GdrTyreniusJYolkowskiLonghairMaster Thief GarrettAaron BrennemanLaser brainJzGDragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited North End, Boston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanover Street (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) 10:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meriadoc Brandybuck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rohan (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) 10:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


I just wanted to make sure I thanked you for the ref desk misc comment affirming my position on state/federal crimes. The problem is that I am on opiates for GI problems, and could not tell whether I had "thunk" you for your edit. (I went to thank you, but feared I had already thunk you, and the feature doesn't say!) The wort part is that I get all the memory loss and none of the high out of these pseudopiods. Sucks. But here's real evidence of my thanks. lomotil. μηδείς (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

'tsallgood. --Jayron32 00:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

reverts with changes to my edit at language desk[edit]

Does anyone hear that sound? It's the sound of me not giving a shit.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jayron, are you one of the admins who places temporary edit blocks on the ref desks? If so, please look at the recent reversions of my edit at the language desk by an IP trying to make a point. He's even changing my wording. My comment is not disruptive. If you don't place temp blocks, please let me know whom I should approach. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have only:
  • 1) hatted the thread as requested, or more precisely, the portion of the thread that needed hatting.
  • 2) used "undo" to maintain my improvement. The "He's even changing my wording" is a dishonest description by medies, intended to discredit my actions. 2600:8806:4807:E700:E463:7594:9CE9:2722 (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
With this edit the IP clearly removed the word thread from Medeis post. That is refactoring another editors post which is not allowed. MarnetteD|Talk 01:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Jayron and MarnetteD discuss Ref Desk Diffs
.That is clearly an "Undo". Look at the earlier and later changes in history. The edit summary was changed from the system generated default. MarnetteD needs to look harder at the clues. 2600:8806:4807:E700:E463:7594:9CE9:2722 (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You recent intervention at the Republic of East Florida article[edit]

Hi Jayron, I am one of the editors involved in the content dispute at the article Republic of East Florida‎. Thanks for your recent intervention, but your protection edit has established the contentious revision made by user EastFloridaHistorian, who by his own admission also uses different IP addresses to make his edits.

You get an idea of EastFloridaHistorian's approach to editing the article in the edit summary he made with his first addition of the disputed infobox: " Added a country box. I am starting to think that the removal of my edits is RACIST! He is showing clear bias against Floridians and our history!"). The edit was first reverted by user Jeff in CA with this edit. EFH then left a note on the article's talk page, but had no consensus to justify re-adding the disputed infobox. Consequently I reverted his re-addition, and this continued through another cycle of adding and reverting before you intervened.

I believe that consensus regarding the addition should be reached by concerned editors, but your protection edit has unfortunately established EFH's contentious infobox on the article page. I don't think there is any way to collaborate productively with this editor, who wraps his comments on the article's talk page in religiosity, and is on a mission to correct what he considers "discrimination" against "Native Floridians", whom he arbitrarily defines as members of, or the descendants of, the groups of rebels who invaded Spanish Florida in the so-called "Patriot War", or as he puts it, "those born in the Native Republic and their descendants".

His last comment on the talk page at this point is "Carlstak, I feel that I have admonished you enough. Your chance has been given. Let no one say that you were not offered one. I forgive you. From all your false accusations and put-downs. I hope you can see humanity in all humans. May God bless you, Carlstak. May the Light of St. Mary help and guide you. I will no longer edit this page I have created. People are free to see my original edits if they so choose. Carlstak, I hope you have a good life and serve Christ well.

He says he will no longer edit the page, which I hope is true, since how in the world can other editors who don't share his viewpoint collaborate with someone who has such an attitude? Carlstak (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I will not be editing that article, because I am expressly forbidden from doing so per WP:PROT. My protection is not an endorsement of him; indeed if I did edit that page, I would be endorsing your version instead, which is equally as bad. That's why I didn't edit the page. If you want the page unprotected, establish a consensus at Talk:Republic of East Florida. I don't see any RFC or other attempt to bring in outside voices and establish a consensus. After I do, I will unprotect the article. --Jayron32 17:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png[edit]

