User talk:JalenBarks

This is JalenBarks's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: 30 days

JalenBarks is currently experiencing significant stress that may affect his ability to work on Wikipedia. He may choose to work in quieter areas and avoid complicated tasks or areas prone to conflict. He may also respond to talk page or email messages more slowly than usual, and your patience is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history.

If you cannot leave a message on this Talk page as a result of the protection, please ping me on your own Talk page using {{reply to|JalenBarks}} with your message and I will reply there if needed. I do not watch others' User talk pages.

Regarding page reviewer

Thank you to everyone who recommended I try out the New Page Reviewer right, however, I have opted not to make it permanent nor do I intend on returning to it for as long as this message is up. New page reviewing doesn't seem to make sense to me given all I've ever used it for (mostly) was page reviewing redirects following bad article attempts. Even that part of Wikipedia has given me a small amount of stress, and I've had to back away from disputes to avoid making that stress worse.

In short, it doesn't make sense to me to keep a user right if I know I'm not going to use it as frequently, especially given I might leave Wikipedia within the next few years. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was coming here to leave a message to you regarding NPP, and saw this. Too bad, we could use quality folks over there, but I definitely understand about the stress. Thanks for all you do. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding revert at "Furry fandom"

I will no longer comment here on this issue. All further comments on this issue should be brought to the appropriate section at Talk:Furry fandom. Jalen Barks (Woof) 21:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Help me regarding above question

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 from the 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. Ark Hyena (they/any) 09:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

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

Galobtter

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!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]