User talk:JalenBarks

Signature

Please remove the (Jalen D. Folf) part from your signature or alter the colors.The fragment gives a contrast ratio of 1.43 which fails the standards set at MOS:CONTRAST by a huge margin.We're aiming 4.50 as a minimum for contrast ratio, reaching at least AA compliance, and preferably AAA--per WCAG.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 09:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric:  Done. Even checked it in advance. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time out!Winged Blades ^Godric 15:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Yooka-Laylee

The article Yooka-Laylee you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Yooka-Laylee for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance

Your response to my request for edits to the IAFOR was prompt and very helpful. I really appreciate it. I'll get to work on the next steps to add sourcing that is not from the IAFOR website, but first actual work to do. Like at my job. I hope to have things by the weekend. Your help helped me cheer up about Wikipedia. Hope I can reciprocate. Gotanda (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI

Per the header on ANI: "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." The template you added is voluntary. It's not required to use it when non-admins comment. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request question

I've got a quick (kind of silly) question... thanks for the note on Anthony Pratt's talk page but how do you mark an edit request as fulfilled or "partially fulfilled"? Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Meatsgains, the documentation for the {{request edit}} template has all the info to help you with this problem. In a nutshell, there's a letter to mark the request as answered, and another to mark the request as a partial implementation (A and P, respectively.) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Easy enough, thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't respond to WSJ "fix" edit requests

See this for why. Thanks again. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

For this request, why did you feel this would require consensus before being done? It's hardly contentious. -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ferret: Thanks for reversing the decision. I wasn't sure of how to make the change myself since I know Metacritic for movie and video game reviews. The info you provided on the article's talk page is very helpful for my improvement in responding to these requests. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I notice you removing dead links....

Instead, see if there's an archive available here, here, or here before removing a site which is completely dead. In case you didn't know, which I thought maybe you didn't. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please also add the archive to cite templates as "archiveurl" rather than replacing the original url parameter. -- ferret (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You can use IABot to do this automatically. --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 19:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

COI edit requests

Hi. I notice you've been declining requested edits from COI editors lately. I'm having trouble seeing the reasoning behind some decisions:

• National Renewable Energy Laboratory: A somewhat detailed request, including replacing dead links and changing an all-caps ref title to title case. You said "I actually don't see this as an improvement."

• Owens-Illinois: WP:Rs#Exceptions says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." That the company was the result of a merger is neither promotional nor controversial.

• Center for Photography at Woodstock: Declined because "This isn't specific; where exactly should this go?" Why not wait for the answer to your question before marking it declined?

• Curiosity (rover) "Before we can complete this request, please declare your relationship with this subject. This request does not show your conflict of interest." Policy is that COI editors should declare their connection; no argument there. But again, why not wait for an answer to your request before declining theirs?

• Florida Municipal Power Agency: The membership of their board as listed in the article is outdated. They provide references and request that the listing be revised. You declined it, saying that the change should be discussed first. Not only does this make no sense, but on July 8, Altamel pointed out to you (see "Edit requests" above) the difficulty in this for COI editors.

The issue of COI contributors is a thorny one. It can be easy to find problems with their requests, especially if you've been editing for a while and know the policies and guidelines. By requesting edits, however, they're trying to do the right thing. Please take more time to review the requests. AGF. Allow them time to answer questions you have before declining requests. If you're not sure, let someone else deal with it. You're not alone here, and you don't have to do it all yourself.

Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Both you and Altamel have been very helpful to me in this part of the encyclopedia. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your diligence in reducing the edit request backlog is invaluable to Wikipedia. Every edit request patroller will have a different style of judgment—and BlackcurrantTea does raise many valid points—but assessing edit requests inevitably entails a learning curve, and you are definitely getting better at applying the correct policies. Altamel (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

NBA trades/signings

There is long-standing consensus not to update these until officially cleared with the league and announced by the team or league. The reason these aren't updated until reported by the teams is that the League has to review them and sometimes they don't happen (the league rejects them, somebody fails a physical, etc). Please don't update player articles until the deal is finalized (i.e. - reported by the team(s) involved). The news' job is to report signings as they happen to get the scoop. This isn't a news site, it's an encyclopedia so having these updated immediately is less important than updating them when the results are official. Thanks Rikster2 (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will remember this for future edit requests of this nature. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning

In reference to this edit - that was disruptive, the edit should have been reverted and the user reported (I've since blocked them). I'm also alerting you to the presence of discretionary sanctions in this area, not because you've done anything wrong, but purely to make you aware of their existence for this subject area. I would advise you read the information about discretionary sanctions if you're going to make pseudo-administrative edits in future, so you can avoid getting yourself into unintended trouble. Nick (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Marvin Mirisch / Harold Mirisch Pages

I requested changes to the page of Marvin Mirisch and received the following message:

    Declined. Request is dated and therefore no longer considered an improvement. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I am a little confused by it. Would you mind explaining it?

Thank you.

Lmassistant (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I might've done that as I was cleaning out the extraneous list of edit requests. As soon as I get the chance, I will reopen both of your requests. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

 Note:: Combining both threads into one as they both relate to the same confusion made by this user. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Edited my user talk page

Did you accidentally deleted messages on my talk page?Sue (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Sue (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sue: It might have been a mistake. Please see the page history for my initial reason. If you have reverted it already, thank you for doing so. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The edit reason was sock puppetry investigation on Reid62 or something to that effect. So should I revert and attempt to continue conversation with the alleged sock puppet? or should I ignore the deleted message? I haven't visited Wikipedia for a while as an editor and have never run into any administrator related activities, so I am unsure what is the current protocol/ right way to respond. Would be great if you can give me a hint. :-) Sue (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not an administrator so I would not give the best advice. However, the IP is currently blocked by administrator RickinBaltimore for edit warring, so if it were me, I would just ignore the message. But again, the decision is entirely up to you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sue, I'd leave the edit removed at this point. Since this was an IP of a blocked user, it's best to not give them the attention they are looking for. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

ok, cool. Thanks. Sue (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)