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

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

Hi i was wondering how to put the correct party affiliation i noticed that you undid it because I messed something up, which I am sorry about, but what I was trying to do was put the correct party affiliation so when you click on the (D) it brings you to the Democratic Party of the United States Wikipedia page Metro north ( talk) 02:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

( talk page stalker) @ Metro north: For easy reference, your edits. You removed the curly braces that closed the "Senators" {{ plainlist}} template. But it's more than that technical issue, there are likely going to be content issues, and I think you should abandon this or take it to the article's talk page; user talk is not for content issues. The "D" for Cuomo is already linked to New York State Democratic Committee, which some editors will feel makes more sense for someone in the state government. And, per linking guidelines, the link shouldn't be repeated in such close proximity. ― Mandruss  ☎ 02:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks Mandruss. Yes, the issues Mandruss notes are all true. The biggest issue, besides breaking the coding and creating a mess was the problem with WP:OVERLINK: Once a concept is linked the first time in an article or section, it is rarely useful to link it in close proximity. -- Jayron 32 12:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply

You may wish to change the block on the editor, as the account is a suspected sock puppet of User:Loverphalia.-- Cahk ( talk) 02:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Ammended block and tagged. Thanks for the heads up. -- Jayron 32 11:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Since you did this, I've took the liberty of removing a little more trivia here. Perhaps also I shouldn't bite the newbies/occasional editors/user talk page blankers. In any case I'm going to open a discussion on the talk page about this stuff. A lot of articles have this kind of information, and we need to decide what is and what is not relevant. Any thoughts would be welcome. This is Paul ( talk) 16:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Discussion now started at Talk:Nicola Sturgeon. Feel free to add your thoughts. This is Paul ( talk) 16:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron32. We've both been here a really long time, but I'm not sure we've ever interacted before. I've been racking my brain trying to remember if I've ever done something to piss you off, but I can't recall anything to justify the tone of this "note". Why all the hostility? (Also there was nothing combative in my comment that would deserve a combative response.)

Wymspen presented the link/answer as if it answered the OP's question. Not knowing the OP's background, I don't think we should assume he/she knows enough about linguistics to understand that it didn't really answer the specific question asked (i.e. whether or not "mmm" is a universal linguistic sound). Wymspen's link only addressed phonemes, not "sounds". Not all sounds are phonemes; that is not a distinction non-linguists are familiar with. So the OP likely thought the question, as it was written, was answered when it really wasn't (because he/she made the common mistake of thinking "phoneme" means "sounds").

Now, I don't know if that was indeed the case, however likely, but regardless of the reasons, I brought up a relevant point that directly concerned Wymspen's answer as it relates (or doesn't) to the very specific question the OP himself wrote. Frankly, I don't understand how that deserves being told "you're not the OP" (a fact of which I'm well aware, thank you) and "you don't get to enforce your feelings on others". I was neither claiming to be the OP nor even remotely attempting to force the OP to "feel" a certain way. Totally unnecessary and unwarranted verbiage.-- William Thweatt ^{Talk Contribs} 22:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

You are quite correct there and justified in feeling affronted. I was quite rude, and you in no way deserved that. I should have not said what I did, as it was not called for. I apologize without equivocation and I am quite ashamed of what I did there. I am sorry.-- Jayron 32 15:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I've just read you comment on a vandalism report here - [1]. I have given examples of deliberate introduction of false information - for example this [2], the number of Tamil speaker in France is not 125,000 nor is it the most spoken Indian or Asian language in France - see here here and here. Given that sneaking introduction of false information is specifically mentioned in WP:SNEAKY, I find it hard to comprehend your comment that it is not vandalism. Deliberate introduction of false information is also not listed under WP:NOTVAND. This is not a content dispute but false information which the editor has a long history of adding, and I have just spent a few hours trying to fix some of his edits. A bit more clarity and help is therefore appreciate otherwise we will be wasting a lot of time fixing things we don't need to. Hzh ( talk) 15:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

