Hi there. I wonder if you'd mind reviewing the above at PR if you get time? Could really do with a hand. Thanks, Tom Tomlock01 ( talk) 11:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The article does not duplicate any of the material on the other article. Please reconsider. GregJackP Boomer! 03:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

It is also already under discussion at AN/I. GregJackP Boomer! 03:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Already on it. -- Jayron 32 03:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

What is your opinion on the article Buffalo burger now? I'm surprised that this article didn't exist. Joe Chill ( talk)

I think its looking pretty good! Its short, but it is a great start to an article. I'm not sure it needs to be that long, and it covers all the bases. Well referenced, well put together. Good stuff! -- Jayron 32 05:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I think that I'll leave it that way for now. I think that I'll have trouble expanding it without introducing irrelevant stuff. At least I managed to get it to DYK length and C class though. Creating an article on a popular food is a plus also. Thanks for your comments. Joe Chill ( talk) 05:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I sent you an email. If you could check it when you're available, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 03:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply

necessary content stated in subject-line —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stig weard ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose ( submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue ( submissions) (C) Casliber ( submissions) and TonyTheTiger ( submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone ( submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

I just wanted a star. Obsessivelanguagelearner —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC). reply

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location ( talk) 19:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply

WHHOOOPS! OK i see I laready did something wrong, but I am learning. here's my message again

Greetings, I apologise in advance if I have "talked" wrong, I am at day one here, have no clue what to do or what talk ettiquette is.....I am a public artist seeking to publish a bio of my work on wikipedia. I need someone to help me do it right, or even verify if I CAN put my own Bio here. Please check out my website to verify.... rachelslickartwork.homestead.com thank you, Rachel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Summerkitchenstudios ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC) reply

...but not with the separation of Church and State familiar in, for example, the U.S.A.. I tried to sketch in a few lines about why it's not a theocracy, which may yet get corrected by those better in the know. However, there are Israeli political parties that are overtly religious... and only since leaving the States have I learned how that's been true in Europe for quite some time. I appreciate your pitching in on these RD queries; I so much prefer light to heat! -- Cheers, Deborahjay ( talk) 15:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Dear Jayron 32: Please forgive any Wiki-style-guide infelicities as this is my first Wikipedia email. Sending thanks for your Plymouth Colony article. I recently met one of your Plymouth Colony editors at a Museums on the Web conference in Denver, and wanted to offer my regards on your research and writing. I oversee programs and research at America's largest living history museum on Plymouth and the Wampanoag, and wanted to offer our services to you and any Wiki writers working in our area -- geographic proximity or historical subject proximity! Thank you for your ongoing interest in this important subject. Ridgebrakeheart ( talk) 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) reply

• Jakezing ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See User talk:Jakezing#July 2010. You have blocked this editor in the past. He's been blocked for about a year, and opened an unblock request on 17 July. I have declined the unblock request, and have also discussed the matter at User talk:Ironholds. You are welcome to join the discussion if you think the block should be reconsidered. It's a consensus block from ANI from June 2009, so it would need a discussion thread to undo it. At present I see no reason, but others might think differently. EdJohnston ( talk) 04:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Review at WP:ANI#Jakezing requesting unblock. EdJohnston ( talk) 13:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Before this turns into an unintentional 3RR, I'll let you know what I'm doing. {{ Jct}} has built-in error tracking and it's flagging every instance of {{Jct|state=NC|US|15-501}}. The problem is that there is not really a good way to link to the US 15-501 article and create the correct US 15 and 501 route markers. I don't disagree that the link should go to the US 15-501 article, I'm just simply trying to clear the error category. – Fredddie ™ 04:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

On second thought, I decided to remove that instance of {{ Jct}}. Square peg, round hole. – Fredddie ™ 04:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

All good. -- Jayron 32 05:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Looks like we protection conflicted there. I can't say I've ever seen beneficial IP edits on that page, so I was thinking that PC is just making more work for everyone, but if you think there's benefit to be had, we can see how it goes. Courcelles ( talk) 05:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Whatev. -- Jayron 32 05:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, there is a reason why Las Vegas is a dab page and there is a reason why editing Las Vegas, Nevada starts with a large warning notice. The edit notice clearly states the material will be removed. You can consider Las Vegas metropolitan area or The Las Vegas Strip. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Eh. It wasn't that big of a deal. I was only making a good-faith referencing; where the reference said "Las Vegas", and trying to help out. I understand how important it must be to make sure that the invisible lines on the ground be defended from reality. Keep up the good fight! -- Jayron 32 03:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC) reply

You may remember this user, who you blocked indef as a result of a lot of things, germinating with his uploading of a copyvio image. He has reuploaded that image, and is again wasting contributors time regarding copyvio images, again. I have notified you and Rodger Davies about this. Hipocrite ( talk) 20:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your help desk answer. Half of the question was answered. The other half wasn't. How to you not piss off someone when you AFD nominate articles? RIPGC ( talk) 04:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, at the adoption page it said that you were currently adopting and I was wondering if I could be one of your adopted. Thanks! Luibsasocer ( talk) 18:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC) reply

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata ( submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants ( Sasata ( submissions), Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) and TonyTheTiger ( submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber ( submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn ( submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 ( submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_amendment, and the subthreads above it. You are being notified as you were one of the users who proposed or discussed the original sanction. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Per this, I agree with it but am technically under something similar (see here) which essentially states I am "To leave User:Delicious carbuncle "alone" unless "engage[d]" and do not archive threads started by User:Delicious carbuncle. The last part, my mistake, I forgot, hence the creation of this page. If anything does change in the restrictions, pleasse let me know, so I can update my page so I can remember the darn things. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Leave him alone. That is your only restriction. If he showed up at my talk page asking for clarification, I would tell him the same thing. -- Jayron 32 02:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Just a clarification, is that even when "engaged"? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

If you don't respond to comments he makes, they go away. Think about this: If he goes to ANI to complain about you, he violates his own sanctions and technically could be blocked for that. If you don't respond, even to defend yourself, then nothing negative happens to you. At all. (for the record, I would give the exact same advice to him on this). The one that comes out the winner in this is the one that refuses to acknowledge the existance of the other, even in the face of antagonism or comments from the other one. -- Jayron 32 03:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Never thought of it that way. I will update the page with a link to this section (via diff) and update the restrictions to just "leave DC alone, even when engaged" for shorter language. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

This discussion does not entail enacting restrictions or sanctions on you by me or anyone else. This is me, as just a dude, talking to you, as a dude, giving you advice on how to get along in this environment. These comments I have made bear no weight due to my standing as an admin, or anything else for that matter. This is advice, not coersion. Still, I think you should voluntarily wish to avoid conflict, and shouldn't need to maintain a list of "restrictions" to require you to do it. Thousands of Wikipedia editors, myself included, have managed to do that. -- Jayron 32 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I was just doing that to bypass the ANI, sorry, didn't mean to upset you. Never thought of it as coersion, just thought of it as admin giving advice to an editor. The list is purely voluntary and for my own benefit. I have Aspergers and take a medication called Haldol for it. One of the side effects is memory loss. It is kind of annoying. So, to help me, the list was made and for full disclosure, I made it public. If I wasn't on the med, I probably wouldn't need it, but I am cause it helps, so I have the list. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Nearly hit the block button today, but decided to seek a second opinion. Any chance that Elvismahdore ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) isn't Soccermeko?— Kww( talk) 00:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC) reply

After further contemplation, I went ahead and blocked. Feel free to comment if you want.— Kww( talk) 14:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I just recently created an article star wars in concert, I would like if you could look over it and give me your suggestions, feel free to do any changes your self. Regards,-- Luigi ^{Boy Scouts}<sdown> Soccer</sdown> 13:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC) reply

The article Carolina Brewing Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article is promotional. This local brewery is not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Orangeroof ( talk) 18:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi, I am seeking some advise on how to improve the Phil Taylor article by taking it to PR, if you have time could you review it. Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 ^talk 22:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron32! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 2 of the articles that you created are currently tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{ unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Jack King (musician) - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Bobby Winkelman - Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk) 01:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry about the issue. I was trying to revert vandalism that has been ongoing (the "blackout" vandalism), but I was kind of out of rhythm there. I'll try to slow down in the future. Bigtop みんな空の下 ( トーク) 06:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Jayron! Thanks for rectifying the template error. I request your view/review on the Draft article National Waterway 4 (NW-4). Pls provide your Comments / Feedback which will help me improve the article as well as to make the article live on WP. With the Response i'll focus on 5 Other National Waterways in India. ---- Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 07:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Volume 3, Issue 2 • Summer 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup News in brief	Features Infobox road upgrade Editing needed near bottom of leaderboard Junction list updates	State and national updates Project reports
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot ( talk) 02:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC) reply

[Cross-posting to admins with prior involvement.] Regarding User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels. I have to strenuously protest the block with the rationale of being a Karmaisking sockpuppet. I think I might have been the one to request the Karmaisking SPI, but even at that time I made pretty clear that the "Camels" user had no discernible behavioral likeness to Karmaisking: User_talk:MuZemike/Archive_5#User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels. The SPI clerk at the time seemed to have less-than-concrete evidence, though you may be privy to other details. If there are IP similarities, then it's possible they may be IRL friends or some such, but I've become extremely well-acquainted with Karmaisking and really do think User:YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels should be exonerated. If for no other reason than WP:ROPE, I ask for an unblock for the editor. BigK HeX ( talk) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC) reply

WP:BASC is thataway. Tell him to email arbcom. -- Jayron 32 03:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the quick response to the protection of Munro Chambers. I just had to say you made me laugh though, normally guys exaggerate their length. 117Avenue ( talk) 05:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

I've got to amuse myself, cuz if I didn't, I think I'd just cry some days. -- Jayron 32 05:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Okay, I should understand WP:BLANKING more, as I had an incident earlier today. Also, there seems to be an edit war on Hyundai Elantra with Brendenhows - could you try to take a look, and should I ignore the argument? みんな空の下 ( トーク) 05:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC) reply

You might want to be aware of this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Got it. -- Jayron 32 06:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to say kudos for the way you closed the ban discussion on User:Sven70. That was a very sensible close, and worded very well. Thanks! — The Hand That Feeds You: ^Bite 17:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Day nada. -- Jayron 32 02:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately,The article clipping path service has been redirected to clipping path according to the administrative decision. Well, obviously I have respect and honor to the decision. At this situation, can I edit the clipping path article by adding content, Sir? Thanks for your consideration. Md Saiful Alam ( talk) 04:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

So long as your edits don't violate established Wikipedia policy... -- Jayron 32 05:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

Sir, I have added a new section “clipping path service” in the clipping path article, If any mistaking occurred in the editing, please let me know. Thanks. Md Saiful Alam ( talk) 06:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC) reply

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

• Pool A's winner was Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
• Pool B's winner was Casliber ( submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
• Pool A's close second was Sasata ( submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
• Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue ( submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
• The first wildcard was TonyTheTiger ( submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
• The second wildcard was White Shadows ( submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
• The third wildcard was Staxringold ( submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
• The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn ( submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte ( submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute ( submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke ( submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King ( submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 ( submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk ( submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose ( submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone ( submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC) reply

A number of people contributed to the discussion, many with an extensive history of Wikipedia contribution, at least a few admins, and most without a history of insanity. Would you consider being a little bit more respectful of their opinions and contributions before you tell them off with a "Holy fuck. No"? The reason for the Cuddlyable3 restriction is a long and unfortunate history of this editor engaging in disruptive goading of other editors. While the proposed restriction sounds and looks silly at first glance, it's actually the least restrictive solution available to the community that would allow that sometimes-quirky and sometimes-obnoxious editor to still contribute positively to the Ref Desks. We could just go straight to a ban from the entire area — but even a casual reading of the discussion would seem to suggest there is a consensus that the status quo wasn't acceptable. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 10:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC) reply

If three screen-lengths of discussion over the use of the apostrophe is a worthwhile use of your time at Wikipedia, please feel free to reopen the discussion. I have better things to do. -- Jayron 32 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Jayron32, the discussion was about whether to enact a sanction on an editor. It had only run for 24 hours when you intervened. I was watching it closely and was ready to cross-post it to AN if a consensus began to emerge, so that it could have wider scrutiny. You are free to express your opinion, but not to shut down a rational omgoing discussion on your own personal whim. In future maybe you could place your comments within the discussion, which comments I distil to basically "Holy fuck. No.", "Just. No." and "bite my bag". Have I summarized your contribution accurately? I would really have expected that you'd add aomething a little more cogent. Franamax ( talk) 04:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The Ref Desk talk page is not the place to have discussions over sanctioning a user. The correct place is WP:ANI or WP:RFC, where independant editors can review the situation. The Ref Desk talk page contains almost no guarantee of impartiality here; having a sanction discussion on a far away corner of Wikipedia amounts to a Kangaroo court. Everyone commenting was involved, and there was no outside input at all. If you want to sanction someone, take it elsewhere. While my language in closing the discussion was wholly inappropriate because I used the word "fuck" and the phrase "bite my bag", the entire process had gone on WAY too long. Let me say that again. I was wrong. I should not have used that language. However, At this point, and additional several pages of text have been added to it. This is why venues like RFC and ANI exist; to get other views on the issue. Instead, it looks like a bunch of RefDesk regulars ganging up on a user who annoys them. I must state it again. Even if an editing restriction should be imposed on Cuddlyable3 (and I do not say it should be, I only concede it for making this point) the RefDesk talk page is not the appropriate venue to do it. -- Jayron 32 05:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

But WT:RD is the place to seek the initial consensus, precisely because those are the involved users. RD is not a "normal" wikispace, it breaks a whole lot of rules. So my strategy (which of course you would not be aware of) was to wait for comments while watching for breakdowns in communication, then cross-post it to AN (probably not ANI) to ask for further input and eventually a closer. I did mention that in my comment, addressing APL's concern. If you'd posted a comment about choice of venue I would have confirmed my intentions immediately, but you took a different course... Franamax ( talk) 05:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Under many types of discussions, you may be right, insofar as a general discussion on the use of RefDesks would go; if the discussion was "Should RefDesks be used for activity X" or "Should RefDesk users do Y" then it would be an appropriate forum. As soon as it becomes "Should Cuddlyable3 be sanctioned" it should NOT be restricted to the regulars for the exact reason that it looks like we're all just ganging up on him and throwing him out the door. It looks like we're running a private club, and we decide who we let in and throw out. Now, the end of the discussion may be right; he may need to be shown the door (again, do not take that as my opinion on the matter, only a point conceded to continue this conversation), but the means of the discussion only serves to undermine the legitimacy of the ends. If you started the discussion at the first at ANI, with a note at the RefDesk talk page pointing regulars there, you would have gotten contributions from all the same regulars, with additional input from uninvoled editors and admins, and a venue which adds legitimacy to the discussion. The problem is that the venue and manner of the discussion undermines any results it may have. It doesn't look like a rational discussion, it looks like vigilantism. -- Jayron 32 05:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

We might be saying the same thing in different ways. I would see it as essential that any partial ban be opened to wider discussion and assessed by an entirely neutral editor (for the purpose of this discussion, that doesn't preclude any unilateral actions I may undertake if I perceive sufficient disruption) to determine a resolution. I also think that discussions so serious should be given lots of time to run and no-one should have been assessing them after only 24 hours, I would have said 1-2 days at WT:RD and a full 2 days under scrutiny at AN. The rationale is to conduct the initial discussion amongst those most familiar with the ethos of the RDs. Tbay are the people doing the grunt work, who we rely on for the day-to-day (and you are included among them, me not so much since I adopted the vow to source everything I post). I'll confess a natural bias toward the view that the RDs, a very important public-facing bit of the wiki, should be run with a view to answering questions and not to invoking extraneous detail, and with a minimum of the kibitzing in which we all engage. You are completely right in your point that a discussion at WT:RD is not of itself sufficient for a "community sanction" as such, but we seem to disagree on whether it is the proper starting point. We may also disagree on whether I could read that discussion and decide to act on my own, though we probably would agree that I would have to face the consequences thereto. Franamax ( talk) 05:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I think you have correctly assessed our differences here. I would have rather seen, as soon as it got personal, from the start, outside opinion. RefDesk ethos goes out the window, as far as I am concerned, the very second we start talking about sanctioning a specific editor. I understand you wanted to see that the "involved" editors have the first say, but the danger is that, once the discussion has been handled "on the inside", it reached WP:TLDR state, and it discourages outside, neutral views. If an uninvoled editor is faced with the initial question of sanctioning Cuddlyable3, along with evidence in support of it, they may comment. Can you honestly say that, after another 48 hours of bashing Cuddlyable3 from RefDeskers, that ANYONE is going to weed through all of that and then feel like giving their opinion? And even if they do, how is a closing admin going to judge consensus after 2 days of RefDesk regulars gang up on him and demand his head, and then one or two meek voices dissent? Its not an impartial consensus if you give the involved editors first crack? Can you see and understand my problem here? Its a type of poisoning the well when you control the venue and participation in the discussion such that ONLY people likely to have a direct beef with Cuddlyable3 get to comment for two days, and THEN we let other people in. I know it's not your intent here, but the outcome is still the same; we have carefully controlled the situation as to be maximally disadvantageous to one party to the dispute; how can Cuddlyable3 get a "fair shake" if we don't let it happen from the start. Understand, I feel like John Adams defending the British shooters in the Boston Massacre here. I am not necesarily defending Cuddlyable3 here, but I do think that due process is vital, and due process includes the entirity of the situation; two days of partial comments completely ruins due process. -- Jayron 32 06:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I have to admit that I too feel uncomfortable when individual sanctions are discussed at the reference desk's talk page. On the other hand, my experience with WP:ANI is that a lot of people will chime in without having thoroughly read and understood the situation, and the conclusions are often pronounced without nuance.

In this particular case, I see two likely scenarios at WP:ANI. Either the case gets dismissed, and everyone is told to get along, which obviously doesn't address anything at all. Or the outcome is more draconian than anything a refdesk admin would choose to do, and volunteer C3 gets blocked. I'll admit, that that prediction wasn't very nuanced either, but I do think that noticeboard is very unpredictable (it also depends on who happens to be hanging around) and suffers the same problems of kangaroo-courtism, and is often nastier.

Nevertheless, it is true that there is only a small number of volunteers who even post at WT:RD regulary, and they (myself included, of course) are caught in their own group-dynamics.

Jayron, maybe you should have (or still should) explain this concern on the talk page. As I said, I share it as a concern, and your closing makes much more sense when I understand your reasons. It really looked like the only reason for closing was because you thought it was a petty conflict about something irrelevant. Perhaps it is, but it looked like you were the one who got to decide that. --- Sluzzelin talk 07:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I'll add a "me too" what what Sluzzelin has said. AN/I is not known for generating nuanced restrictions on its own, and I suspect that if I brought a narrow sanction (like the one proposed) to AN/I, I'd be told

• to go away and come back when I had something more serious to deal with, and
• by the way, why can't the Ref Desk handle its own problems without running to AN/I, and
• does it really matter if someone's a dick at the Ref Desk, because it's not a real part of the project anyway, and
• why do we have a Ref Desk, we're an encyclopedia, we should shut the whole thing down if they can't behave....

Lest you think I exaggerate, we ran into exactly those types of comments when we were trying to keep our own house in order and protect readers – and the project – when we were establishing our user conduct guidelines and medical advice guidelines; and again when we tried to ban some trolls and sockpuppets. In the current case, look what happened when an admin who actually has some experience with the Ref Desk jumped in — without explanation, he tells his fellow editors (including other admins) 'Holy fuck. No' and invites us to 'bite [his] bag'. When I asked you to review your closure (note that I avoided escalating to the circus of AN/I) I got a sarcastic and completely-missing-the-point response about "three screen-lengths of discussion over the use of the apostrophe". The discussion wasn't about apostrophes (aside from Cuddlyable's screeds). The discussion was about one editor going out of his way to make the editing environment unpleasant for other editors. It wasn't until your third edit (after two requests on your talk page) that you started to explain your reasoning.

I will also note that we should be quite careful in what we mean by 'independent editors' in this context. The definition that appears to be used above is "has no connection with Wikipedia's Reference Desk", and I'm not sure that's a good one, or consistent with 'independent' as defined by other processes. In discussions of disputes or user conduct on AN/I, what would happen if we eliminated all of the comments from editors who recognized the names of any parties to the complaint? When we ask at WT:RD, we're asking editors who have an intimate experience of the day-to-day operation of the Ref Desk, not to mention the people who have to work with the editor in question. While you can argue that that is a source of bias, it is also potentially the source of the most meaningful input about the harm (or not) of an editor's contributions.

Another point we should acknowledge is that the Ref Desk does (relatively infrequently, but consistently) handle its own business regarding what sorts of posts are appropriate to the Desk and what are not. We discuss and decide on what can be removed on sight. We bar certain types of questions and comments. We ban users. While the particular sanction being considered in this case is relatively new to the Desk, that is only because we haven't had to deal with an editor who was stubbornly obnoxious in that particular way before — not because it represented a sudden and novel expansion in the Ref Desk's usual role of managing the conduct of its users.

Finally, Cuddlyable3 would have been perfectly free to appeal a sanction to a higher venue if he felt it would be productive to do so. The Ref Desk is subordinate to Wikipedia's other dispute resolution processes. Instead of replying to the complaint, or appealing it to a higher authority, he responded with a lengthy taunt directed at another editor — illustrating exactly why a behaviour restriction was being considered in the first place. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I think at this point, we're going to have to respectfully agree to disagree. It appears that I am in the minority on this, and I fully accept and respect that. You all make good, well thought out points regarding the use of WT:RD for this issue; I think we just disagree on the value of due process in formal sanctions here. Thank you all, especially TenOfAllTrades and Sluzzelin and Franamax for taking this issue seriously; though we ultimately come to different conclusions it is the ability to carry on civil discussions of this nature that keeps Wikipedia moving smoothly. For the record, I would not in any way miss the sort of disruption that Cuddlyable3 was perpetrating on the RefDesks. I agree with the ends of the discussion, if not the means. Also, for the record, TenOfAllTrades: You are 100% correct in your condemnation of my flippant comments in closing the discussion. I should have been more clear in my rationale for closing it; and my use of inappropriate and confrontational language should not have gone unchallenged. My apologies to you and to all for doing so; and thank you for continuing this discussion here in light of my earlier actions. -- Jayron 32 03:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, I still think I agree with some of your reasoning, and I posted a half-baked appeal on something related, though a bit more genereal, on the talk page. --- Sluzzelin talk 04:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Please look at the bottom of that thread, I have put a message there and struck part of my text accordingly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Pleas see WP:AN. There is an RFC against myself which appears to have been certified (although the filer omitted to sign as certifying), yet which does not appear on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList. Is this a valid RFC, and if so, should it be added to that list? Mjroots ( talk) 09:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not getting involved in that one. Let the other admins take care of it. -- Jayron 32 04:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, Jayron32. You have new messages at 72.55.137.215's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{ Talkback}} or {{ Tb}} template.

I'm not watching the page, so if you reply there send me a talkback please. - Selket ^Talk 02:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC) reply

The autoblock does not appear to be affecting any other accounts, and in any event this user is being investigated for socking. The last thing we want is to give him a way to make more accounts. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 16:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Most sockmasters won't create accounts while logged in; they'll log out to do so, and with the autoblock disabled, any IP addresses he was on would be able to do that. And speaking as a checkuser, I'd much rather we nip things off at the bud than have to hunt down socks that may or may not exist, especially given the limitations of the tool. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 15:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC) reply

iam the wikipedia member from the last 2 years and make contributions for wikipedia. i have also recieved a award from wiki news a best writer. i have gone through the detailed article of subject, accordingly i have made my normal contributions but some groups of memebers wants to destroy with out any specific reason. i have seen your contribution as well. one user send me threats with out any reason i have told me first discuss on talk page then put tags. below is crosspodence under for your consideration and help me out to resolve this and put {{ semi-protected}} due to this company have made a lot of contribution for people of pakistan especially in 2010 pakistan floods as well as in exports.

Crosspodence with the user

There is no need to nominate the article for deletion. i have gone through in detail. Wikipedia administror also decline the thoughts. Iam a citizen of Pakistan and this company contribute a lot for the peoples of pakistan. if you have issues discuss on the talk page rather put tag on the article. --Azamishaque (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Harvest Tradings, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Off2riorob ( talk) 07:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC) reply

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Ahmad Jawad, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Off2riorob ( talk) 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Azamishaque ( talk) 02.37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi my name is natalia and i am in a school proyect. it would be awesome if you adopt me. Natquintana ( talk) 02:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure. If you have any questions, feel free to drop by my talk page and ask me at any time. I will gladly help answer them as best as I can, or help you with any other problems you are having. -- Jayron 32 02:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Article's on hold for GA status, just some small things to fix. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your sensible closing of the RFC. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 16:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I appreciated your sharing your thoughts in the "What's a revert?" thread I started at AN yesterday. It often takes kicking an idea around with others, and hearing what they have to say about the topic, before I can get to the question I really need to ask. So the discussion was really helpful to me, and I've been able to say at AN what I was asking there much more concisely:

Can an editor use "his daily 1RR" revert to delete some content added by an opponent an hour ago, and then also walk through the article like a shopper pushing a cart down a grocery aisle and just remove (or restore) whatever additional content he chooses to suit his POV? Merely because that additional content was added (or removed) a year ago or a month ago, and is thus not under current dispute? Doing so might violate other policies, but does it violate 1RR or not?

I fully take the point you made that it's very difficult or maybe even impossible to define "revert" in a way that covers all cases, and that trying to do so may not be the most productive use of an admin's time. The technical definition is less important than the actual behavior, without question. But if you have the time and inclination, I'd be grateful if you wouldn't mind weighing in again at AN, on this more specific question, as well. Sorry it took me so long to be able to formulate the question clearly and state it concisely. I'm not trying to shape the outcome by asking particular admins, btw. I'm making this same request to all admins who contributed. Thanks again,  –  OhioStandard ( talk) 08:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I didn't even know that: great call! Instead of "several", maybe we should replace it with Pretzel Logic, The Royal Scam and Aja: Allmusic backs it up neatly, of course. Love Steely, man! Cheers :> Doc9871 ( talk) 05:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Go ahead and clean-up and source my additions. Yeah, apparently if you lived in Los Angeles between 1974 and 1980 and played a musical instrument, you appeared on a Steely Dan album. Srsly. -- Jayron 32 05:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

One bass riff per song. "Next!!!" ;> Doc9871 ( talk) 05:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Jayron, are you willing to have a look at the issue, either alone or with myself. I could post details here or send them by e-mail if you would prefer. As I said at AN, I want to be fair to both accuser and accused but Iran is not in my comfort zone. Mjroots ( talk) 06:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC) reply

It is neither mine. I don't get involved in political or ethnic conflicts of this nature. Sorry, but I lack the comfort and expertise to be effective in this regard. You're going to have to find someone else. -- Jayron 32 02:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Jayron32 why did you erase the information on the Russia article about Russia's science and technology [1]? I did not see you put any sources to this deletion [2] nor did you put anything on the discussions page that you were deleting this information for a particular reason? Because science and technology is an important factor for Russian culture and for the Russia article I would like you to tell me why. What are you planning to do to replace this information since you deleted it? -- Globalstatus ( talk) 03:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

i have provided 68 references for the article rajesh khanna in the wikipedia vizz http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=386154337. i need ur help to make it semi protected so that unregistered users do noit edit it at first place. also to my knowledge all sources are mostly from newspapers,magazines,big box office dotcoms, movie websites,interviews by stars. but some registered users like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Active_Banana are indulging in vandalism...simply editing the artcile. if at all by mistake some blog reference is there i request that these registered users be made to understand that they are facts and if at all references need to be added freshly in place of that(blog reference ) then that reference be given and not that the para /sentence e be delete.They should be given a warning that they would be blocked.

i need ur help in finding is that really there are any unrelaible source in the artcile i contributed? i know that all the 68 r relaible and if any are unrelaible then i request that as what i have submitted are all facts so new relaible source can be inserted and scentences may not be deleted. references provided by me are genuine and not bolgs. thats why iam asking for your help as if senior people go through the references , all of u would be satisfied and approve my references Shrik88music ( talk) 19:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Please read the protection policy at WP:PROT. Articles are not preemptively protected. If there is actual vandalism, we can block IP editors as needed; there is no sign that this article has been vandalized, and unregisterred users do make the majority of quality edits at Wikipedia in general. Secondly, please read the vandalism policy at WP:VAND. Vandalism does not mean "something someone else did that I disagree with". I cannot stress this enough; you need to stop using the word vandalism in regards to other editors because you blatantly do not understand what the term means in Wikipedia's context. Thirdly, please read WP:EDITWAR. You are currently engaged in an edit war. It doesn't matter who started it, or who is "right". The person that is "right" gets the same block as the one that is "wrong". Please stop, and use the article talk page instead of editing the article, until everyone can agree on a consensus solution to the conflict. -- Jayron 32 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Alpha Delta Psi Sorority is a new organization created for community service. There will be many breast cancer walks and other service activities done. It is asked that you do not delete the alpha delta psi information from wikipedia. 173.28.237.166 ( talk) 04:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

They sound awesome. I hope they are successful in whatever they do. -- Jayron 32 04:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

could you take Alpha Delta Psi off of the speedy deletion list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.237.166 ( talk) 04:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Ah. See, being awesome is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article. Please read Wikipedia:Notability for an explanation of what IS the reason for a wikipedia article. Again, good luck with your group. They sound like they do some really worthwhile work. If you can establish that they pass the criteria on the page Wikipedia:Notability then they would also have met the criteria for a Wikipedia article. -- Jayron 32 04:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I do not fully understand the notability guidelines. Could you tell me yourself what I have to do to be notable? We really would like to remain a part of your website 173.28.237.166 ( talk) 04:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure. What needs to be done is that there needs to exist, somewhere out there, extensive writing about your group in independent, reliable sources. To break that down, what you need to find is stuff like books, newspapers, magazines, journals, etc. that devote a large amount of writing to your group (i.e. more than a name drop or a single sentance mention). A group is notable if other people, unconnected to the group, have written about it in reliable sources. That's about it. I will convert the speedy deletion to a "proposed deletion" to give you time to get this article up to snuff. Please note that it is entirely possible that the organization may not have any reliable, independant writing about it. That would mean that Wikipedia also would not have any writing about it. You may be interested in Wikipedia's core founding principles and Some things about what Wikipedia is not about. -- Jayron 32 04:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

there is a website about the organization online at www.alphadeltapsi.web.officelive.com We are working to become founded on college campus in the next 2 weeks and we will have university information about us then. could that take it off of the deletion. We are also all over facebook. There is a sister page and a page to like with our names on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.237.166 ( talk) 04:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Two things: Sources about your group need to be both:

1. Independant. That means it needs to be written by people who are not part of your group, and published in sources your group has no connection too. In other words, your groups official website doesn't count in this regard (that website can be an important source of information, but it does not establish that your group is notable, since it doesn't show that people outside of your group have noted it.)
2. reliable. Facebook and blogs and stuff like that generally isn't reliable, because there is no reputation for fact-checking and quality research, journalism, and writing in general. What you would need is coverage in places like well-respected newspapers, national magazines, or written about in books published by respected publishing houses.

I hope that helps. -- Jayron 32 04:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

By the way, I have asked the admin who deleted it to restore it to a draft version to give you a chance to work on it at your leisure. Draft articles are not part of the normal article space, and so are not indexed in searches and stuff like that. As long as you are working on it and trying to improve it, you should be fine. See User:Ladyetheridge/Alpha delta psi. Ladyetheridge was the user who created the article (if you 173.28.237.166 are the same person, you may want to log in). Good luck! -- Jayron 32 04:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello Jayron32. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of IOMAI, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: According to the article, IOMAI was the first company to develop the concept of transcutaneous immunization. Thank you. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 05:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

It's all good my man. Thanks for looking into it. -- Jayron 32 05:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

• If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
• If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.

• You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm ( talk) at 03:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC). reply

Since you are the founder of WikiProject American Football, I thought I'd let you know about a proposal I have made on the talk page of the WikiProject page. I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks, VictorianMutant ( talk) 07:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC) reply

So, it appears BerD didn't hear your warning to him at ANI in what seems to be the latest in a string of ignoring what he doesn't want to hear. The fact that he's trolling is really obvious and I was wondering why you haven't just blocked already. Doesn't seem like something we should be wasting more time and resources on, and really it won't be a net loss to the encyclopedia. Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 08:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Looks like he's been indeffed now, so moot point. Strange Passerby ( talk • c • status) 09:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Hey - was just about to post the same (almost) note at ANI - but I think you may have meant that Varlaam was blocked a full day ago...  7  06:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Whatever. I can't do math. Still, he is currently blocked. -- Jayron 32 06:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Was meant as an FYI since some people (myself included) often prefer to fix typos themselves. I think the comment below may be similar.  7  03:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

meh. -- Jayron 32 03:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

In this in the second sentence there is a spelling error. -- Chemicalinterest ( talk) 11:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC) reply

WP:SOFIXIT. -- Jayron 32 03:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks for solving the problem.

My question is what should we do with this question now. Delete it or Archive it or what. Regards  Jon Ascton   (talk) 11:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Leave it. No big whoop. -- Jayron 32 03:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC) reply

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. TonyTheTiger ( submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Sasata ( submissions) with 1175 points. Sturmvogel_66 ( submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC) reply