After the consensus agreed to maintain "status quo" toward WP:NFC and to declare WP:NFCC adequate, i.e. consensus deems waiting period unnecessary, I wonder whether you can undelete this non-free content and allow me to reinsert it to Jill Saward. How does BBC have commercial interests when it's funded by the government and a public service broadcaster? Also, I have waited for a response from her husband Grant for three weeks without one reply. --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If nothing has changed, there is no reason to undelete, as the policy which deleted the image in the first place remains the law of the land. The BBC retains copyright, and your utter and total misunderstanding of how copyright works lets me know that anything you have to say on the appropriateness of using copyright materials at Wikipedia is safe to ignore. --Jayron32 11:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I do know how copyright works. It intends to preserve distribution and publication rights of an author or entity that made a work in a fixed medium. However, the time to preserve those rights is limited. For example, in the US, The Color Purple was published in 1982 with copyright notice, previously required by Copyright Act of 1976 until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 eliminated the requirement. Alice Walker is still alive, so the novel's copyright will last until 70 years after her lifetime (forgive me for using euphemisms). In the case of the BBC video, it was first aired in 2013, and its US copyright is preserved by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. But then again, I recently read the terms regarding screenshots after your response... and the copyright terms. I have to ask BBC permission to use a screenshot and photos, do I? If so, what would happen to all pages related to EastEnders, such as the Watts family and List of EastEnders characters (1985)? --George Ho (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I wonder whether you can go to Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders and ask its members about this. George Ho (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... fair use doesn't require a permission as long as it's limited. But then again, due to the rise of Internet, there is Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which might be more effective than "fair use" on severely limiting usage of non-free content on Internet. Meta-wiki addresses copyright in its pages, including meta:Copyright and meta:Avoid copyright paranoia (essay, actually). George Ho (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I. Am. Not. Going. To. Do. This. Find. Someone. Else. May I recommend @Moonriddengirl: who specializes in these issues and can help you out. --Jayron32 17:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I specialize in image copyrights, and I am not sure this was deletion material. May I recommend that you give an explanation, rather than just pronouncing ex cathedra that George is wrong and not worth our time? I grant I am unaware of many possible previous interactions between you two. Magog the Ogre (t c) 03:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The rationale is WP:NFCC #1, also the note at WP:NFCC, near the bottom, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". If any other admin, including you, believe this image has satisfied WP:NFCC #1, feel free to restore. I don't believe that it has, which is why I am not restoring it, but I'm also not that important, so my opinion doesn't mean anything here, if you have a different opinion, you can restore it with no objection from me. --Jayron32 11:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. FASTILY 05:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

enclaves and exclaves[edit]

I had two major problems:

The entities are fully incorporated CITIES, not communities. There were many "towns" and "communities" that were subsumed by Unigov. The four cities remained fully autonomous and independent from Indianapolis and each city has separate fire departments, police departments, city governments, etc. and, in fact, have differing SALES TAX RATES than Indianapolis. Those facts are extremely important distinctions. Given that these CITIES remain in the county, the certain countywide services remained. For instance, the Marion County Sheriff still has jurisdiction within the Cities as it always had. Unigov did not necessarily provide additional countywide services to those cities, rather it documented what services would continue and provided clear distinctions and limits which was important to those cities. Living in the county at the time, this was a huge change. Smaller cities and towns were absorbed into Indianapolis such as Nora, Broad Ripple, Rocky Ripple and New Augusta to name a few off the top of my head - there were many more. For example, Broad Ripple was an incorporated city but nowhere the size or clout of the four cities that remained independent. There was quite a bit of controversy with regard to those smaller cities, towns and numerous unincorporated communities. The distinction, as I said, is huge.

This was a huge point of contention when Unigov was being crafted and passed. To this day, those cities remain fully independent - NOT PARTIALLY INTEGRATED. Initially, only the Marion County Sheriff's department enjoyed reciprocity with those 4 cities (as they had before Univgov). As the Indianapolis Police force expanded into beyond the prior city limits into the county, full reciprocity became a fact. As this happened, except for some County specific duties (primarily running the Marion County Jail and certain activities related to the County Courts), the Marion County Sheriff's department has no real day-to-day law enforcement presence in Indianapolis.

This was an act passed by the State Legislature and enforced on the City/County by the State as compared to many subsequent City/County mergers (Detroit, for instance) that were done at a County & City level.

I think the extra language adds specifics that are very important distinctions and I could make the verbiage somewhat shorter but you have missed the entire point of the verbiage. At the time, Unigov was unique and became a model for other city/county mergers nationwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondobyte (talkcontribs) 14:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I changed the word to "cities". The other information is too much detail for an overview article. I'm sure it's available in a different article on Wikipedia, and if it is, that's fine. I have no problem with you writing about it at Wikipedia somewhere. Just that one article is too bloated as it is, and the level of detail you added is unnecessary for the article you are adding it to. --Jayron32 14:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

handout for students editing film articles[edit]

Hi there,

I'm hoping to solicit your feedback regarding a handout Wiki Ed is developing for students who want to work on articles about films: User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)/Films. It will be a print guide that supplements other resources and materials for student editors, like the interactive training and brochures that address broader aspects of editing, like etiquette, NPOV, citing sources, working in sandboxes, using the talk page, etc. This guide focuses only on aspects of editing required for contributing to articles about films assigned in classroom settings. We're hoping to get some feedback from the community by the end of Monday, so we can send it off to the printer before the end of the month. I realize that's not a lot of time so no worries if you don't get to it. There's one other draft we're looking for feedback on, for editing articles about books, if that's also/more of interest. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)