User talk:JalenBarks

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Regarding page reviewer

[edit]

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

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

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

Speedy deletion declined: A Mess Of Blues

[edit]

Hello JalenBarks, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of A Mess Of Blues, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Author has not requested deletion, or other users have added substantial content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 21:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2025

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2025).

Administrator changes

added Toadspike
removed

CheckUser changes

added asilvering

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback on Alexa Miro

[edit]

Hello, after analyzing the matter I remain unaware why you have made this rollback, thus removing my change which was intended as a fix after I saw useless redirect while reading an article on Sandro Marcos. Per WP:ROLLBACKUSE you must have regarded my edit as an obvious vandalism, which it is not, at least not from my point of view. First of all, the mention about Alexa Miro in article Tropang LOL is not even sourced and the only information that comes from it is that she likely was a host of the show, there is no subtopic about her or anything remotely close to that. The actor is also mentioned on more than 10 relevant Wikipedia pages so there is absolutely no reason I could see to redirect from Alexa Miro to a TV show she hosted for a year or two. This redirect does not satisfy any of WP:POFR as far as I am concerned. This is the most useless redirect I ever saw.

Furthermore, if there is more meaningful way to fix the definitely existing issue and I did it incorrectly, then I still am not sure if rollback is the correct way to go about it, per WP:ROLLBACKUSE. Kondike (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is correct usage of WP:ROLLBACKUSE, and I was about to warn you for this too. We do not blank redirects, as blank pages are harmful to the encyclopedia. If you want that redirect to be deleted, consider starting a discussion at WP:RFD. Jalen Barks (Woof) 00:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the 6 possible reasons for WP:ROLLBACKUSE does this edit satisfy? This is the crux of the issue.
Also, I did not consider reporting this to be deleted specifically because it had categories under it. It looked to me like someone was planning to turn this into a proper article. To me, the redirect itself seemed to be the least substantial part of the page. Kondike (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am invoking reason 1, on the basis that I treat all blanking cases as obvious vandalism. Like I said, blank pages are harmful to the encyclopedia. Jalen Barks (Woof) 03:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BLANK: "Page blanking means editing a page and removing its content to leave it completely blank, or without any substantial content." I think you would agree if you examined the page and the article it redirects to that the redirect is the least useful thing on the page and provides far less information than the rest of the page, therefore it is highly arguable whether my edit would meet the definition of blanking the page. From my perspective, I removed harmful content that made up a small portion of the information on the page and left the rest intact.
However, more importantly, according to the definition, WP:VANDAL implies obvious and delibarate intent to obstruct the project. When you rollback my edit without a comment and accuse me of vandalism, you are literally accusing me of that, which as far as I am aware is definitely against the rules. I saw on your page that you did the same thing in the past, as other editor pointed it out to you that you have tendency not to provide edit summary on some of your rollbacks in cases that are not examples of obvious deliberate malicious behaviour.
Please be careful in the future and provide explanation in your edit summary if there is any chance at all that the intention behind the rollbacked edit is not malicious. Anyways, thank you for redirecting me to WP:RFD, however I do not want the page itself to be deleted. Kondike (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talkpage stalker here - having looked at the edit in question I would have done exactly the same thing. It looked like straightforward vandalism to me and the correct action should have been to nominate the redirect for deletion. Still, no harm done. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I think this approach is against WP:AGF and far more problematic than what I did however. Also, the page has 6 categories, surely it has enough notability for a stub or more, so it shouldn't be deleted anyways. Kondike (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

[edit]
Thanks for catching my mistake over at Handbook of the Mammals of the World - didn't realize the other version still included the extra link. Have a wonderful week, and a good Thanksgiving if you celebrate it! jellyfish ✉ 01:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]