If that is the case, then WP:AIV is not the correct venue for the report. AIV is designed for obvious vandalism, not the sort of disruptive editing that requires an extensive investigation to uncover a problem. I'm not saying that he should not be blocked (and saying that doesn't mean I am saying he should). I'm merely saying that AIV is for the sort of vandalism one could indentify with no explanation at all (like randomly inserting obscenities into articles, etc.) and not for the sort of thing you are claiming here. If you need this particular problem addressed, go to WP:ANI instead, which is more designed for complex cases. WP:AIV just isn't supposed to handle these cases. -- Jayron 32 15:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

If this is the case, then it should be made explicit in WP:VANDAL, given that this form of behaviour is specifically mentioned in WP:VANDTYPES, which is galling when you claim that it is not vandalism in your comment. It should be clarified, or we will be wondering why when we expect the administrators to do something but nothing is done. Hzh ( talk) 16:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

At the very top of the page at WP:AIV states "The edits of the reported user must be obvious vandalism" (bold in original). I don't know any other way that it could be clearer. I am not saying that you are unjustified in bringing up the report in general. I am saying that, per the instructions at the top of WP:AIV in the very first line of that instructions highlighted in bold print so you can't miss it, that AIV is not the correct venue for the type of thing you are asking about. Every second you waste here arguing with me is one more second you are not filing a report at WP:ANI to get him blocked. You should probably work on that. -- Jayron 32 16:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Well, it is obvious to me that it is vandalism. Rather than making us guess what is and what is not "obvious vandalism", I think adding that sneaky vandalism is not considered "obvious vandalism" in WP:SNEAKY, and also that using "not obvious vandalism" rather than "not vandalism" in your comment would be useful to editors. The confusion arises because you claim that it is "not vandalism" when WP:VANDAL says that it is. It is therefore incumbent of the administrators to make it clear to other editors rather than make us work it out, which is difficult when there is clear contradiction in what you said. Hzh ( talk) 16:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Every second you spend here writing to me is a second not spent reporting him at WP:ANI to get him blocked. You should probably work on that instead. -- Jayron 32 16:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I see you recently blocked this user for ongoing unsourced additions (which he/she is probably doing on purpose at this point). Less than hour after the latest block expired, the account is at it again (which I've reverted). Looks like another block is warranted for blatant WP:IDHT behavior. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 14:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Would you mind reviewing a few IP's that you had blocked indef to see if that length of block is still required please? The list is:

1. 173.181.104.109 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:Jayron32 for Block evasion: or impersonation of User:Brewhaha@edmc.net
2. 98.237.239.40 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:Jayron32 for Long-term abuse
3. 99.182.126.229 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:Jayron32 for Long-term abuse: Soft Skin
4. 65.128.133.116 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:Jayron32 for Block evasion: Self admitted at User talk:207.225.131.141
5. 68.132.77.54 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:Jayron32 for Long-term abuse: Soft Skin
6. 86.128.233.253 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by User:Jayron32 for Block evasion: LTA/Vote (X) for change

Thanks! SQL ^{Query me!} 01:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• I've commented on the thread in question. Feel free to unblock any of these. -- Jayron 32 12:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

No biggie (and we have a redirect and the variant is in the lead, so it's very common) but the word is actually diphthong (difthong). Dipthong is what certain male politicians and celebrities have been accused of recently. :) μηδείς ( talk) 01:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Badum-chissss. -- Jayron 32 12:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm having trouble with the same kid who keeps changing the Kiki's Delivery Service article to the wrong release date. Could you protect the page for IP users again please?

Luigitehplumber ( talk) 11:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The kid is now changing the 2003 in home video and 2005 in home video articles now and changed his IP address. Protect those pages from his vandalism.

Luigitehplumber ( talk) 23:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply

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

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Hello, Jayron32. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply

¿Do you live in Spain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euskal Kaka ( talk • contribs) 13:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

It doesn't matter where I live. You've been warned to stop being disruptive. -- Jayron 32 13:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

You are making more disrupcion than I. -- Euskal Kaka ( talk) 13:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

How's that going for you, friend? -- Jayron 32 14:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Can you revoke talk access here also, they're hitting up their talk page now. Home Lander ( talk) 16:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Just leave it there. If you don't revert him, he has nothing to do in response. -- Jayron 32 16:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Given that it's been a while since I last showed up at the Refdesk, how long will it take before my LTA page for Ref Desk/Antisemitic Troll is deleted? I'm moving on in life and don't want my personal identity to be revealed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.190.89.40 ( talk) 03:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC) reply

