Archives |
---|
/Archive for Sept-Dec 2006 |
Contents
- 1 Zika
- 2 Ref-desk drama
- 3 Also regarding the ref desk
- 4 latest RD polls
- 5 Locked ref desk topic
- 6 Nazi Reference Desk Troll: Additional Socks Uncovered
- 7 Added to a question on humanities refdesk - curious if you have a response to post there
- 8 Time flies
- 9 A barnstar for you!
- 10 Concern about a close
- 11 A barnstar for you!
- 12 No personal attacks
- 13 Reference Desk
- 14 Motherboard interview on Saskatoon Police banning
- 15 Thank You
- 16 User:178.101.224.162
- 17 The ENGVAR variations
- 18 Note
- 19 ANI
- 20 Comment request
Zika
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
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
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)
- 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)
latest RD polls
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
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
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:
- Jungleman49 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Im howard richardson (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- First time wikipedia editor (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Thoughtfulperson200 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- The flyin man (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Dillpickle120 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Grandmaster john (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- There's a storm coming (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Anonymouss male (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Anonymous wikipedia account (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- MyNameIsMike300 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- I'm Thomas George (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Gerald williams jr. (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Jellyman1000 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Teadrinker300 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Helper1000 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Donniethegreat (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- 24 hours a day 7 days a week (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Imthewildone (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- The man from the jungle (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Anonymouswiktionarian (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Tropical express (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Woofsaway4 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Editing on wikipedia (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Elgingtonshireton (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) -- Unblocked
- My gills shrink and expand (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Blue face (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Fq100 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Socrates10000 (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- Fraser river delta (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
- The teletubby (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log))
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)
Added to a question on humanities refdesk - curious if you have a response to post there
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
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!
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
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!
The Admin's Barnstar | |
Thanks for blocking the user who impersonated me! Peter Sam Fan 22:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC) |
No personal attacks
WP:NPA – Sca (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)
- Who asked you? Sca (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Reference Desk
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)
- 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)
Motherboard interview on Saskatoon Police banning
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
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 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words! --Jayron32 00:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
User:178.101.224.162
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
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
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
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Comment request
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)