User talk:JayBeeEll

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
1,547		Complex number (talk)	Add sources
716		Opportunity cost (talk)	Add sources
128		Dirac comb (talk)	Add sources
183		Poi (performance art) (talk)	Add sources
118		Opposite Day (talk)	Add sources
704		Aviation (talk)	Add sources
648		Stochastic (talk)	Cleanup
58		Landslide classification (talk)	Cleanup
22		Universal preschool (talk)	Cleanup
24		Generating function transformation (talk)	Expand
24		Great seal (talk)	Expand
260		Culture of Europe (talk)	Expand
483		Video game development (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
475		Methods of computing square roots (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
767		Game engine (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
122		Songket (talk)	Merge
47		Conidae (talk)	Merge
4		Esquimalt-Royal Roads (talk)	Merge
19		Karmen Pedaru (talk)	Wikify
41		Thabit number (talk)	Wikify
250		Regular dodecahedron (talk)	Wikify
2		The Lancashire Steel Company (talk)	Orphan
3		Commodore 64 joystick adapters (talk)	Orphan
5		Adesuwa Obasuyi (talk)	Orphan
42		Stratosphere Giant (talk)	Stub
626		Teddi Mellencamp Arroyave (talk)	Stub
849		Leonora Anson, Countess of Lichfield (talk)	Stub
22		Sabaayad (talk)	Stub
13		Mary Morrison (courtier) (talk)	Stub
192		Jane Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 28th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

History of combinatorics

I noticed you like Combinatorics. I feel recent changes to History of combinatorics are pretty ridiculous. I thought you might consider working on that article. Thanks, Mhym (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mhym, you mean this edit from a couple days ago? I will try to find time to look it over. All the best, JBL (talk) 12:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. See e.g. the last sentence. I seriously doubt that Stanley's impact is in Matroid Theory "and more". Mhym (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Spring break is just starting, I will sit down and take a good hard look. (The diff is too complicated to read at a glance, which is my usual editing approach.) --JBL (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mhym: oh it's really oddly focused on poset theory, isn't it? (Like, I'm happy to see Rota and Stanley get mentnioned, but no graph theory or Erdos? No connections to algebra or other fields? Very odd.) Well, I've started with the ancient stuff, but I'll definitely get to the contemporary section eventually and try to do something more comprehensive with that. --JBL (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		I just edit conflicted with you trying to clean up Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Cuba. It was a heartening experience. Thanks for all your efforts in this drudgeful slog. Folly Mox (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: Thanks so much, and sorry for the edit conflict! :) I'm not sure how those of you ploughing through edits where dozens of references get changed manage it, I can barely keep track when it involves more than three, but I'm glad someone is doing it (and leaving all the little one-ref-edits to me, which I can slip into moments that don't require too much focus). Thanks also for your "thanks" on some of my sillier edit summaries -- nice to know that someone has a compatible sense of humor, and makes the whole thing more bearable. If XOR'easter's latest update is to be believed, we're just about 2/3rds done -- pretty incredible! --JBL (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

We're 15 pages or so from being done with the edits that made pages smaller, at least. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow! --JBL (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The last of the pages that had been made smaller is now protected. XOR'easter (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Lol too perfect. JBL (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the full protection will expire in a few hours, so I'll get to it then and close out the section. XOR'easter (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the entry at the very bottom of the list that is the most dispiriting. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that one. One thing I appreciate about Folly Mox's subdivision of the list page into additional sections is that that edit still seems far in the future, as if maybe someone else will get there first :). (I guess it's too much to hope for a situation like List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids (block), where in a merge the bad parts somehow got replaced?) I think we'll have to have a group of people plan out a special strategy just to handle that one, it's too big for one person and too big to do collaboratively without a good system for keeping people from stepping on each other or checking the same thing over and over again. --JBL (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

We could divide it up by month, I guess. XOR'easter (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I just want to apologise again for my recent absence from this project. I got pretty burned out on it and found myself not feeling invested in the accuracy of citations on pages where I didn't care about the topic. I can't pretend I've been absent from Wikipedia during this time, although part of the dropoff in my participation is due to irl nonsense. I keep intending to come back and help out more the same way I keep intending to perform other adult style tasks in my life.

