User talk:JBW

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

Thanks

Thanks for trying to explain to J2009j all things they clearly do not understand about Wikipedia and their block. I was going to do similar because I didn't think it was fair to leave it to the person reviewing their unblock request which will undoubtedly be declined but you got to it first. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to do much good. Will see. S0091 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091: Yes, you are right. I always find it very difficult to know how to handle this kind of situation. It appears to be someone who really honestly doesn't understand, rather than someone willfully refusing to cooperate. That being so, just dismissing their requests for help is unfriendly and unhelpful, but putting work into trying to help them is likely to be unhelpful too, since they probably still won't understand. If one does try to help by explaining things, a short summary of the main points is unlikely to be more successful than previous messages which have failed to convey the essential points, but a longer and more detailed account is likely to just seem like an intimidating wall of text, and the important points may get lost amongst it all. All things considered, something of a lose-lose situation. 😕 However, I like to at least try to give the editor a chance, even if more in hope than in expectation. JBW (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to truly not understand (which is understandable...Wikipedia is complex) but an entirely different situation when they both don't understand and make baseless accusations against editors. That's why I did not respond yesterday and had a beer instead. :) Generally I have found it best to ignore accusations and address the other, which you expertly handled, but they said I keep emailing them which if it were true could be harassment so felt I did need to at least address that. Either way, I am glad you are the admin with eyes on it because not everyone has the patience you do or the ability to maintain hope, which I appreciate and respect. S0091 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091: Thanks for those comments. It's good to know that at least sometimes my efforts are appreciated. And yes, what I said above about honestly not understanding was only part of the problem. There are also the accusations, which you mentioned. And there are plainly irrational elements too, just saying things which don't make any sense. I really couldn't quarrel with any administrator who decided to remove talk page access, because this is going nowhere, and looks set to continue to go nowhere. However, my approach is to concentrate on the "I'm trying to help you understand" side of it, in part, as I indicated above, in the genuine hope that, against expectations, I can help, but also in order that if and when I decide enough is enough and the plug has to be pulled, I don't have to feel any doubts about doing so. If they really were given every chance and didn't take it, well, that's an end to it. JBW (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JBW, please do not ever doubt you are appreciated. I personally have learned by your example and I am sure others have as well. I call it 'quiet influence' because one may not know the impact they have. For example, I did not take advantage of the opportunity to thank DGG or tap into his knowledge which is a regret of mine. While he and I never interacted directly, he did influences how I think about Wikipedia and I think the same about you but in a different way.

J has responded and I've given it one more go with some underlining. Maybe that will help? If not, I am done. S0091 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091: Well, rightly or wrongly, I have decided that it's time for a final warning, as you will see from their talk page. I think many administrators would have already removed talk page access, without giving yet another warning.

It's interesting to read what you say about DGG. I had a good deal of respect for him, even though in many, probably most, of the interactions between us, we disagreed. In my early days of being active on Wikipedia, he and I were both very active at AfD. Time and again I found I was in favour of deleting an article, and he was for keeping it. Then my interests moved elsewhere, and I rarely took part at AfD, so I didn't encounter DGG very often, but when I did, I found that as time went by, more and more often I was in favour of keeping, and he was in favour of deleting. He once said (perhaps on his user page, perhaps in a discussion somewhere, I don't remember) that over the years he had moved from being inclusionist towards being more deletionist; meanwhile I had moved the other way. I remember being surprised that he supported me at RfA, thinking that he would oppose because of our different take on deletions, but he was able to accept that there is room for people with different views to work together. JBW (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor disputed edit

Hi JBW. I recently made a minor edit to Gaussian primes in which I deleted the following sentence. "In other words, a Gaussian integer is a Gaussian prime if and only if either its norm is a prime number, or it is the product of a unit (±1, ±i) and a prime number of the form 4n + 3. "

I deleted it because it is incorrect. The first condition should read that the norm is the *square root* of a prime number. The second condition is ok, but I thought it was unclear whether it was still referring to the norm or referring to the Gaussian integer itself. Since these two conditions are just restating the two dot points directly above, I figured it was best to just delete the sentence rather than reword it.

But you've reverted my change. Why? I thought I was doing something a little bit helpful; and I feel confused and discouraged that it was immediately reverted. If I'm doing something wrong, I'd like to know. 103.23.174.114 (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The condition that the norm is a prime number is correct. You are probably thinking not of the norm, but of the absolute value, which is the square root of the norm. I agree with you about the second condition being unclear, so I will rephrase it. Thanks for pointing that out. JBW (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks @JBW. I see now. You're right that I was thinking of the absolute value. Apparently there is some ambiguity about what specifically is meant by the norm of a complex number. Sometimes it refers to the absolute value, and sometimes to the square of the absolute value. I hadn't realised that (or perhaps I'd forgotten). Incidentally, the wikipedia article about norms suggests it is the absolute value. But I've now seen a bunch of other sources that agree with what you said. Apparently it is a bit context dependent. 103.23.174.114 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I have thought for a very long time that the different ways the word "norm" is used in different mathematical contexts is extremely unhelpful. JBW (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked to is Norm (mathematics). I think that is an unhelpful title, because that is just one meaning of "norm" in mathematics, and there are others. The one which is relevant here is to be found at Field norm. JBW (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Thanks for your email, just saw now. I'm having a little sabbatical (temporary, one hopes), so happy for you to adjust the block to facilitate a talk page unblock based on developments. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G3

Good afternoon. Admittedly I was borderline on the tagging of Guesra and others, but I do believe that it meets the G3 criteria. I hoped the RfD that was referred to in the move log, and edit summaries were able to indicate the fact that these were "redirects left behind from page move vandalism", one of the WP:G3 criteria, but wanted to follow up here.

In the past, there was an article for Gesura (created in 2006) that has been long since become a redirect (in 2012). Currently Gesura is a misleading redirect, and this was the case for several years. In 2023, User:Coolbro247 (now blocked for WP:NOTHERE) took many historied redirects, and indiscriminately moved these to odd titles, all of which were also unmentioned at the target. As of March 2024, there was no opposition to repairing these broken moves Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#Dada (Ultra_monster) and etc., and the no quorum consensus is that the duplicated redirects are problematic. The redirects have now been moved to the original locations, and the cleanup redirects from page-move disruption should be deleted. Chandlar and Greensmons were speedily deleted for this very reason, in User:Utopes/CSD log. These titles may very well be recreated, but the only history they contain is vandalism. Thank you for your consideration. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the recent edit summaries about "obviousness", the history clearly indicates the redirects were moved by a blocked editor and reverted, and the rationale for blocking for NOTHERE. These have already been to RfD once which was unopposed to this cleanup, which is where the "context" bit came in, as these have been an identified problem for a while. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also see: User talk:Coolbro247#August 2023; this has been a pending fix, with these page moves being performed near the exact same time. Nearly all of the disruption from this user had been reverted, except for some obscure edits (such as moving redirects with 2009 histories to various titles) that seems to have snuck under the radar around the time of the block. I don't see a need to reopen a second RfD, especially so after these sat there for a month in February-March 2024 with no disapproval towards fixing this mess. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: Thanks for explaining. I'll try to have a look at it soon, but I'm afraid I don't have time now. JBW (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This can't be a coincidence...

User Travekid820 and user Travekid8205555555 were both created today but only the latter has edited so far. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: As soon as I saw that somebody had posted "This can't be a coincidence..." on this page, without seeing the username, I thought of you. Somehow that wording just seemed to be your style. Agreed, it can't be a coincidence. I've posted a vandalism warning to the account that has edited. (You are evidently a nicer and friendlier person than I am, because in your edit summary you called it a test edit, not vandalism.) I think it's almost always worth posting a warning, both because it may deter them from continuing and because it's easier to take admin action against an editor who has continued after being warned than one who has never been warned. Well, actually it isn't easier to take action, as either way it's the same block button to push, but it's easier to make the block stick, and to avoid criticism. Other than that, it's worth keeping an eye on both accounts, and if one turns out to be problematic consider taking action against both. You can give a warning on use of multiple accounts if you like, but personally I wouldn't, at least as long as only one account has edited. JBW (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being in customer service, I'm inclined to assume good faith. I would have gone direct to SPI if both had made problematic edits. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: I don't know what kind of customer service you work in, but when, a very long time ago, I fairly briefly worked in a customer service job, fairly frequently at the end of what seemed like a very bad day at work I would stop and think, and realise that, although it felt as though I'd been having awkward and troublesome customers all day, in fact I had had about three awkward customers and about 200 perfectly good ones. (Also, that was on a bad day; overall statistics would be far better.) It's very easy to not notice the absence of problems when there aren't any, but of course you notice when there are problems. Yes, "AGF" was a good policy in that job, and well over 99% of the time it was justified, but it was easy to forget that at times. The same can happen with some aspects of work on Wikipedia: I occasionally have to remind myself to AGF. Unfortunately, there are too many editors who don't remind themselves. JBW (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

Crisco 1492

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 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!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Larsdotter

For some reason Anna has 2 different types of parents that could be hers. The first one are Laurentius Mattiae (1550-1612) and an Unnamed Spouse how ever I doubt this because the last names don’t match and the other is Erik XIV and Anna Larsdotter (1530-1601). Both list her spouse as Benedictus Nicolai Cornukindius (1555-1611) but Mattiae’s lists her birth as 1570 but Larsdotters lists it as 1565. So it is hard to list a accurate citation.

Mattiae: https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/L4TK-MWD/margareta-larsdotter-1570-1652

Anna Larsdotter: https://www.geni.com/people/Anna-Larsdotter/6000000015873546707

I will try to find any other sources. MaxtheBruh47 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxtheBruh47: You have hit a fairly common, and frustrating, problem with trying to establish relationships among historical people. Really prominent and significant people are usually (though not always) easy enough, but for others it can be difficult. The fact that the two sources you mention contradict one another is an illustration of the fact that they are both highly unreliable, which, unfortunately, is true of close to all of these websites which claim to provide information about ancestry, genealogy, etc. You really need reliable published scholarly sources, but finding ones which are available online is likely to be difficult, if it is possible at all. I will have a brief look for information about Anna Larsdotter, but more in hope than in expectation of finding anything useful. JBW (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxtheBruh47: Well, the results of my search were even worse than I expected: Loads of genealogy and ancestry sites, which sometimes contradict one another, but nothing that came even near to being a reliable source. Good luck if you choose to put more work into trying to sort this out, but I'm afraid that it looks to me as though doing so may turn out to be just a waste of your time. JBW (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok MaxtheBruh47 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]