User talk:JalenBarks/Archive 15
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:JalenBarks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
"Nonlinear electrodynamics" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Nonlinear electrodynamics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 9 § Nonlinear electrodynamics until a consensus is reached. Srleffler (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2025).
Administrator changes
Bureaucrat changes
CheckUser changes
Oversighter changes
Miscellaneous
- Sign up for The Core Contest, a competition running from 15 April to 31 May to improve vital articles.
Sorry
Didn't realize that user hijacked the redirect "Frogged" instead of creating that page. That user clearly needs to learn a lot about Wikipedia's policies if he wants to return.
The rest of the pages he ACTUALLY created are nominated for deletion. ApexParagon (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Regarding revert at "Furry fandom"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. Can you please elaborate why you think that my edit was non-neutral? You just said it was and didn't provide any explanation. I cited a reliable source (.gov domain), I don't see any reason why the study I based my edit on could not fit Wikipedia. Some of the claims in the article are based on research that is not really verifiable, but are still included in the article nonetheless (furry fiesta 2013) Tubelubie (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
While we wait for a third party to chime in, I propose to let my edit stay, as WP:DONTREVERT says to do when in doubt. I don't want to revert it myself to not start an edit war. Tubelubie (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Hey, I see that you reverted the page again without either responding below, or to me. Why did you revert it again? Did you find issues with the study? ArkHyena said that "This isn't to invalidate the study; to me at least it seems robust enough to be included." And jmcgnh told you to add any flaws you spot to the discussion instead of outright reverting. Do we need more people to discuss this? Just realized the discussion was moved, my bad. I responded there instead. Tubelubie (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Tube. Please refer to Talk:Furry fandom, where another editor brought up Blanchard's typology to back their case on why your addition was WP:UNDUE weight. Jalen Barks (Woof) 21:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Help me regarding above question
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
It's odd, but I really can't think of anything to respond to the question above, nor can I find anything in WP:NPOV to back my case. It just seems way too one-sided to include a statement about a survey which found "99% of those surveyed joined the Furry fandom for a specific reason", and while this is why I reverted the edit, I don't know if it's NPOV or another guideline that supports my case. Any advice on how to respond? Thanks! Jalen Barks (Woof) 00:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Single studies are often flawed, so if you think there's actually something wrong with that one, you could add that to your discussion. Otherwise, if you don't have a strong reason, you could just say you might have been wrong and let the edit stand. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- The main issue is that stating "99% of those surveyed joined for sexual reasons to some degree" is far too vague. There's some nuance in the study this statement missed, such as the study also surveying the weight sexual interest held amongst those surveyed. E.g. the study yielded a plurality of participants who responded being "somewhat" sexually interested in being a furry. Interestingly, in the results section they state
Specifically, 321 (96.1%) reported that their interest in being furries was sexual to some degree
. The 99% figure comes from a table a couple pages later, and this discrepancy seems to come fromthe 211 participants who indicated that their primary motivation for being furries was not sexual and who provided open-ended responses explaining their reasons, 34 (16.1%) confirmed that it was in fact primarily sexual (e.g., “It is primarily sexual,” “It pretty much just is sexually motivated”)
. - There should also probably be some hedging as the study was run over the internet and sampled only 334 individuals. Given that the furry fandom then probably had at least hundreds of thousands of members, this seems like a pretty small sample size that could be subject to bias. The authors outright acknowledge this, and state that due to the survey methods used
our sample of male furries may have been biased toward those who were sexually motivated and non-heterosexual
. - This isn't to invalidate the study; to me at least it seems robust enough to be included. But too commonly papers are presented on Wikipedia in a manner that implies (or states) certainty where there isn't. ArkHyena (they/any) 09:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2025).
Administrator changes
Rusalkii
NaomiAmethyst (overlooked last month)
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, administrator elections were permanently authorized on a five-month schedule. The next election will be scheduled soon; see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections for more information. This is an alternate process to the RfA process and does not replace the latter.
- An RfC was closed with consensus to allow editors to opt-out of seeing "sticky decorative elements". Such elements should now be wrapped in {{sticky decoration wrapper}}. Editors who wish to opt out can follow the instructions at WP:STICKYDECO.
- An RfC has resulted in a broad prohibition on the use of AI-generated images in articles. A few common-sense exceptions are recognized.
Miscellaneous
- A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Sign up here to participate!
Essential Mix
Hey,
Reaching out as you mentioned that a list of Essential Mix shows should not be listed on Wiki in ANY form.
IF the BBC website has a list of these shows, which it does as I have seen these dated on the bbc archival website, are you then saying this is not sufficient information to be linked to this Essential Mix page?
Thanks, James1Bus3 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- As Essential Mix is run on BBC, it is considered a WP:PRIMARY source. We need reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources for inclusion. Further, the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Essential Mix episodes needs to be addressed. Jalen Barks (Woof) 03:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
- I see, okay - fair do's, I also see there is no list on Wiki of , say the show - Just a Minute, so I guess this is fair , if Wiki cannot have a list of shows of this show and Just a Minute. All good. James1Bus3 (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
"If you need to contact JohnAdams1800, do it on Commons"
Do you think it would be worth it to check the IP address to see if it is JohnAdams1800? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I do not have the user rights to make this check. If you are suspicious of a connection, please open an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2025
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2025).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to determine whether the English Wikipedia community should adopt a position on AI development by the WMF and its affiliates.
Technical news
- A new feature called Multiblocks will be deployed on English Wikipedia on the week of June 2. See the relevant announcement on the administrators' noticeboard.
- History merges performed using the mergehistory special page are now logged at both the source and destination, rather than just the source as previously, after this RFC and the resolution of T118132.
Arbitration
- An arbitration case named Indian military history has been opened. Evidence submissions for this case close on 8 June.
Miscellaneous
- Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 17 June 2025. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!
- An Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in June 2025, with over 1,600 drafts awaiting review from the past two months. In addition to AfC participants, all administrators and new page patrollers can help review using the Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!
- The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in June 2025 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!
Speedy deletion declined: User:Arajiline/sandbox
Hello JalenBarks. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Arajiline/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: article drafts and notes are a valid use of user space. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Rollback Use
Hi JalenBarks. When you use rollback, please make sure that you are following WP:ROLLBACKUSE and are only reverting very obvious vandalism or edits where the reason for reversion is absolutely clear. In this edit you didn't provide an edit summary or an explanation for why the changes weren't helpful. In [1] you didn't explain why the United States should not be listed in the infobox, especially when there was a source in the article that said that the film was released in the United States by Hulu. Regarding this AIV Report, while the editor may have made edits that didn't improve the articles they visited, from an outside look it appears to be disruptive editing rather than blatant and obvious vandalism and should have been reported elsewhere to a place like WP:ANI. Just some things to keep in mind for the future. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Wiki Draft: Nasha jurm aur gangsters film
Hi, @JalenBarks Sir, About the article Nasha jurm aur gangsters, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nasha_Jurm_Aur_Gangsters ) I have now added the critic source in the reception. it was in wikpedia before the movie release, the article was redirect on 7th december 24, for no critic review, please see the discussion and issue why its re-directed ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nasha_Jurm_Aur_Gangsters ) but now i added the abp critic source now. and all source like Times of india, etc are notable as per wikipedia guidelines as per others film articles such as this film, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Tera_Hai_Woh_Mera_Hai ). I addressing the issue of added the critic source. Please check and move the page to the mainspace. I have searched in the web, This film was a pan india release and it was in wikipedia from 2 years before its re-direct. Please see the history of the auricle. Thanks DivitNation (talk) 09:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- As I am no longer on WikiProject Articles for creation, I have no comment in regards to this. I will, however, leave this open for a Talk page watcher to look at on their own time. Jalen Barks (Woof) 21:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- @JalenBarks But you did comment in my article and make it in draft. I have solved the critic review issue. And others reviewer are critisize my article that he @Afstromen a reviewer says Times of india not a reliable source. And I have see many film article with times of india source have in wikipedia. I really confused or he make me discouraged me for my article. DivitNation (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Frostbitten Convention
Hello, regarding my deletion of text on the Frostbitten Convention page, I apologize. The reason that I did this was because I was (and currently am) editing that page to be a full page for the convention, and so I was removing the text there so it could be a fully empty draft. Should I prepare all text and sources before editing the page again? Thefinals626472 (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. It is advised that your text and sources be ready before a proper WP:BOLD overwrite can be made. Jalen Barks (Woof) 22:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you. Thefinals626472 (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Bonnie Blue
Greetings. The Hindustan Times is a poor source for material relating to living persons – see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The article on Blue reads like a hastily assembled collection of celebrity gossip and other clickbait-worthy trivia. Also, the standard for inclusion of personal identifying information is higher than the mere existence of a published source – see WP:BLPPRIVACY. Thank you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. This should also be passed on to the user who initially tried to add this information before my involvement (NuestroBrasil). Jalen Barks (Woof) 17:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank you for warning several vandals in my place. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) Tamil speakers: Contribute here 01:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC) |