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 18:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC) reply

fair play

Thank you for quality articles such as Hudson, New Hampshire and National Football League, for service from 2006, for "I like categorizing the random articles", for project American football, for my best-loved edit in 2017! - Jayron, repeating (6 August 2009): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD| Talk 22:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, — Paleo Neonate – 02:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC) reply

If the touchscreen didn't crap up 1. would've been copyediting, adding highway and navy ship examples and mentioning that many schools are named for recent presidents 2. would've been is this less common in purple states and 3. would've been if anyone knows of public things in the New York metro area named for post-Hoover presidents besides JFK and FDR. If these would take excessive and original research ref analyzing work to verify or some other inappropriate query reason I'll just not ask. Sagittarian Milky Way ( talk) 19:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't have any opinions, except that you should probably try to do your own research before asking, and if you CAN answer it yourself, don't ask, and if you CAN'T, indicate where you have already looked and ask for different places. None of your questions show that you've ever made any effort to consider whether they can be answered, and if they could, that you've tried and failed to find the answers. They all just like you spouting off whatever pops into your head. For these specific questions, you can see that the John F. Kennedy article has a section titled "Memorials and eponyms" and the Ronald Reagan article has a section titled "Honors" and both of those lead to further articles indicating that naming things after U.S. presidents is widespread. If you compare (on your own, you don't need to involve me in this research of yours, or anyone else at the Ref Desks) what you find there at articles about Prime Ministers of other Anglophone countries like Canada, U.K., Australia, etc. you can find out for yourself if those people have things named after them. When you have ideas or thoughts, its quite allowed for you to just go and research it yourself and find your own answers. You don't need us. -- Jayron 32 20:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I already knew of the FDR Drive, Roosevelt Island and Avenue and some airports and naval ships, and found Nixon Bush and Hoover highways, a major Clinton airport, minor Carter airport, one or two more naval ships and a future Obama highway today before I asked. So I knew it was common in America. I didn't know about purple states and other countries though. I guess I'll go Google Thatcher, Trudeau, LBJ etc. airports and motorways now. Sagittarian Milky Way ( talk) 20:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply

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

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
• The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

• Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

Hey, I was not trying to win. There's no competition! Regards, -- Mhhossein ^talk 19:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Akld guy:, @ Baseball Bugs: I have removed that indirect "conversation" entirely; the only reason to preserve it would have been to immortalize the offending poster's out of context hounding. Given the hounding been detonated, still having the crater there reminds me of when my dad threw am M80 into the Great Bay and it left a bucket-sized hole in the water that took a week to fill in. μηδείς ( talk) 02:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Kudos to you, sir, on your WP:AGF approach! [3] — Kralizec! ( talk) 18:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sea lioning is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sea lioning until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zemaitis Guitars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I reverted you here. I think the edit summary is clear, but ping me if you want an argument. (Not mere gainsaying, but a reasoned discussion based on common premises.) μηδείς ( talk) 03:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Reverted. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 03:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Hey, I noticed you marked yourself as a member of WikiProject Wikify and you are currently listed as active. I was wondering if you would be able to assist with our current backlog reduction plan. While traditional drives are more structured month-long sprints by WikiProject Wikify members, there is currently lacking activity within the project and in order to significantly reduce the incredible backlog, members are encouraged to review all articles marked with the Underlinked Template Message - {{ underlinked}} - a list of which can be found here - to analyze the worthiness of the template message on the given article. Articles that have nothing to link or are have had wikilinks sufficiently added should have the template removed to clear the backlog and make it easier for editors to find articles in genuine need of wikification. This can be done by any editor; however, all editors should consider joining if they haven't done so already. Thank you!

