Have you seen this lately? Seems clear to me you can reset or indef. Post what you decide in the RFAR clarification and we can archive it then. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Followup to [ [1]

Thanks for your reply. I won't reopen the topic there, particularly since the subthread was losing WP:AN relevance.

Whistleblowers in the corporate world really are disruptive; they aren't simply a blessing. From what years of reading whistleblower stories in the Financial Times has told me, it is quite normal for whistleblowers to resort to high drama when they are stonewalled. And Peter Damian really has been stonewalled: the collective failure to acknowledge that should really bother those with a clue who care about the future of WP. That is the point, and not judging how best to deal with a nuisance. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You clearly don't understand what a corporate whistle-blower is. It is a person who makes a decision to call bullshit on their firm's practices from within the firm, often not involving the public, nor the media. It is an ethical decision and a whistle-blower seeks to change a firm's conduct by revealing practices to members of a chain of command, until one will hopefully take notice. This is in no way related to PD who soapboxes offsite. I think you may have seen too many Lifetime Movie Network flicks about sexual harassment or evil accountants. Law _{type! snype?} 13:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

(EC with law, reply to OP)The problem is conflating this issue of "whistleblowing", which is a Good Thing in the sense that sometimes we need people to take a real critical look at leadership practices, and call out when there are real problems, and "disruption", which is what is going on here. When you start to use other terms to name garden variety disruption you excuse it. -- Jayron 32 13:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

If you'll notice, there are currently 403 Good article nominations up. Some date back to April (and maybe even March?). What do you think of having a Writeout, where the purpose is to stop writing articles for 5 days, and review GAN's to reduce the backlog? (Seems like a crazy idea at first, but when you stop to think about it... not so much). iMatthew  ^talk at 19:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

It's been done before, to great success actually. There was a Good Article evaluation drive run 2-3 years ago which once got the backlog down to a day or two (no joke). I would contact User:Jennavecia (nee LaraLove) about the last one, as she was the primary organizer. I used to be heavily involved in WP:GA myself, but a group of editors took control of the process in a very WP:OWN way, and it drove me (and some other prolific editors) away from the process, which has become quite convoluted and hard to navigate, which may explain the major backlog problems. I think that clearing the backlog would be a good idea, so contact Jennavecia about how she organized the last one, however I think the source of the backlog now is endemic to the way the GA project is now being run, and until the process can be simplified or cleaned up, you are unlikely to gain much traction. Good luck and godspeed! -- Jayron 32 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, OhanaUnited organized it, I think. I was the one that quality reviewed most of the articles. A couple hundred I think. There wasn't a writeout for it, but we did get a great deal of participation from the GA project members. Unfortunately, like Jayron, I don't participate in GA matters much. I keep a quiet eye on Sweeps progress, but that's about it. Lara 04:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I saw my name at the bottom but Mythdon said I wasn't allowed to edit admin areas because I don't have enough edits.-- The Singer Who Carries A Trumpet ( talk) 03:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Please feel free to make any comments you need to. Not sure where it will help though. This is NOT your first account and is clearly being used in a manner which is in violation of WP:SOCK. -- Jayron 32 04:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron - I've been watching. Thought I'd get in early before I log off for a while. Whilst I am still a little concerned by his response to your question on OWN; I'm quite okay for your unblocking if you reach a position where he can provide you with an unambiguous return that meets your requirements. Best wishes-- VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 04:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I also think there's some biting going on here. See my comments at Martin451's talk page. I fully support your initial block, and support Martin451's version of the article, however I also think we need to use this as a means to help the new user along. I really think he wants to learn to "do it right" and can be turned into a positive user with a little understanding and help here. -- Jayron 32 04:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed.-- VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 04:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I want to publish a page on an Organization. I have created an write up keeping all the rules and regulations of Wiki in mind. I wanted your assistance in verifying it and helping me in publishing this article.

-- Peswriter ( talk) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Since you have founded the Great Wikipedia Dramaout, I am here to inform you of the following:

Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 04:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Cool! Good luck with that! It looks like a worthwhile project! -- Jayron 32 21:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Jayron32/Archive12 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jayron32/Archive12's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Jayron32/Archive12! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! What did I do to get this honor? -- Jayron 32 00:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I just realized that I may have stepped on your toes on this one; you declared yourself neutral in order to gain community input. Then I stepped in after a bit and unblocked anyway. I apologize if I did anything out of line, and like I stated at AN, I will take responsibility. Tan | 39 18:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

no problem. Sounds fine to me. However, should he go off the reservation, he's your problem! Good luck! -- Jayron 32 23:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks like he doesn't agree to my rules anyway, might be a quick reblock coming up. Tan | 39 00:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

i am new to wikipedia and i not sure wat to do. I was clicking on things and it sent me to an adoption thing and i was reading it and it said that the person you pick or the person that picks you can help you out and trust me I NEED HELP! i would be very happy if you could help me out.I do not know how to do the sign your post thing so youh can find me at the adoption thing. User name:BooBeeCiCi. Thank you and have a blessed day —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoobeeCiCi ( talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I am taking a online course and i would like to know if you can help me on it i'm not saying to do the work for me but help find information stuff like that. And what is a guest book because I was looking at other adopters pages and I see It and sence my profile is a boring I wana know how to spice it up a little bit. One more thing what is the watchlist and what is it for. You might think that I am asking alot from you but I'M TRYING TO LEARN .--BoobeeCiCi 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks agian and about the books I do go to the library. and it is helpful alot but I got most on my work done it's just i dont find every thing I am looking for But i will figure it out some way but thanks bunches have a blessed day. (BoobeeCiCi 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BoobeeCiCi ( talk • contribs)

Thanks for your quick help in my unblock. I chose that username for my test(Which I figured the filter would catch anyway) and in case it didn't catch the name (Which it didn't)I would have some piece of mind knowing that a true vandal could not take the name and abuse it. I thanks you greatly for your understanding.-- Gordonrox24 |  ^Talk 02:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

See WP:ANI. There's some shenanigans going on here...

Kind of like there were some steroids used in the NFL? :) But I agree. The more I looked at the block logs, the timing of the user contributions, and the contributions themselves, the more I realized something odd is going on there. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I have made this page in my own sub-page. Actually I don't know how do I send you this page? Should I copy paste the edit section of my sub-page and put it in your talk or if there is some other way please inform me. This page is about an organization called SoftDEL systems.

Thank you for replying.

Waiting for your feedback.

-- Peswriter ( talk) 12:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

See my reply on the Help Desk. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  ^talk 00:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey mate please do get back to me at your convenience regarding my email about the ANI thread you closed last night. I'd like your analysis and any suggestions please. Thanks, Nja ²⁴⁷ 15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Black Country

hi all not finding it easy to find the answer to my querry so best i ask

in the reference section of the black county i place a link to a no profit or no advertising page this is called black country connection. it consists of a project to link all the common name of the black country together but for some reason this link keeps getting deleted there are a few links similar to language and general forum but they remain un touch so i was wondering what is the problem cheers peterjd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjd (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ask the people who are deleting the link. They should be able to explain why they are doing so. --Jayron32 19:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk"

could you please explain why the deletion ≤±−≥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjd ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I have made changes in the Write-up and made the reference proper. Please review User:Peswriter/Softdel and give feedback. Let me know if any other issues are to be sorted out.

Thank you

-- Peswriter ( talk) 12:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

A tale: Catherine Yronwode (who also sometimes is a Wikipedian) was contributing some stuff about murderers. A few editors thought it cruft and a few editors thought it encyclopedic. I was in the latter camp and ........ {sighs} Viriditas was in the former. He single-handedly kept four or five if us inclusionist Wikipedians at bay over the issue for a fortnight. (As just one minute example, he turned cat's article into a redirect, blanking its page about a score of times.) Finally I listed the article at AfD (despite my support for it) and it ended up being kept (of course, by default/no consensus). What's my point in this story? (Cos, as Ellen DeGeneres says, I do have one -- )
- - -
Despite Viriditas's exactingly mainstream Wikipedian editing philosophy, his methods are still fringy. (Cf the folks you mention in your convincing meta anlysis over at the WP:ANI thread.) Really, my thinking had been that the trip wire for probationary status had been tripped by his antics, and there are a sizeable number of editors who felt likewise about Viriditas's behaviors, as witness the recent WP:ANI/3RR thread. (I said "are" but maybe I should have said "There were many others." Where are they? They don't care about the probationary status, apparently.) Ironically, in that complaint, I myself expressed an opinion that since Veriditas had not gone over 3rr, he should escape any conceivable sanction there. (Why should Viriditas restrict himself to less than 3rr unilaterally? Such strictures really shouldn't be imposed only 1-way, in my opinion.) ↜Just M E here , now 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I actually realized that he is very very good. The reason he wasn't in violation of 3RR in the last report was that in his three edits within 8 hours he inserted "White House Meeting", "White House Invitation and Meeting", and "White House Invitation". It would be comic if it wasn't wasting everyone's time! Manyanswer ( talk) 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Um, What? -- Jayron 32 05:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Jayron32, A splash of this conversation over on Manyanswer's talkpage made it over to here. Sorry. ↜Just M E here , now 12:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

It would be good if you could post request on Wiki help desk we can get more feedback on the article then. I too will try to get more valuable references and edit the article. Will let you know if some editing carried out.

Thank you

-- Peswriter ( talk) 05:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I hope you have put my writeup on Wikipedia:Help Desk for other editors to give there feedback. I have not received any opinion from other writers. Please provide me with pointers to make the page eligible for publication.

Thank you

-- Peswriter ( talk) 10:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply

It's your page. You know what you want, so YOU should be the one to ask for help at the help desk. It's great to do things on your own. -- Jayron 32 03:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

i did as you surgested and put the black country connection back into the reference section of the black country page there looks like two alteration have happend one by mcgeddon which looks like he removed hurricane 1973 post and one by an ip address 62.30.108.112 but the connection is no longer there so im no the wiser as who deleted it any assisted or advice would be appreciated as im a novice when it comes to wikiapedia

thankyou peterjd 13/8/09 Peterjd ( talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply

IP continues to remove WHOIS template after you left your message to him. Please see history. Momo san ^Gespräch 02:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Well aware. See WP:AN. SOmeone uninvolved need to block him. This is beyond rediculous. -- Jayron 32 03:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah I happened to find it after I wrote this. Thanks. Momo san ^Gespräch 03:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your suggestion for putting a cleanup tag, such as {{ POV}}, AND simultaneously start a thread on the article's talk page explaining my concerns on Nair discussion page. However, as foretold by you I already feel like you are King Cnut ordering the tides to stop coming in. Users have already deleted those tags promptly, and in discussion page I have been told that those pages will be maintained themselves and don't want anybody else to interfere. I have put back those tags, but I request you to intervene and see to that those tags remain until issues are verified in a neutral manner.Failing which Wikipedia will become a forum where all try to boast that mine is the biggest. The discussions and articles pages for Nair are turning into poor copy of a blog (It also looks like some users may be socket puppets). Regards Sarvagyana guru ( talk) 03:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I wanted your advice on taking the User:Peswriter/Softdel page live on wiki. Please guide me.

Thank you

-- Peswriter ( talk) 10:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I have made some changes in the write-up User:Peswriter/Softdel. Please give feedback. I will be taking the article live in some days.

Thank you

-- Peswriter ( talk) 06:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The repeat IP vandal is after the article on Claudia Palacios again, having struck four times after the second successive three-month protection was lifted. As you may recall, this IP vandal inserts references to irritable bowel syndrome. I think another three-month or longer protection might be justified. Jhw57 ( talk) 12:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, its been a little slow still. I still think we can leave it unprotected for now. Looking at the history, the article has only been vandalized 4 times since protection expired in May. That's 4 times in over 3 months. I think we can keep up with it! When it becomes unstoppable, we can return protection. I have the article watched myself, and we can all just revert the problems. I can keep up with reverting one vandalism every 3-4 weeks... -- Jayron 32 17:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I just reverted another instance of this vandalism, so the vandal has been back three times in the last month now, an average of every ten days. Don't know whether that's enough to warrant protection again, but one thing seems clear -- this same vandal has been attacking this page with the same IBS references for years now, and just comes back when protection is lifted. Jhw57 ( talk) 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I think I'm getting weary as well. I think indef semi protection is called for... -- Jayron 32 15:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I keep updating my Disambiguation page for my name and it keeps getting deleted. You did it a few minutes ago. Why are you doing this and how can I improve my post so you and your peers stop deleting me?

You left me a message that a person shouldn't post an article about themselves. How do you know who I am? As for the legitimacy of my post, again I ask, how do You know? I work for the biggest radio station in America and I would like to show up in a search. If someone else posts the exact same listing is that ok? I want to do this right.

Thank you for your help

96.242.190.19 ( talk) 02:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

96.242.190.19 ( talk) 02:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I am not getting the method to make the subpage User:Peswriter/Softdel live. Please tell me the steps to make it live on wikipedia.

Thank you for your guidance

-- Peswriter ( talk) 07:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thankyou for your warning yesterday, that was all I needed.. As for my reason for being uncivil I think you can see the reason. If not see User:Huldra and the link. I tried to help her and her project in good faith and spend many hard hours working yesterday so to see that article she posted about me, you understand... I rarely lose my temper with somebody like that but I treat others as they treat me... BTW is it is also acceptable to have that link to an attack forum? I know that personal attacks are not permitted on here but providing that link on wikipedia is creating about as much of a personal attack and invitation to unleash wounds at me as it can get. Isn't there a policy against external links to offensive attack pages? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Probably. I am glad you have calmed down, I think what is for the best it to let the whole thing drop and move on. -- Jayron 32 17:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Thanks Jayron for putting the page. Can we change the heading "Softdel system" to "Softdel System" the system with an capital 'S'. Can you guide me through it.

Thank you for all your help

-- Peswriter ( talk) 06:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey I was able to change it to capital S thanks a lot for all your help

-- Peswriter ( talk) 06:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32. Well, it was really for a combination of both incivility and Vandalism. Check out this user's talk page history and their contribs. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

User:MR KennedyDX seems to also have been harassing User:Artichoker - see this and Artichoker's talk page history - FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hmmmm...Fair enough - would you like to do the honors? - FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, scratch that - you may want to see this - FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

While doing a Google search for 'Softdel' why the wiki page link is shown as 'User:Peswriter/softdel' instead of 'SoftDEL systems - wikipedia page'.

-- Peswriter ( talk) 07:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Ciao and thanks a lot !-- Santasa99 ( talk) 17:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I am a little rashly concluded that I have no more questions, but I have.

1. What happened with my user page content - infoboxes, txt, etc. ?

2. Other accounts Umagli, SabeSabe and ZmajeviOdBosne are still blocked, should I apply for every single one for unblocking or admin and/or you simply forget to unblock these other accounts (I assume that we reached agreement that my family can keep the accounts with the adequate labeling ( WP:FAMILY, WP:SOCK), and operating ina acordance of rules and guidelines such as "Using multiple accounts" or "Alternative account" with "Alternative account notification"?

Thank you.-- Santasa99 ( talk) 17:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No problems, thanks a lot, again, you have been of great halp. Ciao and take care.-- Santasa99 ( talk) 21:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for answering my question about editing semi-protected pages. Youknow009 ( talk) 21:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

The IP i suspected as a sock of SpaceFlight89 is his IP I believe. There is no one who reverts more of my edits to anyone than him. SpaceFlight89 was just on that page welcoming the user and when I wished the user luck...the ip reverted it and called me a troll, so there is no doubt in my mind he is a sock.( Zaxby ( talk) 13:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)) reply

If that is the case, please file a report at WP:SPI. Also, being accidentally logged out while editing does not mean that one is in violation of WP:SOCK. -- Jayron 32 16:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

That IP from California is not mine. I don't live in the United States. — SpaceFlight89 16:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't really care. Take it up at the WP:AN report or otherwhere. My talk page is not the place for the two of you to carry on this discussion. -- Jayron 32 16:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC) reply

... thanks for the backup, and taking over at that ANI thread this morning (my timezone). Appreciate the help. ;) — Ched :  ?  00:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No problem. -- Jayron 32 04:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Rgowran continues to add this section to Jack Van Impe. Willking1979, myself and admin OlEnglish tried to explain it to the user that is needed sources, probably violated BLP and NPOV among other things on Willking1979's talk page. The user readded the section and it is now an ongoing discussion on my talk page. Could you have a look at the situation, the comments, and maybe add your own? Maybe if he hears something from an admin he will accept it. Thanks! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

If you need help from an admin, you should go to WP:ANI and ask for such help. I may or may not comment there if the topic catches my interest, but if you really need admin help, then you should give the opportunity for a full public review of the situation, and not just my opinion. -- Jayron 32 06:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Okie DOkie...just grabbed the first admin I seen on my watchlist :) Taking it to ANI. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

In case you want to comment, the ANI thread is here. User has been notified as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

It's a shame I never got to find out who he thinks the toughest judge is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Milomedes ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

That guy Milomedes had been on the system since May of 2005, with no previous blocks. I'm just wondering how he managed to get himself indef'd over such an easily fixable screwup. Maybe there's a lesson in there somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, the lesson is, don't threaten to take people to court and then force them to reveal their usernames. He managed to violate WP:NLT and WP:OUTING within the span of a single sentence. He was also given ample opportunity to retract his threats, and rather than do so, he repeatedly stood by them. He was given MORE than enough opportunity to stop his disruption, and he did not. -- Jayron 32 15:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

As he's a redlink despite being registered 4 1/2 years ago, I suspect we have not seen the last of him. So who is the "toughest judge" on ANI? Or are all the others tied for first place? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Please... I am FAR from the toughest admin around here. I frequently advocate for more lenience in certain things. See the discussion at AN on Username Blocks, for example. However, some stuff is just too eggregious to let stand. Threatening to take people to court over a Wikipedia dispute is beyond the pale. What is shocking is that it took someone almost a day to do so; as the comment right before I blocked indicates, that such a threat was allowed to stand for so long, even in the face of refusing to retract it. -- Jayron 32 15:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I just wonder who he thought was the toughest, if he thought I was "only" the "second toughest". He also claimed he and I had had some positive discussion somewhere, but he didn't provide a diff, I don't remember every user I've ever run across, and regardless, legal threats, or anything looking like legal threats, have to be deal with immediately and firmly. I'm not an admin, or I would have indef'd him in a New York second. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC) reply

While I certainly was expressing frustration, that was not the intent of the post. I believe that there are important issues that were raised with regard to one very important policy, and I regret the fact that they'll not be considered as you have collapsed the post. I urge to to reconsider your evaluation; if it is possible to remove any parts you believe to be completely unconstructive while leaving the rest, I would not object to your refactoring it. user:J aka justen ( talk) 17:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You're right, that was a difficult AfD to close, but I think you called it correctly. Thanks for putting an owlish eyeball on it. Binksternet ( talk) 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey,

The page SoftDEL Systems has been marked as an advertisement page and put up for speedy deletion. Please guide me as how to remove it from this. The contributor has marked the page heading {{ advert}}.

Who will be removing the {{ advert}} from my page am i allowed to do it or the contributor only should do it? Please help me with this matter. I will make changes and try to get the article in neutral context.

-- Peswriter ( talk) 05:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Thanx a lot Jayron. Please feel free to give any feedback regarding the page in future.

Thank a bunch

-- Peswriter ( talk) 06:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron,

The other day you posted a response to my query as to how to change the name of the son of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. (the current publisher of the New York Times) from Arthur Gregg Sulzberger III to just plain Arthur Gregg Sulzberger. So I posted an {{edit semiprotected}} comment on the talk page for the father and so far no editor has done anything with it. The father is still alive (as of course is the son) so the normal editing conventions don't apply. How do I get an editor to make the change? Or more to the point, since you ARE an editor, can you make the change? I included a reference for my proposed change along with the change itself which you will find on the Talk page for the article. As a new user of Wikipedia I must confess that the intricacies of this project are eluding me! Thanks! Hydrangean ( talk) 09:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Hydrangean reply

Just wanted to bring to your attention an issue stemming from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of honorific titles in popular music (2nd nomination). Five of the "keep" participants in that lengthy article debate have showed up here: Nishkid64 checkuser. Whether that would have any bearing on the outcome for the Honorific Titles I cannot speak to as I am not familiar with that article debate. But the votes of those sock accounts have compromised a more recent AfD discussion and their votes have been struck from that debate. Just thought you would like to know. The Real Libs- speak politely 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Those particular socks did not have any real bearing on the close decision. The strength of the arguements of long established users meant those votes didn't even show up on my radar when I was closing it. I really didn't even notice their votes one way or the other until you made me look back again. But thanks for the heads up. I reviewed the AFD in question, and my decision would have been exactly the same regardless. -- Jayron 32 02:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

... [2] but surely you knew it was doomed to fail? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Giano and Bishonen are just going to show up and scream at everyone, and there's going to be lots of bad blood, and everyone is going to waste a TON of time. It would be nice if once every 4-5 weeks this didn't happen. -- Jayron 32 19:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, my heart sunk when I saw that Giano was notified of the thread... -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I have counseled Bikelites ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with respect to conflict of interest and reduced his block to one month. Fred Talk 01:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Good deal! -- Jayron 32 18:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I hate to say it, but um.. especially the Larry PRetlow article, did you read the edit summary that it was repeatedly recreated material? If you want it to go to AFD, sure, but there's no nontrivial mentions of notability with a RS in any of those articles. SirFozzie ( talk) 04:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC) reply

As it been AFDed before? I could find no record of former AFDs, and "repeatedly recreated" only applies for articles which have been through AFD. -- Jayron 32 03:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, and the lack of reliable sources does not qualify for A7. If an article is to be deleted via A7, it literally has to make no "claims of importance". Things like "Billy is the coolest kid ever" and shit like that. Being heavily referenced as this one is, the references need to be properly vetted before deciding that it isn't notable. A single admin is not in a position to make that call, it should be done via AFD. -- Jayron 32 03:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -- Lambiam 11:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Awarded in recognition of your help with a disruptive editor on the Karl Rove page last month; many thanks! Also, extra special thanks for taking the time to admonish said editor for statements that you correctly judged "untrue": his claim to be removing unsourced material. Jusdafax ( talk) 17:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! -- Jayron 32 18:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Jayron,

Just letting you know I updated the I-540 map for North Carolina for the new routing. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

25or6to4 ( talk) 06:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Grassy ass! -- Jayron 32 13:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC) reply

From an editor to a sysop, what should I do here? Should I drop the whole thing? Cause User:Delicious carbuncle has taken me to AN3 for reverting the edits (mostly I believe because I defended User:Allstarecho in one of there blowouts, but I can't confirm that) and I would really like to watch TV (don't want to leave this unresolved). What should I do? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Look, I learned from my mistakes the last time this came up. Should he remove the WHOIS template? Probably not. However, your response has been all out of whack with it. Ultimately, there is no large harm if he removes it. Consensus last time was that we acted inappropriately, which is why I haven't pressed the issue since then. Just let the whole thing drop. Go watch TV and take a chill for a day or so. I daresay, even if you didn't, at this point you are likely going to be forced to. -- Jayron 32 05:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Probably. I do think you and I before and myself now are acting in the right, but the brickwall is there and it is hell to climb. I will mark it resolved and move on. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, like I said, he should not be removing the WHOIS template. However, sometimes its better to let someone "break a rule" than to go all nuts in "enforcing" it; at some level the enforcement becomes more heinous than the original broken rule. Sometimes, its just better to let it slide... I think this is becoming one of those cases. Or rather, became one of those cases about 25 reverts ago. Sometimes you can be right, and still be wrong, you know? -- Jayron 32 05:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

True. I have (maybe an overstep) removed the template myself (mostly out of anger), marked the ANI thread and collapsed it, notified the two users in question (DC and Izzedine) and something that was a long time coming, marked myself as retired. This issue just pushed me over and I don't think Wiki is for me anymore. I appreciate your help on this issue and look forward to seeing you around the internet. Take Care... NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Take a few days to catch your breath, and come on back. "Taking my ball and going home" is rarely a productive stance, and your contributions to Wikipedia are much appreciated. Just try not to take it all so seriously... -- Jayron 32 05:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Quite right, actually, though I note that WP:BLOCKBANDIFF identifies the likelihood of a talk page ban as a distinction between a ban and a block. Still, you're correct that my stated rationale was not in and of itself sufficient. Accordingly, I'll add to that "Abuse of talk page to announce intention to persist, after the expiration of the ban, in the behaviour that got him banned". Steve Smith ( talk) 12:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC) reply

All good man, I just wanted to make sure, especially in high-profile cases such as this, that we "cross our t's and dot our i's". Any slip-ups tend to cause unneccessary drama. -- Jayron 32 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I have received the following message on the wiki page

{{dated prod|concern = '''Blatant [[Wikipedia:Spam|advertising]]''', [[WP:CSD#G11]] Spam Article. Multiple Articles created by [[WP:SPA]] account. Advertisement, Self-promotion, Spam, Non Notable|month = September|day = 12|year = 2009|time = 16:10|timestamp = 20090912161003}} <!-- Do not use the "dated prod" template directly; the above line is generated by "subst:prod|reason" -->

Please help me. It is up for deletion in 7 days

-- Peswriter ( talk) 06:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,

Thanks a lot Jayron. Please do edit the page when you get time. I will also try to work on it.

Thanks a bunch

-- Peswriter ( talk) 10:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

are you an admin? Accdude92 ( talk) ( sign) 13:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes. -- Jayron 32 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

You're signature looks different, it's unnerving to see something change after such a long while ;) And no, this post doesn't really have a point. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |  Chat  20:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

OK. Nice to hear from ya... Till next time... -- Jayron 32 20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Haha, sorry to come across as slightly bizarre there. Just a thought. Regards, --— Cyclonenim |  Chat  21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It's all good. -- Jayron 32 21:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I probably should have acknowledged you. I noticed no one was responding to this person and I looked for the same question and a good response. Yeah, make it a template. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll do the template. I did one before. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Vchimpanzee/Template:Photo; you can call it Template:PhotoJayron32 if you want, or whoever approves these things can. I don't want to just add a template and say here. Especially since you wrote it. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

No one approves anything. Just move it to the mainspace under a name like Template:HDPhoto or something like that, and make an announcement on the Help Desk talk page. I don't need it named after me or anything. I really don't need to take credit. Just go ahead and move it yourself. If you need any help doing that, let me know... -- Jayron 32 01:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I knew it wasn't a formal approval process, but I didn't think I should just impose it on anyone. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I was told there were a couple of existing templates. I knew there might be. I guess mine didn't get "official" status. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

(I am cross-posting this to User talk:Protonk and User talk:Jayron32, because both editors raised similar concerns.)

Since this is a case of invoking WP:WAX, I decided to take this to your talk page, rather than further cluttering the AFD discussion.

The problem with blogs (and personal websites) is that they tend not to get a lot of coverage by mainstream media (aka "reliable sources"), and zombietime is no different than others. Oftentimes, coverage of blogs is not on the blog itself, but rather on a controversy kicked up by the blog. Take for example Americablog or Raising Kaine or Citizen Kate or Leonardo's Notebook or Politicalbetting.com, several of which have absolutely no significant coverage of the sites themselves. Americablog, in particular, set off two firestorms with its revelation of Jeff Gannon's previous career and the revelation that phone records could be easily purchased (re:Wesley Clark), but the coverage of the incidents never addressed the blog itself, only the controversies. If I were to run Americablog through AFD, would you participate in the discussion, and what would your recommendation? This is not me being POINTy, it's an honest question, because there are a lot of really crufty blog articles out there, and this one at least has significant coverage by real news sources, rather than self-references, blogs of dubious provenance, and dead links to god-knows-what. Horologium (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

If I saw an AFD of a similar blog with a similar level of coverage, I would make the same vote with the same rationale. The compelling issue for me in any vote at AFD is the existance, or lack thereof, of reliable sources... -- Jayron 32 15:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Americablog has been through AFD once before; it was a no consensus (default to keep), because of "significant media coverage", yet the citations provided by DHartung (who is very good with finding appropriate cites) don't discuss Americablog the site; they discuss the reactions to Americablog's posts about Gannon and Clark's phone records. (The citations in the article are no better, and a couple are mere mentions; none discuss the blog itself.) I'm failing to see how the two articles differ. (Both articles are crap, but the zombietime article is the one that is currently up for deletion. I will likely be sending all five of the blogs I mentioned through AFD over the next week, if this article is deleted. If it's a no-consensus or a keep, I won't bother. although the last four are really not notable enough. I've already tagged another one for speedy delete, and merged yet another.) Horologium (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. A while back I worked on the article Major League Baseball, passed it as a GA, then had a peer review. In your review you said you would be willing to help promote it to FA status. Would you still be willing to do that? I still have interest in making the article an FA, but I cannot work on it alone. Please let me know.-- LAA Fan ^sign _review 18:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure, I can help out where needed. Just let me know when and what sorts of things you need done. It will be nice to have something to work on! -- Jayron 32 22:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC) reply

This new article popped up on my watchlist so I think it's a recreation of deleted material. There may also be BLP issues. Also, the sustainability talk page is pretty heated and could use a good mediator. Some edits are getting removed too, FYI. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 05:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done. Deleted per WP:CSD#G4 and salted. -- Jayron 32 15:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. What did you think of the feuding at sustainability? Some of the comments and comment removals seem troublesome to me. I think a warning to all parties to focus on content and to get outside input if there is a dispute would be helpful. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Sounds like a good idea to me. -- Jayron 32 20:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I had been in a dispute with one of the editors there, so I didn't want to get involved. But I went ahead and left a note. Hopefully my reputation for fairness and good judgment will inspire them to do their best to work collegially and collaboratively. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

m (21,355 bytes) (Protected The Game (U.S. TV series): Excessive vandalism: and repeated edit warring by IP hopping user who refuses to discuss edits on talk page. ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 03:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 0)

jay:what you have cited in your summary is not correct.I have been discussing edits on talk page. I have acquiesced (by having both the aol and tvguide links) but pink/wild have not(only want tvguide links, should I accuse them of being matt?).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.122.230 ( talk • contribs) 70.108.122.230 ( talk) 11:55, 23 September 2009 70.108.122.230 (UTC)

Merely using the talk page does not give you carte blanche to repeatedly add the same information over and over. Achieve consensus first, and if that cannot be done, then ask for help using one of the methods described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. It is not acceptable to repeatedly revert an article back to your prefered state, even if you do use talk pages. -- Jayron 32 15:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I posted on the talk page in order to achieve consenus. Pink didnt reply and kept reverting. I again posted a second section on the talk page,and pink did reply but still kept reverting. So if neither of us should have been reverting, please tell this to pink and his/her meatpuppet wild. Pink/wild then had the page locked, of course to their version. Consensus still has not been reached. The source (AOL Black Voices) was deemed fine as it is a AOL entertainment site on African-American celebrities. It is backed by AOL Time Warner so the articles posted their aren't rumours, they are credible, as AOLTW could be sued for libel. 70.108.59.145 ( talk) 00:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, their objections are to the reliability of the source material. Blogs are generally not reliable sources of information, regardless of who hosts them, so the crux of their challenge is correct. If you can find a more reliable source than a blog, you will only strengthen your arguement. Having a source is not the issue, it is having a reliable source. I must say that substantively, I agree with those two as to the reliability of the source in question. -- Jayron 32 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Those two are erroneously calling it a blog to prove their point. It is an entertainment columb, it is not hosted on AOL, it is part of AOL entertainment. Yes comments are allowed, jsut as ausielle/malkin allow comments. Just as ausiello/malkin's columns(one which is even called 'blog') are part of ew/eonline. On the RS board they said the source is fine. 70.108.92.28 ( talk) 12:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Trying to link mentions of the Creator album on main The Lemonheads page (and elsewhere) to the excellent "Creator_(Lemonheads_album)" page you created...unfortunately, the nature of the page title (w/parens and underscores) had me flummoxed as to how to seamlessly incorporate the name as a link within the text in the usual [[ fashion. (I know this is prolly a silly newbie issue of knowing the right script, so I apologize for coming to you with it...just figured since you started the page, I should ask you first! :-) Thank much, Withnail68 ( talk) 15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey Jayron32. I'm considering starting a new category ("theft in film" or something similar) I think it could be a very useful category to have on Wikipedia, even more so considering that Wikipedia is used by many as a research website and without even thinking, I can already think of several films that could be included in such a category. Before I start it however, I thought it wise to get a second opinion in case my view isn't shared. Your thoughts? Thanks,-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you need to carefully define your category. What sorts of film are we talking about here. Do you mean ANY film that features ANY theft at all? That may be to unreasonably wide a net to cast. Do you mean films primarily about theft, like The Italian Job or The Thomas Crown Affair or Oceans Eleven? Do you mean films that were themselves stolen, like if someone broke into a studio and walked off with all of the master reels? Before deciding on a name for the new category, you need to carefully consider the list of films that will be in the category, and then carefully choose a name that will guide people to the right idea, and not lead them astray. -- Jayron 32 01:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, how about "Films with thief main antagonists"? The main villians in the films are thieves and theft is a major theme in the film. For example, the Home Alone film series, Dennis the Menace (film) ...-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I;m not sure I have any better ideas, so you may want to bring in other people. Maybe ask at the Help Desk or WP:EAR. -- Jayron 32 02:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I might ask for a third opinion. Thank you for your time.-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It appears that my block was in error and I've now unblocked them. I think I've removed all the IP autoblocks as well but the system has changed since I last dealt with autoblocks and so I'm not 100% confident of this. Feel free to remove any that I missed (and drop me a note on my talk page if there is something obvious I've done wrong/overlooked). See User talk:Nono64 for more. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

<3. Lara 02:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

XXXOOO back atcha! BTW, there is some interesting reading at this page. You may find some things worthy of commenting on. -- Jayron 32 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your attention to the Coughlin notice. I don't know how you do this every day. I can't tell who's real and who's not on here. " JamesRenner ( talk) 02:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)" reply

What's real? Maybe you are just imagining me... -- Jayron 32 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

hi why i'm blocked User talk:Sm3a 08:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Now might be a good time to fire up that WP:NODRAMA thing again. Just a thought. — Ched :  ?  15:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I finally got back to doing some article work yesterday. I agree with you Ched, the feuding is a bit much. I would love it if Admins did more mediation and less drama enducing and civility undermining enforcement. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

"Apparently it wasn't so agreeable or uncontentious, since people were still objecting to them. You need to resolve objections on the article talk pages before doing the same edits over again."

Hi, I was blocked for 36 hours recently for attempting to make changes to the acupuncture page and violating the 3RR rule and have since been unblocked. I wanted to see what course of action I can take if I want to make changes to the article. Basically, there are huge problems with sourcing in the article. For example, one decade-old source used for a certain statement on that page doesn't even support the statement. This of course makes it a bad source. To me, this seems like a pretty uncontroversial edit, but it is apparently not. My dilemma is this:

I want to remove this source for the statement. However, it will be (and has been) reverted by one or more from a small group of editors who monitor the page heavily and happen to have biases against alternative medicine in general, gauging from their previous discussions on the talk page and on my user talk page. As suggested, I have tried to resolve objections on the article talk page, but very few are responding on the article talk page. Previously, I have written on the user talk pages of the editors who have reverted by edits, but most have not responded and would continue to revert the edit. They would then cite the 3RR rule and warn me, yet they would refuse to discuss the matter on the discussion page! On my own user talk page, I had argued with a few of them before I got banned, but they have stopped responding without conclduing their arguments or proving me wrong. If you wish to see an example, please read the argument between me and Brangifer, which ends with him not responding.

So what can one do? I can't edit it because I will violate 3RR in an edit war. I cannot use the discussion page because no one is responding. I cannot use user talk pages because I rarely get a response. Even for simple, seemingly uncontroversial edits, I am getting reverted. These editors have the numbers to not get flagged for violating 3RR while they do not discuss the issue at hand. What can one do then, if I don't have the numbers to make the changes necessary? 99.255.196.199 ( talk) 02:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Some places you can go to get help: The reliable sources noticeboard for getting other editors to review sources. The content noticeboard, for general help with article content. Third opinion noticeboard to being in outside editors to resolve a dispute. Request for comment for the same. Editor assistance request, yet again another place to get help from outside editors. There are MANY options you have for getting someone uninvolved to come in and review a situation. Explain why you think a source is wrong or being misrepresented, ask for others to comment at the article talk page, and see what happens. There are MANY options before you get to edit warring, and once you have several other editors who agree with you, it is much more likely that you can establish consensus. -- Jayron 32 04:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Let's not forget WP:MEDRS. This is a medical subject, and thus that is a very good spot to get second opinions. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

(involved) Just a quick note that WP:Third opinion only deals with disputes including exactly two editors, and Wikiproject Alternative medicine is another good place to look for assistance in these sorts of articles. Thanks for the breath of fresh air, Jayron, I will go make sure 99 sees this. - 2/0 ( cont.) 05:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Stop swearing in a heated personal manner, as it comes in under precisely the head that the npa templates are called for, and for which I'd use the second level right now, except you'd prefer to be communicated with in prose. Fifelfoo ( talk) 06:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your concern here. If it bothers you that I swear, I will refrain from doing so while in communication with you. If you would like to discuss the appropriate use of "swear words", especially in places where they are used for emphasis or to grab ones attention, I think that could be an enlightening discussion. I am not sure that every time a swear word is used, it should be considered a personal attack. A more nuanced understanding of the WP:NPA policy may lead to less conflict, especially noting the distinction between non-directed swear words, like "fuck" and non-swearing, but still personal attack, like calling someone names or making statements about their character (calling them a liar or something like that). The use of obscenities, in and of themselves, isn't really a personal attack. If you could let me know exactly how my use of the word "fuck" or "fucking" was directed at a person, in such a way as to attack them, then perhaps I could avoid such usages in the future, so as to avoid embarassment or misunderstanding, that would be most appreciated. -- Jayron 32 06:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think the key to effective encyclopedic swearing is to stick to characterising external sources, 'the introduction to the black book of communism is a shitty source,' or the positive emphatic, 'that was a fucking great edit,' and to steer clear of swearing when discussing process, other editor, collegiality or engagement. I've been bitten recently by right wing Americans over just this issue and its helped clarify for me that my dialectical english can cause unnecessary tension between editors due to language use differences. As far as specific words to avoid, thats not the issue. On the other hand there are encyclopedic attacks on character that are fine: tendentious, obstructing, hostile. Fifelfoo ( talk) 06:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

So long as the attacks are directed at the editing, "This user engages is tendentious editing" is MUCH different than "This user is a tendentious editor." Its a key difference in interpersonal relations, and has a far different impact on people when you discuss their behavior (which implies that such actions can be corrected) than when you discuss them as a person (which implies characteristics that are a part of them, and are inseperable from them as a person). It's an important distinction to make, and yet MANY editors fail to see the difference, which is why they are constantly involved in conflicts. There is a HUGE difference between "John Doe is saying something that isn't true here" versus "John Doe is a liar." Its the same with swearing. Using a swear word in a moment of conflict is sometimes called for, so long as the swear word is not directed. "That's a fucking rediculous idea" vs. "fuck you for thinking of that idea" again are FAR different things. -- Jayron 32 12:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I had to think about this reply pretty hard, especially since you'll likely perceive this as some sort of whining. It's interesting, because I've never been on this side of the equation before. I just wanted to say that your comments may have been substantively correct but were way, way off target. It's obvious that you're either not actually familiar with the situation or that your perception is somehow compromised. I'm not sure what the actual case is, but I'm not that interested either. I was encouraged by others to get involved in this, but I see now why it's so problematic... this stuff simply isn't worth my time though, that's for sure. Feel free to mark the ANI thread as resolved or whatever, as I've removed all of the Wikipedia: pages from my watchlist. I thought hard about simply not saying anything, but that seems...rude, somehow. So yea, I'm "taking my ball and going home", but... well, like I said this isn't worth my time. It's just a policy document, anyway.
— V = I * R ( talk to Ω) 06:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I am curious as to how I am off target. As I stated, you may have been right, but your approach was making it hard to accomplish what you wanted to accomplish. If you can help me see where I screwed up in my assessment of the situation, I can alter my approach so as to be more useful. I am perplexed by the general condemnation against my comments without any specific ways I went wrong. I cannot improve if I don't know where I went wrong! -- Jayron 32 23:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I would be interested to know what I did that made "it hard to accomplish what you wanted to accomplish". The way that you were off target was in your accusations of my behavior, which were completely untrue as far as I could tell. If your perception was somehow legitemately different I would love to read an explaination of how.
— V = I * R ( talk to Ω) 03:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Look, the issue here is that, while you are right about the page probably being more properly a guideline than a policy page, the problem was that you never sought out additional eyes. You took it upon yourself to make the change, but then when it was reverted, you never sought outside consensus. The proper way to deal with a conflict of the nature you found yourself in is to immediately find interested, but uninvolved, editors to come in and weigh in with their opinions. That's all I was ever saying at ANI, and you seemed to feel like that was some sort of attack against your character or something?!? I have no idea why the notion of seeking outside opinions would somehow be a bad thing. I just don't. You're going to have to explain why, when I came up with that idea, you fought it so vehemently. -- Jayron 32 03:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree that seeking outside opinions is a good thing, which is something that I was in the process of doing. You decided to take what the reported users said at face value and blow my behavior up into completely baseless accusations of edit warring and assumptions of Bad Faith on my part, which is where I (rightfully, in my view obviously) "took it personally". If you had actually looked into the situation then you wouldn't have suggested what you did in your last couple of ANI replies, especially since the ANI report had absolutely nothing to do with the dispute where the incidents occurred! That ANI report was about the behavior of others, and you allowed yourself to be manipulated into treating it as dispute resolution. In my eyes, quite frankly, you look like a fool. Since you have the power to sanction me however, I certainly was not about to say anything publicly (unlike certain other parties in this incident)... So, you "win".
— V = I * R ( talk to Ω) 04:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I wasn't particularly trying to win. I am sorry that you apparently were. -- Jayron 32 05:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Wow, that's your reply? Seriously? ...I'm literally agape right now! unbelievable. Anyway, no problem. Thanks for validating my decision, at least. Have fun with Wikipedia.
— V = I * R ( talk to Ω) 05:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, the IP vandalism I reported a week ago on AIV has returned to this article. Again the single sentence about Mortensen having wed a certain NC librarian was posted. I'd like to request semi-protection for this article. Regards, De728631 ( talk) 18:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

User(s) blocked.. I was able to see that all vandalism of this type from the past year or so came from two IP ranges: 204.84.96.0/24 and 69.77.136.0/24. I rangeblocked both. That should catch them without protecting the article. If the problem continues, please let me know and we will try a new tactic. Thanks for the heads up. -- Jayron 32 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you too. De728631 ( talk) 19:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I noticed your comment here because it immediately followed mine, and I was hoping to engage with you a bit about it if you don't mind (if you do, that's cool too). You're not the only person expressing this view, but it does rather bother me and I guess I'd like to try to understand it a bit better (and also argue with it a bit!).

First of all, several editors have mentioned that they knew Law's previous account, and at least one or two have mentioned that this was an "open secret." This will undoubtedly come off as a bit naive, but how exactly did so many people come to know about this? Is it an IRC/e-mail thing? While I was aware of Law as an admin (and thought his behavior to be a bit "off", for lack of a better term) I had no idea he was a re-incarnation of a previous user. Furthermore I don't know that I've ever been party to any "open secret," or indeed any secret remotely akin to this one. I say this not to complain that I've been left out of the "room where they tell secrets"—I really don't care—but because it genuinely surprises me that it could be fairly widely known that a formerly banned user had come back as an admin (again, call me naive, but aside from responding to occasional e-mails I basically say I everything I have to say about Wikipedia on Wikipedia).

What really bothers me though is the nonchalant attitude that some (particularly some admins) are taking to the whole affair. You say with respect to Law that the fact "that others were willing to let him come back "semi-incognito" is not about how untrustworthy we have been, but upon how short-sighted and poorly handled his first desysopping was." But, honestly, who gave you the right to decide that? You might well be right, as I know next to nothing about the original desysopping (I thought the undertow had resigned and asked for the bit to be removed, which maybe did happen earlier though I could be misremembering). But shouldn't the "community" determine whether it was appropriate to let him come back (and be an admin no less), rather than a select group who somehow had knowledge about his previous identity? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, but I find it troubling the way I'm reading it.

This situation comes on the heels of the Eastern European mailing list ArbCom case which also deals with off-wiki communication and some abuse of trust on the part of one or more administrators (admittedly that specific situation is rather different, but there are some general similarities). There seems to be a significant portion of the community that thinks it's perfectly acceptable for decisions to be made in secret off-wiki by like-minded groups of people with access to information that others "on-wiki" do not have. There's also a real issue in my view in terms of perceived corruption, where it at least seems that certain editors (like Law) might get preferential treatment just because they know the right people. I could understand why people would be angry about the situation with Law, admins who knew about him, Casliber, and it seems to me that "meh" is a rather odd reply.

Sorry for this long note completely out of the blue, and I certainly don't mean to single you out or antagonize, but I was a bit flabbergasted by your comment and thought it was worth replying to away from the Sturm und drang of that page. If you're inclined to reply I'd be appreciative. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Not quite the same thing but I noticed you said Law/Undertow has basically been one of our best editors and admins here. However, Law came to my attention for the CoM unblock, which looked like a big mistake. I may have missed the resolution. Do you think that ended criditably for Law? William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC) reply

To Bigtimepeace: On thing that people on Wikipedia are going to have to get over at some point is that occasionally, people on Wikipedia will know each other in real life. This is not necessarily a big conspiracy to defraud the rest of Wikipedia. The emphasis on anonymity at Wikipedia does not mean that knowing editors as real people outside of the Wikipedia world is somehow a black mark against those editors. It seems a strange opinion to hold "They obviously have communicated outside of Wikipedia, so they cannot be trusted." I really don't understand how knowing someone beyond the walls of Wikipedia is something to be avoided at all costs. I mean, there are Wikimeetups all over the world; are those that attend those meetups somehow now under suspicion for some reason? Your arguement seems to imply that the only trustworthy people at Wikipedia are those who never interact with anyone ever.

To William M. Connolley: I will agree 100% on that. I think the COM unblock was a mistake on Laws part. I doubt that any admin, yourself and myself included, has not messed up something once in a while, or undertaken an admin action that, upon hindsight, may have not been the wisest move. Still, on the balance, his article work under both accounts has been impecable. He doesn't get involved in political disputes, he's done great work at DYK, both as an editor and an admin. His unblock of COM was a quite ill advised, but that is a singular problem on an otherwise fairly uneventful history. -- Jayron 32 05:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply