User talk:Jayron32

Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles - Trial

The discussion has been moved to Wikipedia space, restarted and and listed on Cent, RfC, and the VP, and will take place here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Question for you

Thread moved here from my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Before we get too far into things, I have a simple question for you. Regarding This, is it your intention from today forward to "box" every joke made at the reference desks, or just mine? I just want to know whether it is your lack of a sense of humor or your personal distate towards me that is leading to this behavior of yours. --Jayron32 20:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No comment. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

EPIC!

THANK YOU FOR THIS!

A person who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 00:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Jayron32 00:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume it is happening in a few days? A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It finished a few days ago. Check the dates. --Jayron32 18:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You have 838^th place in most edits (39050). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here: A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 22:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooooooookay... --Jayron32 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Counsel

Hello Jayron:

I have no stake in the conflict between Wilminator & Bielle but I have looked at the discussion.

Thank you for your recent comment beginning: "Counsel for you is the same as I counseled him:" Very well put.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I was just trying to diffuse the situation. I appreciate your kind words! --Jayron32 03:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. I laughed! And then all kinds of "but, but, but, buts" went through my head - wrong version you see. Nonetheless, I am bored with it, too. Regards, Bielle (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Driving in Chicago

You told me to drop a note on your talk page if I get any more questions about Chicago and your time there, so I got another Chicago question for you. You said that there is a Chicago Street Grid, which was planned out, but Manhattan also has a street grid that was planned too, which having been there I can tell that makes driving a nightmare there. You said that driving in Chicago was easy for you, but my friend who grew up in Chicago said that he didn’t need a car at all when he lived there. On the other hand, you said that the suburban residents clog up the freeway system horribly. That's not a good sign. I read that car ownership in Chicago is much higher than that of New York City’s, but is Chicago overall a car friendlier city? Will it be easier for me to drive when I go to Chicago this August? How does the car culture history there compare to that of New York City’s? Because when I went to New York City, it was a nightmare for me driving there. I’m used to cities like Tampa, Clearwater, etc. since those are the kind of cities I grew up in, so I'm a bit nervous about driving in Chicago when I go there. Willminator (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

New York's grid is not as nicely organized as Chicago's is for a few reasons:

• Chicago's house numbering system matches the grid. Thus, you always know that all houses between (say) 71st street and 72nd street will have numbers between 7100S and 7199S. In Manhattan, they start numbering at one end of the street with "1" and just go up from there. Thus, the house on the corner of, say, 5th Avenue and 42nd street and the house on the corner of 5th and 43rd won't necessarily have the same number. In Chicago they do.
• Chicago's grid is rigidly obeyed, even if streets are discontiguous. For example, you can expect to find the street named "Polk Street" at the same place in the grid even if it exists in lots of disjointed segments. Polk is always between Roosevelt and Congress, even it only exists in little 1-2 block segments with several miles of gaps between the segments. In Manhattan, the same street changes name as you are traveling on it", i.e. the exact opposite as Chicago. Thus, if you start out on Eighth Avenue it just becomes Central Park West.
• Chicago's street grid covers the whole city, while Manhattan's only covers Manhattan north of 14th Street. The Loop has a few eccentricities, but it still fits fairly well into the Chicago grid; lower Manhattan doesn't follow the grid at all.
• Chicago's grid is highly heirarchical; every 8th street is a major boulevard, every 4th street is a semi-major boulevard, the streets between those are small neighborhood streets. In Manhattan, the system is rather random. There's no guarantee that the street you're on won't just sort of end at a T-junction, or suddenly go from a fairly major boulevard to a minor neighborhood street. In Chicago, you can reliably expect Roosevelt Avenue or Western Avenue to be a 5-lane boulevard, running straight-as-an-arrow for the entire length of the city (and in both of those cases, for several miles into the suburbs as well). As long as you know what address you are aiming for, just get on the nearest main road, and you can just drive. There won't be any surprises. For a time, I worked in Glen Ellyn which is a suburb to the west of Chicago. The Eisenhower Expressway went right there; and if traffic was clear, it was of course the fastest route. But if there was a traffic jam, I could always count on getting of the Eisenhower, dodging over 4 blocks to Roosevelt Road, and other than a stop light every 8 blocks or so, it was usually clear sailing all the way to Glen Ellyn. I can't remember the name, but there was a diagonal avenue (maybe Milwaukee Avenue?) that used to parallel the Kennedy Expressway; on more than one occasion I would be able to cruise down Milwaukee, laughing gleefully at all of the cars I was passing in some major back up on the Kennedy.
• Regarding needing a car: No, you don't need a car at all in Chicago. The buses run regularly (sadly, I think they changed the color scheme, as they used to be known colloquially as the "Cream-Green Limosine", a catchy name, but I don't think they are that color scheme anymore) and go anywhere the L doesn't go, which isn't many places. Chicago has more of a car culture than Manhattan because a) it doesn't have a commuter rail system as robust as New York. There's lots of Commuter Lines that stretch far into the NYC suburbs (Metro North, etc.) while in Chicago, the only commuter rail I can think of is the Milwaukee-Chicago Amtrak line, which runs up the shore of Lake Michigan. If you live in any other suburbs, your only option is to drive. b) Chicago's grid is better designed for driving, as I noted above. It has a major, robust expressway system as well (three major expressways meet RIGHT in downtown at Chicago Circle. Other than the crumbling, outdated, decrepit freeways that sorta ring the shores of Manhattan, there's no freeways that go into the city all that far. Sure, I bemoaned the expressways earlier for their traffic, but it actually is a pretty decent freeway system, especially when compared to Manhattan. And, as I noted above, the grid itself seems to be better designed for car travel as well. It's still a city, so it isn't going to be like driving out on some rural interstate. But compared to other major cities I have experience driving in (New York, Boston, Philadelphia, even Raleigh where I live now), it's not all that bad.

Any other questions? --Jayron32 23:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It was very informative. So basically your advice to me is to relax and take a deep breath when I go to Chicago since as you say the driving will not be nearly as hectic as I had experienced in NYC in general. However, I do have one more concern to ask you about. Are Chicago's drivers going to be more or less rude than New York City's drivers when I go to Chicago? Will they cut me off and bonk the horn like a toy at me for absolutely no reason like I experienced with NYC's drivers? Willminator (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No. New York drivers are assholes. Chicago will not be as hectic. As anywhere, if you do something really stupid, you'll piss someone off. In New York, "really stupid" means driving slower than 90 or not having a New York plate on your car. Chicagoans wouldn't get pissed unless you actually do something stupid. --Jayron32 01:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I feel more confident now. So, did you like Chicago better than all the cities and towns you lived in? If not, which city or town did you like better? Which one did you like the least? Just curious, what part of New York City did you live in when you lived there? Willminator (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• I loved Chicago for when I lived there. I was 21-23, had a girlfriend/fiancee but we weren't married yet, and had no kids. I absolutely wouldn't want to raise kids there, but being single, young, and with no real attachments or responsibilities is was an AWESOME town. I absolutely cherished the time I had there, and it was awesome. Now that I am mid-30s with two kids and a mortgage, I live in a great town for that as well (Raleigh, NC). I've never lived in NYC, but I have visited many times, and am a geography buff as well. I've personally lived in a small New Hampshire town (essentially my whole life until I went to college), a college town that was an outer suburb of Philadelphia, near west-side Chicago, and now in North Carolina. I'm an easy to please kinda guy, but I genuinely had a good time living in every one of those places. Maybe I'm lucky, or maybe its my personality, but I think I had the perfect home for whatever phase of life I was in. --Jayron32 03:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

entrepreneurs use in Plymouth and Jamestown

Plymouth holds a special role in American history. Rather than being [entrepreneurs] like many of the settlers of Jamestown, a significant proportion of the citizens of Plymouth were fleeing religious persecution and searching for a place to worship as they saw fit.

Jamestown wiki Late in 1606, English entrepreneurs set sail with a charter from the Virginia Company of London to establish a colony in the New World.

In these two paragraphs are the word entrepreneurs is used. I would think "settlers" would be a better term. It seems that someone with a modern perspective is trying to influence the direction of the page. What actually the Plymouth / Jamestown called themselves I don't know but I don't they they called themselves "entrepreneurs".

Thanks P-antibody (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Jonathan

If you can come up with a way to say "The Jamestown settlers were interested in making money through their settlement, but the Plymouth colonists were interested in setting up a religiously isolated colony" and say it less clunky than I did there, feel free. The nice thing about "entrepreneur" is that it means exactly what it is supposed to. If you want to use another exact synonym, feel free. --Jayron32 12:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

About Chaosname

• Just to let you know that I like your edit summary... na na na na, hey hey hey... goodbye! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Psst. Don't forget to log your closure. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done Someone else cleaned up my mess. --Jayron32 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My AN/I

I appreciate your consideration of my concerns as reflected in your determination in the AN/I. While I have elected to forego any further discussion on the issue of POV tag placement/removal within the AN/I itself and am quite content in my acceptance of your determination (it is, after all, not that big of a deal anyway relative to the issue it represents), I do have some thoughts as to your rationale which you may or may not find to be persuasive. When my thoughts gel into something concrete I can relate, I will do so here. Thanks. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. You'll find at Wikipedia that the most important thing is research. Its hard to argue with good, reliable source material, so if you want to see some change, you really need to bring up some some good, quality sources. If there is contention about the fact that some of the so-called "false" claims aren't, in fact, false, but are actually verified, then provide those sources. If it is the particular word "false" that is the issue (that is, if you don't object to the substantive content of the section, just the word false) then perhaps propose an alternate wording (diputed? disproven? untrue?) on the talk page. I'm not particularly partisan one way or the other in this issue, I just want to see that good, objective work is done, and that we are doing good research and writing on these articles, working from verifiable source material and not from emotion or political feelings. If you need some help in the future, please feel free to drop me a line. --Jayron32 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe one quick observation then. My concern is not with either the strength or breadth of "sourcing" that might dispute or even refute, seemingly incontrovertibly, any and/or all "theories" related to the "birther" issue but rather whether Wikipedia can be, per WP:NPOV, represented in section titleing as an arbiter of absolute "truth" in a highly contentious and contemporary topic of debate. I offered that opinion in the article talk and my perspective was almost mirrored by JClemens' comments in the AN/I. Hypothetically for example, even were it to be discovered that SOME "theory" offered by "conspiracy theorists" was actually found to be TRUE, that would not affect Wikipedia's mandate for an NPOV "presentation" of relevant sourcing and the article section treating the veracity of "theories" would not require change.

You asked about alternate wording. I provided that alternate wording in my attempted NPOV edit..."Conspiracy theories and rebuttals" which was quickly reverted.

At any rate, I strongly disagree that a consideration of WP:NPOV section titleing is, in any way, predicated on the provision of sourcing substantiating the "truth" of a "theory". Were it "true", it would no longer BE a "theory" and the standard, as I believe you are suggesting, is an impossible one to meet. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, without getting in the specifics of this case, just speaking in general terms, Wikipedia is under no obligation to hold as possibly true, any random assertion that is made merely because it is made. It isn't WP:NPOV, for example, to give credence to the idea that the Earth is flat if, in fact, it really isn't. NPOV doesn't mean "every possible idea is assumed to be true until proven beyond false to the satisfaction of every person in the entire world." It is OK for Wikipedia to call a spade a spade (and not a shovel or a trowel); and if indeed something is false, then it isn't wrong to claim it so. You may be right here, but no one can tell if you are correct unless you have reliable sources which show that the statement "X is false" is a contested fact. That's all I am asserting; if all reliable sources say "X is false" (or equivalent wording to that effect) then Wikipedia should say that. If you have a reliable source that says "X is true" or "X is not known to be false" or "There is some confusion over whether or not X is true or false" then you need to provide those sources. Wikipedia is built on good sources. If you can show that the article, as it exists, does not represent existing scholarship, then you need to provide evidence that it doesn't. You seem to feel that the article doesn't, so you must have some reason to believe that it doesn't. All we are asking is to show everyone the evidence that the article, as it exists now, is wrong. Because the evidence there right now seems to indicate that it is correct as written. Could the sources being used in the article be chosen selectively, and could the article be ignoring equally good sources which could make the situation less clear cut than the article makes it out to be? That may be the case here. But if that is the case, then you need to provide the sources that the article omits. --Jayron32 19:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages

Can we please not edit war over the policy page? There's a section to discuss this on the talk page at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Removal of current block notices, and several other users have objected to the attempt to change the policy here. Thanks.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you will note that I edited the page in question exactly once. That is, I did not revert once, I edited it once. I find your accusation baseless, and I am highly disappointed that you, as a long time editor at Wikipedia, would find it responsible to throw around baseless and evidenceless accusations without even a shred of evidence. You disappoint me that you would do this, and I would kindly ask that you review my personal actions on that page, and explain how I, in editing the page exactly once, have committed any violation of WP:EDITWAR. Please present evidence or please retract your baseless, damaging, and irresponsible accusation. --Jayron32 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I apologize for assuming that you'd checked the history page before editing. I'm not out to vilify yourself or anyone else here, and I'd hope that you'll be willing to join in the ongoing discussions on Wikipedia talk:User pages#Removal of current block notices or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Should users be allowed to remove current block notices? and Require all new articles to contain at least one source.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your heartfelt apology. Just to explain a bit more, I noticed that the discussion had been closed, and I also noted that the WP:USERPAGE page hadn't been updated with the results of the closure. I was, at the time I made the change, unaware that the closure had generated controvery. I just thought that he forgot to update the page after closing the discussion. I hadn't thought to check the page history before making my change, which I perhaps could have. If I had any knowledge of the controversy, I would not have made the change, and I have no intention of making the change again. Please understand I did not intend to give the impression that I was stirring the pot, it was nothing more than innocent ignorance on my part. --Jayron32 23:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum, I can't say I care enough about the issue to comment on the futher discussion. It literally matters not one bit to me how this plays out, just that it ends one way or the other. I'm more interested in the endless back-and-forth over this issue never happening again, rather than either side "winning". It matters not how it ends, just that it does. --Jayron32 23:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you're not alone here. There's apparently some deep water under this, which I wasn't really aware of until just recently myself. As for my mistaken assumption, if you look at the last few diffs you'll notice that you (accidentally) re-added almost exactly what had just been removed, so from my perspective it was "oh geez, here we go with the reversions...". That sort of thing, coming from the likes of yourself, had me really worried for a minute.
I tend to agree with the thought that this isn't that important as well, and I agree with the sentiment that it needs resolution. Part of my motivation here is to try and prevent a "resolution" that will only cause further dispute. I wish that we could just say nothing specific on the issue, but apparently that creates too much confusion (...or something).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Schyler's "one language"

Hi Jayron: Schyler and I have been discussing his signature, and what follows from enquiring about the meaning of "one language", on his talk page. We have both said our piece, but have found no common ground. Neither of us wants to jump into any of the usual circuses, and we have thus agreed to ask you and Jack of Oz to comment. (Schyler picked the names and I agreed.) If there is still no meeting of the minds following your comments, we may ask a third user. If there is a conclusion, Schyler and I have agreed to accept it. (You may check this in the thread; if he has changed his mind, I am sure he will say so.) I agree not to argue with you, though I will answer any specific questions. I trust your common sense and would appreciate your help. Bielle (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

For me to thank you on Schyler's page would be presumptuous, but I would like to acknowledge a thoughtful and thought-provoking answer. Bielle (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

HD medical

Heya,

• WP:HD#symptoms_of_amoeboisis

"is lack of appetite a symptom of amoebosis" is a knowledge-question; there's no concern over WP:MEDICAL, as long as they don't get specific - such as, "Should I eat bananas to fix my condition", style-of-thing.

I'm pretty confident about that, and it looks like another person agreed [1].

I suggest it'd be best to put the original question back, and leave the appropriate part of DuncanHill's answer - ie that "Our article Amoebiasis should help answer that question", with the additional info that, if not, WP:RD could help.

You could've added a note that "the helpdesk cannot answer any medical questions' but, really, it's a ->RD type of question, not a concern.

It doesn't really matter about that specific 'case' though; I was leaving this message to hopefully avoid it in the future. Happy to discuss it further, if you want. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If people want to know the symptoms of their diseases, they should see doctors. The potential harm we could do to this person if he follows advice someone on Wikipedia gives him is FAR GREATER than the off chance that he isn't asking about treating himself. It is best to err on the side of "don't kill people". I will not be returning the question today. If you wish to take this person's life in your hands, personally, you do what you want to do. --Jayron32 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There's really no need for SHOUTING and hyperbola.

As DuncanHill, said, it "was not a request for medical advice or a diagnosis".

If users cannot write "Is X a symptom of Y?" on the project, it is extremely difficult to work on any articles relating to medical conditions.

In a case of an information request on the help-desk, of this nature, removing it per medical is an over-reaction, and unnecessary harsh. It's no different to asking "Is Oslo the capital of Norway".

Of course, it's a bit hard to discuss/get confirmation/consensus on the issue, because discussion of it is going to involve re-quoting, which is a bad idea if I'm wrong. And I reiterate that the specific case doesn't bother me - I'm not demanding it gets reinstated; the answer given by DuncanHill covers things satisfactorily; my only intention in raising it here was for future similar incidents.

I'm one of the first people to remove anything inappropriate per medical, legal etc. -but, I'm sure that one didn't fall within the remit.

Regardless, I do agree that it is better to err on the side of caution in these matters, so I'm quite happy to move along, and I thank you for contributing on the help desk. Best,  Chzz  ►  17:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, let me spell this out for you because apparently you do not understand. I am wrong. You are correct. This will always be true, so rather than coming here to tell me that I am wrong, you can skip that step. Since I am always wrong, you don't need to remind me of it. My perfect and never ending wrongness is a fact about my life I have accepted long ago, so it is entirely redundant to come here to tell me I am wrong. Go through life as though I have already admited that I am wrong, and have already confirmed that you are correct, and just fix all the problems I create. It will make things much easier. Just remember, I am wrong here. You are correct. So feel free to fix it. --Jayron32 20:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)