The Novac ( talk) 04:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Jayron32, your edit summary here seems wildly inappropriate for an admin to be making on a high visibility template. I suggest you redact the summary. Please review and consider this suggestion. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 05:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

As you appear to be offline, I have redacted this summary. If you still feel it is appropriate, lets discuss further or get a neutral opinion at WP:AN. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 05:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I would have reacted stronger to that edit summary. Has this account been compromised? Alex Shih ( talk) 05:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I have a feeling this editor is just passionate about the subject. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Looks like it. Maybe consider letting someone else do the posting if you cannot remain calm on a subject. Alex Shih ( talk) 05:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Sounds good to me!-- Jayron 32 20:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Whassup Jayron? You suffering the ten-year "utterly fucked off with Wikipedia" syndrome? Don't get yourself de-sysopped or blocked over silly shit. I've seen you getting close to the bone with me, but hell, I couldn't care less. Others, it would seem, might not be used to your current mindset and may react differently to my shrugs and nudges. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

What's up with you, buddy? Nah, things going fine with me. Never been better. Why would you think otherwise?-- Jayron 32 21:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Ok, just being friendly. Your edits lately aren't normal and your behaviour has been questioned by others, I'm just letting you know (in case you didn't know), there's a seriously heightened appetite to ditch admins behaving in such a fashion. I'm sure you're just dandy and I (and the others) are misinterpreting your current approach to Wikipedia. All the best! The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I wasn't aware I was behaving any differently than any other day. As far as I know my "current approach" hasn't changed in 10 years or so of administrating. -- Jayron 32 21:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

It has. Never mind. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Interesting. In what way?-- Jayron 32 21:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Only ten-years for that "utterly fucked off with Wikipedia" syndrome? I found it got bearable after about seven years... but it seems one can get treatment (if needed). Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

You stated "and there's no evidence he self-identifies as Australian or Australian-American, so it is wrong to imply that is does by just stating it as so" well in the first discussion about his nationality there doesn't seem to have been any sources to back up the decision to not place Australian as his nationality as there should of been sources to support the final decision. Also your statement is so far off as I have placed multiple source to support that he is indeed Australian and indeed proves he "Self Idetifies" as Australian. In statements as the one you made there needs to be sources to support the claims and information that is being placed on Wikipedia. If not anyone could just put up false information on a page. JMichael22 ( talk) 05:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi, Jayron32! I see that RD/Math is protected and I have a request that the question posted at Wikipedia talk :Reference desk be posted in the usual place after protection expires. Thanks-- 5.2.200.163 ( talk) 16:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Update: I think the protection should have expired by now 16:30, but this cannot be seen yet.-- 5.2.200.163 ( talk) 16:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Looks like it got worked out while I was AFK. If you need anything else, let me know! -- Jayron 32 16:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I see that you removed my Rocky Mount edit due to dubious source. I wanted to point that, in addition to https://rockymountreview.com/home/entryid/95/eight-famous-people-from-rocky-mount-north-carolina, Sugar Ray Leonard's birth place is identified as Rocky Mount, NC on https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sugar-Ray-Leonard, https://www.biography.com/people/sugar-ray-leonard-9379459 and the in the profile box within a Google search ( https://www.google.com/search?ei=DOtgWvS4LqWatgX4x7aQBg&q=sugar+ray+leonard&oq=sugar+ray+leonard&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1j0i67k1j0j0i20i264k1j0l2j0i67k1j0j0i20i264k1j0.107830.107953.0.108209.2.2.0.0.0.0.197.197.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.1.196....0.TOhp5Od7_9Q).

Thanks for taking the time to read this and for your work on wikipedia.

Thanks, Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruelnails2001 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

It's been more than two weeks since I've last showed up at the Refdesk. For the sake of my privacy, can you please delete it? Soft skin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7733:AE00:DD26:A000:7C7D:9936 ( talk) 05:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

	The Special Barnstar
	For a quite outstanding answer on the Misc Ref Desk. Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that, I must have clicked the rollback button by mistake. – filelakeshoe ( t / c)  18:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply

It's all good. Mistakes happen. -- Jayron 32 18:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32, I think this close, while with the best intention, is probably not the best idea. You have expressed strong opinion in the thread, so even invoking IAR would be slightly pushing the boundaries. In addition, the thread has only been open for an hour and half, although I do think the original intent has been addressed. Hopefully no one reverts the close. Alex Shih ( talk) 17:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