I do like the idea of some kind of subarea specifically for the final +100k diff. We could probably just leave notes underneath it like "checked dates A through B".

I think for the next blocks of ReferenceExpander diffs (outside the 2023 Jan–Apr timeframe), it might be easiest to keep them sorted by date, because it's common to come across blocks of related articles edited around the same time where the same citations need to be fixed in the same way (the Anglo-Saxon months, human trafficking by country, Japanese regnal period, and board game articles come to mind immediately). Folly Mox (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Even by month seems hard -- probably 200 of them in some months. I seriously have trouble keeping track when there are reference changes in more than two paragraphs. (Although I suppose the list structure is helpful for keeping track, I hope.)

I don't think you should apologize for taking a break any more than I should apologize for picking out all the easy ones :). the Anglo-Saxon months, human trafficking by country, Japanese regnal period, and board game articles come to mind immediately It is very funny to me that I saw this list and I was like "Anglo-Saxon months? Japanese regnal period? what are they talking about?" but then I got to "board game articles" and suddenly understood completely. (I suppose emphasis on "to me" in that sentence.) --JBL (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I try to use this as a provocation to read about things I wouldn't read otherwise, so it offers at least a little intellectual stimulation. But that only goes so far. It's a very easy project to get burned out from.

It made sense at the time to order the worksheet by the change in size, since it seemed that the big decrements were surely where the most information was actually lost and needed restoration. Did that hold up? I'm not sure. It feels like lately I've been leaving more edit summaries that say "was basically fine" and removing silliness like |last=Staff |first=News (which is nonsense but doesn't hurt the text like, say, missing quotations do). But that's just how I'm feeling at the moment. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been focusing on the cases $\Delta \approx 0$ and there have not been very many cases where, say, a footnote with a link in it got replaced with just a citation template (which is something I had seen in a bunch before this became a systematic thing). So you may be right. --JBL (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh I think the initial organisation of the first worksheet was well founded in suspicion. None of us knew how poorly Citoid functioned when this started. I guess in general I'd characterise the plus deltas as less damaging than the minus deltas (although some of those were just removal of archives), but I don't remember ever hitting a string of three where no action was indicated, or hitting a string of five where nothing was actually damaged. Folly Mox (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

If I could push the "thank" button twice for tackling the Maxim Leonidov page, I would. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

To manifest positive outcomes I should clarify that there's no theoretical impedance to the existence of arbitrarily long subseries of ReferenceExpander edits that can be evaluated as "fine", and my memory is garbage enough that I frequently forget to eat breakfast until it's almost bedtime. Let's hope this wishful thinking makes the remainder of the task less effortful. Folly Mox (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I'm really enjoying "can I find three in a row that are ok?" as a game to play with this task :). I'll try to tone down the absurd pinging, though. (Unrelatedly, I thought your comments re: DGG etc. at ANI were excellent -- thanks.) --JBL (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries about pings. Anything we can do with this task to make it more fun seems like a good step. Folly Mox (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm so proud of myself; I fixed Bombus crotchii without making a single joke in my edit summary. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The sentence Crotch's bumblebee is characterized as a short- or medium- tongue length species is delightful. --JBL (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I was really struggling back when we had a table where one of the first articles listed was Nonanal. Folly Mox (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Help Wikipedia!

On the Italian moto gp page it says that moto gp was born in 2002 but that's not true! You also wrote it that the first edition was born in 1949, write it also on Italian Wikipedia please, help Wikipedia! Maperes (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Maperes, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is the English-language Wikipedia; the Italian-language Wikipedia (at it.wikipedia.org) is a separate community; no one here has any role there. I have left a welcome message on your user talk-page that contains some links that may help you understand the structure of Wikipedia better. In particular, information on Wikipedia (in any language) should be supported by published, reliable sources. Good luck! --JBL (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand, thank you, she was very kind, much more than the Italian colleagues who might seem a little rude, I didn't know about this, I understand, however, try to do something because on several sites that I have visited from moto gp in various countries it always says 1949 and not 2002..The administrators there continue to leave 2002 and woe to anyone who modifies it, but it's a contradiction because in other countries there is the real date and there isn't, probably leaving some readers confused. Isn't there a way for you English Wikipedia admins to contact those in other countries? Anyway thanks again for your kindness and your ways, I wish you a good continuation! Maperes (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Maperes, you're welcome. (Although, may I suggest you be more patient? I only edit during certain hours of the day, and you posted your message a second time after waiting less than six hours.) I am afraid that what I said is really a hard and fast rule: English editors have no more special role on Italian Wikipedia than the reverse. Since I cannot write or speak any Italian at all, I am not a good candidate to try to convince anyone there of anything. (Also, I am not an administrator at this copy of Wikipedia, nor any other.) So, while I'm sorry that you've had a frustrating time on the Italian Wikipedia, there is really nothing that I personally can do to help. Possibly it.wp has its own version of the Teahouse or another helpful venue where you could go; but I don't know. (I also have no special knowledge about motorcycles or motorcycle racing. Everything I know about it I learned from spending five minutes reading the article Grand Prix motorcycle racing, from which I can see that both 2002 and 1949 can be taken as starting points, depending on what exactly one is referring to (the current top league versus the broader competition structure). Maybe that is the source of the confusion?) Best of luck, JBL (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, once again he proved his superiority. As for the site's article, I only ask you to move it from 2002 to 1949 (like all the other sites in other languages) because the moto gp world championship was born exactly in 1949, this is the problem that I speak to you. Thank you for your reassuring message even if the story is not over. Thanks again and good luck too! Maperes (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for this edit summary at AN:I (how often do we get to say that, honestly!) I was very surprised to see the initial close as I very much saw this as "editors disagree" rather than Abuse and definitely didn't think Cullen or Ravenswing were a "tag team" in their responses. So while I'm obviously biased, glad you saw it the same even if we disagree on the block merits. FWIW, I hope they can edit productively down the road. It's also (unfortunately) highlighting the issues that COI editors face, we're not well equipped to handle more complex issues beyond edit requests. Have a good evening and thanks again! Star Mississippi 03:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Oh you're very welcome -- this was solidly in the realm of "reasonable people can disagree", I don't know what the original closer was thinking. (They should have gotten as far as "I hope I won't regret this one" (in their edit summary) and leapt to the obvious conclusion "I should leave it for someone else".) It's always tough to tell with inexperienced-but-potentially-valuable editors whether they are interested in/capable of adapting to the social norms here. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI is never the easiest place to jump in on a return to editing either! thanks again and have a great day. Star Mississippi 12:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Just jumping in to say: Happy to pick up a conversation on this if you want, Star. JBL’s came to my TP about this, but a third voice wouldn’t hurt. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 09:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

ANI: User:_Richie_wright1980

Hello! I noticed that you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User: Richie wright1980 before I had a chance to respond to Richie's last comment. You also summarised the closure as occurring because we 'both agree that this thread has served its purpose' when the exact opposite is true — we are both disappointed by the ANI process and do not think it has served its purpose. If you can't reopen the thread so I can respond it would be good if you could at least change the summary to something more accurate. Cheers, A.D.Hope (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi A.D.Hope, I think it was more awkward wording than anything else (I meant, both felt that there was nothing to be gained by keeping it open) but I'll self-revert. --JBL (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries, I understand what you meant now and I do appreciate the effort to bring the discussion to a close (it does need to end!) A.D.Hope (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: Well I'd be happy to give it a go again (with more careful wording), after you've had a chance to make your comment (if you still want that) -- let me know. --JBL (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

All commented! Feel free to close and thanks for obliging me, I appreciate it A.D.Hope (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure -- I'm sorry the discussion wasn't terribly productive in itself (ANI is always kind of a shitshow), but the tenor of the latest posts (setting aside the peanut gallery) was promising, and I hope it leads to constructive engagement on the articles. All the best, JBL (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Niekamp obituary

Hello, JBL. Following your edit to Jim Niekamp, you asked for advice in this edit summary about the obit cited on Niekamp's page. First of all, that obit seems pretty useless; all it shows (to me) is a name, DOB, DOD and age. Is there more to it somewhere, maybe behind a paywall or membership boundary or something?

As to the connection with "our" Niekamp, I don't see a big problem. While possible, it'd be pretty strange if there were two guys named James Lawrence Niekamp born on March 11, 1946. Oh, John Smith, sure; Jim Johnson, probably; but James Lawrence Niekamp? Naw. The hockey sites cited, FWIW, seem to all have the same info anyway, although there's no telling where they got their dates. I suppose there could be some WP:CIRCULAR sourcing going on (it is ice hockey, after all).

Having said that, it wouldn't be terrible to have better sources for his off-rink life. Even his career as commentator is fully unsourced (unless it's in a part of the obit that I just can't see).

And finally, hearty thanks for your work cleaning up the ReferenceExpander mess. I did just a few, then got ambitious and started working on 2022 deaths in the United States at the bottom. Yikes! I worked hours on the first half and got only as far as the end of January. I'm still trembling. ;-) — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 67#www.hockey-reference.com, we could use that source to support the vital dates. Agree the obituary is useless. Folly Mox (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@JohnFromPinckney and Folly Mox: Thanks both! If there's something more to that "obituary", I can't find it. I will remove it. --JBL (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Purpose of disambiguation pages

You stated Disambiguation pages are for disambiguating articles, not all possible concepts. Hyperbole aside, this is not correct.

Per MOS:DABMENTION: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader.

What constitutes "value" may merit discussion in some cases, but it is clear that entries cannot be rejected solely because the disambiguated concept is not (article-)notable in and of itself. HTH, Paradoctor (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Paradoctor, perhaps I have not expressed myself as clearly as possible. There is no hyperbole in my edit summary: as the guideline you've quoted makes very clear, each line in a disambiguation page should include exactly one link to a Wikipedia article (see specifically the section MOS:DABONE). The line I removed (and that Fgnievinski improperly restored) contains 0 links to Wikipedia articles. I invite either of you to identify the relevant Wikipedia article for that line (if there is one) and to add the link in an appropriate way. --JBL (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

When I said "hyperbole", I referred to your use of "all possible". Nobody was suggesting that. ;)

As it turns out (pun intended), I accidentally removed the link when I edited the line, through no fault of Fgnievinski. Fixed.

Apologies for my mistake. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Paradoctor: Ok, fair enough :). Thanks for fixing it! Happy editing, JBL (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

IPC

Please do not delete "In popular culture" sections (or material from them) that consist of film, TV episode, etc. material. Published works (including A/V ones) are reliable sources for their own content. Do feel free to use citation templates ({{Cite episode}}, etc.) to built up proper citations for them, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Note to future self, in case I should care: this was about [1] and [2]. --JBL (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the club

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks so much for the medal and for your patience and help throughout the process! --JBL (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Affine symmetric group

Congratulations, JayBeeEll! The article you nominated, Affine symmetric group, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations! Folly Mox (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! 😁 --JBL (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

October songs

my story today

Thank you today for the article, "about a mathematical object that is of interest to pure mathematicians in a wide array of areas. I believe this article presents a comprehensive account of its subject, including its multiple definitions (and why they are equivalent), its many interesting properties and substructures, and its substantial connections to other mathematical objects (especially the "usual" finite symmetric group of permutations, which appears in nearly every corner of mathematics). While the affine symmetric group is not usually encountered outside the context of research mathematics (say, by PhD students or professional researchers), I believe the article is written so that significant portions of it can be appreciated by readers with a more modest mathematical background, and nearly all of it appreciated by an undergraduate who has taken a first course in group theory." Enjoy your first TFA day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear Gerda, thank you very much! --JBL (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! - More pics, and today's story is on a birthday, and the real DYK was already on that birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. My corner for memory and music has today a juxtaposition of what our local church choirs offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Combinatorial Theory (journal)

The article Combinatorial Theory (journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Note to future self: [3]. --JBL (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

TheAlienMan2002

I probably shouldn't have gotten into this in the first place, so I'll probably be stepping out of it now, but there is a serious case of WP:IDHT on his talk page, and he has archived the discussion on his page. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 11:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The user named in the header of the thread is so aggressive with archiving messages they don't want to see that I deliberately breached WP:TPG to reply in their archive to an ongoing conversation they removed early. Folly Mox (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dialmayo: Thanks for your message. I agree with you. Perhaps one could take this as a sign that some small amount of listening and learning has taken place. I think that as long as the problematic behavior doesn't recur, letting it lie is a good idea (I also plan on that)---and if it does reoccur, I think the ground has certainly been laid for a clear CIR case at ANI (thanks to Folly Mox and everyone else who has been quite clear about the problems and the possible consequences). --JBL (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

My optimism was not validated by subsequent events [4]. --JBL (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Musical key edits

@Binksternet and Gerda Arendt: I know bupkis about music; do these recent edits make sense? Last two edits here, last four edits here, [5]. Thanks, JBL (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

F minor and E-sharp minor should remain on the same page as established in 2011 with this discussion. If someone wants to re-organize all of these articles, they should gain consensus through a project-wide discussion. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It can stay there, of practically no use in music, so fine at the end of almost whatever article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both! All the best, JBL (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Binomial theorem for floor and ceiling functions

Thank you for this note and deletion. I must have been massively brainwashed this morning not to note this obvious fact that floor(x+n) = floor(x)+n, for integer n :) Guswen (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. --JBL (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

0

I took some thwacks at improving the article 0, because it turns out to be among the most frequently-visited math pages and it did silly things like drop the term "additive identity" into the second line without a definition. It could use additional thwacks by somebody else for a more varied perspective. XOR'easter (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks -- I'll see what I can do! --JBL (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Help needed regarding Whitespaces

Hellow JayBeeEll, regarding all your warnings about whitespaces on articles, I'm now in need of any link or source about the proper usage/guidelines/maintenance of whitespaces, so that I'll never ever make any unwanted vandalism in future! Thanking at the end, keep up great works on Mathematics-related articles :) Billjones94 (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Billjones94: The principle is incredibly straightforward: if you can't articulate a clear reason that an edit is an unambiguous improvement, don't make it. Is removing a single space that does not change the appearance of the page an improvement? No, it is obviously not (and meanwhile it is a nuisance to other editors whose watchlists get spammed with pointless fiddling) -- therefore don't do it. If you are making some edit that otherwise has some beneficial purpose and, incidentally at the same time, you remove some whitespaces like this, no one will mind -- but that's because of the other (useful) part of the edit.

I hope this is clear and helpful; if not, please feel free to query further. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Some great guidance, thanking you again :) Billjones94 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Supersolvable lattice

Happy holidays JayBeeEll! I've taken advantage of the mental space given by a few days off to write Draft:Supersolvable lattice. This is my first article on mathematics. You have a lot more experience with such articles, and I'm also pretty sure that you've encountered the definition, though possibly only in passing. Would you be willing to glance through and assess whether you think it's ready for mainspace? Disclosing that I cite my own work in a minor way in one place (for I think good reasons). Thank you! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Russ Woodroofe, cool! I personally am very comfortable with the level of self-citation there. There's something wrong with some of your references -- when I mouse over/click on the harvtxt link, it should highlight/jump to the corresponding bibliography entry. Maybe you need to give all authors for the harvtxt template to find the right thing, not just the first? I have only looked superficially so far (packing for holiday travel) but I don't see any reason not to move it in to main-space. I will look more closely within the next week (but I think it would be fine if you moved it to main-space before then). Happy holidays! --JBL (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look, and especially for noticing the trouble with harvtxt. I hadn't used that before, and misread the documentation. Anyway, fixed this, cleaned up a few other things, and moved to mainspace! Thanks again. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Russ,

Ok I looked a little closer, and really that's a great new math article. I see you've done a good job de-orphaning it, and given it the most reasonable category. I made a few minor edits. Here are a couple of additional comments:

• In the section Motivation (about which, by the way, I wish more math articles had), the reference to Stanley is functioning as a primary source; is there a secondary source that could be used to augment it (maybe one of the other references already present?).
• Is it normal to put the "EL" in "EL-labeling" in math mode, as in the section Properties?
• Is there a reasonable way to give the EL-labeling characterization within the context of this article? (Maybe not, because it requires giving a full exposition of EL-labelings?)

Merry Christmas,

JBL (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi JBL. Thanks again for reading. Apologies for taking a minute to get back: I'm slower over the holidays than I expected, and I needed to think about the Motivation section. I am actually unsure if I am engaging in WP:SYNTH in that section, although it is minor if I am. Stanley says not much more "this explains our terminology‚ 'supersolvable 1attice'" (well, a tiny bit more at the front of the article), Stern says something similar in his book. But the maximal modular chain connection is pretty clear.

Anyway: in motivation, I added a citation to Stern. I also described a litte more of the connection with subgroup lattices. (Here too, the motivation for Dedekind to introduce modular lattices apparently was to generalize behavior he'd observed in abelian/Hamiltonian groups; finding a reliable source that says this straightforwardly is surprisingly difficult.) As far as the rest, I briefly described the edge labeling, and unitalicized EL (I think I've seen it both ways, but maybe it's just me that usually italicized).

It would be good to expand this modestly. It would also be good to describe the fiber type arrangement stuff of Terao. I'm less familiar with this last aspect of the theory. Thanks again! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe: No apology necessary, to be sure -- obviously between the two of us you're the more responsive one to messages :). It is perpetually frustrating how infrequently people write down sentences explaining the motivation that is widely understood by experts -- I think your attempt to extract what can be said is great. Thanks again for this nice article! --JBL (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Hello JayBeeEll: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Season's greetings, and may you have a happy new year! --JBL (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello JayBeeEll: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for E (mathematical constant)

E (mathematical constant) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, JayBeeEll!

Happy New Year!

JayBeeEll,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Abishe -- best wishes to you, as well. --JBL (talk) 22:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the patient conversation on the noticeboard :)

I got bit a few times by more experienced people (partially probably justified, partially probably not), so I really appreciate the extra patience you and a few others showed me on the noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons: You're very welcome! It looked to me you were asking good questions and approaching things in a thoughtful way, so it was pleasant to chat with you. Happy editing! JBL (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it was very pleasant for me too! Happy editing to you as well :) FortunateSons (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

For your excellent Parabolic subgroup of a reflection group article. Cheers! Chanaka L (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chanakal: Thanks very much! --JBL (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Permutation matrices

Regarding one of your last edits in the permutation matrices article: I think the way that the introduction is written is somewhat misleading in the current state. While you are right that it is true that a permutation matrix multiplied from the left permutes the rows, i.e., $PM$ and from the left the columns $MP$, for the same permutation matrix $P$, this would lead to inconsistent permutations, because if $P$ multiplied from the right leads to a permutation according to, e.g., $1->2->3->1$, permutations with $P$ from the left lead to $1->3->2->1$. That's why I agree with the previous edit transposing the permutation matrix. I'm quite new here, so I am not sure if this is the right place to discuss this, I just think it would help intuitive understanding of the article. J-s-schmidt1 (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi J-s-schmidt1, thanks for your message. The best place to discuss changes to a single article is on the article talk-page (so in this case at Talk:Permutation matrix), so that anyone who edits the page can participate; is it ok with you if I copy your message over there to respond? --JBL (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JayBeeEll, yes of course moving my message is alright, thank you for your answer! JS J-s-schmidt1 (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@J-s-schmidt1: Thanks; I have copied your comment and responded over there. --JBL (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

George B. Purdy

Source - email with archivist Sally Johnson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:

Hello Michael,

Thank you for reaching out to the University Archives at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign! I understand you're interested in determining if George B. Purdy acknowledged Paul Erdős in his thesis.

I have been able to confirm that this is the case--in the acknowledgments section of Some Extremal Problems in Geometry and the Theory of Numbers, Erdős is the second person listed overall, only after Paul T. Bateman. The acknowledgment states: "I also wish to thank Professor Paul Erdős for introducing me to extremal problems in geometry and for suggesting the problem solved in Chapter III" (p. 5).

I hope this information is helpful! Please feel free to reach out with any other questions. Thank you for contacting the University Archives!

Sincerely,

Sally Johnson

— (she/her/hers)

Turtlens (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and? My revert has nothing to do with the underlying truth of the proposition "Purdy acknowledged Erdos in his thesis". If you'd like to continue this discussion (such as it is), please do so at the article's talk-page, not here. --JBL (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Just hit preview

I didn't want to clutter up a cluttered thread with this comment, especially since I don't know that it even applies. But the remark is a pet peeve of mine so I am just letting you know that depending on the platform, the preview button may not work and on mobile or mobile desktop it is certainly not reliable. Just an fyi. Elinruby (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Good to know, thanks! Happy editing, JBL (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management: Case opened

Hello JayBeeEll,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

A request for clarification

In this edit you gave no explanation at all for restoring an edit which I had reverted, with an explanation. Can you explain your reason? I'm sure an editor with your amount of editing experience must be acquainted with WP:BRD. JBW (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi JBW, my apologies -- I could have sworn I wrote a descriptive edit summary, but obviously I screwed up somehow. Briefly, I reverted for three reasons: (1) your edit summary suggests that the substitution "contradictory" -> "false" was recent, but that's wrong: "false" has been in the article for years, it was changed recently and was swiftly reverted (not by me). (2) "Contradictory" is a relative term; a result can't be "contradictory" all by itself, it needs to be in contradiction with something else. So I don't think the sentence works as you left it. (3) I am not impressed with the idea that it is somehow improper to write, "The statement that the complex number 1 is equal to the complex number -1 is false" -- indeed I think the sentence I've put in quotes is more or less universally understood, correct, and uncotroversial. If you'd like to discuss this further, may I suggest that we continue on the article talk-page, rather than here? --JBL (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I just saw the note on your talk-page; best wishes for a swift recovery! --JBL (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for your good wishes. Secondly, thanks for your answer to my question. I don't really see any need to discuss it further. I am perhaps to blame for not checking the editing history and seeing that I was restoring a recent change, not a long-standing version. More importantly, though, having thought further about the matter, I have decided that the version you restored is more likely to be helpful to a typical reader than the other, whichever might be considered more justifiable in terms of mathematical formalism. JBW (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, in relation to your remark 'a result can't be "contradictory" all by itself, it needs to be in contradiction with something else', I read 'contradictory results" (plural) as meaning "results which contradict one another", not "results each of which by itself is contradictory", which would of course have been nonsense. JBW (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Jeong

Please explain why you reverted my edit on Sarah Jeong. Are you seriously suggesting the omission of any of her tweets which garnered significant controversy? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You have (sensibly) opened a discussion on the article's talk-page; it was silly to open a parallel discussion here, as we can discuss it there. But you should begin by reading the extensive past discussion of this question in the archives there. --JBL (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have looked at nothing more than tangential discussions from more 6 years ago. I am only asking you to elaborate, beyond just "it's not consensus". Zilch-nada (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WCM_email 17:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for your advice. I've now presented as much evidence as I could scrape up. Hopefully a checkuser will now see the evidence and block the sock. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@NoobThreePointOh: Looks like it worked! --JBL (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure did, and Ed gave me the green light to add a block notice on the sock's talk page (though sadly, I'm sure they'll sock once more to the point where it becomes a "here we go again" moment). NoobThreePointOh (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Ordered field

Hmm, the importance of the two choices of sign is that these are the only ways to define an ordering on $\mathbb {R} ((x))$ (or, more generally, to extend an ordering of an ordered base field to the Laurent series field); maybe that could be noted there. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi 1234qwer1234qwer4, thanks for your message. I will take your word for it that these are the only two ordered field structures on $\mathbb {R} ((x))$ (it is not obvious to me, but I haven't thought about it very hard). That seems to me like a reasonably interesting fact about the ring of formal Laurent series; indeed sufficiently interesting that, if you have a citation for it (because it's well beyond WP:CALC), I would strongly encourange you to add it to the article formal Laurent series. The place that you did add it is a list of examples of ordered fields. Generally, the purpose of such an "Examples" section is to quickly introduce readers to important examples; in my opinion, this is undermined by adding too much information about the individual examples. (If you wanted this grounded in Wikipedia content policies, the one that seems most relevant to me is WP:DUE.) If you still disagree, I suggest bringing the issue to the article talk-page, and perhaps adding a notification at WT:WPM, to get some additional opinions. All the best, JBL (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello JayBeeEll,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Undone revision 1217137608 from Eight queens puzzle on 2024-04-04

I'd like to apologize for my incorrect correction. I mistakenly interpreted the n^k mentioned to mean width n and dimension k. I looked up the paper cited, and I understand it correctly now. I will try to be more careful with my corrections going forward. Thank you for correctly correcting me.

--Viliam Furík (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Viliam Furík, thanks for your message. No apology needed, I'm sure! The sentence there is really not very clear, it's not surprising to me that someone could be confused by it. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance in the last few days to think about how to write it more clearly. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Featured article review for 0.999...

I have nominated 0.999... for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

summary

could i ask your help updating the summary here Tonymetz 💬 23:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Tonymetz, that discussion ended and was archived two weeks ago; no one viewing it in the future is going to be confused about whether it ended with any clear conclusion (beyond the warning you received from Bishonen). If it were still on the front page WP:ANI, I might consider adding a closing statement (because it would sit around for a day or two and other editors would have the opportunity to object), but I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to add a closing statement long after a discussion has been archived and receded from view. (I mean you could restore the whole discussion to WP:ANI on the grounds that it never reached much of a conclusion -- but that seems like a terrible idea.) I hope these comments are helpful, even if they are not what you requested. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that a long serpentine ANI thread will be perceived as a blemished reputation. In the end no action was taken. The warning was given prior to ANI Tonymetz 💬 01:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think your reputation (not a real thing btw) will survive. If you simply cannot abide with this discussion having been archived without a closure statement, you can restore the whole discussion to WP:ANI and request that; but that seems like an incredibly bad idea for several reasons, and will be most likely to result in drawing negative attention to yourself. FWIW, any uninvolved party closing the discussion will certainly include in their closure statement that you were warned by Bishonen, as that fact is a prominent feature of the discussion. --JBL (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

that's my point. but anyway, thanks for helping come up with options. I agree that's not practical. Tonymetz 💬 18:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you as ever for the kind reminder! Happy editing, JBL (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding No consensus on UAW RFC. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Elissa Slotkin".The discussion is about the topic UAW Strike Quote.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

andrew.robbins (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome back from break

Discussions are as fun as ever. XOR'easter (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

LOL. Well you did the right thing, let's see if the second time sticks. --JBL (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

How come is this off topic?

You recently deleted my comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard [6] citing off topic, general content? How come is that off topic and general content ? What I said is related to the topic that was at hand there. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The WP:RSN thread is about the reliability of the TimesNowNews source; your comment did not address that question at all, instead you continued an argument from elsewhere about the Western Standard.

Is English your native language? (I ask because you seem to have some difficulty communicating clearly.) --JBL (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)