Thank you for owning up to your actions. Do you now recognize the problem you participated in? Will you be wiser in the future and avoid helping friends (or others) to violate policy? Jehochman ^Talk 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I've participated in lots of RfAs and very rarely have I seen candidates asked if they have histories with other accounts on Wikipedia. So it seems strange set up a system where we encourage editors to start over with new identities, don't expect editors to be forthright about their histories, and then point the finger at those who don't disclose "what they know". I'm not even sure it's a good idea to try to prevent editors from getting fresh starts. Why not just focus on rooting out collusion, corruption, and damage to the encyclopedia? I don't see any from the present circumstances, except for all the drahmaz instigated by those looking to settle scores. If there's a policy discussion to be had it should be separate from the present controversy. I am a strong supporter of greater leniency and giving editors a chance to clear their records so there wouldn't be a need for deception or the creating of new identities. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Are you an alternative account of Jayron32? If not, please let him answer the questions himself. Jehochman ^Talk 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply

As I stated, I am neither embarassed nor ashamed of what I did. I do see the consequences of what has happened now. Had I had the forsight to see the problems this has caused, I probably would not have voted in Law's RFA at all. I did what I did at the time in good faith. I thought at the time (and still do today) that Law/Undertow is a good editor and good admin. I think what has happened to him is a symptom of systemic shortcomings, not individual ones. The big problem is that Adminship, contrary to what everyone says, is a BIG DEAL. This is because it is so hard to become an admin. If adminship were easier to get, and easier to take away, like being a rollbacker, then it would not be valued so much, and people would not go through deception to get it. Have you ever heard of anyone going through such lengths to become a rollbacker? No, because if they are good editors, they can get it. If they misuse it, it gets taken away. That's it. If adminship were similar, we would not have these problems. With this current controversy, I fear there will be too much of a push to make adminship EVEN harder to get, which will only lead to even more people using deception to get it. That which is hard to get is valuable, and that which is valuable is worth cheating to get. That is the most disheartening thing about this whole mess, is that it feeds people's desires to turn adminship into even MORE of a reward by making it EVEN MORE difficult to get. WP:NOBIGDEAL is long gone, and it is quickly taking WP:BURO with it. -- Jayron 32 00:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your response. I agree with your views on making adminship easier to get, and easier to take away. We need to deal with the fact that admins don't all have the same level of life experience or cultural norms; what is obvious to one may not be obvious to others. Better professional standards for administrators would help, especially to prevent the appearance of cronyism. Our community is no longer growing, in part because people perceive our power structures to be insular and unfair. Nevertheless, if ArbCom screws up and makes the wrong decision, that needs be appealed and overturned, not subverted by an end run. Unfortunately, that is what happened here, and now there have been consequences. I liked Casliber very much and am quite sorry that he had to resign. Everyone involved needs to take responsibility for their errors and make amends as best they can. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I saw you were in the "looking for adoptees" list. What is involved with getting adopted? Thanks, Shymian ( talk) 07:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, That page is a bit outdated. I am not currently taking on any more adoptees. -- Jayron 32 03:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I've noticed for the longest time that Wikipedia does not have a page on the Foreign TV/movie distrubutor Discotek Media. And I was wondering what the reason for it is. Other Foreign film companies have their own pages except for this one. Was it due to copyright infringement or was there another reason? If I'm allowed to start a page on Discotek Media, I'll be sure to not include any images that might possibly be copyrighted. I hope to hear your answer soon. E-Master ( talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)E-Master reply

You may want to read the notability guideline and the corporation notability guideline. If the company itself does not meet these guidelines, the article is likely to be deleted regardless of the quality of your writing. You should also read Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest. -- Jayron 32 03:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Would you kindly unprotect the Obama article, perhaps first warning people that no further edit warring will be tolerated? Full protection isn't a good way to deal with a very important, heavily edited article, and indefinite protection is unreasonable. I note the article is on probation. If anyone is edit warring you can deal with them quickly under the terms of article probation, but best to keep the article itself free. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 03:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

It's 6 hours. If something major happens in the next six hours that requires updating of the article, we can deal with it then. -- Jayron 32 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, okay. I had mistakenly thought it was indefinite. Cheers, Wikidemon ( talk) 06:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I know that you've been interested in these issues in the past. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron32, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Llancillo Church has been removed. It was removed by Cavrdg with the following edit summary '(Update / de-prod)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Cavrdg before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Clerk courtesy notice: You are a subject of one or more motions being considered by the Arbitration Committee. The motion(s) is/are:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Jayron32_admonished
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Jayron32_desysopped

Sincerely, Manning ( talk) 13:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron 32.

Do you know anything about adding associated acts sections to an infobox. See here. I have been trying on that article but I can't seem to make it show on the table. Any ideas? Thanks.-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, thanks. By the way I just saw this. Are you getting ready to leave?-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Nope. -- Jayron 32 23:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh. I'm just curious as to what it means for you.-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

It means I am tired of various drama, much of which currently is self-inflicted. -- Jayron 32 23:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah, that's understandable. You know, if I didn't enjoy contributing to the encyclopedia as much as I do, I would've left last month. I prefer to work alongside moral editors with commonsense rather than editors who are just here to swim with the drama.-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. I noticed a message from you earlier today saying I should insert the information that I placed on the talk page of this piece. After inserting that information, I noticed that you placed a 'commenting out until resolved.' The information I had inserted – at your suggestion – contained a footnote to the earliest history of Plymouth that I'm aware of. What's to be resolved exactly? Are you questioning whether Plymouth was named after the place in Devon? Or what precisely is your point? I haven't noticed any disagreement on the talk page concerning the derivation of the name. In fact, I was simply responding to a poster who wondered why it wasn't included in the first place. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 03:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

There can be some disagreement on whether the colonists came up with the name, or simply went with a name already on the map thanks to Smith. You'll notice that I said from the beginning that Plymouth was the home of most early adventurers and English explorers, which explains why Smith chose the name in the first place. I'm a bit perturbed that after I posted this to the talk page, you suggested I 'fix it,' as you put it, and then when I did, you simply reverted for discussion. In any case, I don't think your source is the last word, and as far as I'm concerned, the matter is still open to debate. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with your point. Perhaps the two thoughts can be blended. Try a rewrite. I've done many of those in my career. If you need any assistance, let me know. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 03:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I tinkered a bit, but it looks good. Thanks. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 05:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I retinkered as well. The word "delineated" means to "seperate", so I am pretty sure that wasn't what you intended. I changed it to "identified" and added a bit about John Smith, since the source text identifies him by name. -- Jayron 32 05:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The etymology of delineate means 'to define,' or as Webster's would have it, "indicate or represent by drawn or painted lines." [1] Fine to include John Smith, although earlier explorers had also passed by there as well, most notably Bartholomew Gosnold. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 05:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, but it means define in a very specific way; it means to define in such a way as to seperate it by lines. You delineate a territory by drawing its borders, you would identify the location of a settlement. Both delineate and identify mean "to define"; they just mean it in slightly different ways. English words are full of shades of meaning, and it is important to choose the correct word for the situation. -- Jayron 32 05:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, and many explorers besides Smith had explored the area; but none of them named it "New Plymouth". Smith did. -- Jayron 32 05:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I added the exact date of 1614, which was the year of Smith's visit. MarmadukePercy ( talk) 05:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, but he called it "Accomack" in 1614. Sometime between 1614 and 1616 he, in consultation with the future Charles II, changed it to New Plymouth. -- Jayron 32 05:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

No, according to this source [2], "This locality, called by the Indians Accomacke, was named Plymouth by Captain John Smith in 1614 and is so noted on his map of New England presented to Prince Charles." MarmadukePercy ( talk) 06:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

According to a footnote appended to this volume of Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, the map in which John Smith identifies it as "Plimouth" was first published in 1614 to accompany Smith's Description of New England. On later copies of the map, accompanying later texts, "Plimouth' was changed to "New Plimouth," according to a study by scholar Wilberforce Eames, librarian of the Lenox Branch of the New York Public Library. [3] MarmadukePercy ( talk) 06:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Alrighty then. Sounds good. Go with the 1614 then... -- Jayron 32 02:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Jayron32

Your attention is brought to the text of a motion passed by the Arbitration Committee on 11 October 2009.

• Jayron32 admonished: Jayron32 ( talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for having knowingly promoted the request for adminship of an editor he knew was using an undisclosed alternate account. He was aware that knowledge of the former account's history would materially affect the request, and displayed poor judgment by failing to disclose that information along with his support.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning ( talk) 16:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Jayron32 exonerated: Jayron32 ( talk · contribs) is quaintly exonerated for having unknowingly helped others who return the favor with artistic synchronicity :p

This edit must certainly be Jayron32's most fatalistic edit of his career and I'll tell you why. For starters [4], I have used solely Wikipedia and MIT OCW and MCAT prepbooks to prepare for the MCAT which I'll be taking on the 30th of January. I plug Wikipedia all the time to people and tell them that the math/science articles have fewer errata than most every one of my purchased study materials; and, making an edit that explains a concept in slightly better wording is the most awesome way to learn! I was visiting (i.e. getting lured into chatterboxing or following links to the usual gossip) at Caspian blue's talk page where I just faintly recalled that Jayron32 was a positive user. I went back and hunted the edit, which was serendipitously an MCAT Fluids question that has became one of my strongest subjects of Physics. This story will make Jayron32's day when he learns that I pwned a somewhat-cocky, egocentric "gunner" who needed a lesson in humility (and kepting begging and wouldn't let it go) and it's that good feeling of why we're all Wikipedians! We're the ones who "retreat" from the real world and actually do something we think is important, and look down upon people who are uncaring, ingenuine "successful" people. Here is me deheading (he put his neck under the guillotine and hoisted the blade so it's his fault, a little bit mine) the alpha-male hippo at the hangout waters of most premed over-achievers. I think everyone here (except those who overlap at Wikipedia and SDN) can share in mine and Jayron32's (and of course EVERYONE at the ref desk and math/science articles and the creep & cruft and OR fighters! For the Win!) success story, because Wikipedia is working. I have good judgment [5] and I'm not defending Jayron32's actions, but I'm firmly defending his positive intentions. He's truly one of your site's best and one you can't afford to let be lost to discouragement. You can't simply overlook what he did and not impose scorn, but why hasn't someone else jumped in before me to humorously attempt and overturn the good folks at ArbCom (who have put in a lot of work, and I apologize that my argument soundly trounces yours and will make Jayron32 feel the way he should feel, if his heart was in the right place in his seemingly misunderstood actions).

I was going to ramble; but, if anyone is more interested in these uploaded images [6] [7] [8] which I had planned to incorporate into this essay--I got overambitious and was going to copy/paste every link from that last triplet of urls which were planned to elaborately invite my kind, generous attorney-friend into Wikiproject Law who has respectfully declined in advance due to a lack of time--then email me if you enjoy (mainly talking to Jayron32 here because I don't expect my life to be that interesting, it's mostly boring) hearing the most fascinating tale about my friend and me who if I can't get Thomas to join, maybe I can get my friend to! 윤리윤리윤리 ( talk) 08:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I think for your support here? It should be noted, however, that ArbCom did the right thing, I screwed up big-time, and for that I deserved the admonishment of ArbCom. I exhibited a tragic error in judgement in supporting User:Law in his adminship bid when I knew him to be under ArbCom sanctions, and for that I am completely sorry. I count that person as among my friends, but my actions were inexcusable, and that I was only admonished is astonishing to me. I have been crafting a more formal apology for the past week or so off-wiki. I plan to post it on-wiki soon. -- Jayron 32 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, it's moral support. I just think it's amazing that I found out about this from a Korean's talk page and was able to write a relevant message! There's no better feeling than knowing your work here really makes a difference. This is an encyclopedia after all, and knowledge is power. Math & science articles plus the ref desk have certainly empowered me. Thank you, again. 윤리윤리윤리 ( talk) 03:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for helping out the Jess Miller (Wisconsin politician) article- I saw the mistake while doing the article- RFD ( talk) 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

This got me worried for a minute until you edited it a minute later... Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 05:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm leaving Wikipedia forever and I just wanted to say goodbye to a fellow editor who I wish all the best for in their future pursuits on this encyclopedia.-- Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

SOrry to hear that. Good luck, and hope to see you back some day! -- Jayron 32 13:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin ( talk) 08:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello: You locked The Game (US TV series). It was per pink's request until consensus could be reached on info in the article. Yet they are editing the article. The contentious info wasnot agreed upon, yet it is back to their edit. This is unfair. This is why I feel pink had the article locked so just she could edit it. On other disputed aticles changes must first be posted on the talk page, then once all agree, the info is added to the article. Why isnt this the case for TG? 70.108.77.162 ( talk) 12:21, 15 October 2009

colums

My 6Sept & 12 Sep to make 3 colums by changing {div col|cols=2}/{Div col end} to {div col|cols=3}/ {Div col end} was repeatedly reverted. They said I was inferior and using an inferior brower. They reverted to this . Yet on 12 Oct pink edited to this; only to undue it. This too is disputed/contentious, so I thought it too should be agreed upon first on the talk page, then when all agree it is added to the article. 70.108.77.162 ( talk) 13:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The article was not protected because it was disputed. It was protected to stop you from editing the page because you were making changes to the page without making any attempt to discuss the matter. Given that you have never even attempted to explain anything, it was reasonably assumed that you were merely interested in vandalizing the page. Without any explanation from you, and because your edits frequently made changes that no one could understand, it seemed like random vandalism. If this was not the case, you need to explain on the article talk page what you are trying to do, and see if others can help you. -- Jayron 32 15:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Never attemped? Did you look at the talk page. I attempted time and time again. I even posted to noticeboard and they approved the source, yet still pink/wild didnt like it and still reverted. What edits did I make that were not understood? 70.108.77.162 ( talk) 02:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.129.179 ( talk) reply

I replied in Wikipedia:An#Edit filter permission  Chzz   ►  14:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply

FYI - It appears that eithr you have been editing the Raleigh, North Carolina while logged out, or someone else has been using your name in their edit summary. -- Tom N (tcncv)  talk/ contrib 04:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

It was a message to me, not about me. See below. -- Jayron 32 11:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The correct Census department Numbers for Raleigh Metro was there, there is no numbers for Urban yet: see Raleigh, North Carolina (talk page) These are census Number that was in the Metro, Would you kindly unprotect the Raleigh NC and allow the right Metro Numbers to be put in, they are the most resent Census Numbers from 2008 1,088,765 Raleigh-Cary Metropolitan Statistical Area. I did what you ask me to, If you have access to the census department numbers, and can fix this, please do. --Jayron32 (Raleigh talk page). AgnosticPreachersKid continue to put in the Combined Statistical Area numbers in the Metro spot which is wrong. I have no problem asking for re-protection once the right numbers are in place. Also I only used your name in editing to show your approval of me putting the right information Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas in Raleigh Metro Slot as per Raleigh, North Carolina (talk page} Thank You 67.197.178.141 ( talk) 06:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Please discuss the matter at the article talk page, and provide links to the out-of-wikipedia sources you are using. If you can convince everyone of the truth of your position, you are likely to get the article unprotected. -- Jayron 32 11:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I've quoted you in this context (favourably, I think, since I say I agree with you) and thought you should be aware of it. Feel free to comment or not, favourably or unfavourably, as the spirit moves you. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

This appears to be from a set of abused IPs (spambots... almost certainly OPs/zombies) I blocked yesterday. Any user on them is almost certainly unrelated. That said, I'm unhappy to see anyone getting caught in the blocks... I'll investigate more.  —  Mike. lifeguard |  ^@en.wb 21:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I granted the user in question an IP Block Exemption, so he should not be affected. You may want to have someone with Checkuser accesson en.wikipedia look into any possible collateral damage from your meta-level blocks, and maybe preemptively grant IPBEs to any active affected accounts. -- Jayron 32 01:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't have expected any users to be affected. That said, the blocks are problematic because they don't have any reason, and they should have been anon-only. This is my mistake & the blocks will be either removed or modified tonight.  —  Mike. lifeguard |  ^@en.wb 03:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply

John Adams (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor has begun to question the citations and referencing of the article, with a discussion initiated at Talk:John Adams#Sources. RossF18 ( talk · contribs) initially added a {{ Ref-improve}} tag to the article, which I removed with the edit summary questioning whether he meant the lead section and asking for inline {{ fact}} tags. He later responded, going a little overboard in my opinion with 26 tags. So, unfortunately things got off on the wrong foot. I saw your name in the list of people willing to do peer review, and am asking if you would review the article. I haven't asked for this before and I am not sure if this can be done informally or if I need to go through the process of adding the PR tag to the talk page, set up a subpage and so on first. Thank you for your time – Sswonk ( talk) 19:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply

NiceHotShower ( talk · contribs), an editor you blocked back in March, is asking for an unblock. Given that he was blocked for usurping admin powers, I thought I should let you weigh in before going further. Blueboy 96 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, go for it. If he fucks up again, give'em the boot again. But I'm all for second chances. Unblock him and see where it goes. -- Jayron 32 05:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply

User:SCGamecocks2121 has been editing South Carolina Gamecocks. Is this a conflict of interest?-- NiceHotShower ( talk) 00:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Probably not at all. See WP:AGF. People who are fans of sports teams often take internet handles which match those sports team names; it doesn't mean they have a vested financial interest in those organizations. I would not be a conflict, for example, if you were to edit an article about showers. Seriously, though, considering the trouble you got in last time, you would be best served simply editing articles, and leave the regulation of others behavior to someone else. -- Jayron 32 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I already know about the assume good faith Wikipedia policy, I was just checking whether or not is was a conflict of interest or COI as some call it. As I am not an admin (and I will not pretend to be) I just thought it would just be best to bring the matter to admin attention. I didn't want to bring the matter to AN/I because it is not really a serious incident and I didn't want to leave a comment to the user as such in case I was assuming bad faith on a good, constructive user to the project mainspace. I actually wasn't assuming bad faith on the user at all, just a bit worried over the possible POV being put foward here (not that their edits suggest that they cannot be neutral, just the username). Because there are also policies on usernames not only for usernames that are appropiate but also for similar usernames to articles but, of course, the only real concern for such cases are companies self-promoting themselves on Wikipedia. But I'll take your advice though and stay clear from non-article areas.-- NiceHotShower ( talk) 01:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC) reply

- FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 05:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, you just declined to speedy delete the article Damian Nabot. I hope you realize that in doing so you give a premium to people who only use Wikipedia for blatant self promotion and violate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam using sockpuppets (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Damiannabot). I think it should be deleted to show that such behaviour is not appreciated. If anyone thinks that this person is notable, they can start a new version. Kind regards. - DonCalo ( talk) 19:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your dedication to the wiki community: it's exemplary.

My question, as the author of the midnight radio disambiguation page, is at what point does a band page stray from informational to self-promotional? I'd like to know if there is a bright-line which makes it clear.

Again, thanks for your time and oversight/edits. I look forward to your insight on this matter. Be very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somepocho ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello: I'm a little confused as to why this page was deleted as it was a work in progress and the other administrator had moved this page into a sandbox but now I cannot access that sandbox pae to reconstruct the page. In addition to myself starting the page various members of the music community in Los Angeles were going to contribute informtaion to it that would not be COI related. Further the band is significant in that it is one of the first rock bands in the world to feature an Indian Dalit Untouchable singer.Please let me know how best to proceed. I am dyslexic and that reflected a ton of work that went down the drain. Dalitdiva ( talk) 23:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC) reply

To both of you; if you are concerned about finding your articles not deleted, please see WP:N, and make sure any subject you create an article about meets WIkipedia guidelines. Merely because something exists does not mean it merits an article at Wikipedia. Some topics are not likely to deserve an article. -- Jayron 32 01:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

You were definite in registering a Keep the last time the BLP of Ray Joseph Cormier had an Afd tag placed on it. This is the 3rd time the same editor has nominated it for deletion. Is this having an NPOV? Being the subject of it, there is not much I can do except rely on the good faith of others, patiently waiting for someone to have an interest in improving it. Except for the ´Early Life and Conversion´ section Steve Smith improved, I tend to agree all the rest, as it is, it not that notable, being a rush job as detailed in the article talk. There is much room for improvement that can be drawn from the numerous newspaper references. Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 14:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for voting on the subject. I don´t understand how some editors received an automated bot advising them of this Afd, and others did not.

User_talk:J_Milburn#AfD_nomination_of_Ray_Joseph_Cormier

User_talk:Earl_Andrew#AfD_nomination_of_Ray_Joseph_Cormier

I have recused myself from making any more comments on the Afd discussion, but it is exasperating to see editors voting delete and ignoring Wikipedia´s fundamental requirement of numerous, independent, reliable newspaper sources to determine Notability. By that Wikipedia standard, there is no question of Notability of the subject. The reasons they openly give is they don´t like the subject, in other words.

Comparing the numerous newspaper reports to getting coverage in small town pie baking contests is absurd. They are all from the major dailies of Canada´s major cities spread over many years. To judge the character of the subject by the newspaper headings listed here Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier#Improving_the_Article without knowing the content is also superficial reasoning.

It is significant in understanding the subject, to notice The Ottawa Citizen, the major daily in Canada´s Capital, changed their choice of header from ´Preacher Arrested on Mall´ to ´Second Police Warning for God´s Emissary´ one week later. Most would not have noticed that.

I could go on, but you get the point. Again, I appreciate your support. Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 02:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Let me be clear. I am not supporting you in any way. The article indicates there is enough source material for someone to write a proper article. You are not that person; because of your blatant conflict of interest. I would prefer if you never edited the article again, and left it to uninvolved people to improve it. -- Jayron 32 03:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Your point is taken. For the record, I recused myself from editing the article a long time ago. I withdrew from the article talk as well, only checking back occasionally to see if someone was willing to look at the original references with a view to improving the BLP. Knowing full well if the article was not improved, inevitably another Afd tag would be placed on it. I could not improve it myself because of COI, and if no one volunteered to take it on, it would be deleted. I was damned if I did, and damned if I didn´t, between a rock and a hard place. Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 04:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to let you know I put a response down. Writing article about Pugs and Nintendo doesn't necessitate the creation of an account. Reporting someone who is trying to create the appearance of consensus via socks, on the other hand, does. FluffyPug ( talk) 04:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Wurdalak. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot ( talk) 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply

You recently compiled and listed a case at sockpuppet investigations. A checkuser or clerk has asked that you list the code letter which matches with the violations of policy, which is listed at the top of the sockpuppet investigations page. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed in a timely manner. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. GrooveDog •  i'm groovy. 05:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I got it right away. Thanks for the heads up anyways! -- Jayron 32 05:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello,
I decline, as politely as I can, to name any other accounts that I have or have had in the past. To re-assure you I can state that I have never, under any account or IP, been blocked, banned, subject to any restrictions. I've only ever had one templated warning, but that was in error and was sorted out amicably with the twinkle user who placed it. Some more re-assurance - I don't ever use alt accounts for abusive purposes; there's no vote stacking or fake consensus building. Does that help? Remember Civility ( talk) 15:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems baffling that you wish to block an account with no evidence of disruption from that account. Do what you feel you must, but be aware that there is no disruption from this account, or from any other account that I might have, and that all you're doing is preventing an editor making minor meta contribs. Look at the date of the account, and look at the rate of contribs; it's an account used rarely. Remember Civility ( talk) 19:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. Thanks for the reply. I need to check, very carefully, what you mean in your last message. "The use of alt accounts to avoid scrutiny is against policy". I agree that if any of my accounts had *any* warnings, blocks, bans, or if there had been concerns raised about any accounts on any noticeboards, or if any of my accounts had had RfCs or whatnot raised then I should disclose those accounts, and should have those accounts blocked if I did not disclose them. (I think that's the bit we agree on.) Some editors scrutinise edits for malicious bad faith purposes. If I promise not to use my alt accounts in *any* areas, for any reason, that these contentious areas are, and to disclose my alt accounts as soon as any one of them is raised at any notice-board (or blocked, or banned, etc etc) am I okay? I feel I'm operating within the spirit (if not the strict letter) of policy. A block on this account won't be controversial from me, it'll just be very disappointing. Remember Civility ( talk) 13:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Please see this discussion. It's less intriguing than it seems. Durova ³⁵⁵ 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there Jayron32. I want to inform you that you were unwittingly part of an experiment of newbie treatment in which I participated under a different name. The purpose of WP:NEWT is to determine how experienced users would be treated if they were new users and created sub-standard but viable articles. You can find a recollection of my experience at WP:NEWT#SoWhy's experience in case you are interested. Last but not least I want to apologize for having used your time in this way, diverting it from real work on the encyclopedia. If I can offer my time and services for anything you need in return, feel free to ask at any time. Regards So Why 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I want to thank you for standing firm on the principle of WP:N. In the previous AfD section, I fully understood you were not supporting me in registering a keep. You were supporting the foundation on which Wikipedia´s credibility is built, WP:N In my view, with this decision, Wikipedia has now thrown that out the window.

My reasons for thinking this are here:

User_talk:Hobit#Ray_Joseph_Cormier_-_Deleted

Meh. It was no great loss. -- Jayron 32 04:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated List of New England Patriots seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cheetah (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron32. Thank you for noticing my editing of the Nair page. May be I am a novice. But I believe in Wikipedia. I think that Wikipedia should promote truth and harmony. It should not have biased polemic views. What Anandks007 is adding to the Nair page under the subhead Religion is not having authentic reference value. The additions by Anandks007 will create disaffection among the Hindu Nairs and the Christian community as also Hindu-Muslim disharmony. The text has no historical value also. So why You are reorting against me for editing the polemic passages instead of complaining against the fanatic writings of Anandks007. I have not threatened him or any other contributor in the talk page. I only told that such polemic writing needs reporting. But interestingly, I am being accused. If you want Wikipedia to be a really truthful, cooperative affair, promote the people who want to uphold truth.

Incidentally I have noticed another totally wrong moval: Mannathu Padmanabhan to Mannathu Padmanabhan Nair which is totally incorrect. You may ridicule me for adhering to truth. But should I not point out this blatant mistake? Again this was done by Anandks007. The original name of the Nair leader who founded Nair Service Society was Mannathu Padmanabha Pillai, which he shortened to Mannathu Padmanabhan as a model for social reform to reduce the caste feelings. The official name is Mannathu Padmanabhan. This contributor, again Anandks007 moved the original and hundred percent correct title Mannathu Padmanabhan to Mannathu Padmanabhan Nair, a name which never existed, to suit his parochial, biased views. I seek your advice to rectify this mistake. Please tell me what I should I do if I see incorrect statements. som123 —Preceding undated comment added 10:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC). reply

The issue is that you are behaving in a manner which does not serve your ends. Let's just say that you are correct here, just for the sake of arguement (I do not claim that you are correct, but lets just assume that you are). By deleting referenced material, leaving threatening messages at article talk pages, and in general edit warring and acting beligerant without engaging in civil discussion, you only make it so that no one wants to hear your side of the story. If you believe in your point of view on these articles, you do yourself a disservice by acting in a manner that makes it look like you are here to pick a fight, and not improve the encyclopedia. My recommendation to you, if you contest the validity of his sources, is to provide your own sources, on the article talk pages, which directly refute the other sources. Merely not liking what they say is not enough, no one knows who is right here unless you have reliable sources which refute the information in the sources already in the article. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not exist to create harmony among ethnic groups; it exists to re-report information in reliable sources. If you have reliable sources which have something to add to the article, please add them. However, if all you want to do is push your own political agenda, you will not go far. -- Jayron 32 18:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I just happened across the request on WP:HELP from a new user User:LouieLouieohoh who wanted to have the autoconfirmed waiting period waived. He/she didn't give a reason, but you did grant the request. I have nothing involved this except curiosity. Do you know something about the user that would suggest waiving the waiting time is appropriate? It just seemed rather whimsical when I assumed the waiting period is there for a reason. Thanks Bielle ( talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey ... that's a good question ... why did you ... was I nice, cordual, to the point?
Did you find me here: [ Louie (the Guy)
LouieLouieohoh ( talk) 03:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

See WP:AGF. I have no idea who you were, but you have been an active editor over the past few days, seemed competant enough, and you asked. -- Jayron 32 03:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Jason, Thanks for your quick response. I have been updating the Teri DeSario article. Please review A Call to Us All. It is linked from the Discography section. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.
LouieLouieohoh ( talk) 03:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The article looks pretty good for a first effort. The one thing that jumped out at me is that the article needs to be categorized. See WP:CATEGORY and Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization for more info. There are some formatting issues; consider, for example, using inline citations to link specific references to statements and facts in the article. Also, get familiar with the inhouse referencing styles, see WP:CITE and WP:CITET for some help in formatting references. You could also read WP:MOS for general notes on Wikipedia house style, but the best way is to find some featured articles on other albums (see WP:FA), and mimic the work there. Its probably best to learn from the best, and Featured Articles are the best we have at Wikipedia. If you click "edit this page" (but don't actually save the page) at a Featured Article, and have the actual article open in a different window, you can learn a lot about proper use of esoteric Wikipedia markup like templates and footnoting and the like. Doing that was how I learned how to format and write good articles. Good luck, and if you have any more specific questions, feel free to drop me a note. -- Jayron 32 03:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks Jason ... I'll work on it tonight ... day job you know.
LouieLouieohoh ( talk) 11:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron32. This article has been followed for more than a year by a dynamic IP who likes to remove criticism from the article, including any suggestion that the group is right-wing. It may be reasonable to consider that 87.114.129.140 ( talk · contribs) is this same IP, for which as much as 3 months semi-protection was enacted in the past. The article was at WP:COIN back in 2008 when it first came to my attention. If you think the IP is working in good faith, another trip to WP:COIN may be needed to try to get the IP to pay attention to our policies. If (as I suggest) he is not, then another spell of semi-protection could be justified. If he were a registered editor, a block for long-term edit-warring might be considered. EdJohnston ( talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I protected it for a week. Lets see if something productive comes of that. If not, then perhaps a longer protection may be called for. -- Jayron 32 18:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Just to check, did you indend to fully protect the article? Now even registered editors are prevented from editing it, even though the problem concerned an IP. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello. After my posting at ANI, you protected the article to deal with the edit-warring anon. May I ask you to reconsider? If you take a look at the anon's activities, you'll find that he's the only one pushing for those change and that he's pretty much a WP:SPA. Besides, since I came to ANIU rather than continue reverting, you of course ended up protecting WP:The Wrong Version. Thanks for your time! -- Ramdrake ( talk) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I left a comment on this here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker ( talk) 08:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Articles on US Route 40 and US Route 70 are mixed up. The article on Route 40 actually describes Route 70 and the article about Route 70 ACTUALLY describes Route 40. (check any road atlas) UNLESS, of course, the two road atlases I checked have them interposed--and what are tha chances of that? 69.198.165.217 ( talk) 01:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

r. mansfild 69.198.165.217 ( talk) 01:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

No, you are confused because US Route 40 parallels Interstate 70 for much of its route, and US Route 70 parallels Interstate 40 for much of its route. This is a symptom of the fact that the US and Interstate systems have opposite numbering schemes. -- Jayron 32 05:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you salt it and then close the DRV? Per your comments, that seems to be the best course of action here, and I would have no objections to that. Cirt ( talk) 06:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I started the DRV, can you close it? Cirt ( talk) 06:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It appears John Vandenberg ( talk · contribs) has stepped in at the DRV. Cirt ( talk) 06:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Many thanks for the note on my talkpage, all of which I agree with. I don't usually bother to merge if I put the tag on an article, I wait and see if somebody else wants to comment or merge. I left a note on the talkpage, too. If it does become contentious I'll take it to AfD. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

...but thanks for your recent contributions to WP:ANI, which I found quite valuable. If there were a dramaboard award, you'd be getting one :)  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! -- Jayron 32 01:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Please tell me what you want in the article. There is nothing to merge, as the percentages are easily calculable from the total. It it irrelevant to note that Togo happens to have .61% of the total population, and one can easily find that with the numbers given. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Union member states by population closed as merge and redirect, which was also the vote Koavf made without further comment. If you are referring to the comment SmokeyJoe made, I have corrected the sorting in List of African Union member states and I apologize for missing it. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey buddy, noticed that you were the one to tag Australian 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup Bid with {{ refimprove}}. I made some improvements and brushed it up, then removed the tag, but thought I'd check with you to sign off on it. Would you mind taking a look? Relevant diff. Thanks! Glass Cobra 15:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Much better! The fluff bios on the committee members didn't really belong anyways, the article reads much better. -- Jayron 32 00:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Agreed on the committee bios, they added nothing to the article. I poached some stuff from the main article to flesh it out and give more context. Anyway, thanks for the input. Glass Cobra 00:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my To Catch A Predator question on the Humanities Reference desk! -- Ye Olde Luke ( talk) 19:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, are you going to be working on this list, which is at FLRC, anytime soon? I'm considering delisting it, but if you think you'll get time in the next few days to improve it, I'll leave it open. Cheers, Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm out of town on vacation, and only checking in sporadically. See if User:Pats1 has some time to work on it. -- Jayron 32 02:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, you didn't say why you declined produde94's request to not be blocked. You just said no. You acted like you are god and you rule the wikipedia world. you and many other administrators abuse your power. Btw, I am produde94, dannydavis94, FREEDOM94, and others

Hey, you didn't say why you declined produde94's request to not be blocked. You just said no. You acted like you are god and you rule the wikipedia world. you and many other administrators abuse your power. Btw, I am produde94, dannydavis94, FREEDOM94, and others Dannydavis95 ( talk) 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, An Aid to Neuro-ophthalmology, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Aid to Neuro-ophthalmology. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Singularity42 ( talk) 05:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Already commented at the AFD, but thanks for the heads-up! -- Jayron 32 05:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Appreciate the comments at the AfD. On a related note, I PROD'd practically all of the other articles written by the author today. (The one I haven't touched has been tagged for speedy, after being deleted twice already under A7 and G11...). Anyway, would it make more sense to turn those PRODs into a group AfD to join the current nomination? Singularity42 ( talk) 05:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

If they are on similar subjects, like other books of questionable notability, it may be worthwhile to do so. I haven't looked into any other such articles, so I have no idea. I just thought that this book needed some more vetting. Also, perhaps a little personal conversation with the author on his talk page regarding wikipedia and its goals and aims would be worthwhile. He's cruising for a WP:SPAM-block soon if he continues, and perhaps some friendly education in the right direction could stop that from happening. -- Jayron 32 06:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Books a moot point now since the PROD was declined by the author, so I've just tacked that one the existing AfD discussion. He's had a couple COI notices, with specific reference to the doctor in question. He keeps doing the same thing after each one, so I'm not sure how much a more personal coversation is going to work. I'll give it a shot when I get a chance, though. Singularity42 ( talk) 06:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank You for answering me when I asked the question on (17 Nov): "Addiction a cure..." in the humanities section! I was referring to Saint Augustine and his life. Other's came in and disrupted the thread of thought. There is indeed a similarity to the twelve steps of the AA, founded on the inspiration of Saint Francis!

MacOfJesus ( talk) 17:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron32. Milkbaba ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have declined to unblock, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — C.Fred ( talk) 06:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Expanding further: the initial concerns I had with this editor were the repeated copyright infringements. Please see my second-chance offer at the bottom, which he completed successfully. As it's your block, even though many of the warnings were mine, I want you to review it before I go any further. Also, while technically this request goes to Materialscientist as the blocking admin, I've included you in the request because you're the most recent decliner of an unblock. IMO, Milkbaba is making a good-faith effort to comply with the rules and be civil. However, I have no objection if the unblock includes a zero-tolerance condition barring futher personal attacks or copyvios. — C.Fred ( talk) 06:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I received a message about a page that I was 'involved in writing' but I have never heard of this person. Is this just a mistake? -- Abn3566 ( talk) 20:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I have never contacted you about anything nor have I ever worked on the same article you ever worked on. You must be mistaken. -- Jayron 32 04:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, just a note that when I started typing the thread hadn't been archived, I certainly wouldn't have bothered if it was. -- Banjeboi 19:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

It's all good. The arguements were just going in circles, and there was little else to be gained by the discussion. For the record, I did make a good faith effort to find an alternate solution, but there was clearly little support for it. I appreciate the sentiments of your statement, and I certainly agree to a point that we could, and should, have done more to stop the harassment. However, besides yourself and SlimVirgin and CofM, there was almost no support for any modification to the block in any form. Which is why I archived. It may be a better idea to let this settle for a month or two, and revisit the issue at a later date when emotions have waned a bit. -- Jayron 32 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

In theory I agree but from the invective thrown at him I doubt any time will matter to dissipate the zeal to bite in and tear. We can always hope though! -- Banjeboi 19:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The Wiki way seems to be handing out overly stiff penalties and then revisiting them after things have settled down. After some time, if the punished want to return, they usually need only indicate they are sufficiently chastened and remorseful, and an unblock is likely. I would prefer resolutions that favor compromise and extend respect and consideration even to those who've messed up. I think this would be a better way of encouraging good faith and respect in return, but until my meat puppets are elected to Arbcom I won't be able to reconfigure Wikipedia to my liking. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

For the record, I did attempt a compromise. No one liked it. Oh well. -- Jayron 32 21:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I liked it Jayron. It was very reasonable, appropriate and well suited to the interests of the encyclopedia. Hence it was roundly rejected. :) Didn't you see where I referred to you as one of the "cooler heads" as opposed to those calling for heads on spikes? That's as close as I get to flattering anyone besides myself. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Slrubenstein

I agree with dixie. This is completely inappropriate behaviour for an admin to behave like that in a discussion.-- Crossmr ( talk) 05:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

• You may want to revise your closing statement on this Jayronl; Slrubenstein does indeed appear to have sysop rights. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 06:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The above requests were from a while ago, in regard to your original closing of the thread, which has remained closed. It doesn't refer to this latest close, which was done when editors agreed on a resolution method that no longer involved ANI. Equazcion (talk) 17:55, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

ARGH. Sorry about that. Look, either close it or don't. I can't decide any more what people want. -- Jayron 32 17:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey don't worry about it, honest mistake. I re-closed it and added an explanation underneath, directing people here. Equazcion (talk) 18:09, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I just remembered that I hadn't given you an update before I left before so just came now to do that and well...yeah...it seems I'm a bit late, huh? :\ I'm sorry Jayron!! Ncmvocalist ( talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm just wondering if someone could point me to any continued discussion on this, as I'd like the opportunity to follow up on it. Is there a particular RfC discussion I should be looking for? Thanks. Throwaway85 ( talk) 19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The ANI discussion appears to have been reopened yet again, though who knows for how long. There's no RFC yet, we're still waiting for the user in question to respond to the request for striking his comments and declaring he learned his lesson. Aside from ANI, there are also ongoing discussions on my talk page, User talk:Stephan Schulz#ANI closing, and User talk:Wehwalt#Suggested resolution. Equazcion (talk) 19:22, 2 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Equaz. Throwaway85 ( talk) 19:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply

[9] well played... -- BozMo talk 21:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you sir! -- Jayron 32 21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew  ^talk at 03:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I see that you've reverted my inclusion of several prominent members of the Family and initiated a discussion of this issue here and here. You may not be aware of widespread media coverage about the Family -- I suggest you begin with these sources:

• Terry Gross (November 24, 2009). "The Secret Political Reach Of 'The Family'". Fresh Air from WHYY. The legislator that introduced the bill [imposing the death penalty on Ugandan homosexuals], a guy named David Bahati, is a member of the Family, appears to be a core member of the Family, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfasts, and oversees an African student leadership program.
• Ruth Gledhill (November 29, 2009). "Archbishop of Canterbury in 'intensive' efforts to combat Ugandan anti-gay death law". The Times. David Bahati, the Ugandan MP who introduced the legislation, is reported to be a member of The Family, The Children of God, The Family International, The Fellowship.
• Sharlet, Jeff (2008). The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. HarperCollins. p. 25. ISBN  978-0-06-055979-3.

A list of prominent members of the Family listed in WP:CITE sources available at The Fellowship (Christian organization)#List of prominent Family members. Also see Category talk:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship#Rationale for category. I do not wish to engage in revert-warring with you or other editors, so I will wait a day or so for your response before I add these facts back to the appropriate pages, which I believe have been deleted in error. Zerschmettert die Schändliche ( talk) 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, I strongly object to your tendentious wording in your proposal to delete Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship. This is a valid category, not "created as part of a spree of questionable BLP-violating categorization of politicians." Please remove these unfair and inappropriate mischaracterizations. Zerschmettert die Schändliche ( talk) 06:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

See my comments at the talk page of The Family. Being "reportedly" anything is NOT a strong enough connection, moreso, some of these people "reportedly attended a meeting" which is even MORE of a tenuous connection. If you really want to find people who are members, find confirmation that someone self-identifies as a member, or get a published membership list released by the organization itself. Attending a prayer meeting or a bible study, or being "reportedly" anything is NOT positive verification of anything. -- Jayron 32 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply

First, I'll say that I agree with your logic that despite the massive canvassing, a case could be made he was accidentally baited to it this time. I am going to reserve the right to look over the even more expansive list of users contacted, I'm afraid.

However, there are a lot of editors that have put in several full evenings of work trying to control him, after 3, 4, 5 ANIs, countless talk page warnings, countless talk page messages, a full SPI with very specific restrictions given and agreed to every term of them as a condition for an unblock. Being oblivious to policy isn't an endless means of avoiding sanctions when the pattern of continued disruptive actions has been endless... so, how far would the user need to go and push things even further? How much precedent is there for this much forgiveness for a user who has been perpetually lying about other users, hounding any editor even remotely suggesting he look over the situation again, etc etc etc.? I just want it to end. If by some miracle there's absolutely no further concerns, I'll gladly give you credit for deity-level evaluation of 'when the scales tip', so to speak, but this degree of disruption has been very demoralizing. Hopefully I'll learn something great from this in the end, but I will warn you... if I crack my head open on my desk from further bashing and need stitches, I might inquire about where to send the bill :) ...Fantastic restraint, truly, and though my view of the case as a whole is no different, it's having me turn my brain over on a different angle at some things. Thanks. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I hear ya... -- Jayron 32 02:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You were involved in a discussion regarding the use of copyrighted architectural designs on Wikipedia pages and I'm trying to find community consensus on a gray area. If you can, please let me know at what point you feel these images should be replaced here. Thank you so much! DR04 ( talk) 19:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:MikeBloomfield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Zoo Fari 06:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. For some unknown reason, this image had been removed two days ago from the article it was in. I have rectified the situation. -- Jayron 32 06:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply

He's back, as you can see in his contribution log. Blockworthy? He may have just waited for the investigation to die. -- Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song} _{The bird's seeds} 01:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You do what you gotta do... -- Jayron 32 04:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You know who is back from his block and doing the same things as before, I already requested it get blocked at AIV yet again. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply

See above. Go ahead and take care of it. -- Jayron 32 05:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I didn't realize the one above was the same thing, but anyway it's been reblocked for 3 months. Momo san ^Gespräch 05:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply

-- Jayron 32 05:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Would you like to take a look here? I'm concerned because this username is clearly similar to Barack Obama. Interestingly enough, their debut was to edit Poverty and add the "African-American" race ( Obama's race) as a see-also.-- Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 09:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'd wait to see where he goes next. If he keeps editing under the current name, I'd block him. Leave him unblocked for now and leave instructions to use WP:CHU to change it. That's how I would handle it. If he starts behaving poorly, or if he refuses to acknowledge your request to change is name, its blockin' time... -- Jayron 32 01:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

-- Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, I am trying to create a page for ioBridge which is a company that creates web enabled IO control. But you deleted the page. Could you please tell me what do I need to do/write to get your approval? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noelportugal ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

(See WT:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout#2010 Dramaout?) -- ___A. di M. 12:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

HectorMayhem is a collegue of mine, we attended grad school at Xavier University together. The page that we were both editing at the same time contained information that each of us added individually. HectorMayhem created the page, let me know that it was being formed, and I added the information that I was aware of. We have a legitimate controbution to make and everything on the page was accurate. We were given almost no time to finish the page and you immediately accused my friend of being me for some reason and blocked his account.

Is this the way that Wikipedia is being run now? By administrators who use personal feelings to decide whether a page is legit or whether a person is who he says he is? I mean, the page on Brian Clark had more information, was written more eloquently and with fewer grammatical, typographical, and structural errors, and was about a more noteworthy person than several articles that have stayed on the site, without wantan molestation of their creators.

So, I first request that you reactivate my colleague's account, and I also request that you review the page "Brian Clark (American Writer & Academic) 1987-" and reconsider the previous decision to delete it.

Clarkadrummage ( talk) 22:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, I apologize if I offended you at all. That was not my intent. I simply meant to say that if the policy of this website is going to be to delete posts withing seconds of their creation and then block users based on incorrect information, there will be very little content added. The fact that the page that we were attempting to make did not even get a chance and that Hector was blocked makes it impossible for anyone to find out who the person that we were writing the page for is. For example, if someone saw his band play, or read a journal article by him, he would not be able to find Brian Clark on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if I look up George Washington, I can find him anywhere. It seems to me that it follows that minor, but still significant, figures have more of a place on a user content site like this one than major ones. If that's not the point of the site, that's fine, I clearly did not understand that and Hector and I screwed up.

Again, I wasn't trying to be, only to inform you of the mistake that you made, and why I thought that the treatment of our page was unfair. Although I thought that Hector was blocked because of the misinformation and that our page was deleted based on this same misinformation, you have made it clear that it was an objective decision, so my bad for accusing you or any other Admin of bias.

Finally, thanks for the information, but I doubt I(or many other new users) will be trying to create or edit any pages on this site, as I do not have the time or patience to read all of the rules.

Clarkadrummage ( talk) 20:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot ( talk) 04:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Got it. That was fast! -- Jayron 32 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Now clearer, I hope. Jheald ( talk) 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You may want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerset Spectator (2nd nomination) since you participated in the previous AfD. - Eastmain ( talk) 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

MLauba ( talk) 01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Watch those small tags, mister! Matt Deres ( talk) 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, I didn't bring up the subject... -- Jayron 32 00:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, but at least Mr. 98 used the </small> tag correctly. ;-) Matt Deres ( talk) 00:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, pshaw. Well, at least I now know that you've never made a typographical error in your lifetime. Its good to know there's one perfect person in the world! -- Jayron 32 00:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stoan!" Matt Deres ( talk) 11:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

LOL. -- Jayron 32 15:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Please see appreciation msg in my talk page. Thanks -- Kgwu24 ( talk) 22:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)KG reply

66.168.211.37 has vandalized two pages so far (one ALOT), but have been reverted. The user is a suspected sockpuppet of ever annoying indef blocked user Dingbat2007, a known and CONSTANTLY repeating vandal in the radio and TV station world. Could you block this new IP of Dingbat2007 before he causes anymore problems please? Thanks... NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

i'd like to help, but I need more background. Can you post a few diffs that would help me distinguish Dingbat2007 from a good-faith editor. What evidence is there that definitively makes THIS IP Dingbat2007 beyond editing a TV station article? -- Jayron 32 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure. Tonight's edit from the anon was this edit. Another Dingbat sock, 24.196.232.201, added the same false information. That anon was blocked repeatedly. Please let me know if you need other diffs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done -- Jayron 32 04:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Many Thanks :) An early Merry Christmas :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey Jayron. Please can you forward me the email sent to you by ottava so that I can review it as to whether talk page and email access removal was neccessary. In addition, by adding talk page and email restriction, you inadvertantly reset the block which will need correcting. Many thanks. Seddon ^talk| ^WikimediaUK 03:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Category:International Christian Leadership. The category is similar to Category:Members of the Family also known as the Fellowship which you recently commented on. -- Kevinkor2 ( talk) 09:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

-- Caspian blue 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I see that you looked over the abovelinked SPI case. I was wondering if you considered the evidence between Drawn Some and the other two accounts strong enough to conclusively link them together? If so, I have a bit of retagging to do :) NW ( Talk) 03:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with your conclusions so far that there isn't enough evidence on Drawn Some. The kicker for me was the similar usage of language on the other two. Its close, but not compelling on Drawn Some. If he tries to edit again, he may get caught by the autoblock, which would nail it... -- Jayron 32 03:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

If either of you learn more ping me will ya, so I can take another look. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

My profs are away for the holidays ... but my curiosity isn't. And I do ask my profs -- I often ask on the RD when all my other resources are asleep or flooded with 50 other students (in the same accelerated class) asking questions. John Riemann Soong ( talk) 05:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for helping on Adam Smith University. Even more importantly, I really appreciate the belly laugh that your edit comment gave me ("I have a semi pp. And yes, it is small") Regards, TallMagic ( talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC) reply

We aim to please. -- Jayron 32 00:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

While I'd be happy to be "sent to the article talk page to discuss the matter civily [sic]", I'd prefer you not use "Prodego is hearby [sic] sent to bed without dinner" as your closing summary. That implies that I did something wrong, which I don't believe is the case, if I had thought it were wrong, I would not have done it (or would have undone it). I also don't believe the thread shows consensus that I acted improperly, although there is certainly a point of view that I have. Prodego ^talk 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You did nothing wrong. Let it drop. For real. Just don't make any more comments on the matter, and find something else to do. -- Jayron 32 01:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I will avoid exacerbating the situation by commenting as much as I can. Prodego ^talk 01:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I've tried "commenting as much as I can" and I find it doesn't always work as exacerbation avoidance. :) ++ Lar: t/ c 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You know what? Fuck it. Just keep going around in circles, and making people more pissed off unneccesarily. Leave the thread open. Waste more time. Seriously, does anyone TRULY believe that there is any hope of a worthwhile resolution in that thread? Nothing useful is to be done except the exact same people will say "Prodego is the worst admin ever and should have his bit removed" and the other half will say "Prodego did nothing wrong". And the two sides will repeat the exact same fucking arguements over and fucking over again, with no resolution in sight, but sure, just leave it open longer. Great fucking idea... -- Jayron 32 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't have a problem with closing it, I just felt that the summary was unfair. I'm sure you didn't intend it to be that way. I agree it isn't going to be very productive, at this point. But what can I do, really? Prodego ^talk 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You can do nothing. Lar could have not reopened the thread. But whatever. If Lar is having fun watching the shitstorm, who am I to ruin his good time for him. -- Jayron 32 01:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm absolutely NOT "having fun watching the shitstorm". I despair, because this is apparently a part of WP that isn't working well... if you read the discussion at the article itself, things have broken down. Sparring over a tag is symptomatic. What really ought to be done is more serious discussion of the suggestion to restore order by introducing a tighter edit regime at the article itself. I;'m sorry if my reopen annoyed you. ++ Lar: t/ c 01:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Well what I meant there was... I'll avoid commenting as much as I can. :). Prodego ^talk 01:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I understood what you meant. Methinks Jayron needs a nap, or maybe a vacation. He seems very irritable. A tag to indicate an editing dispute seems pretty reasonable to me when there is an editing dispute. :) But then I'm often in the minority in my viewpoints. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 01:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Jayron, my initial quotes were not in good faith, my apologies. Prodego ^talk 05:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thank you for your kind words on my talk. This event is rather saddening. So many parties to this were absolutely doing the right thing to the best of their knowledge and ability, and yet things still went awry... I don't know how to easily recover from this mess, but trying our best, and apologizing when it didn't work, is the best tool we've got. I'm glad you're here. Thanks. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, I want to apologise again to you for any offense I may have given in undoing the close. Undoing it seemed the thing to do at the time but I'm not sure there's been a lot of forward progress since then. ++ Lar: t/ c 14:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. Not sure whether I got this barnstar for a) Insulting Prodego or b) swearing at you, but either way, thanks for it! I appreciate it! -- Jayron 32 20:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

For apologizing. Apologies take integrity. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change 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, and please comment at the arbitration case or on my talk page- I'm notifying a large batch of editors. tedder ( talk) 02:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Insert some wikicookie type friendly template here- glad we are on the same wavelength now. tedder ( talk) 04:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, sorry, when someone says "involved", I think WP:INVOLVED, which I am pretty clearly NOT involved like that. Its somewhat jarring to be dragged before arbcom, and even moreso when I get dragged before arbcom over a two actions which were less than a day old when the case started. I think Risker's comments are salient here; it may have been better to actually research the level of involvement a bit better and to clearly explain why each person had been named as a party... But anyhoo, whatever. It's all good... -- Jayron 32 05:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Points taken. I'm writing code to find the most.. enthusiastic.. editors now. Should have done that first, I guess. tedder ( talk) 05:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Distinguished Hive Mind Member Barnstar
		Congratulations on earning a distinguished spot on Hive Mind, you must be doing something right! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Buzz buzz. Need honey. Buzz buzz... -- Jayron 32 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

By the by, do I need to start wearing my bathrobe again? -- Jayron 32 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes indeed you do... now that 3 of us are on there it must be a call for bathrobes to be drawn. -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

When bathrobe cabal members three, end up with The Hivemind's bee, then the final call has been made, for The Bathrobe Cabal's crusade! -- Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I have made a SPI, but it doesn't show on the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Arab_Cowboy#Evidence_submitted_by_User:Supreme_Deliciousness -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 14:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

This appears to be sorted. At least I think so because I ran it. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply

At WT:CUP#New Hampshire - I did not notice until now that we both had the same flag for the WikiCup. -- Dylan 620 ( contribs, logs) 00:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there Jayron. Just to let you know, I've unprotected Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as I've placed it under a 1RR restriction under the new terms of the community climate change probation. I hope this is okay with you, but if not feel free to reprotect. Take care, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply

All good! Whatever works! -- Jayron 32 03:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I'd be inclined to unblock, with a warning. See this little exchange. In particular, the IP's three-day block -- which is so long as to appear punitive; why not 12 hours? -- coincides with my three-day freeze of Chilean people; I'd like the belligerents (in what seems to me a particularly silly little dispute) to use this time to find common ground. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You will get no objections from me for doing anything. Go ahead and be my guest. -- Jayron 32 06:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the go-ahead. I've unblocked him. -- Hoary ( talk) 06:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron- I was not using my own definition of city when I made that edit to Reims; and I was, as you say, being careful. I assure you from long education and experience that ville does in fact mean city in French--though it can also refer to what in many English-speakers would call a town--and cité is no longer used to mean city. You can look up both words in a French dictionary to see how they are used. But all that is beside the point: In English, Reims is called a city, just like Paris is. If you took anyone who grew up speaking English and dropped them in Reims, they would call it a city, just like they would Concord and Boston. Would you please revert your revert? Thanks. Eric ^talk 15:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Feel free to revert it. I won't object. -- Jayron 32 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I am at work behind a shared firewall. Stop messing about and blocking my office. I have proven that I am not the sockpuppet you are looking for. Simon-in-sagamihara ( talk) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

...These are not the droids you are looking for... Thanks for the laugh Azukimonaka. Good times. You're funny, for a sockpuppet... -- Jayron 32 04:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Dude. Seriously. You've obviously not even looked at my editing history. Never mind, you don't seem to have a case for banning me, so I'll be gracious and give you the last word. Simon-in-sagamihara ( talk) 06:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey why did you delete Andrew Hornstra's page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.175.225 ( talk) 21:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

wtf why did you delet the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luftwaffe161 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Because it did not comply with Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. If you would like to create articles, please read Wikipedia:Your first article, and only create articles about subjects which are notable. Not every possible person in the world will meet Wikipedia's standards for an article. If the person does not, the article will be deleted. -- Jayron 32 06:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Re Troyfromaust - User:Watchover. Look at the history of the only article he significantly edited. It was an omission on my part - I was tired when I did the block and forgot to note the name in the block reason. (If you look on Stravin's and Watchover's talk, and at the two SPIs under Stravin, you'll see this gets rather complicated very quickly.) Orderinchaos 06:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I notice that you are offering adoption, and that I am seeking a mentor! I've been registered here for about 4 years, but I still don't really understand a lot of the ins and outs of everything that goes on around Wikipedia. A lot of policies (like just about everything to do with deletion) just go right over my head and also are terrifying. I sort of want to start actually contributing rather than just gnoming around and fixing little things, too, but I have no idea where to start! Mostly I'm looking for someone that I can bounce questions off of, that can show me the ropes better than I know 'em now. Lemme know if you're willing to take on such a burden! :3 Audiosmurf ^♪/ ♫ 00:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hurrah! Thanks! One of my main questions is just... how do people start new articles? I don't get it at all, how do you even find something to start a new article about? It's such a daunting task! Audiosmurf ^♪/ ♫ 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Please investigate the user named GarnetAndBlack and take appropriate action. He/she/their constant deletion of sourced material on articles related to the University of South Carolina without any discussion or consensus makes some of us wonder if he/she/them are employees of the University, especially since the University has a student publication named Garnet & Black. In particular, GarnetAndBlack has deleted recent contributions to the South Carolina Gamecocks football article by claiming NPOV and/or edit warring. However, this same user makes edits to Clemson (rival school) articles that could be NPOV and then blasts any user for deleting his/her/their edits. This is hypocritical! Attempts to make the University related articles more realistic and reduce the overly positive slant have met with constant deletion/reverting. When attempts are made to replace the material, GarnetAndBlack threatens a block based on edit warring. This is abusive! From a review of this user's contributions, it is obvious that this user is on Wikipedia solely to protect these articles. Anything negative (even when it is well sourced) gets deleted, so no new content (unless it's glowing praise of the subject) gets in. I noticed your user name in a recent dispute with this user and hope you can deal with this user appropriately. 71.75.202.139 ( talk) 04:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Go file a report at WP:ANI. -- Jayron 32 05:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, by standing on the fifth pillar I have removed the premature archiving of the ANI topic regarding Proofreader77. The process is not finished, and it needs to finish. A resolution of is needed, and its needed even if I do not like the outcome. -- Tombaker321 ( talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Have fun. -- Jayron 32 05:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, and thank you for your mediation over at Balkans. I'm trying to resolve this dispute over maps with User:Kostja and I think your involvement might help. Basically, I think the Stanford map, though an outlier, should be included in Congress of Berlin, Treaty of San Stefano, and Eastern Rumelia. To placate Kostja, I have proposed to balance it with the Ravenstein map, but he won't hear of it. As long as it is made clear in the map's caption why it's included in the article, and as long as it is balanced by other maps, I don't think there should be a problem. Athenean ( talk) 21:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I have made two different attempts to find a compromise solution. I'm not going to edit war over it, so if this continues, consider taking this to WP:CCN. -- Jayron 32 21:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Understood. We have agreed to stop edit-warring and are discussing things. I am not asking you to edit-war, but simply to weigh in on the discussion in my talk page. If you don't feel like it, let me know and I will take it to CCN. Thanks. Athenean ( talk) 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You guys work it out. It looks like you are on your way. Oh, and don't take me to be any sort of authority on this. I am only basing the whole "map at the Berlin congress" thing from the text of the article. If that is unsourced you should, you know, find a source for that. -- Jayron 32 00:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

...but the Sepulveda Pass, possibly the main deterrent to visiting the Skirball Cultural Center, an otherwise admirable venue for all sorts of events and a nice museum. It's not only quite possible but ever so likely to visit the Skirball complex from the southern approach, near Los Angeles proper and an international airport with many outstanding sites of cultural significance between. Your response seemed rather POV of the Valley booster-ish sort. But perhaps I only noticed because I'm of Westside origin myself. -- Cheers, Deborahjay ( talk) 11:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Yeah, never been west of the Mississippi river myself. But I can read a map. It looked like the valley to me. Please read WP:DGAF to understand my opinion on points of view of any sort. -- Jayron 32 00:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not terribly familiar with Sheynhertz-Unbayg's contribution history, although Wikipedia:SU appears to detail some of his typical "tells". Checkuser evidence shows that it is quite  Possible that Longitudo is S-U, but I'm not able to confirm any connection. I've got no opinion on the unblock, but I would recommend if a IPBE is given, that one of both of you keep a close eye on the account just in case. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 20:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Looks like Fut Perf at Sun granted the IPBE. I have his talk page watchlisted, so if I see him start to go off the deep end, I'll act accordingly. I'd agree with FP@S tho; he doesn't look all that harmful right now. -- Jayron 32 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I was wondering if you would take a look at the Barack Obama talk page. An editor decided he didn't like the discussion and collapsed the thread. The discussion began today, and there may other editors out there who will see it and want to make contribs as well. Thanks, Malke 2010 23:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't touch that talk page with a ten-foot pole. Its completely radioactive. I used to try to mediate disputes there, but I found it wholly fruitless in the face of the acrimony and refusal to compromise from both sides. Good luck finding someone who cares. -- Jayron 32 00:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

• gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

• ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community.

Matt Lewis ( talk) 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC) reply