If you think I have mis-assessed the closure, and wish to close with a different result, please feel free to undo me. If you think the discussion was going to a productive conclusion which I short-circuited, then also please undo me. I raise no objection if you, or anyone else, wishes to do so. -- Jayron 32 17:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not the correct close. GatoClass does not even admit his indiscretion, let alone retract the threat that he'll haul me to Abrcom for whatever he perceives to be an infraction of his interpretation of POINT in this case. Please re-open it until such a time the community can resolve the open issue of the threats from an active admin. While I'm sure you had best intentions, the chilling threat is still there, and it's unacceptable. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Gatoclass's admission is not needed for community consensus to be assessed. The community clearly agreed that it was unacceptable. Are you saying the community consensus was something different than that? -- Jayron 32 17:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

No, I'm saying that the threat remains, and GatoClass' actions as an admin have simply been "ignored". The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

The threat has been invalidated by community consensus. Unanimous, if I count that right. His actions were not ignored, they were resoundly repudiated, and my closure notes exactly that. -- Jayron 32 18:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

And yet he explicitly has stated that he is duty bound to take me to Arbcom when I cross some invisible threshold of his relating to these kind of edits. Your closure was too soon, and completely ineffective it would appear. GatoClass has completely ignored your closure notes, and the community, and continues to threaten me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, he continues to bloviate. When he does something, he'll do something. If you took his talk page off your watchlist, and ignored everything he says or does, it would bother you no more. If he does try anything substantive, you've got the community consensus in your back pocket. -- Jayron 32 19:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

No, that's not good enough. An admin threatening to take me to Arbcom with completely undefined criteria needs to be addressed at ANI. I don't care about his "talk page" (why would I???!), I care about the point at which he decides I've gone over his invisible threshold and "deliberately disrupted Wikipedia to make a point". His threats are not the behaviour anyone would expect from an admin, as you know well, so please re-open and allow this to continue. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

It's continuing quite well, TYVM. Or hadn't you noticed? -- Jayron 32 20:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

No, not at all. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I am not very experienced with Wikipedia but am certainly not a vandalist. Please read my posts: they are all supported by references. I was getting quite annoyed with some past administrators these past few days that don't allow my edits. And today, what is this all about? How can this administrator treat me of vandalism? Have you read what I am posting? I am adding supported material with references but this person obviously does not want to hear it. I also posted on an IP address today as opposed to my nickname. I didn't realize this was a problem. Can you help solve this situation please? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrov2017 ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never been involved in that article at all. -- Jayron 32 18:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I have added additional references at Mark Sallings article.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 19:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I would like to apologize to you for all of my past actions. They were extremely disruptive and helped to promote racism and antisemitism. I would also like to apologize for making false reports of off-wiki harassment against you at AN/I and for all of the hurt that it may have caused in you. I'm trying to move on in life from a miserable and unproductive phase to a more happier and productive phase. In other words,I'm gonna finally do something in my life. I would also like to request that once I've disappeared from Wikipedia that my LTA page be deleted for privacy reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.140.153.48 ( talk) 05:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
• Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

• A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Firstly, one month is completely over-the-top escalation from the previous block duration, a year ago, for an unrelated activity. Secondly, this is punitive, which articles have had unreferenced material added to since the user was warned by Toddst1? I hope you're not going to suggest 2018 or Deaths in 2018 because nobody adds references there. In fact, the "requirement" to add references that Todd demands is quite new and many of us have fallen foul of the bizarre "absolutely everything here is unreferenced, and that's just fine, but don't you dare add one more unreferenced item" thing that's currently happening. Can you explain your reasoning for such a block please? The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The previous blocks were for edit warring over uncited additions, so I checked his recent activity, which also had uncited additions. An escalation in block length is normal when the prior blocks and warnings aren't getting through. He's been explained about this by multiple users (if you check, Toddst is not the only person to have warned him about not explaining his edits or providing sources; I think you did the same as well). If he can explain himself, and agree to stop the same problems he's been causing, he'll be unblocked before the month is up. Heck, if he does so in the next 5 minutes, he'll be unblocked in the next 5 minutes. But I checked his past editing history, I checked the details of what he was doing prior to the other blocks, and saw a pattern that had not been rectified. He's quite allowed to answer for himself, and I await his response before changing anything. Your insinuation that I did not do my research before blocking is not true. If you still feel that I should not have blocked this user, ask at WP:AN. I'll gladly accept the community feeling on this. I just checked everything again after you posted your objections here, so I have now gone through his edit history at least twice, and I still feel fine about my block, but if it was in error, the community will correct me, and I will accept that. -- Jayron 32 15:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I just wanted some examples over the past two or three days where any blockable edits had been made. If not, then all I'm seeing is a belated punitive over-the-top block. Admittedly the user has done themselves no favours by accusing you of being a troll (the very thought of it...)... The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I mean, he's not wrong, but he's never met me. How could he know! -- Jayron 32 16:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Following this little stunt, I've revoked talk page access. Maybe a bit strong, but I'm feeling very pissed off and not charitable at the moment. Had to have my cat put to sleep this morning due to kidney failure at 15y 7mo. If you think that revoking talk page access was too harsh, feel free to reinstate. On a more serious edit, do we need to revdel those edits made by Rasputin due to a possible BLP violation, or can we leave them? Mjroots ( talk) 19:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Seems fine to me. I'm not sure he has anything useful to contribute to Wikipedia anyways. -- Jayron 32 13:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I am upset that the DYK was stripped of the image at the last hour. I would have preferred it run with an image of the painting rather than no image at all. Or pulled out of the Queue while the copyright issue was resolved. I was VERY, VERY disappointed to go to Wikipedia yesterday afternoon and see an obscure portrait of obscure 19th century British nobility rather than the iconic image created by Charles Demuth. David notMD ( talk) 09:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

OK. -- Jayron 32 11:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Did you close the right discussion? I don't see anything either pointless or off-topic in there. Isa ( talk) 18:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

You mean the discussion about Ursula K. LeGuin? As soon as the debate decends to "My favorite person didn't get a blurb! This one should not have!" it's over. There was no significant groundswell opposing the existing consensus, just the same back-and-forth bickering between some small number of vocal people. If you honestly think that discussion was going to produce a consensus to change anything, by all means, feel free to re-open it. I don't predict it will go well. But you do what you gotta do. -- Jayron 32 18:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you should have hatted that particular part? I agree there won't be a pull, but the discussion below the bickering is about the wording of the blurb, which I don't think has run its course yet. Isa ( talk) 18:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Problems with posted items should go to WP:ERRORS, usually. It wasn't that one thread, mind you, there are several interlaced threads of bickering there. Extricating them from any useful discussion would be tortuous. If you think the blurb needs fixing, WP:ERRORS is where discussions of that nature go. -- Jayron 32 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, there's already a discussion over there. Isa ( talk) 19:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Re your post here, of course that blather wasn't constructive in the least (and cudda/shudda been hatted). But as Isa notes, the discussion about wording of the blurb was still going on. Okay, technically it shudda been at ERRORS, but Isa started it at ITNC, so that's where I picked up on it. (Sometimes discussions of blurb wording at ERRORS simply get dismissed as "not an error.") Oh well, the existing blurb is okay & the issue is moot at this pt. Sca ( talk) 15:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi, I noticed (again) that Unknown artist ( talk) is changing sourced content without adding new refs ( Iran Aseman Airlines Flight 3704). Can you do something about it please? This type of edits (which I consider vandalism) is hard to spot so perhaps all his edits need to be checked (even though not all are wrong). Thanks -- WikiHannibal ( talk) 14:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

He made like 1 edit to that article. No. I'm not going to block him for that. If there is a greater pattern of problems, take it to ANI for public review. Also, do NOT call what he does "vandalism". It is not vandalism unless he is actively trying to harm Wikipedia. He's trying to make Wikipedia better, though he makes some mistakes. That isn't vandalism. That's called "making mistakes" -- Jayron 32 16:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response but I was not asking specifically for a block. I wrote to you because you blocked him, commenting: "I have blocked this account for 1 month because it doesn't seem like you've learned from the prior blocks. Let me explain this concisely, for the last time. When you add new information to an article (such as someone's birthdate), you are required to properly cite the reliable source where that information came from." Then he explained himself, was offered help, and there was some kind of a deal that he would not add unsourced info. So what is his "status" now? Is someone checking his edits? BTW I checked 3 not so random edits he made, and found out he had also added the death of Yury Tyukalov without a source, which I believe was what he had promised not to do; and people were reporting vandalism since December. BTW2 Still, I think changing sourced info without adding a new ref is worse than adding unsourced content as it makes all of the sources in the article unreliable (someone reads it, cannot check the info in one source, needs to check every source - which is not something many readers do) For me, the result is the same as WP:SNEAKY but that is just my opinion. -- WikiHannibal ( talk) 22:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I still always like multiple admins to have eyes on things; I dislike blocking the same user twice for that reason. It seems like ANI may be a good place for discussion if you think further action needs be taken at this point. -- Jayron 32 03:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Jayron32: I replied to you at the teahouse regarding Heritage USA and I do have another question for you there. LovelyGirl7 talk 16:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I noticed that you have just blocked User:Agarjubal for a week. However, given this threat, as well as some other personal attacks on Oshwah's talk page (now deleted), you might want to extend his block to an indefinite one. I really don't think that a week-long block will disuade a vandal who is as determined as he is to disrupt the site. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 12:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

We'll see. WP:ROPE works here as well. If he does it again, he can be blocked again. -- Jayron 32 12:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I think Agarjubal is IP socking again. The IPs in the range 2405:205:3000::/36 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) edit the same articles, and even restored the same additions or deletions that the blocked user was doing. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 12:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

You object to salacious matter in the article on Keith Richards and are salacious 20 minutes later. Get out of Wikipedia.

Go to hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.147.201.4 ( talk) 09:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I like you. You're funny. -- Jayron 32 11:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

• The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
• Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
• A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
• A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

• CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
• The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

• Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

I am grateful for your vote of support at my WP:AN#Topic ban appeal. It is much appreciated alongside the appropriate mention of WP:ROPE. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I noticed here you suggested to take that userpage to AfD. I assume you meant MFD however it's a painfully obvious U5 and MFD would be a colossal waste of time, with no participation if I had to guess... CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, I meant MFD. The issue is that the user is building an article as a draft in their userspace. That sort of thing is normally allowed. -- Jayron 32 17:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Do you think it's worth trying to redirect the thread into something useful? As I said before, were it not for me seeing a possible clarification to policy arising out of things, I'd have avoided that thread almost entirely. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• I think that the thread itself has had enough, and was going nowhere, and trying to get there in a hurry. That comment basically repeats what you said several times already. If there needs to be policy clarification on the general dispute over what is, and is not, a copyvio then start that discussion in another forum. We'll not be using any administrator tools today to stop anyone from doing anything regarding this dispute unless someone wants to be disruptive further, so there's no need to carry on the discussion on an admin board. In short: if there's a general policy clarification, start a new discussion to seek clarity on that. If all we want to do is keep litigating that trainwreck of a discussion just to prove the link should (or should not) have been deleted (or kept), then no. Just drop it and move on. -- Jayron 32 17:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is essentially a repeat of my response to you higher in the thread. (I'd like to note that I've gone ahead and removed the link, because -as I said- "just to be safe" is a legitimate argument.) I had hopes that the thread would morph naturally into a discussion about clarifying policy, but it seems the legal "battle" was too interesting.

Your comments here make sense. I'd only considered a policy proposal because there were already editors interested in the subject. I'm not sure that an external proposal would attract enough attention, but the thread was becoming a bit boisterous anyways, and a proposal there might have just been ignored.

Though the last line of your comment gets me to thinking... Given what I've seen of the community, I'm not entirely certain that a proposal to expressly permit or even require the continued litigation of trainwrecks at ANI wouldn't pass... The pool of editors who tend to put a stop to those threads seems to be rather small, while the pool of editors who revert such stops... Not so much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I think there is sufficient discussion at Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal#Straw Poll to warrant removing the protection from the article. Can you please have a look? Thanks! VQuakr ( talk) 18:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi there Jayron, I hope you don't mind that I modified the templates used on your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hormones and glands to the way specified in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. The only thing that I did was copy and paste what you wrote into the correct template, removed the AN style close template used, and added a note (in {{ small}}) stating that I had done that and left a perma link to your original close. ( Your close, My changes). I hope that that was alright and just thought I better let you know. -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply

You're good. I probably should have done it that way myself. Thanks for fixing my messes.-- Jayron 32 06:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply

You're welcome . -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron, thank you for protecting this page earlier last month. However, as soon as the page was unprotected the vandal returned. I'm not sure what to do now, he simply keeps reverting the sourced content. Thanks 2601:CA:8101:5BAB:7186:1048:E5BA:2D96 ( talk) 19:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't see any vandalism. I see a disagreement. Somebody that disagrees with you is not causing vandalism. You should understand the meaning of words before you use them. -- Jayron 32 00:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Fair point, thank you. But I believe there is a reason this particular user dissapears once your protect the page, I have a suspicion he is one of the banned users (HankMoody) who is getting around his ban only to dissapear when you protect. I agree that it is a disagreement, however when you deny a reliable and don’t produce another source only to suit your own opinion,, I would consider that vandalism of a wikipedia page. 2601:CA:8101:5BAB:EC7A:E51:E1A9:A1BD ( talk) 15:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

You can consider it whatever you want. What wikipedia considers vandalism is outlined at WP:VAND. That's what we mean here when we use that word. If there is ban evasion, WP:ANI may help you investigate it. I will look into the issue as well. Thanks for letting me know. -- Jayron 32 15:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

It appears that someone else has your same concerns regarding ban evasion. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HankMoodyTZ, a current discussion is under way. -- Jayron 32 15:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Ok, I will read through that, my apologies on using the wrong terms. Thank you for your help on this issue. 2601:CA:8101:5BAB:EC7A:E51:E1A9:A1BD ( talk) 15:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

Hi Jayron32! Because you've signed on as a supporter of the North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians User Group, I wanted to let you know about two upcoming edit-a-thons at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: North Carolina Heritage Awards edit-a-thon at Wilson Library on 12 April, and Women in Science edit-a-thon on 25 April (Meetup page to come). Please feel free to get in touch with any questions! ~~ Sodapopinski7 ( talk) 12:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, could you please restore the page Yoo Ah-in to this particular version, before the page was hijacked by a user with ownership issues? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fukenash ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

No. Please read WP:THEWRONGVERSION. We do not pick sides when protecting articles. I will also not be picking sides. If you want it moved to a different version, discuss it on the talk page with others, and get a consensus to do so. -- Jayron 32 16:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

. This version was before the user utilized different IPs to create a delusion. Do look again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fukenash ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I told you. I am not here to pick between versions. The article has been protected. If you want it unprotected, then start discussing on the talk page, and get others to agree with you. If you are in the right, others will agree with you. You're wasting time badgering me. I have no intention of deciding who is "right" here. The only way we know which version is better is to discuss and reach consensus. Every second you spend here telling me things is a second not spent convincing other editors that your preferred version is correct. Get on it! -- Jayron 32 16:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

See the reverts by other editors 1, 2, 3, 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fukenash ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes, and? -- Jayron 32 16:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

And that indicates that the current version is the one with vandalism and that you need to restore to the previous version. And that you'll need to issue warnings to user Mimudy24 who is vandalizing the page? If not, I have reasons to believe that you are taking sides.

Good luck with that. We'll see how that goes, in the meantime, see the request below to engage in discussion with others. -- Jayron 32 18:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Please participate in debate Mimudy24 ( talk) 17:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello, Jayron. I see that you fully protected this article, and I have so indicated at the RFP page. But... if I am reading the article's log correctly - you fully protected it for a year? Was that your intent? Thanks for checking. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

My intent is to protect it until such time as a consensus is reached on the talk page as to which version of the article is preferred. If that takes one day, I still lift the protection in one day. If it takes longer, it takes longer. This is a dispute protection, and as such, will remain until there is no more dispute.-- Jayron 32 03:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

This is not a particularly helpful response to make on the Ref Desk to a legitimate question.-- WaltCip ( talk) 16:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

No, it is not. -- Jayron 32 16:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neighborhoods of Richmond, Virginia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Historic District ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron. Thanks for your contribution on the Ref desk Talk page – your diff].

Please have a look at this pedagogical post of mine – diff. I hope you find it useful. Dolphin ( t) 13:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree that we don’t need to shame others by posting their diffs on the Ref desk Talk page.

On the Ref desk Talk page I wrote: “I'm talking about people who appear to be defiant that they do not need to observe Dealing with questions asking for medical advice, found in WP:RD/G/M.” I was referring to this diff. Dolphin ( t) 14:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply